Dr. Baric is not happy with Dr. Raoult:
https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/remdesivir-developed-at-unc-chapel-hill-proves-effective-against-covid-19-in-niaid-human-clinical-trials/
Vindication is not all about this one study… it’s just a final nail in the coffin of HCQ-negative propaganda that we needed to make the case more forcefully. I am very glad Chris has taken a strong stand in this way since lives are literally at stake.
I was at a July 4th backyard BBQ with a few people and we were discussing Covid-19. When I mentioned hydroxychloroquine one of the buddies of the host chimed in that his brother-in-law in CA had been saved by it. He said that his brother-in-law was not doing well and was updating his will when he got the medications… and his health turned around very rapidly afterward. Yes, of course, anecdotal in isolation, but I think this shows that we are starting to turn the corner in the information war, in a seven degrees of Kevin Bacon way.
But we have seen this story of healing repeat hundreds and hundreds of times, across many, many doctors reporting through various channels; clinical data studies by Raoult and Zelenko, Youtube video presentations by the likes of Noel Williams, MD, and personal testimonials like that of Michigan representative Karen Whitsett, who earned the scorn of her political party for thanking Donald Trump for increasing awareness of the drugs benefit.
For the bigger picture, here is a website that accumulates a living macro-study of studies. For whatever reason doctors around the world continue to prove, over and over again, that HCQ does not work well as a late-stage disease treatment. As prophylaxis and early stage treatment, it works, in the words of Dr. Noel Williams, “phenomenally well”.
https://c19study.com/
On the subject of Zinc… we know that it’s important to supplement, but always remember that no added Zinc does not mean zero Zinc. There will be a variable background of dietary Zinc in all cases.
When a patient infected with the Corvid19 virus is admitted to an American hospital they have a 33% chance of being placed in an induced coma and intubated. Once that treatment is initiated the probability of death is ± 80%.
The federal guidelines for compensation to the hospital are $35,000 for every patient that is intubated. If the patient is not placed upon a ventilator the hospital receives only $13,000. Follow the Money. The American profit maximization medical system at work.
By the way, if the same patient presents with the same symptoms at a hospital in Cuba their treatment will be free and their chances of survival will be many times higher than if they are treated in the US.
Cuba: 86 total deaths. New York City (2/3 Cuba’s population) --17,000+ deaths.
Income comparison: (2017 statistics)
NYC: $70,879 per capita
Cuba: $8,541
of doctors per 10,00 population:
Cuba: 67.2
US: 26
Looks like money can’t buy everything!
Thansk for sharing this encouraging post.Glad this research institution is looking into it.
But they are testing HCQ alone. Another leg has Zn/Vit C, interesting. No leg with HCQ and Zn. Disappointing, as this is a prophylaxis trial, misses a synergistic effect and Zinc nutritional status may be a confounding factor.
Being a double-positively charged ion, Zinc would benefit by co-administration of an ionophore to carry it across the cell membrane.
I am beginning to suspect HCQ may act by more than one mechanism. 1) changing the pH of internal organelles, perhaps interfering with viral assembly; 2) reducing blood clotting, which may be a significant factor late in the disease progression; 3) Zn ionophore, must helpful early to prevent viral expansion, as Zn interferes with replication. Just a hypothesis on my part.
Here is a link
https://peakprosperity.com/covid-19-half-a-million-dead-and-rising/
Post number 54.
Be advised that the researcher cited is Dr. Ralph S Baric, not Robert, it was my mistake. I have corrected the original post but sadly did not anticipate it would make it to a video, should have checked the name before posting. My apologies.
Dr. Baric is at the University of North Carolina and his colleague in GOF research at Wuhan institute of Technology is Dr. Shi. I believe in China the surname name is first, so you may see her surname first or last depending on the source - Shi Zhengli is according to Chinese custom, I believe.
Recovery is defined as: leaving the hospital in 11 days instead of 15 days, on average. Among survivors, as difference in mortality did not reach significance.
Lots of reasons people get discharged from hospital early, especially in a multi-center environment. Just saying.
Here is how Dr. Shiva A., MIT Biological Engineering PhD and developer of CytoSolve depicted it in early May;
We knew from the earliest in-vitro studies of infected cells that HCQ (along with Remdesivir) inhibited viral replication… what was really cool I thought was the later data that came out showing that there was also dose-dependent inhibition of cellular entry via ACE2, which of course is a completely separate and complimentary mode of action. HCQ is in a sense a single molecule, “cocktail”.
Welcome to the forum. I see you joined today.
The editorial critique of the HRH study on HCQ that you cite was written by several co-authors on a study of HCQ prophylaxis published in NEJM. That study on post-exposure prophylaxis concluded that HCQ made no difference to incidence of COVID cases in those who believe they were exposed. It was hailed in the media as the best controlled study on HCQ.
That particular study had several limitations, reviewed by Dr. Martenson on this site. One of these is that the COVID cases were largely self-diagnosed and diagnostic criteria were quite broad (e.g. having a cough, period.) Testing was not widely available at the time, so <3% had a laboratory confirmed diagnosis. They did what they could under the circumstances. It is not the definitive study it was made out to be.
You can read the study yourself or watch Dr. Martenson’s video on the subject. Dr. Martenson has done yeoman’s service in following and analyzing the evidence as it becomes available. I frankly don’t know how he does it, it is an enormous effort to review these things and put together these videos almost in real time.
Now as to the critique that you site, it was posted by other community members. Having read it, I went back to the HFH study article to address what I see as the major limitation they point out - the difference in use of steroids in the treatment groups.
I cited from their Methods section what I perceive was done by HFH investigators to address the limitations. If anyone in this community has the statistical expertise to evaluate it in detail, perhaps you can educate us on whether the methods used were adequate. The authors of the critique do not mention what was done to address confounding factors and should have.
My detailed comments on the the critique you cite can be found here, post #8:
https://peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/re-covid-19-vindication-hcq-ivermectin-work/
I think you misunderstand the role of Zinc in combination with HCQ. The claim is not that HCQ “won’t work without Zinc”. HCQ may have more than one mechanism of action. I can think of at least three, as noted in another post. Late in the disease, for example, it may help relieve some of the clotting disorder associated with COVID. This is a hypothesis on my part, based on anti-thrombotic effects in people with lupus
https://www.lupus.org/resources/antiphospholipid-syndrome-evaluating-current-treatment-options
On the other hand, if administered with Zinc early in the course of the disease, it may facilitate Zn 2+ entry into the cell by acting as an ionophore. Once in the cell, Zinc ions may interfere with virus replication, helping to halt the exponential expansion of virus.
@JoshuaGreen
This could be the reason for the cautionary note about use in a hospital setting:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/
I quote from the NIH guidelines:
Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine
- The Panel recommends against the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AII).
Looks like youtube has removed Brian C. Proctor MD’s video referencing his success with HCQ in the early stages of treatment. Imagine that!
Thanks for the welcome and responses. (And true, I never felt like leaving a comment before, hence I had no reason to create an account. Feel free to infer what you’d like from that.)
I haven’t watched all of Chris’s videos, but I’ve seen him dissect other studies in gory detail, listing all of their claims and flaws. (For example, see the video where he covered the study “A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19,” a randomized study that didn’t find an effect.) He didn’t seem to do that here, as far as I could tell. Instead, he described the study, noted that it was non-randomized and that he wanted better studies with zinc, and … that seemed to be about it. I didn’t catch any mention of the specific objections that have been leveled (or described by the authors), and I had really hoped to learn what he thought of them. That’s what I found disappointing – not Chris in general, just in the way he handled this study in comparison to some others. Perhaps he just ran out of time, but leaving out that particular information while moving on to other topics – implying that he had presented everything he wanted with regard to the study – seemed, to me, a bit conspicuous.
With regard to “vindication,” though it might have weaker connotations, I would generally use it to mean “See, I’ve been saying this the whole time, and you didn’t believe me, but now this proves I was correct.” If Chris has been arguing this whole time that HCQ is an effective treatment then I’ll partially retract that particular remark as “Vindicated!” would kind of fit, though the flaws in the study would have to be acknowledged. However, that seems inconsistent with the position that he honestly doesn’t know whether or not HCQ works, that the studies done so far haven’t been ideal, and that he simply wants better studies to reveal the truth.
Personally, I agree that the evidence of HCQ danger is unconvincing. If a doctor agrees to prescribe it knowing the patient, then I doubt it will make things worse. (On the other hand, it shouldn’t be blindly prescribed to everyone. I suspect the potential demand for that is what forced the FDA to put out such a warning.) Evidence of efficacy is still underwhelming (though more convincing than the evidence of danger), and the above suggests that trials should continue – it should be safe – and that people should be allowed to use it outside of trials if they want to and their doctor(s) approve.
Also, my comment about zinc was admittedly somewhat snarky, but I stand by my point. For a long time studies without zinc have been simply dismissed – of course they didn’t show results! I don’t see why we shouldn’t say the same thing here – of course this shouldn’t have shown results, so the apparent results must be caused by something other than HCQ. I don’t really subscribe to that strawman, but it’s already been used to ignore other research so we should at least be consistent.
I started writing my above response before many of the above comments came in. I see that you’re all trying to answer my questions & concerns, and I thank you for that. I’ll try to read through all this additional information later, but I unfortunately don’t have time right now.
My wife has an extremely rare neuromuscular disease similar to ALS/MS. I’ve been following this whole controversy from the start, so don’t need basic data. I’m asking what protocol would be appropriate for her if she becomes infected. Not asking for medical advice, not interested in a lawsuit! Just some decent facts in this age of Luciferian/Deep State/WROL era.
Thanks so much!
Mostly in these studies there is no mention of Zinc. It is well known that Zinc is the bullet and HCQ the gun. (thank you Dr. Zelenko) There is no mention in any study I have seen of micronutrient testing. There is no addition of zinc but that does not rule out the possibility that people have sufficient therapeutic levels already, even though many are zinc deficient.
There is lots of lab work done but we just don’t know the extent. It is good to realize in hospitals dealing with SC2 it is pretty much asses and elbows. Dr.'s are flying by the seat of their pants in most situations.
As Chris and others have said many times, we need a randomized , double blind study with HCQ +n Zinc administered early. Currently the standard of care is as follows.
1- have symptoms go to doctor get tested wait 24 hours
2- if it is positive go home and wait till it gets worse.
3 - it gets worse go to hospital.
4- receive palliative care
5- if you end up on oxygen you might get remdesivir
6- you might get steroids
7- if none of that works ICU.
8- intubated with a 90% chance of dying.
Or Alternative treatment
1- Have symptoms, go to doctor, get tested. Get ECG to find out what your QTc interval is
2- go home and start HCQ+zinc with zpack optional
You should know ahead of time what the contraindications are for the latter treatment. . If you QTc interval is 500 or above do not take HCQ. If it is 460-500 take it while being monitored. If it is below 460 stay home watch movies for 5 days.
In a country where you have certain inalienable right like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness option 2 is a no brainer. If you are in the US you are out of luck. Costa Rica? No problemo
mmckay,
First, I absolutely would not seek any specific medical advice on the internet regarding your wife. Second, I would arrange a telephone conference with her primary neurologist to discuss the potential eventuality that your wife does become infected. Have a plan clearly in place well ahead of time. If she ever developed any symptoms, then an immediate call to the neurologist should be in order. Without knowing the specifics about your wife My suspicion is that she would stratify out into the high risk category, but have no way of knowing for sure not being part of her medical team.
Again, do not seek specific medical advice on the internet. I would think all of the prophylactic over the counter medicines discussed on this site should be ok such as vitamin C, zinc, etc., but there can be nuances that can be problematic depending on medications someone already takes. I would run these supplements by your neurologist or internist for completeness.
MM - thanks for posting. The false accolades are nauseating. Not one mention of gain-of-fucking-research. Don’t you love how they called his work “prophetic?” Yes. You idiots. It’s only a matter of time before such “research” loses its containment, whether by accident, design, or sabotage.
I absolutely agree that your “Alternative treatment” should be an option for anyone who’s interested, provided (as you suggested) that there are no contraindications. Were I in such a situation and given the option, I’d probably give HCQ a try. Not because I’m convinced it will help – we still need better trials, as you and others including Chris have noted – but because it plausibly might and seems incredibly unlikely to make things worse.
The CDC gives the rationale for that recommendation here. It will take some time to read through, and I’m not yet sure whether a recommendation against really means “please don’t use this” or just “we aren’t formally recommending that you use this.”
This is what they highlight
Given the risk of dysrhythmias, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions against the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 outside of a hospital or clinical trialThye also give their own review of all the studies. That will take some time to read.