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.
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.