A recent well controlled clinical study conducted by Didier Raoult M.D/Ph.D, et. al in France has shown that 100% of patients that received a combination of HCQ and Azithromycin tested negative and were virologically cured within 6 days of treatment.
In addition, recent guidelines from South Korea and China report that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are effective antiviral therapeutic treatments for novel coronavirus.
A therapeutic agent that prevents infection with novel coronavirus is highly desirable--especially for persons with high-risk exposure (e.g healthcare professionals) as well as persons with comorbidities (heart disease, diabetes, etc) and compromised immune systems. Ground-breaking in vitro studies demonstrate potential efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic for novel coronavirus infection in primate cells.
Note: Hydroxychloroquine (brand name Plaquenil) is an inexpensive, globally available drug (tablet) that was approved for widespread medical use since 1955. It is commonly used today to treat malaria, systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis.
Spez: Some pretty interesting additional information pulled together on the efficacy of quinine here:
I found this to be incredibly interesting, from the above site, the super strong correlation between malaria-prone countries and the apparent lack of Chinese coronavirus infections. Stongly implying that folks receiving anti-malaria vaccinations or medication have a strong resistence or immunity:
"From Facebook, Dr. Roy Spencer adds this new information. On the subject of using antimalarial drugs for COVID-19 treatment, I’ve compared COVID-19 cases versus malaria incidence by country….
This is amazing. I downloaded all of the data for 234 countries, incidence of total COVID-19 cases (as of 3/17/2020) versus the incidence of malaria in those countries (various sources, kinda messy matching everything up in Excel).
RESULTS, Multi-country average malaria cases per thousand, COVID-19 cases per million, in three classes of countries based on malaria incidence:
Top 40 Malaria countries: 212 malaria = 0.2 COVID-19;
Next 40 Malaria countries: 7.3 malaria = 10.1 COVID-19
Again, the units are Malaria cases per thousand “population at risk”, and COVID-19 cases per million total population.
In all my years of data analysis I have never seen such a stark and strong relationship: Countries with malaria basically have no COVID-19 cases (at least not yet)."
He’s a lawyer not a doctor, and a lizard promoter selling patent elixir.
The actual doctors are not making these outlandish claims, they’re just studying it because the know the first was way too small to conclude anything yet.
It's a small sample, but it seems to be exactly what the doctors in the French study are claiming:
The proportion of patients that had negative PCR results in nasopharyngeal samples significantly differed between treated patients and controls at days 3-4-5 and 6 post-inclusion (Table 2). At day6 post-inclusion, 70% of hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were virologicaly cured comparing with 12.5% in the control group (p= 0.001). When comparing the effect of hydroxychloroquine treatment as a single drug and the effect of hydroxychloroquine and azithromyc in combination, the proportion of patients that had negative PCR results in nasopharyngeal samples was significantly different between the two groups at days 3-4-5 and 6 post-inclusion (Table 3). At day6 post-inclusion, 100% of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination were virologicaly cured comparing with 57.1% in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine only, and 12.5% in the control group (p<0.001).
It looks so promising, many other researchers are turning their attention to it in an attempt to recreate their success. Among them the University of Minnesota:
It may well have been peer reviewed and accepted into a journal (though a lot of journals are utter garbage, so that doesn't mean much). Problem is, the actual study doesn't say what he's claiming it says. See my other comment, with choice excerpts from the actual study.
He seemed stunned. I don't blame him, this fellow was going out on a big fucking limb, claiming "Hepatitis C was the first ever virus to be cured, what we're here to announce is the second cure for a virus of all time." It's a hell of a claim to make.
this was mentioned weeks ago, on twatter....i think it was from some of those "rogue" chinese citizens/drs trying to get the word out. i also remember hearing about large amounts of vitamin c & zinc.
Yeah there has been plenty of crap out there. Was it clorox that had to come out and tell people not to drink bleach? This is the first such wild claim I've seen which is lent any kind of credibility. Seems to be on the radar of Ingraham (just saw it), as well as John Roberts (WH press pool) inquiring about it at one of the press conferences today. Sounds promising, needs scrutiny for sure though.
Too bad the actual study he cites says nothing of the sort.
Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms.
Patients were grouped into three categories: asymptomatic, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) when presenting with rhinitis, pharyngitis, or isolated low-grade fever and myalgia, and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) when presenting with symptoms of pneumonia or bronchitis.
So at the start of the study, 6 of the 36 patients were completely asymptomatic and 22 more had only upper respiratory symptoms (no lung involvement).
A total of 26 patients received hydroxychloroquine and 16 were control patients. Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were lost in follow-up during the survey because of early cessation of treatment. Reasons are
as follows: three patients were transferred to intensive care unit, including one transferred on day2 post-inclusion who was PCR-positive on day1, one transferred on day3 post-inclusion who was PCR-positive on days1-2 and one transferred on day4 post-inclusion who was PCR- positive on day1 and day3; one patient died on day3 post inclusion and was PCR-negative on day2; one patient decided to leave the hospital on day3 post-inclusion and was PCR-negative on days1-2; finally, one patient stopped the treatment on day3 post-inclusion because of nausea and was PCR-positive on days1-2-3. The results presented here are therefore those of 36 patients (20 hydroxychloroquine-treated patients and 16 control patients). None of the control patients was lost in follow-up.
We show here that hydroxychloroquine is efficient in clearing viral nasopharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients in only three to six days, in most patients. [nasopharyngeal = not in the lungs]
Well I definitely come to a different conclusion reading this. I don't claim to be any kind of medical expert on anything, I'm looking for scrutiny.
So at the start of the study, 6 of the 36 patients were completely asymptomatic
Why is that discrediting? It just means they were infected without showing symptoms.
22 more had only upper respiratory symptoms (no lung involvement).
Again why is this discrediting? Don't illnesses, particularly viruses, affect people differently? They do characterize those with upper respiratory symptoms as being "infected", and having "infection symptoms", meaning they're all still infected with the same thing, regardless of the specific symptoms or complete lack of symptoms.
So later on in the study:
The proportion of patients that had negative PCR results in nasopharyngeal samples significantly differed between treated patients and controls at days 3-4-5 and 6 post-inclusion (Table 2). At day6 post-inclusion, 70% of hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were virologicaly cured comparing with 12.5% in the control group (p= 0.001). When comparing the effect of hydroxychloroquine treatment as a single drug and the effect of hydroxychloroquine and azithromyc in combination, the proportion of patients that had negative PCR results in nasopharyngeal samples was significantly different between the two groups at days 3-4-5 and 6 post-inclusion (Table 3). At day6 post-inclusion, 100% of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination were virologicaly cured comparing with 57.1% in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine only, and 12.5% in the control group (p<0.001).
I take this to mean that, regardless of symptoms displayed, individuals infected show a cure rate of 70% and 100% when coupled with azithromycin. Going so far as to say "virologicaly cured". Small sample size needing additional testing for sure, but it looks promising to me.
The combination of the two medications seems (if this study can be confirmed) to be somewhat helpful in clearing the viral infection in people who have either no symptoms or only upper respiratory symptoms. Trouble is, most of those people would never have gotten severely ill, much less died, even if they got no treatment at all.
It's not clear what benefit there really is to speeding up viral clearance, beyond allowing people to stop self-isolating a few days earlier. That's a good thing, to be sure, but hardly a huge breakthrough that could significantly change the deadly course of this pandemic. Most of the rushed research/observations on transmission that we've seen so far suggest that asymptomatic people who test positive for the virus have minimal ability to transmit it to other people.
What we urgently need is a way prevent people from dying and/or needing extended periods of intensive care to survive, and it's not clear that this drug combination has any effect at all on meeting that need. This guy running around hollering "100% cure rate" is just being irresponsible. The study he's citing makes no such claims, so we should be asking why he's making them, especially when he knows full well he's communicating to a general audience that will jump to a happy conclusion without checking the facts.
Most people who are asymptomatic or have only upper respiratory symptoms are never going progress to the lung involvement, which is the only thing that kills. Most of them would have gotten well without any treatment whatsoever.
Did the hydroxyquinolone (with or without azithromycin) speed up their clearance of the virus by a few days or even a bit more? Very likely. But this guy is going around claiming the study showed a "100% cure rate", and strongly implying that this is a cure rate for COVID-19, and that this is some huge breakthrough that may end the pandemic. It is not. It's interesting, may be somewhat helpful, and other researchers were already familiar with its effects.
Nothing you said discredits the study, sounds to me you’re a panicky cuck.
We should not be destroying the country for a virus that looks curable, just fucking give this to everyone now. Off-label drugs are often used, no need for years of testing just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
It's apparently not the hydroxychloroquine that kills the virus, it's zinc. HCQ just happens to be one of a number of drugs that moves zinc into cells: without that, circulating zinc in the bloodstream does no good.
It's not an antibiotic, it's an antimalarial. Malaria is caused by an intracellular parasite.
Note that all my wholesalers were sold out of all presentations of HCQ yesterday. I got 2x100 coming in today and who knows when I'll get more.
Here is the study:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/186Bel9RqfsmEx55FDum4xY_IlWSHnGbj/view
This is the site:
https://www.covidtrial.io
The choice quote from the site:
Spez: Some pretty interesting additional information pulled together on the efficacy of quinine here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/17/an-effective-treatment-for-coronavirus-covid-19-has-been-found-in-a-common-anti-malarial-drug/
I found this to be incredibly interesting, from the above site, the super strong correlation between malaria-prone countries and the apparent lack of Chinese coronavirus infections. Stongly implying that folks receiving anti-malaria vaccinations or medication have a strong resistence or immunity:
"From Facebook, Dr. Roy Spencer adds this new information. On the subject of using antimalarial drugs for COVID-19 treatment, I’ve compared COVID-19 cases versus malaria incidence by country….
This is amazing. I downloaded all of the data for 234 countries, incidence of total COVID-19 cases (as of 3/17/2020) versus the incidence of malaria in those countries (various sources, kinda messy matching everything up in Excel).
RESULTS, Multi-country average malaria cases per thousand, COVID-19 cases per million, in three classes of countries based on malaria incidence:
Top 40 Malaria countries: 212 malaria = 0.2 COVID-19;
Next 40 Malaria countries: 7.3 malaria = 10.1 COVID-19
Remaining (81-234) countries: 0.00 malaria = 68.7 COVID-19
Again, the units are Malaria cases per thousand “population at risk”, and COVID-19 cases per million total population.
In all my years of data analysis I have never seen such a stark and strong relationship: Countries with malaria basically have no COVID-19 cases (at least not yet)."
That's a choice quote to be sure. Misleading to the point of being absolutely false.
I have no clue, hoping someone can disprove it if possible. He was claiming it was peer reviewed and accepted in to their journal of medicine.
He’s a lawyer not a doctor, and a lizard promoter selling patent elixir.
The actual doctors are not making these outlandish claims, they’re just studying it because the know the first was way too small to conclude anything yet.
It's a small sample, but it seems to be exactly what the doctors in the French study are claiming:
It looks so promising, many other researchers are turning their attention to it in an attempt to recreate their success. Among them the University of Minnesota:
https://med.umn.edu/news-events/covid-19-clinical-trial-launches-university-minnesota
Probably more, this is one that caught my eye this morning.
Doesn’t the virus only last a few days?
It may well have been peer reviewed and accepted into a journal (though a lot of journals are utter garbage, so that doesn't mean much). Problem is, the actual study doesn't say what he's claiming it says. See my other comment, with choice excerpts from the actual study.
He also said this French microbiologist was the preeminent expert on viruses. I looked this guy Didier Raoult up and he’s legit.
I heard about this anti-viral last night on another show. Apparently it is very common, readily available and cheap. Sounds promising.
'Apparently it is very common, readily available and cheap.'
Just like liberal women
Japan is reporting success and Trump was also speaking with Abe last week https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/coronavirus-covid-19-choroquine-data/
So the next logical question is: Do the Chinese manufacture it? After, of course, verifying it actually does what these folks are claiming.
Its inthe national stockpile for Malaria - 5 cents a pill - Trump will announce tomorrow as a possible cure/preventative
But we'll need a lot more of it.
Same guy was on Ingraham Angle on Monday.
I wonder if the big FDA news that trump mentioned in his tweets and his press conference yesterday has something to do with this.
Further reading on this subject:
Covid19 Drug therapy options
An effective treatment for Covid19 - Stanford
Was Tucker disappointed?
He seemed stunned. I don't blame him, this fellow was going out on a big fucking limb, claiming "Hepatitis C was the first ever virus to be cured, what we're here to announce is the second cure for a virus of all time." It's a hell of a claim to make.
Especially for a lawyer not doctor who talks like a lizard sociopath.
Generic chloroquine is about $2.00-$6.50 per dose, according to a quick google search.
So Michael Bloomberg’s campaign could have purchased between 76 million and 250 million doses for Americans.
"But Muh poor Africans need this medicine"
Good work, thanks.
this was mentioned weeks ago, on twatter....i think it was from some of those "rogue" chinese citizens/drs trying to get the word out. i also remember hearing about large amounts of vitamin c & zinc.
Yeah there has been plenty of crap out there. Was it clorox that had to come out and tell people not to drink bleach? This is the first such wild claim I've seen which is lent any kind of credibility. Seems to be on the radar of Ingraham (just saw it), as well as John Roberts (WH press pool) inquiring about it at one of the press conferences today. Sounds promising, needs scrutiny for sure though.
Please sweet baby Jesus!!!
Too bad the actual study he cites says nothing of the sort.
So at the start of the study, 6 of the 36 patients were completely asymptomatic and 22 more had only upper respiratory symptoms (no lung involvement).
Well I definitely come to a different conclusion reading this. I don't claim to be any kind of medical expert on anything, I'm looking for scrutiny.
Why is that discrediting? It just means they were infected without showing symptoms.
Again why is this discrediting? Don't illnesses, particularly viruses, affect people differently? They do characterize those with upper respiratory symptoms as being "infected", and having "infection symptoms", meaning they're all still infected with the same thing, regardless of the specific symptoms or complete lack of symptoms.
So later on in the study:
I take this to mean that, regardless of symptoms displayed, individuals infected show a cure rate of 70% and 100% when coupled with azithromycin. Going so far as to say "virologicaly cured". Small sample size needing additional testing for sure, but it looks promising to me.
This virus only reproduces in the lungs.
The combination of the two medications seems (if this study can be confirmed) to be somewhat helpful in clearing the viral infection in people who have either no symptoms or only upper respiratory symptoms. Trouble is, most of those people would never have gotten severely ill, much less died, even if they got no treatment at all.
It's not clear what benefit there really is to speeding up viral clearance, beyond allowing people to stop self-isolating a few days earlier. That's a good thing, to be sure, but hardly a huge breakthrough that could significantly change the deadly course of this pandemic. Most of the rushed research/observations on transmission that we've seen so far suggest that asymptomatic people who test positive for the virus have minimal ability to transmit it to other people.
What we urgently need is a way prevent people from dying and/or needing extended periods of intensive care to survive, and it's not clear that this drug combination has any effect at all on meeting that need. This guy running around hollering "100% cure rate" is just being irresponsible. The study he's citing makes no such claims, so we should be asking why he's making them, especially when he knows full well he's communicating to a general audience that will jump to a happy conclusion without checking the facts.
Correct. Why? Because he is a lizard.
Most people who are asymptomatic or have only upper respiratory symptoms are never going progress to the lung involvement, which is the only thing that kills. Most of them would have gotten well without any treatment whatsoever.
Did the hydroxyquinolone (with or without azithromycin) speed up their clearance of the virus by a few days or even a bit more? Very likely. But this guy is going around claiming the study showed a "100% cure rate", and strongly implying that this is a cure rate for COVID-19, and that this is some huge breakthrough that may end the pandemic. It is not. It's interesting, may be somewhat helpful, and other researchers were already familiar with its effects.
Nothing you said discredits the study, sounds to me you’re a panicky cuck.
We should not be destroying the country for a virus that looks curable, just fucking give this to everyone now. Off-label drugs are often used, no need for years of testing just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
Did you actually read the study? The whole thing?
Correct. The promoter is hyping what the doctors aren’t claiming at all.
It's apparently not the hydroxychloroquine that kills the virus, it's zinc. HCQ just happens to be one of a number of drugs that moves zinc into cells: without that, circulating zinc in the bloodstream does no good.
It's not an antibiotic, it's an antimalarial. Malaria is caused by an intracellular parasite.
Note that all my wholesalers were sold out of all presentations of HCQ yesterday. I got 2x100 coming in today and who knows when I'll get more.