I asked way back at the beginning of this thread about the reporting and how big pharma operates. Still have not gotten a response. Seems to me a kinda important question for someone here who is in the best position to answer, (a former VP at Pfizer)
Have not gotten a response. Oh well he must be too busy, or?
It would be nice to choose whether to walk on the bike trail or actually ride a bike. Wouldn’t it!
Maybe Pfizer is partially owned by the Clintons and he is afraid of nail-guns.
Or??
https://apple.news/ALUeO2VrdS4m7y2Q2461bag
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-serology/los-angeles-coronavirus-infections-40-times-greater-than-known-cases-antibody-tests-suggest-idUSKBN22234S I keep hearing "many many more have it" from so many sources. Thoughts?The Abbott Celex test is now on line at our hospital and other sites.
Our in house assay I’m told should be rolled out next week.
Both require a blood draw - the point of care tests are more prone to technical problems, and thus wont have the PPV of an ELISA test run on high throughput robotics.
Your point is well taken Chris. A truly broad representative needs to be obtained…personally Id give everyone who participated a gift certificate of some kind to entice them out of their spidey holes…
Cheers, stay well, stay safe and continue to wear masks!
As an aside, I had to raise a big stink with the American Council on Science and Health to buck the CDC and finally start recommending masks for everyone…of course they finally changed course maybe a day or two before CDC recommendations changed. What a farce (the CDC!).
I am noticing after watching your daily reports on cob-19 I don’t understand why you are focusing on pre-virus toxic/risk human health issues. Why wouldn’t the impact of this drug be different when the patient has cov-19? It seems you have some attitude which seems a bit more focus on proving the safety of this drug vs it’s risks. The first or second study you referenced in your video tonight (studies of cov-19 patience treated with the drug) included a Federal database of findings which you or anyone else reading the study could investigate! You claim the studies find no deaths associated with the drug but those studies you referenced are all pre-virus studies!!! The studies referenced after virus which are the relevant findings. The relevant studies state a 40% increased risk or deaths from heart impacts from the drug. Finally, the health organizations only state that more studies are needed and only applications of this drug should be used in hospital settings under doctor supervision or on clinical trials. You do appear somewhat irrelatoional tonight!! You use highly derogatory language which I find odd.
Chris,
reducing the hydroxychloroquine discourse to U.S. politics might lead you onto a wrong track.
Over here in Europe, HCQ is widely evaluated (see EU Clinical Trials Register), too, but it is not yet approved for clinical use against COVID-19. Most of the clinical trials simply have not released results yet, so government authorities can not give general recommendations based on sufficient data. Think Thalidomide/Contergan, it’s precipitated approval, and the horrible outcome in pregnancies.
Back to the topic at hand. For example, the Robert Koch Institut (RKI) in Germany recommends HCQ only a) within clinical trials, b) in an individual emergency use situation (“Individueller Heilversuch”), and c) in off label use (source, PDF file in German). The reason given is that there is insufficient data.
The ‘Bundesamt für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte’ (BfArM), a German regulatory government authority, discusses HCQ in-depth, including side effects and referencing several [meta] studies (source, in German). They also do not give a recommendation and advise against using HCQ together with Azithromycin.
Assuming that the German case reports are credible (relatively low mortality rate, relatively high recovery rate), the way HCQ and Azithromycin is handled seems not necessarily to stop success in treating COVID-19 patients.
So if you suspect political foul play and/or bad science, Europe would also be infestated by it.
However, the BfArM website might give a pointer of what’s really going on as it discusses
- "measures to avoid supply problems <sic!> in intensive care treatment";
- Aheavily quoted government document mentions that "availability of hydroxychloroquine might become soon problematic" (Interim clinical guidance for patients suspected of/confirmed with covid-19 in Belgium), and
- the Wikipedia article about Hydroxychloroquine reports "sudden demand spikes", resulting in "shortages" [in the U.S.], and "in anticipation of product shortages, the FDA issued product-specific guidance for chloroquine phosphate and for hydroxychloroquine sulfate […]".
The VA study IS evidence, but is not the gold standard evidence we need.
Chris, I think you are going overboard on this. The VA study doesn’t claim to be a rigorous scientific trial, and calls out the need for proper trials. But that stuff takes time. Was it wrong for them to study some actual treatments from the field, to see if any conclusions can be drawn? It seems to me that they were upfront about what they were doing, and are not over-claiming.
I wonder if you would have had the same response to their paper if you hadn’t read all the media reports first. One of your earlier slides talked about studies purporting to be definitive. I don’t see the VA study doing this, far from it. We need to distinguish between the research evidence and the media brouhaha, else we risk being sucked into the same mire.
I think you may be getting pulled into that fray. It seems to me that you want to throw rocks at weaker studies that show less effect for HCQ, but give a pass to e.g. Dr Didier, who seems not to even accept the need for randomised trials.
(Another thing that niggles: you attack some published studies for not mentioning zinc but, AFAIK, Dr Didier doesn’t even use zinc, and claims fabulous results. )
There clearly has been a bandwagon rolling for HCQ, based on anecdotal evidence and politics (and a backlash against the bandwagon based on a mixture of politics and good honest scepticism). We need proper trials, but in the meantime we should seek and consider any evidence with an open mind.
As it is, I think you are showing some confirmation bias towards HCQ. Most things identified early as promising treatments will likely turn out to be ineffective, that seems to be the usual pattern, so consider the possibility that the scepticism isn’t driven purely by political biases.
My ground assumption here (as far as I am aware) is that finding stuff that works isn’t easy. We may be lucky that something will fall into our laps, but don’t count on it.
Please check out Derek Lowe’s blog, In The Pipeline: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/24/the-order-of-battle
For some historical perspective, here’s an interesting bit from Pale Rider, Laura Spinney’s useful and readable book on the so-called Spanish Flu:
”…many of those who suffered from Spanish flu also had to contend with the effects of overdosing of the substances that doctors gave them to try to ameliorate their symptoms. Quinine, for example, was a known treatment for malaria and other ‘bilious fevers of a paludic nature’. There was no evidence that it worked for flu, yet it was prescribed in large doses.”
Dear Chris
Im a clinician working in Iran Tehran.
As you surlely know my country is the first epicenter of virus distribution and catastrophy after China!
Its well over two months that all patients diagnosed or suspicious of having corona infection have been treated by chloroquine?!
Despite all oversealous treatment with this drug and other presumably anti viral drugs the rate of fatality had been unbelievably high especially in health workers.
So I could never believe any beneficial role for chloroquine or antiviral drugs for this new disease. Although I respect and appriciate your enthusiasm for finding a simple way to battle the disease but!or however! There is no evidence based data to support your conclusions! about treating the virus!
I really appriciate your scrutiny and intelligence toward finding a truthful solution.
Keep safe
Truly
Farahmand Sabeti MD.
Did your hospitals use HCQ alone or with other drugs? What drugs specifically? When in the disease progression was this given? Details of treatment would be helpful.
We have been watching Dr. Martenson’s coronavirus videos and appreciating all the good information provided for several weeks now. But here is the “however” regarding cardiac risk with hydroxychloroquine. I agree that some of the so called expert conclusions that have been published about it being risky are woefully lacking on data. But while Chris presented the safety records over the last several decades for hydroxychloroquine alone, is there similar data supporting the safety of the combination of hydroxychloroquine & azithromycin? As a person who was in active atrial fibrillation until after having two heart catheter ablations, I was warned about not taking Z-Pak due to the risk of heart arrhythmias. Is it possible that the combination of the two drugs is enough to push COVID-19 patients into dangerous cardiac arrhythmias or cardiac arrest? Until we see the hard data on clinical trials of the combination of these two drugs, should we reserve judgment on using it widely as a treatment?
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCEP.115.003560
How are we going to protect Americans if we force them to wait until they are admitted to a hospital before they can have access to the life saving HCQ? Isn’t Dr. Martenson saying that the HCQ breaches the coronavirus cell membrane and allows zinc to destroy the virus? Shouldn’t this be initiated as early as possible? Before hospitalization? From a personal anecdotal situation I can stop a cold whenever I’m able to nuc it early with vitamin C, whereas starting treatment later doesn’t necessarily work.
Purely anecdotal and unscientific. I have posted this before but it seems appropriate to post it again.
A month or so ago I went to see my Dermatologist. I asked him what he was hearing about the virus. (not specifically about HCQ) The first words out of his mouth were he was hearing good things about HCQ. He then proceeded to say " the news reports are bullshit" his exact words. Never heard bullshit in a doctor’s office before. He told me HCQ is one of the safest drugs around and he has been using it in his practice for decades. (It has a number of uses in dermatology)
Fast forward 2 weeks ago I went to see my Cardiologist for my yearly. I have had Afib, which just happens to be a comorbidity of SC2. I have had a cardioversion, used a number of heart medications and almost 2 years ago had a cardio ablation. I am in sinus rhythm. Checkup was fine and we spent 1/2 hour talking about the virus. I asked him specifically about HCQ. He said there is not enough data. I then asked him “what else ya got?” He then offered to write me a scrip for HCQ. Bottom line: I do not have Afib now, my cardiologist did not once mention any issues with HCQ and the heart and knowing about my history had no issue with me taking it. Make of that what you will.
Saying HCQ doesn’t cure COVID19 based on the VA study is like saying cleaning wounds with hydrogen peroxide is pointless based on a study of people with sepsis. We cleaned the wound when the leg went gangrene and they all died anyway! Cleaning the wound when the person was first cut? Why would you do that?
Yeah, sort of like testing the efficacy of seatbelts, by clicking and putting them on after an accident. Conclusion, backed by numbers - they don’t help at all. Makes it painfully clear how misguided it is to test a preventative medicine expecting it to be curative.
In regards to heart issues with Zpack, I came back from India mid Feb. 3 days later has bronchitis. I did my usual herbs and spices but nothing touched it. I decided i did not want to have bronchitis with the virus going around, so I went to urgent care and called in the big guns. I was prescribed Zpack with no problem even though I had a history of Afib. My heart was unaffected. This is not to say someone else wouldn’t be as well. From talking to my cardio it seems as if you are not in Afib either chronically or intermittently then you do not have Afib.
“Patients at particular risk for developing this condition include those with known risk factors such as existing QT interval prolongation, low blood levels of potassium or magnesium, a slower-than-normal heart rate, or use of certain drugs used to treat abnormal heart rhythms or arrhythmias,” the FDA said in a March 12 drug safety communication(www.fda.gov). “FDA has issued a (warning) as a result of our review of a study by medical researchers, as well as another study by a manufacturer of the drug, that assessed the potential for azithromycin to cause abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart.”
https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20130315azithromycin-risk.html
My suggestion is if you have had heart issues, go get an EKG, consult with a cardio and see what your particular risks are right now. As well my suggestion is to consult with your doctor to see what the protocol is in regards to testing, treatment and hospital admissions. Knowing all of this ahead of time may save you a lot of grief in the future should you rub elbows with the SARS COV 2 virus. It is as important as growing a garden.
A good point is, what does the combination of the 2 drugs do in vivo? I doubt there has been a study to find out . In looking up drugs that interact with it Plaquenil is not mentioned but the list is incomplete. It has been around for 4 decades so I would have to believe it has crossed paths with Plaquenil a number of times before now.
What we have aside from no clinical trials is the fact that Dr.s the world over are using this combo and so far I have not heard of issues with the combination. Interestingly Zpack has been used to treat malaria.
My position is should I despite all the precautions I am taking contract SARS COV 2, I will take that treatment immediately. Fortunately I know for certain I have at least one Dr. on my team that will prescribe it for me.
Given the choice between testing positive and being told to go home and come back if it gets worse or taking Plaquenil, Zpack and zinc? It’s a no brainer for me. This virus is a nasty.
FBI is conducting a raid at Allure Medical in Shelby Township (WXYZ ABC 7 Detroit)
"SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WXYZ) — The FBI is conducting a raid at Allure Medical in Shelby Township. Police confirm to 7 Action News they are assisting the feds with the raid.
It’s located on 26 Mile Rd. and Van Dyke in Shelby Township. The FBI confirms the raid is in connection to a questionable treatment for coronavirus that was being offered at the center.
This is the first raid of its kind raid in Michigan over a purported treatment for COVID-19.
The FBI said it is a task force operation with the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI. Agents participating in the raid are wearing special protection because of possible risk of exposure to coronavirus.
They’re gathering boxes of evidence, documents, etc. Agents arrived just after 8 a.m.
Allure has recently promoted that it is treating COVID-19 patients who aren’t hospitalized using intravenous vitamin C therapy “with great results.”
In a press release sent out to news stations last week, Allure said that Dr. Charles Mok, the founder of Allure Medical, is providing the high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy to all essential workers in Michigan, saying that it is being used in hospitals around the country."
[embed]https://twitter.com/i/status/1253313061018120198[/embed]
If this is real this is getting out of hand.
They are asking for trouble.
@Chris Martenson
Just watched the latest video.
You admit that this is driving you a bit crazy, and it looks to me like confirmation bias in your attitude towards the evidence for or against HCQ. I may be the same, in the other direction!
You describe the VA study as garbage - it’s not that, it’s a data point, with limited use. Yet other studies of limited use (e.g. Dr Raoult’s) get a pass, at least in most recent mentions. I the latest video you say (I’m paraphrasing) “we know serum treatment works”. Something similar for HCQ? Do we? We don’t have much in the way of good quality studies either way.
You focus strongly on the partisanship that is attached to the scepticism around HCQ, but don’t seem to recognise that it’s there in the other direction too.
The only thing that’s going to resolve this is good research. This makes things very awkward in the meantime, as clinicians try to feel their way with unproven, but more or less promising, treatments.
On side effects. Surely the crucial thing (not in prophylactic use, perhaps) is how any treatment interacts with disease. A safe drug in normal circumstances might be less so with this particular illness. You have previously highlighted cardiac issues with honey badger, so I can understand any clinician being cautious. Isn’t that potentially indicated in that Brazilian study with CQ?
I would rather see you evaluate each study in the same way. How strong is the evidence? What does it tell us about treatment?