"...Touted by president Donald Trump......Touted by president Donald Trump......Touted by president Donald Trump......Touted by president Donald Trump..."
Mockingbird Media all using the same phrase to trash hydroxychloroquine.. Coincidence?
"The MSM is like a bunch of clowns that all pile out of the back of the same mini-car:"...
The Massive hatchet job to kill off Hydroxychloroquine as a solution:
“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” Trump wrote on Twitter earlier this month. “The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You!”
Numerous entities who are invested in other more expensive alternatives are trying to throw cold water on the HCQ solution by doing studies that are designed to fail.
Case in point: These prostituted scientists who did the widely reported on MSM VA study did bad science and some had huge financial conflicts of interest. Any independent scientist would see the flaws in how they did it. However that was just what the MSM ordered up to try to discredit Trump.
Joseph Magagnoli, Siddharth Narendran, Felipe Pereira, Tammy Cummings, James W Hardin, S Scott Sutton, Jayakrishna Ambati
Competing Interest Statement
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the NEJM. JA is a co-founder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. JA is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to Covid-19 but unrelated to this work. SSS has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Funding Statement
National Institutes of Health University of Virginia
What was wrong with it? This:
This was a retroactive analysis, not a study. Just statistics on veterans who were treated at VA hospitals.
The study tracked hydrochloroquinine and azithromycin, but apparently did not track zinc. This is not a case of people being deliberately given too-high doses of drugs without zinc. It's unknown what doctors were giving out and in what dosages.
It's likely the alternative therapy, HOCQ w/ or w/o Az, was given more when doctors were desperate to save the person's life, which would mean they were failing badly. This would tend to account for the higher mortality rate.
I was concerned that this was deliberate murder of veterans in order to hang it around Trump's neck. Instead it's just poor science.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/malaria-drug-virginia-coronavirus-study-198590 - archive link https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v1 - archive link https://files.catbox.moe/4pt05f.pdf
Study failed to also administer zinc. Zinc is the actual "active ingredient" for the therapy; chloroquine stimulates cells to uptake it more than normal.
This wasn't a double-blind experiment.
Note that even the mortality rate for "standard therapy" was 11%, which is way higher than expected, indicating this was an unusual test population.
Hydroxychloroquine is used in a large number of therapies, and while there's some risk you wouldn't expect such an enormously higher death rate with it's use unless something was very wrong with the protocol.
It's purported the dosages of chloroquine used were much higher than that reportedly being used therapeutically outside the US, well past the point where dangerous side-effects would become more common.
Was this simple stupidity in the creation of the test protocol? Or was it a deliberate effort to kill US veterans and blame Trump for it?
Either merely due to TDS, or was corruption involved? This needs to be investigated.
"First, it was a retroactive study. That means they went and found some data that already existed to see if they could draw the conclusion they wanted, rather than doing a new, double-blind, pair-matched study... that's the standard they demand for accepting that HCQ works, so why not the reverse? You never (ordinarily) get to go cherrypick what data you're going to use retroactively to support a conclusion you're looking for. Retroactive studies have to look at all available data and be very careful to account for all possible confounding factors.
So this is fraudulent "science" on the face of it. Second, there was absolutely no consideration of whether the subjects were on drugs such as H2 blockers or how many of them were, or other possible confounding factors. "
"THE STUDY MAKES NO MENTION OF ZINC!!!!! Vladimir Zelenko specifically said the HCQ opens up the channels in the body to absorb the zinc and that's why it works with the zinc. This study didn't even bother to test zinc."
"The study was cherry picked data pulled retroactively. One of they ways they got messed up numbers is they chose mostly African American men over the age of 65. Blacks have down-regulation of zinc. So they took a bunch of old people with low zinc and gave them HCQ." https://voat.co/v/QRV/3781396
"No zinc no Z-PakZero testing of zinc in that study, which Dr. Zelenko specifically said works with HCQ because HCQ opens up the channels in the body to absorb the zinc for halting the virus' replication process.The data looks fake. "
"The author has received funding from Gilead according to the comments and the propensity matching of the patients is too narrow (the Sp02 matching might be real but then the other parameters would not be as closely matched unless you had a huge cohort to pick from, which they won't have had). Looks faked."
"According to the comments Gilead funded one of the authors Yah the study in Brazil cracked me up. The suggested dose of HQC is 200mg a day. The Brazilians were using 600mg !! Try giving a junkie 3x his usual dose of smack and see where that takes him! "
Fortunately Novartis makes it and should do a more reasonable study:
Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis has won approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to begin a clinical trial on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The trial will begin immediately in more than a dozen sites across the U.S. and will include about 440 patients.
Internationally doctors support the use of HCQ and Azithromycin!
"A recent international poll of more than 6,000 doctors found that hydroxychloroquine has been deemed the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus."
The survey, conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, asked 6,227 physicians in 30 countries to find out what is the most effective against SARS-CoV-2. The poll found that 37% of those treating patients suffering from the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” out of a list of 15 choices. Azithromycin, known by the brand name Zithromax or Z-Pak, came in as the second-most effective therapy at 32%, followed by “nothing.”
Hydroxychloroquine, which is sold under the brand name Plaquenil, was prescribed mainly in the United States for the most severe cases. “Outside the U.S., hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients,” the survey found.
Moreover, a recent French study found that the drug combo can be effective in counteracting the coronavirus COVID-19. “Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin,” the study found.
HCQ sells for about 5 cents per pill, Gilead Systems wants to come out with an alternative pill for about $1,000 per pill ‘Remdesivir was created and developed by Gilead Sciences as a treatment for Ebola virus disease and Marburg virus infections.[2]
In January 2020, Gilead began laboratory testing of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2, stating that remdesivir had been shown to be active against SARS and MERS in animal models.[4][5][6] In March 2020, a small trial of remdesivir in rhesus macaque monkeys with COVID-19 infections found that it prevents disease progression.[7][8] On 21 January 2020, the Wuhan Institute of Virology applied for a Chinese "use patent", for treating COVID-19.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir
Gilead antiviral drug remdesivir flops in first trial ft.com ^ | 04.23.2020 | FT Gilead antiviral drug remdesivir flops in first trial Exclusive: Disappointing results revealed in draft documents published accidentally by WHO (Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
The Chinese trial showed the antiviral remdesivir did not improve patients’ condition or reduce the pathogen’s presence in the bloodstream, the report said.
“Accidentally leaked by the WHO”, and a “Chinese trial”.
"Comment: Remdesivir is a scary drug. It messes with the bases of the RNA strand, substituting a different base into the strand periodically to change the virus into something else, to where it can't replicate effectively.
Zinc, with Hydroxychloroquine (notice how I put the most import thing first, instead of what acts as the gateway into the cell to allow zinc) - actually stops the virus replicase.
Any "Hydroxychloroquine studies" that do not include zinc are useless. It's like seeing how far you can drive in a gas-powered car without gas - and complaining that it just sits there.
* GILEAD SCIENCES SAYS "REGRET THAT THE WHO PREMATURELY POSTED" INFORMATION REGARDING ANTIVIRAL DRUG REMDESIVIR STUDY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED
* GILEAD SAYS INVESTIGATORS IN REMDESIVIR STUDY DID NOT PROVIDE PERMISSION FOR PUBLICATION OF RESULTS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3838168/posts
VA Chief: Actually Hydroxychloroquine Has Been Working Against COVID-19; Stopped Disease Progression on Middle-age and Younger veterans Epoch Times ^ | 04/22/2020 | Zachary Steiber The anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has been working in COVID-19 patients, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie said on Wednesday.
Wilkie’s comments come after a study looking at the effects of the drug in 368 patients in Veterans Health Administration hospitals found no evidence the drug is effective against COVID-19, a new disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Responding to the results during an appearance on MSNBC, Wilkie said, “That’s just an observational study. It’s not a clinical study. It was done on a small number of veterans; sadly, those of whom were in the last stages of life, and the drug was given to them.”
The drug “has been working on middle-age and younger veterans,” Wilkie added. By that, he meant that it was “stopping the progression of” COVID-19.
Clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine are underway in Minnesota, Tennessee, and New York. Andrew Cuomo, the governor of the Empire State, asked for more doses of the drug to be delivered to New York City while in the Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump, according to Wilkie.
Also this week, doctors and experts on a panel created by the National Institutes of Health said they were recommending against using hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin, an antibiotic also known as Z-Pak. (Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com … https://www.theepochtimes.com/va-chief-hydroxychloroquine-has-been-working-against-covid-19_3322683.html
Clearly the NIH is not doing good science! It is approved in Australia: The Department of Health confirmed on Wednesday that as well as being used in clinical trials, the drugs may be given “in a controlled environment in the treatment of severely ill patients in hospital”.
Guardian Australia revealed that a delegate of the health minister, Greg Hunt, had exempted hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, Remdesivir, Lopinavir and Ritonavir from a requirement to be listed on the Australian register of therapeutic goods, which is generally the only way medicine can be lawfully supplied in Australia.
The exemptions specified that the medications “must only be supplied in Australia for the prevention, treatment or alleviation of coronavirus disease (Covid-19) following advice from the Australian government department of health”.
A trial is being done in Minnesota:
A 1,500-person trial, led by the University of Minnesota, began this week to see whether malaria treatment hydroxychloroquine can prevent or reduce the severity of COVID-19. Two other trials are studying the blood pressure drug losartan [an ACE2 blocker] as a possible treatment for the disease.
Tolar said he bought 1,500 doses of hydroxychloroquine for a “laughable” amount of money. “We don’t need a multibillion-dollar investment. It is part of the beauty of this approach,” he said.
Besides having a direct antiviral effect, hydroxychloroquine suppresses the production and release of proteins involved in the inflammatory complications of several viral diseases. “We are trying to leverage the science to see if we can do something in addition to minimizing contacts,” said Dr. Jakub Tolar, dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School and vice president for clinical affairs. “Results are likely in weeks, not months.”
Bioweapon or Dual Use?
Nobel Prize winner of discovery of HIV says it could only be made in a lab.
"According to Professor Luc Montagnier, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008 for “discovering” HIV as the cause of the AIDS epidemic together with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, the SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that was manipulated and accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the last quarter of 2019."
The NIH is fully invested in vaccines, and Donald Trump signed an Executive Order back in September of last year to make them have to prove the vaccines actually work. Panic time at the NIH. Vast amounts of money are involved from the government to subsidize vaccines as well a a removal of legal liability for any misdeeds or malpractice:
NIH is no help:
"Doctors and experts on a panel created by the National Institutes of Health are recommending against using hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, with azithromycin, an antibiotic known as Z-Pak, in the treatment of COVID-19.
The panel released its recommendations on Tuesday, including recommending against the combination, which is being used by a number of doctors in the United States and elsewhere. The panel said it was recommending against the combination “because of the potential for toxicities.”
The panel cited a single study, which has not been peer reviewed, for their recommendation. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel said that insufficient clinical data is currently available to recommend either for or against the use of hydroxychloroquine, the closely related chloroquine, or remdesivir. If the drugs are used, clinicians are advised to monitor the patient for adverse effects.
Insufficient data led the panel to say it couldn’t recommend for or against the use of convalescent plasma, which involves taking blood from people who were infected with COVID-19 and later recovered and transfusing it to patients with the new illness. The panel also couldn’t recommend for or against using hyperimmune globulin, which are concentrated preparations high in antibodies that protect against specific diseases, or interleukin inhibitors, targeted antibody therapies used to treat a range of conditions such as sarilumab, tocilizumab, and anakinra. "
The NIH does not seem to be promoting a low cost low side effect cure. Fauci et al are instead backing expensive and highly profitable drugs from pharmaceutical companies and government subsidized and legally unaccountable vaccines.
Some good scientists don't think vaccines will work for this: According to a new report by Australia's ABC, the creation of a vaccine may be incredibly difficult for several reasons, as this particular coronavirus is 'posing challenges that scientists haven't dealt with before.'
According to Ian Frazer of the University of Queensland - who was involved in the creation of the HPV vaccine, coronaviruses are particularly difficult to create safe vaccines before because the virus infects the upper respiratory tract, which our immune system isn't particularly adept at protecting. There are several reasons why our upper respiratory tract is a hard area to target a vaccine. "It's a separate immune system, if you like, which isn't easily accessible by vaccine technology," Professor Frazer told the Health Report.
Despite your upper respiratory tract feeling very much like it's inside your body, it's effectively considered an external surface for the purposes of immunisation. "It's a bit like trying to get a vaccine to kill a virus on the surface of your skin." -ABC News
In other words, because the upper respiratory tract is effectively "outside" of the body, and the outer layer of (epithelial) cells in the tract is our natural barrier to viruses, it's difficult to produce an immune response which can reach them.
Complicating matters is that if a vaccine causes an immune response that doesn't benefit the target cells, the result could potentially be worse than no vaccine at all.
"One of the problems with corona vaccines in the past has been that when the immune response does cross over to where the virus-infected cells are it actually increases the pathology rather than reducing it," said Frazer. "So that immunization with SARS corona vaccine caused, in animals, inflammation in the lungs which wouldn't otherwise have been there if the vaccine hadn't been given.”
"Another sort of vaccine would be just antibody transferred from somebody who had been infected already and had got rid of the infection.
"Which would be an immunological means of preventing infection, and could probably be more quickly developed than an actual vaccine.”
This sort of vaccine was tested with SARS in 2003 and resulted in reinfected lab monkeys having a nasty immune response, which is why many groups working on a vaccine for Sars-CoV-2 are going for a very specific antibody response.
Professor Frazer said the narrow, targeted approach is fine, unless you pick the wrong specific antigen — the substance that stimulates an immune response which antibodies bind to — in which case you could end up with the same problem. -ABC News
Mutations are high after all making it harder to test for and to make vaccines for:
Studies have suggested that as up to half of those who have been infected with the virus might be "asymptomatic", a categorization that includes those who experienced extremely mild symptoms, often resembling a bad cold or a mild fever. Now, this team of scientists has discovered 31 new mutated strains of the virus that might explain the stubbornly high mortality rates in parts of Europe and New York.
According to the South China Morning Post, some of the mutant strains exhibited a much more dangerous capacity to invade human cells, implying that certain strains might be much more lethal than others. What's more, these strains were found to be "genetically similar" to samples isolated in New York and places like Italy in Europe. Critically, the study, led by Professor Li Lanjuan, the first Chinese academic to recommend a complete shutdown to fight the virus, showed for the first time a probable link between the type of strain that infects a patient and the level of brutality of the symptoms they face. Dr. Fauci said last month that there was "no evidence" of deadly mutations, yet these researchers have found exactly that The deadliest mutations in the Zhejiang patients had also been found in most patients across Europe, while the milder strains were the predominant varieties found in parts of the United States, such as Washington state, according to their paper.
A separate study had found that New York strains had been imported from Europe. The death rate in New York was similar to that in many European countries, if not worse.
But the weaker mutation did not mean a lower risk for everybody, according to Li’s study. In Zhejiang, two patients in their 30s and 50s who contracted the weaker strain became severely ill. Although both survived in the end, the elder patient needed treatment in an intensive care unit.
Li’s team detected more than 30 mutations. Among them 19 mutations – or about 60 per cent – were new.
They found some of these mutations could lead to functional changes in the virus’ spike protein, a unique structure over the viral envelope enabling the coronavirus to bind with human cells. Computer simulation predicted that these mutations would increase its infectivity.
The fact that such unexpectedly intense variations could arise from a sample of fewer than a dozen patients means the genetic variability of this virus might be much higher than initially expected. And it may have mutated since the outbreak began, which of course could create complications in the quest for a vaccine. Most alarmingly, some of the mutated strains carried as much as 270x the viral load as the weakest strains.
To verify the theory, Li and colleagues infected cells with strains carrying different mutations. The most aggressive strains could generate 270 times as much viral load as the weakest type. These strains also killed the cells the fastest.
It was an unexpected result from fewer than a dozen patients, “indicating that the true diversity of the viral strains is still largely underappreciated,” Li wrote in the paper.