Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   16 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 16 total)
  • Tue, Jul 07, 2020 - 06:27pm

    #1
    Winston2020

    Winston2020

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 07 2020

    Posts: 18

    count placeholder1+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

So why don’t you ask Ralph S Baric the question which you rightfully asked in your video?  You’re a Dr., I’m not.  He MIGHT answer you.  Just click on his name here to contact him:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Here’s the question for him.  The YouTube link is queued to the right time hack:

This video covers the following papers of yours and asks the question why you apparently haven’t been a highly vocal proponent for the use of HCQ/Zinc as a prophylaxis against and/or early onset treatment for COVD-19 since chloroquine is a zinc ionophore:

Zn(2+) Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity in Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079686/

“Increasing the intracellular Zn(2+) concentration with zinc-ionophores like pyrithione (PT) can efficiently impair the replication of a variety of RNA viruses…”

A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

“both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.”

  • Tue, Jul 07, 2020 - 06:58pm

    #2
    bababon

    bababon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 08 2020

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder2+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

found an interesting article about Baric:

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article242992686.html

also

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article242469331.html

  • Tue, Jul 07, 2020 - 08:40pm

    #3
    LFleishman

    LFleishman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 23 2020

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder2+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

The virology journal – the official publication of Dr. Faucis National Institute of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. “ (Emphasis mine throughout.) write the researchers , ‘We report …that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. https://truepundit.com/cover-up-fauci-approved-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-15-years-ago-to-treat-nobody-needed-to-die/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

  • Tue, Jul 07, 2020 - 11:38pm

    #4
    nyhetersverige

    nyhetersverige

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 21 2020

    Posts: 164

    count placeholder

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

404 on that True Pundit link. Not found at Wayback either.

  • Tue, Jul 07, 2020 - 11:41pm

    #5
    nyhetersverige

    nyhetersverige

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 21 2020

    Posts: 164

    count placeholder3+

    Reply To: Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

Uh… maybe it was because that was a poorly formulated link.

The link should be:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

Archive: http://archive.is/YxS21

Check this out. Ouch.

‘These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.’

  • Wed, Jul 08, 2020 - 02:19am

    #6
    nrose

    nrose

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 29 2020

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder3+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

  1. Hi 👋 first time posting but intrigued by this topic.. Ralph Baric is busy working on Remdesivir which is funded by a Pharma Co called Gilead Sciences. Guess they aren’t super interested in his 2010 zinc findings. 🤷‍♀️

 

  • Wed, Jul 08, 2020 - 07:35am

    #7
    cottonhill

    cottonhill

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 20 2020

    Posts: 3

    count placeholder1+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

Dr. Martenson – the accompanying editorial on the HCQ study pointed out something that strikes me as very significant…any thoughts on this?

“Finally, concomitant steroid use in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was more than double the non-treated group. This is relevant considering the recent RECOVERY trial that showed a mortality benefit with dexamethasone (Horby et al., 2020) among individuals requiring supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation, potentially biasing this study’s results in favor of hydroxychloroquine.”

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30530-0/fulltext

 

 

  • Wed, Jul 08, 2020 - 11:55am

    #8
    Island girl

    Island girl

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 27 2017

    Posts: 146

    count placeholder5+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work! Replying to cotton hill

This editorial was written by several coauthors of the study on HCQ post-exposure prophylaxis published in NEJM and reviewed by Dr. Martenson on this site.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?query%3Dfeatured_home=

That is a well designed, randomized, prospective tria with careful balancing of groups, which unfortunately relied largely on self-diagnosis of COVID cases (<3% laboratory confirmed). Testing was not widely available at the time, so the study design was pragmatic. This study has several additional shortcoming that are tangential to this post.

Their editorial points out several possible shortcomings of the Henry Ford Hospitals study.

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30530-0/fulltext

Certainly, as Cottonhill points out, the higher rates of steroid treatment in patients receiving HCQ is a potential confounding factor. That higher rate is shown in Table 1 of the study and it is substantial.

https://www.ijidonline.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1201-9712%2820%2930534-8

However, reading the Methods section and statistical analysis, it appears that they attempted to control for this, first using a Cox regression model, and subsequently through the use of propensity score matching, according to which the data were reanalyzed:

Additional analysis was performed using propensity score matching to compare outcomes in mortality across treatment groups. A propensity score was created for each patient based on the set of patient characteristics used in the Cox regression model.

Table 3 shows the propensity score matched patients, which included those matched for steroid use; upon propensity score matching, 44,2 % of patients matched for steroid use received HCQ and 44.2% did not.

Table 4 shows Propensity Matched Cox Regression Results for Mortality Prediction and it shows that HCQ was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.487,  p=0.009. That is about half the risk of mortality. I am not a statistician, so I cannot comment further on this approach.

I do believe it is incumbent upon the authors of the editorial critique not only to raise the issue of steroid use as a confounding factor, which is valid, but also to address whether the statistical techniques of analysis used in the study were adequate to overcome this factor.

I also was dismayed by this statement in the editorial:

It is, however, very sobering to note that the number of patients in this single observational study [Henry Ford Hospital study] would have made a substantive contribution to any randomized controlled trial. While all healthcare providers feel a clinical imperative to offer patients treatment, there was little evidence to justify a hydroxychloroquine protocol at the outset of the pandemic.

This statement seems to imply that the Henry Ford study was unwarranted. But the assertion that “there was little evidence to justify a hydroxychloroquine protocol early in pandemic” is simply not valid.

Here is just a smattering of the evidence available before 2019 and early in 2020:

2005: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread [original SARS]

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

2010: Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture [original SARS]

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176

2014: Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109180

2019: Chloroquine for the 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 – an editorial by Dr. Didier Raoult summarizing the published evidence on chloroquine

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32070753/

May 2020: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients [A review of electronic medical records suggesting a benefit for HCQ plus zinc sulfate]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341254876_Hydroxychloroquine_and_azithromycin_plus_zinc_vs_hydroxychloroquine_and_azithromycin_alone_outcomes_in_hospitalized_COVID-19_patients

That list is not exhaustive.

Since that time, we’ve learned that COVID has a blood clotting component; HCQ (Plaquenil) is used in lupus patients to help address clotting issues.

https://www.lupus.org/resources/antiphospholipid-syndrome-evaluating-current-treatment-options

And we also know that cleavage of the SARS Co-2 Spike protein by Cathepsin-L enzyme facilitates viral entry into the cell. This suggests that Cathepsin-L inhibitors that are already FDA approved (which includes chloroquines) may be of value:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163725820301157

We await a prospective randomized trial of zinc and hydroxychloroquine together, soon after diagnosis and early in disease progression. These drugs/supplements are cheap, easily scaled, and orally administered, with known, manageable safety profiles. We should ascertain whether such a combination would be helpful to the public at large.

It is also possible that several modalities can be combined to attack the virus in different ways. I am reminded of the way we treat HIV infection with a drug cocktail.

Perhaps various treatment modalities are appropriate in different settings and at different disease stages.

The authors of the editorial did not find a benefit in their trial of HCQ, but because of the limitations of that study, it is not definitive. It is not fair to suggest the efforts in the Henry Ford Hospital clinicians were better directed elsewhere. I suspect their patients would disagree.

  • Wed, Jul 08, 2020 - 12:18pm

    #9

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 2368

    count placeholder

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

Damn Island Girl!

Thank you so much for digging through the HFH Study data to find the steroid use numbers (Table 3) and the propensity score comparison (Table 4) showing equivalent steroid usage.

And for pointing out the bias in the editorial.

Very scholarly work.  Can you tell us some about your background?

  • Wed, Jul 08, 2020 - 12:28pm

    #10
    cottonhill

    cottonhill

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 20 2020

    Posts: 3

    count placeholder1+

    Re: Covid-19: Vindication! HCQ+ & Ivermectin Work!

Great points Island Girl!  I didn’t catch that the editorial writers were involved with that other study.  The statistics (propensity score and cox regression model) are way over my head so I appreciate your detailed write up. As with most who follow this site…I’m anxiously awaiting double blind placebo controlled studies with HCQ and Zinc given early!

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 16 total)

Login or Register to post comments