To this point, is anymore being researched into whether or not the method of functionality here is zinc transport or could it have anything to do with the other things such as intracellular pH manipulation or protein degradation in the lysomes etc?DadHammer said:Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.fig96 said:I'd be curious to read some as pretty much this entire thread is stories about anecdotally seeing success when it's used early and not having much effect later on.DadHammer said:
It helps early better, but it is still helpful with sicker patients. Have read lots of reports on this.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
Cardillo is the CEO of Mend Urgent Care, which has locations in Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys and Burbank.
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
Hydroxychloroquine...........
337,537 Views |
1854 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by Jabin
I second this. Good man. Good Ag.74Ag1 said:
Marcus your quickly becoming my favorite Dr.
Thanks for starting this thread and bringing this to our attention.
"Death smiles at us all, but all a man can do is smile back."
- Marcus Aurelius
It certainly is the latter. The idea that that hydroxychloroquine made cells "leaky" was some made up bs by I think a youtuber that everyone jumped on. Shows how easy misinformation can become (a wrong) fact.
Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitroQuote:
Both CQ and HCQ are weak bases that are known to elevate the pH of acidic intracellular organelles, such as endosomes/lysosomes, essential for membrane fusion. In addition, CQ could inhibit SARS-CoV entry through changing the glycosylation of ACE2 receptor and spike protein.
Original hydroxycholorquine paper receives notice from International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy for "..not meeting the...expected standard"
LINK
Quote:
The April 3, 2020, notice, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, states that the March 20 article, "Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of Covid-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial"
does not meet the [International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy's] expected standard, especially relating to the lack of better explanations of the inclusion criteria and the triage of patients to ensure patient safety.
The notice, which is from the ISAC and not the journal itself, is a bit ambiguous. The society says it "shares the concerns" about the paper, but it doesn't appear to be taking additional action.
The study was led by Didier Raoult, of the University of Marseille, whose publication history has come under scrutiny.
Last month, Elisabeth Bik took a close look at the IJAA article and detailed a long list of serious problems with the study, including questions about its ethical underpinnings, messy cofounding variables, missing patients, rushed and conflicted peer review, and confusing data.
Others have used PubPeer to report additional issues with the Raoult article.
Raoult has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.
LINK
Ranger222 said:
Original hydroxycholorquine paper receives notice from International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy for "..not meeting the...expected standard"Quote:
The April 3, 2020, notice, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, states that the March 20 article, "Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of Covid-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial"
does not meet the [International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy's] expected standard, especially relating to the lack of better explanations of the inclusion criteria and the triage of patients to ensure patient safety.
The notice, which is from the ISAC and not the journal itself, is a bit ambiguous. The society says it "shares the concerns" about the paper, but it doesn't appear to be taking additional action.
The study was led by Didier Raoult, of the University of Marseille, whose publication history has come under scrutiny.
Last month, Elisabeth Bik took a close look at the IJAA article and detailed a long list of serious problems with the study, including questions about its ethical underpinnings, messy cofounding variables, missing patients, rushed and conflicted peer review, and confusing data.
Others have used PubPeer to report additional issues with the Raoult article.
Raoult has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.
LINK
The Marseille study may have had issues. But we've got positive studies in South Korea, Australia, Spain, and other parts of France too.
That's a tremendous anecdote, but I would want to know more about what the "most severe" symptoms are that he's seeing in reliable numbers in his urgent care locations. (I'm not trying to take a shot at urgent care, but walking patients back from death's door to good health in 8-12 hours would be different than walking people who just feel like a pile of crap to good health in 8-12 hours.)Quote:
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
Greg Abbott mentioned in his press conference today that about 30 of the 83 seniors in the affected nursing home in Texas City are being given HCQ. On day 2 of "several more days to go".
Described it as a study to help determine whether it would be beneficial or not.
Described it as a study to help determine whether it would be beneficial or not.
This will save lives
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
23,102
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Primary reason for the other 53 not getting it being underlying cardiac issues?
I know he is Dr Oz....
But he said today that calling Hdq "anecdotal" is misleading with all the evidence out there now. He is interviewing the top Lupas doctor to discuss the safety of the drug.
If it works, let's use it! And it there seems to be more than enough credible doctors that say it is #1 for their treatment.
But he said today that calling Hdq "anecdotal" is misleading with all the evidence out there now. He is interviewing the top Lupas doctor to discuss the safety of the drug.
If it works, let's use it! And it there seems to be more than enough credible doctors that say it is #1 for their treatment.
Eh. I'm not so sure. By scientific terminology and standards, we're not far at all from anecdotal if we've moved out of the anecdotal realm at all.Quote:
But he said today that calling Hdq "anecdotal" is misleading with all the evidence out there now. He is interviewing the top Lupas doctor to discuss the safety of the drug.
If it works, let's use it! And it there seems to be more than enough credible doctors that say it is #1 for their treatment.
That doesn't mean doctors on the front lines are wrong in using it.
TXAggie2011 said:Eh. I'm not so sure. By scientific terminology and standards, we're not far at all from anecdotal if we've moved out of the anecdotal realm at all.Quote:
But he said today that calling Hdq "anecdotal" is misleading with all the evidence out there now. He is interviewing the top Lupas doctor to discuss the safety of the drug.
If it works, let's use it! And it there seems to be more than enough credible doctors that say it is #1 for their treatment.
That doesn't mean doctors on the front lines are wrong in using it.
We are nowhere near anecdotal. This is a drug that has been used for decades and has known minimal side affects. Is it know to treat Covid 19? No, but it is known that if you take it for a week there is very little downside. That is not anecdotal
Everything in bold is largely to entirely inconsequential to the question as I understood it.Quote:
We are nowhere near anecdotal. This is a drug that has been used for decades and has known minimal side affects. Is it know to treat Covid 19? No, but it is known that if you take it for a week there is very little downside. That is not anecdotal
Now that's clearly an anecdote. And a political one, at that.74Ag1 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/detroit-dem-says-trumps-touting-of-hydroxychloroquine-helped-save-her-life.amp
This whole anecdotal vs. non-anecdotal thing reminds me of the differences between engineers and scientists.
Engineers rely on science but ultimately have to consider real world implications and circumstances while working. Scientists live by the lab and want testing to the umpteenth degree.
Engineers rely on science but ultimately have to consider real world implications and circumstances while working. Scientists live by the lab and want testing to the umpteenth degree.
The proliferation of this attitude among my engineering students at A&M was always disappointing. (I'm an old former engr. prof.) Leads engineers towards sloppiness, among other problems.TheMasterplan said:
This whole anecdotal vs. non-anecdotal thing reminds me of the differences between engineers and scientists.
Engineers rely on science but ultimately have to consider real world implications and circumstances while working. Scientists live by the lab and want testing to the umpteenth degree.
Still, I'm not a stiff and I can appreciate the humor. However, you're off point here. The "anecdotal" folks largely aren't objecting to the use of the drug by the doctors (your engineers). Indeed, there are doctors in this very thread that are using it but have cautioned against overly-characterizing the strength of the evidence. Most/all of the state-level pharmaceutical restrictions are based on supply-side fears, rather than objections on scientific principle.
People are blowing past the nuance of this issue.
I hope the doctor won't mind, but I stole this from InfectionAg_11 in another thread. Its truly elegant.
Quote:
I'm using it on about 70-80% of my COVID patients, so I'm hardly opposed to it. Anecdotally I've seen little benefit thus far, but my overall point is anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all.
That's what engineers do. Bring up anecdotal evidence but hedge against it in some way when presenting to a client when there may not be other solutions at the time. Present the risk and cost as well.TheAngelFlight said:The proliferation of this attitude among my engineering students at A&M was always disappointing. (I'm an old former engr. prof.) Leads engineers towards sloppiness, among other problems.TheMasterplan said:
This whole anecdotal vs. non-anecdotal thing reminds me of the differences between engineers and scientists.
Engineers rely on science but ultimately have to consider real world implications and circumstances while working. Scientists live by the lab and want testing to the umpteenth degree.
Still, I'm not a stiff and I can appreciate the humor. However, you're off point here. The "anecdotal" folks largely aren't objecting to the use of the drug by the doctors (your engineers). Indeed, there are doctors in this very thread that are using it but have cautioned against overly-characterizing the strength of the evidence. Most/all of the state-level pharmaceutical restrictions are based on supply-side fears, rather than objections on scientific principle.
People are blowing past the nuance of this issue.
You're complimenting the doctors by not over-characterizing but that's exactly what engineers do. I think that's the right thing in this issue.
The ones calling for trials etc. when people are dying are the scientists here.
I think you took that "attitude" to heart a little too much. It's certainly a true statement when it comes to working in the real world. You said you're a prof but did you have private experience as well?
Bondag said:TXAggie2011 said:Eh. I'm not so sure. By scientific terminology and standards, we're not far at all from anecdotal if we've moved out of the anecdotal realm at all.Quote:
But he said today that calling Hdq "anecdotal" is misleading with all the evidence out there now. He is interviewing the top Lupas doctor to discuss the safety of the drug.
If it works, let's use it! And it there seems to be more than enough credible doctors that say it is #1 for their treatment.
That doesn't mean doctors on the front lines are wrong in using it.
We are nowhere near anecdotal. This is a drug that has been used for decades and has known minimal side affects. Is it know to treat Covid 19? No, but it is known that if you take it for a week there is very little downside. That is not anecdotal
It's effectiveness against COVID-19 is anecdotal. And there are other illnesses that it is a known treatment for. Suddenly pulling it in large amounts to treat COVID patients when it might or might not be successful may come at the expense of people with those other illnesses who suddenly find their prescriptions are unfillable.
Pelayo said:I hear pharmacist are registering complaints on physicians with the TMB who are ordering for selves/families. Haven't received any comunication from the TMB about Plaquenil specifically. Maybe it was in a bulletin and I missed it?PlanoAg79 said:
A few days ago, my primary care doctor told me he wouldn't be prescribing hydroxychloroquine for his patients because the Texas Medical Board threatened that they would censure doctors that prescribed it. He did indicate that doctors in ER's, ICU's, etc can prescribe it. Doctors on this forum: Did I misunderstand him? Have you heard the same thing from the Texas Medical Board?
https://www.texmed.org/TexasMedicineDetail.aspx?id=53026
Sounds like hoarding going on
Limit scripts to 14 days
My observations are the doctors are calling for trials while using the drug and the scientists are calling for trials while not really objecting to the use of the drug. This debate about the strength of the evidence seems to be much less between MDs and "scientists" but rather between scientists and non-MDs.Quote:
You're complimenting the doctors by not over-characterizing but that's exactly what engineers do. I think that's the right thing in this issue.
The ones calling for trials etc. when people are dying are the scientists here.
I was in private practice shortly before entering academia, maintained a private practice while in academia. I retired from government.
I mean...that's exactly anecdotal.Bondag said:TXAggie2011 said:Eh. I'm not so sure. By scientific terminology and standards, we're not far at all from anecdotal if we've moved out of the anecdotal realm at all.Quote:
But he said today that calling Hdq "anecdotal" is misleading with all the evidence out there now. He is interviewing the top Lupas doctor to discuss the safety of the drug.
If it works, let's use it! And it there seems to be more than enough credible doctors that say it is #1 for their treatment.
That doesn't mean doctors on the front lines are wrong in using it.
We are nowhere near anecdotal. This is a drug that has been used for decades and has known minimal side affects. Is it know to treat Covid 19? No, but it is known that if you take it for a week there is very little downside. That is not anecdotal
DadHammer said:
Watch this.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6147715065001#sp=show-clips
AggieFrog said:It's dangerous for the president to present it as a miracle drug - (his hyping this drug HAS killed people - stupid people, but still). Might it have efficacy - yes and I certainly hope it does. But let's not overhype its effectiveness until we know (and we don't know yet). Looks like most reports say that the benefits are early on, which means we need much more testing than is still currently available for it to be of greatest good if it is proved effective.DadHammer said:
Once you have as many positive results as are being reported it really isn't anecdotal anymore in reality.
Why in the helll would you let people die if there is even a tiny chance this works?
The democrats have killed themselves blocking and trashing this drug just because Trump mentioned it. That's flat out dangerous and they are getting people killed.
There's only been one fatality that we know of that I assume you are referring to Trump causing. And they didn't take this drug, they took aquarium tank cleaner that had this as an ingredient. Let's not twist this.
Saying Trump caused this would be like saying someone drank a bottle of bleach and died because Trump said to drink lots of water because water's an ingredient in a bottle of bleach.
With this logic, OP should get a permaban.AggieFrog said:It's dangerous for the president to present it as a miracle drug - (his hyping this drug HAS killed people - stupid people, but still). Might it have efficacy - yes and I certainly hope it does. But let's not overhype its effectiveness until we know (and we don't know yet). Looks like most reports say that the benefits are early on, which means we need much more testing than is still currently available for it to be of greatest good if it is proved effective.DadHammer said:
Once you have as many positive results as are being reported it really isn't anecdotal anymore in reality.
Why in the helll would you let people die if there is even a tiny chance this works?
The democrats have killed themselves blocking and trashing this drug just because Trump mentioned it. That's flat out dangerous and they are getting people killed.
I waiting for you to post facts on where this drug has killed people other than the lady who killed her husband feeding them fish bowl cleaner. I find it funny how people from both sides who are educated allow their mind to be broken by politics.
AggieFrog said:It's dangerous for the president to present it as a miracle drug - (his hyping this drug HAS killed people - stupid people, but still). Might it have efficacy - yes and I certainly hope it does. But let's not overhype its effectiveness until we know (and we don't know yet). Looks like most reports say that the benefits are early on, which means we need much more testing than is still currently available for it to be of greatest good if it is proved effective.DadHammer said:
Once you have as many positive results as are being reported it really isn't anecdotal anymore in reality.
Why in the helll would you let people die if there is even a tiny chance this works?
The democrats have killed themselves blocking and trashing this drug just because Trump mentioned it. That's flat out dangerous and they are getting people killed.
It's a commonly prescribed drug that's been around for decades. Doctors know the risk profile and it is actually quite low. Acting like the president's touting of the drug is going to make trained medical professionals prescribe it in a dangerous way is asinine. Have more faith in the doctors of America than that.
The antibiotic that is prescribed to work with it may be the single most common prescription in America for upper respiratory infections. Primary care and urgent care centers hand it out like candy. Again, very low risk profile.
What's happened is a bunch of idiot journalists and Twitter freaks Googled the side effects, picked the worst possible ones, and ran with the narrative that they are common and happen all the time.
You're right, lets take that French Doctor out back and beat the crap out of him.AggieFrog said:People are stupid as I noted - how many others have taken it when they shouldn't we don't know, but we do know scrips are way up, so odds are someone has.aggie2812-2 said:
I waiting for you to post facts on where this drug has killed people other than the lady who killed her husband feeding them fish bowl cleaner. I find it funny how people from both sides who are educated allow their mind to be broken by politics.
The president shouldn't be hyping any particular drugs / vaccines without proof of effectiveness. That's not political - that's common sense (or at least should be). We need facts and truth from the office in times of emergency such as this.
why did the WHO pump remdesivir?
I haven't seen any RCT results for that
I think there's a double standard here because Trump is such an *******
I haven't seen any RCT results for that
I think there's a double standard here because Trump is such an *******
Allstar?cone said:
why did the WHO pump remdesivir?
I haven't seen any RCT results for that
I think there's a double standard here because Trump is such an *******
Haven't seen WHO pump remdesivir - link? Where was it pumped?cone said:
why did the WHO pump remdesivir?
I haven't seen any RCT results for that
I think there's a double standard here because Trump is such an *******
It's still anecdotal in terms of talking about it as a medical solution. We don't have studies proving anything at this point.DadHammer said:
Once you have as many positive results as are being reported it really isn't anecdotal anymore in reality.
Why in the helll would you let people die if there is even a tiny chance this works?
The democrats have killed themselves blocking and trashing this drug just because Trump mentioned it. That's flat out dangerous and they are getting people killed.
Read the comments from the doctors posting on this thread and they say pretty much the same thing: this looks promising and I'm not hesitating to use it, but it's also not proven at scale yet and there are potential dangers with it.
The correct answer is something like "We don't have the full picture yet but this looks promising, if you get sick it has potential so talk to your doctor."
Fauci isn't wrong for saying "We don't know yet" and Trump is being a bit reckless by offering his opinions on it as a non-medical professional.
Since the medical drug is only available from a doctor, are you suggesting Dr's aren't smart enough to sift through what the President says and what other Dr's or Scientists are saying?AggieFrog said:
It's dangerous for the president to present it as a miracle drug - (his hyping this drug HAS killed people - stupid people, but still). Might it have efficacy - yes and I certainly hope it does. But let's not overhype its effectiveness until we know (and we don't know yet). Looks like most reports say that the benefits are early on, which means we need much more testing than is still currently available for it to be of greatest good if it is proved effective.