I hold with anything that materially helps no matter who opposes,and who supports. If Remdesvir works better that's great!! If the collection of plasma helps, lets roll on!! The experts have shot themselves in the ass so bad (understandable) that over 120 days we have learned that Sweden, for example did about as well as anyone else, (no isolation-no facemasks) and now the Netherlands seems to be following suit. Studies that say something doesn't work, but if you try it and it only costs $20 + whatever is charged for zinc, then I say go for it? That is unless somebody's medical history indicates it's contre-indicated. My suspicion is that some of these studies are driven by ass covering for physicians who really don't want to be sued. It's like there is a market for this kind of "research."
-----Original Message----- From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Sharpiegate 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 <[email protected]> To: Everything List <[email protected]> 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/ 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79488e75-1598-4a56-a69a-bf2cd269b2a2o%40googlegroups.com . -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19925629.910360.1596750766738%40mail.yahoo.com. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e978ea6-675b-8c1e-75b9-bde55359f7c7%40verizon.net. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1804666202.118439.1596866934034%40mail.yahoo.com.
