Covid 19 thread

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

badnews

Use Your Illusion
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
5,332
Name
Dave
One week its issue X, its going to destroy everything. Next week its issue Y, a big hoax, it's the media, don't be a sheep.
Almost every time, almost everybody falls into one position or the other, X or Y, based on party politics.

All I am saying is that when it comes to politicized issues, it's best to stick to having ideas and avoid beliefs like the plague.
Ideas can change with more information but beliefs are a lot more resistant to contradictory information. People can disagree about ideas and still respect each other. Disagreeing on beliefs is much more divisive and dangerous.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,830
The website in question is fake to the core, is what I gather from that. The website in question is extremely voluminous, and the author of the rebuttal has put out a voluminous response of his own (again, rife with ridicule and statements of mockery). The author of that blog also has a twitter account, and it's ... interesting. He's extremely biased against people who are anti-vax, anti-GMO, and members of the republican party. What he's suggesting here (below) is that the GOP wants to kill children by opening up schools in the middle of a pandemic. Now tell me. What science is available that proves kids are (a) dying from this or (b) spreaders of the disease? And further, why does he not call out the CDC and WHO who both are in favor of doing the same?




Why do you suppose doctors would put out such a vast amount of 'deliberate misinformation' about something from which they stand to gain nothing financially? That's the part that's confusing to me. Why are there so many doctors advocating for something that's (according to others) just complete and utter bullshit?

Lastly, why was it found to be effective in 2005?


(Part A)

I skimmed through the 2005 study you posted. As their method, the authors state:

Vero E6 cells (an African green monkey kidney cell line) were infected with SARS-CoV

In the Petri dish with monkey cells, the authors state:

We have identified chloroquine as an effective antiviral agent for SARS-CoV in cell culture conditions

Their conclusion is that:

this study suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use for chloroquine.

In other words, in a nutshell:

In a Petri dish, with monkey kidney cells, HCQ kicked the coronavirus' ass. Therefore, HCQ was a promising drug that deserved further study, to see if it could be effective for humans in real-world conditions.

However...

the sciencemag article posted by 12inthebox does an excellent job of explaining why the initial hope for HCQ was not realized.


In a nutshell:

Initial hope that hydroxychloroquine was useful in fighting the coronavirus stemmed from lab tests showing that the drug inhibits the virus’s growth in kidney cells from monkeys by blocking its entry. But it turns out that the virus doesn’t enter human lung cells in the same way....when Hoffman, Pöhlmann and colleagues tested the drugs in human lung cells grown in lab dishes, the virus easily slipped into the cells. That’s because in lung cells, SARS-CoV-2 takes the more direct route using TMPRSS2, which isn’t found in the monkey cells and which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine don’t inhibit.

Anyway, there was a very valid reason that HCQ showed such initial promise. For monkey kidney cells, HCQ kicks SARS-CoV-2's ass. (Or more accurately, protects the cell form being infected). Unfortunately, in human lung cells, SARS-CoV-2 finds a separate route to slip right by HCQ.

(Part B)

I don't know if you took the time to digest the entirety of the Gorski rebuttal, but it's an excellent read. (And yes, I'll acknowledge he includes some snark in there, but he is clearly exasperated in having to devote so much time and energy to debunk this misinformation.)

In the whole second half of the article, Gorski gets to the concept of "astroturfing:"

this whole website reeks of astroturfing. (Astroturfing, for those not familiar with the term, means the promotion of a message as though it’s coming from the grassroots when in reality it’s coming from a company, political party, political group, or ideological group.)

Gorski also notes that

It’s also a website whose creators are not just unknown but who went to a fair amount of trouble to hide who they are. The domain’s WHOIS entry is masked by Contact Privacy Inc.

A supposed "scientific study" whose authors are not only anonymous but go to significant lengths to hide who they are? Wow.

Simone Gold's continued promotion of this fake website is extremely shady to say the least. And her colleague "Demon Jizz" Stella Immanuel is obviously not to be trusted either.

So yeah, I'll assume we can agree that doctors who promote demonstrably fake websites shouldn't be trusted.

But as for your mention of the Henry Ford docs, and other well-meaning docs who support HCQ? That's a much tougher question. I'll admit to being confused by that one.

Observational studies are fine, but they are infamous for being misleading. And they sure don't provide the same level of scientific certainty as the randomized placebo controlled double-blind studies. And HCQ has failed the RDBPC test five straight times.

Lastly-- we've got two drugs that have been PROVEN to work in Remdesivir and dexamethasone. But these two proven drugs hardly ever get mentioned in the conversation.
 
Last edited:

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
(Part A)

I skimmed through the 2005 study you posted. As their method, the authors state:
As did I, just now. Admittedly, I just pasted it in a rush this morning before I headed out for the day - without really looking into it much at all. You and @12intheBox are doing a nice job of offering counter-arguments, and I'm just giving anecdotal stuff for you to reubt. As I said earlier, I didn't really wanna deep dive into this, but now I am. Yay.

The 2005 study found that CQ can affect viral replication by inhibiting viral gene expression and can also prevent the virus cell infection by interfering with the glycosylation of SARS-CoV receptors. That's the finding. That 2005 study was cited in an August 2020 study (found here) that states: CQ and HCQ are recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in many regions and countries (Mediterranee-infection Hospital 2020).

--At the Chinese National Health Commission, CQ was recommended as one of the COVID-19 treatments options. It recommends a 500 mg oral dose of chloroquine phosphate in adults (contains 300 mg of chloroquine), twice daily, for no more than 10 days. The dosage was later revised by body weight.

--In a French clinical study that included 19 COVID-19 patients, a 600 mg daily dose of HCQ was significantly associated with a decrease or disappearance of viral load in patients (Gautret et al. 2020a). Based on the results of this study, the U.S. FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) to approve the use of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 hospitalized patients with on March 28 (FDA 2020).

Without making this too long, let me skip to three main points in this 8/2020 review that cites the 2005 one.

1. An international vote of 6227 doctors from 30 countries and regions released by the global medical voting company Sermo found that of the 15 treatment alternatives, 37% of doctors rated HCQ as “the most effective treatment for COVID-19” (Sermo.com 2020). That's 2304 doctors, internationally.

2. The leaders of many health and research agencies were opposed to the FDA decision on March 28 (italicized above). They argued that this decision destroyed the scientific authority of FDA and that it had a clear meaning of just enthusiastically supporting politicians (Piller 2020). That's why the FDA later withdrew its recommendation.

3. The authors of this 2020 review recommend Multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials to clarify the CQ and HCQ efficiency and safety in the COVID-19 treatment; and DO NOT recommend it for treatment due to neuro toxicities; but DO suggest follow-up of patients who received CQ or HCQ treatment to access their long-term effects and side effects; and that dosage and their combination regimen with other drugs in clinical trials should be appropriately adjusted.

TLDR;
2304 doctors across 30 countries have used it, had success, and recommend it.
There's still much debate around it, with no consensus. Repeat - NO consensus.
Further studies are needed - we all agree on that.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,830
Its a shame we've come to this as a society. HCQ became political once the president said it was a good thing. Heck, Ohio banned the sale of it for covid use. Just let the doctors and their patients decide. They are the ones who have the most at stake. This drug has been on the market for over 6 decades. It was considered reasonably safe until it became political.

If I'm about on my last breaths and a doctor says "This drug is our last chance. But Hitler recommended it. Do you want to try it?" I'd say "Is a pig's ass pork? Of course I'll try it."
I would have agreed with you about trying HCQ several months ago. People on this thread may find this surprising, but I actually asked my primary doctor for a prescription of HCQ back in early April. I figured, there's not a lot of info on this drug yet, but some people seem to think it might work, and I thought I might try to get my hands on some in case my 82-year old Mom ever got sick and there was a national shortage of HCQ. (My doctor declined my request, BTW).

Back in April, I did not let politics get in the way of asking my doctor for HCQ. I kept an open mind based on science, and back then the science was totally inconclusive.

But now the science has spoken. In the most crucial and evidence based RDBPC studies, HCQ has failed five straight times. Then as now, my assessment of HCQ is based on science, not politics.

Meanwhile, Remdesivir and dexamethasone have been PROVEN to work in RDBPC studies. Just hope Americans are open-minded enough to consider drugs with proven track records.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Meanwhile, Remdesivir and dexamethasone have been PROVEN to work in RDBPC studies. Just hope Americans are open-minded enough to consider drugs with proven track records.
Absolutely. I see no reason why anyone wouldn't consider either of those. Particularly if that's what their/my doctor recommends. I've seen a lot of great results in those as well. Again, I'm not invested in proving that HCQ (a) works or (b) is better than anything else. My main focus continues to be on *why* there's so much volatility surrounding its claims of efficacy (and lack thereof). Why some doctors are pissed off that they're being ridiculed/discredited for recommending it, and why other doctors are pissed off that it's even being considered at all. It's totally fascinating to me. It's also HIGHLY political, and that's where I like to drill. I love to uncover political motivations behind things, and this one is soaked in it.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Also, I don't know who wants to discuss it, but Sweden is a remarkable case study of this pandemic. Lotta people blast them for their approach (and subsequent death rate), but there are a lot of people who also think it was the best approach - particularly when you take into consideration that a second wave is believed to be likely on the world stage (also found on that sermo site). Sweden's infectious disease expert (Anders Tegnell) is as scrutinized as Fauci - but for markedly different reasons.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
39,254
Yeah, it's really cool. Very easy to sift through information - despite how huge it is - and it asks all the right questions.
I’ve browsed that site for info for a while now, great resource.
 

XXXIVwin

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
4,830
There's still much debate around it, with no consensus. Repeat - NO consensus.
Further studies are needed - we all agree on that.
Nice post. Well researched and well said.

Sorry man, gonna have to cry "uncle" on this debate. You are arguing fairly and persuasively, but I just really want to try to spare myself the time and energy of rebutting your arguments. (At least, that's what I keep telling myself, but I'm obviously really, really shitty at following through on exiting this thread.)

Off the top off my head, without doing a lot of research to back it up:

--Your stats about thousands of European doctors is I think from late March. (Is that correct, or no)? Back in late March, prescriptions for HCQ were exploding throughout Europe. It was only after many studies came out that many docs reversed course. Here's just one article of many (a quick skim will suffice) implying that most of Europe has done a complete reversal on HCQ:


Anyway, I'd definitely be curious to know what percentage of docs (in the USA and Europe especially) would NOW recommend HCQ. Back in March? A significant number. Now, in August? My guess is that it would be a small minority.

Again, I'm not willing to spend the time to research to find some stats to back up this particular claim. But based on the dozens of articles I've read, it sure seems that the support for HCQ worldwide has dropped precipitously between March and August.

Lastly...

I highlighted the last 3 sentences of your post because I respectfully disagree with them.

Consensus? No. Vast preponderance of the evidence? IMHO, yes.

And as to your sentence, "Further studies are needed - we all agree on that", I'd have to respectfully disagree on that, too. Here's an excerpt from a bunch of Yale docs on the issue:

The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine. We understand the desperation of many to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 emerge that will stop the pandemic in its tracks or slow its relentless spread in the US. But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease. There are multiple approaches to expedite the evaluation and approval of drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases in the US that have existed for decades now, but they all still rely on data from rigorous, well-conducted clinical trials to guide us. In addition, this ongoing promotion of HCQ has global implications as well, as many countries in the global South only have access to HCQ and use of HCQ is still common in this setting despite the lack of evidence and potential risks.

It is critical that we follow the science and where the evidence leads us on a quest to treat and prevent COVID-19. In this climate, it’s important to rely on the data above all else when making clinical or regulatory decisions. Making these kinds of choices guided by personal endorsements outside of the context of the existing scientific evidence is medicine by testimonial and risks people’s lives. Randomized controlled trials are how we keep from fooling ourselves, test our assumptions about new drugs and new uses for old ones.


Here's the link to the Yale letter, which I believe provides a cogent and well-written summary of the argument against HCQ:


Anyway, cheers for the debate, -X-. Thanks for debating fairly and reasonably. Maybe OC is right and if some of us got together in person over a few drinks we MIGHT make more headway on these debates. But IMHO, here on a message board, debating is just so damn inefficient. It takes a fuck-ton of time to research and post these articles, and then we can't counter each other's arguments in real time.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Sorry man, gonna have to cry "uncle" on this debate. You are arguing fairly and persuasively, but I just really want to try to spare myself the time and energy of rebutting your arguments. (At least, that's what I keep telling myself, but I'm obviously really, really shitty at following through on exiting this thread.)
Yeah, it's exasperating isn't it? I think I'm done with trying to prove anything on HCQ one way or the other. I keep saying I don't care, and I really don't; but like you, I just hate ceding the last point to the other guy. lol.

tenor.gif


I think, like everything else, a lot of stuff is gonna come to light once this is all over. Some really disturbing things. But, as per usual, there will be no consequences or repercussions. Maybe one day me, you, and 12 can meet up, have a few beers, and talk about how we were all played.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,333
Curious what the thoughts are regarding antibodies testing and what can be drawn from the results.
Close friend of mine, his parents were totally holed up during stay at home order. His mom was so fearful of his dad’s preexisting conditions, they wouldnt even drive by the house on Easter or either my friends 50th bday.
As fate would have it, his dad called the other day to say that he tested positive for the antibodies

With all the emphasis on testing for Covid, why is there not more of a push on antibodies testing?
for those tested weekly or so for their job, wouldn’t an antibody test provide more appropriate information?
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
9,982
Name
Wil Fay
My wife talks about antibody testing a lot. Maybe I just haven't wrapped my head around it - but I’m not seeing it as incredibly helpful until I find out that having the antibodies stop someone from either getting it again or more importantly, getting it again and spreading it.
 

snackdaddy

Who's your snackdaddy?
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
11,040
Name
Charlie
I would have agreed with you about trying HCQ several months ago. People on this thread may find this surprising, but I actually asked my primary doctor for a prescription of HCQ back in early April. I figured, there's not a lot of info on this drug yet, but some people seem to think it might work, and I thought I might try to get my hands on some in case my 82-year old Mom ever got sick and there was a national shortage of HCQ. (My doctor declined my request, BTW).

Back in April, I did not let politics get in the way of asking my doctor for HCQ. I kept an open mind based on science, and back then the science was totally inconclusive.

But now the science has spoken. In the most crucial and evidence based RDBPC studies, HCQ has failed five straight times. Then as now, my assessment of HCQ is based on science, not politics.

Meanwhile, Remdesivir and dexamethasone have been PROVEN to work in RDBPC studies. Just hope Americans are open-minded enough to consider drugs with proven track records.

Why did you want HCQ? From everything I've heard about it doctors were using when patients were very sick. I don't see the point in taking the drug when you don't need it. I don't recall seeing doctors say it will help prevent covid.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,148
Why did you want HCQ? From everything I've heard about it doctors were using when patients were very sick. I don't see the point in taking the drug when you don't need it. I don't recall seeing doctors say it will help prevent covid.

for the exact reason they were trying to stop people panic buying it, to hoard it in case they needed it later. in the meantime people with other diseases that actually needed it would have been left high and dry.

.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,333
- but I’m not seeing it as incredibly helpful until I find out that having the antibodies stop someone from either getting it again or more importantly, getting it again and spreading it.
Well, that's exactly my point, isnt that information potentially more beneficial than even vaccines?
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,333
.

it doesn't mean they've got it. they could have been in contact with someone who was infected.

if they don't live like hermits for the whole season they could be find themselves on that list for much of it, seeing that possibly 40 million americans are infected. what's that, one in every 8 people could have the virus?

.
This is easily proven to be false
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,403
Name
Erik
Why did you want HCQ? From everything I've heard about it doctors were using when patients were very sick. I don't see the point in taking the drug when you don't need it. I don't recall seeing doctors say it will help prevent covid.

If you read back in the thread a bit, India used it widely as a prophylactic against catching Covid in a huge slum in Mumbai that has about 5 times the population density of NYC. Very few cases.

It's also used pretty widely on a regular basis in Africa for malaria prevention. Very low case counts and death rates that are much lower than in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.