8 | DISCUSSION As hospitals around the globe have filled with patients
with COVID-19, front line providers remain without effective therapeutic
tools to directly combat the disease. The initial anecdotal reports out
of China led to the initial wide uptake of HCQ and to a lesser extent CQ
for many hospitalized patients with COVID-19 around the globe. As more
data have become available, enthusiasm for these medications has been
tempered. Well designed, large randomized controlled trials are needed
to help determine what role, if any, these medications should have in
treating COVID-19 moving forwards. While HCQ has in vitro activity
against a number of viruses, it does not act like more typical
nucleoside/tide antiviral drugs. For instance, HCQ is not thought to act
on the critical viral enzymes including the RNA-dependent RNA
polymerase, helicase, or proteases. Despite in vitro activity against
influenza, in a large high quality randomized controlled trial, it
showed no clinical benefit, suggesting that similar discordance between
in vitro and in vivo observations is possible for SARS-CoV and
SARS-CoV-273 (Table 3).
Additionally, HCQ and especially CQ have cardiovascular and other risks,
particularly when these agents are used at high doses or combined with
certain other agents. While large scale studies have demonstrated that
long-term treatment with CQ or HCQ does not increase the incidence of
infection, caution should be exercised in extrapolating safety from the
studies of chronic administration to largely healthy individuals to
estimate the risk associated with short-course treatment in acutely and
severely ill patients. Furthermore, the immunologic actions that make
HCQ an important drug for the treatment of auto-immune diseases might
have unintended consequences when it is used for patients with COVID-19.
The effects of this immune modulation on patients with COVID-19 are
unknown at this time, including a potential negative impact on antiviral
innate and adaptive immune responses which need to be considered and
studied. For all these reasons, and in the context of accumulating
preclinical and clinical data, we recommend that HCQ only be used for
COVID-19 in the context of a carefully constructed randomized clinical
trial. If this agent is used outside of a clinical trial, the risks and
benefits should be rigorously weighed on a case-by-case basis and
reviewed in light of both the immune dysfunction induced by the virus
and known antiviral and immune modulatory actions of HCQ.
https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1096/fj.202000919
Brent
On 8/6/2020 2:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
If you are saying that Hydro either works or it doesn't I am in total
agreement. The main thing since March has been not hydro, by itself,
but in combination with zinc, which has long been used for the
proverbial common cold, (sometimes works!) and even pneumonia's.
Getting zinc in the cells is the claim. By itself, hydroxychloroquine
is jack. Now, if hydro + zinc is ineffective, then screw it. The
campaign against hydroxychloroquine is not medical science, but the
technique of US political theorist, Saul Alinsky: 6. “A good tactic is
one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come
back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest
better ones.
Now the best thing is to find drugs that really work in fighting the
infection, and yes, finally some vaccines! Beyond this, it is worth it
for me as a taxpayer, to pay the billionaire pharma boards of
directors all the cash they need (want) to give us all a break. This
would be worth a tax increase if needed.
-----Original Message-----
From: PGC <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Sharpiegate
On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List
<everyth...@googlegroups. com> wrote:
You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term
comes from the nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific
American article reviewing a book by Philip Ball, The Struggle
for the Soul of Physics.
https://www. scientificamerican.com/ article/how-2-pro-nazi-
nobelists-attacked-einstein-s- jewish-science-excerpt1/
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/>
I am accusing the politicization of medical science
That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book
by Jack Herer remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites
all its sources, and I have verified all of them.
The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an
incentive to make people sick, and to avoid efficacious
medication. Like the slogan sum up well: a cured patient is a lost
client...
and the observations of physicians who have claimed that hydro
can be helpful.
I am not an expert to really judge this, but I know enough of
logic to find mistakes in some critics against Didier Raoult (in
France, a well-known pro-hydorxychoroquine). Then I learned that
in many countries they are using hydroxychloroquine, with a
success which seems better than with remdesivir. None of them are
pananacea, and hydroxyhlorquine has to be used with a lot of care,
at the benign of the infection, according to Didier Raoult.
With your personal standards of effectiveness and that of guys like
Raoult. Personally, I find that anything that doesn't satisfy the
standards of randomized proper placebo controlled trial (even if for
ethical reasons, you permit respirators etc. as standard of care for
placebo) does not qualify as effective beyond doubt. If such trials
properly conducted and controlled were to prove HCQ as effective, I
would change my view.
Sure, if people want to take it with these nuances in mind, then no
problem. What is concerning is the sense of false hope (and cash
extracted from patients from drug makers and doctors) in the
argumentation that this "really" has significant or sufficient
effectiveness, when such trials are not completed as of today to my
knowledge and people remain largely unaware of the nuances/degrees of
effectiveness. In this kind of uninformed, hysterical environment, the
argument can be made that Raoult is acting irresponsibly, as people
are largely unable to differentiate on effectiveness and he uses his
expert status to advance what is still a personal view until arguably
higher standards of trials/effectiveness prove or disprove the claim. PGC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79488e75-1598-4a56-a69a-bf2cd269b2a2o%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79488e75-1598-4a56-a69a-bf2cd269b2a2o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19925629.910360.1596750766738%40mail.yahoo.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19925629.910360.1596750766738%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e978ea6-675b-8c1e-75b9-bde55359f7c7%40verizon.net.
