• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

Coronavirus Drug: French Researcher Reports Successful Trial Using Malaria Medicine

The results are in on the Texas nursing home using hydroxychloroquine

Postby smix » Wed May 06, 2020 6:52 pm

The results are in on the Texas nursing home using hydroxychloroquine
Hot Air

URL: https://hotair.com/archives/karen-towns ... loroquine/
Category: healthNews
Published: April 17, 2020

Description: Last week I wrote about a doctor who serves as the medical director of a nursing home in Texas City, Texas testing hydroxychloroquine on a group of elderly patients. The test results are in. It’s good news. Dr. Robin Armstrong faced one of the largest outbreaks in the Houston area when 83 people tested positive for COVID-19 at the 135-bed facility in Galveston County. At the time, I wrote that he was treating 30 patients with hydroxychloroquine. Apparently those numbers have shifted. Now it is being reported that 39 elderly people gave Armstrong permission to treat them with hydroxychloroquine. Fifty-six residents contracted the virus. Armstrong wasn’t willing to watch 15% of the nursing home die without doing something. Using President Trump’s line of reasoning – what the hell do you have to lose? – he prescribed the drug. “I thought the risk of seeing 15% of that nursing home die was just not acceptable,” he said of the residents at The Resort at Texas City. Now that the five-day trial is completed, Dr. Armstrong was interviewed this week about the results. At first, he couched his answer by saying “most” of the patients have done well. “And, you know, and I think that that is suggestive that the medication is helpful,” he said. When the reporter pressed him on “most” patients, he explained. “We’ve got one patient now that kind of goes back and forth,” said Dr. Armstrong, “He’s an older gentleman, but we’re kind of nursing him through the process, but he’s getting better.”
Two patients receiving hydroxychloroquine have had to go to the hospital for unrelated conditions, Armstrong disclosed; a woman had a fall and a man got dehydrated in his room because he was not eating and drinking. But for the first time since this treatment began, many of those who have recovered from the virus have been able to go outside and get some fresh air over the last 48 hours, Armstrong said.

So, except for the one elderly man who is being nursed along, the gamble on hydroxychloroquine certainly looks to have paid off. The drug is routinely used to combat malaria and is used by lupus patients, too. Regular users of the drug are facing concerns over shortages now. It’s not an option for those with lupus, it’s a necessity.
“I’ve been on this medication for about 20 years or so,” said Sandy Dixon, who lives in Euless in Tarrant County. Hydroxychloroquine helps her live with lupus, but she says the pills have become harder for her to find since some doctors began using them for coronavirus patients. “I understand for them it’s an ‘if’ but for me it’s not an ‘if’ factor. I need the medicine every day to be able to function.”

Kroger grocery stores have the drug in stock. CVS and Walgreens is limiting it to ensure everyone with a prescription gets it. When asked if he thought the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 would be a politically-motivated question if President Trump had not spoken in favor of it, Armstrong admitted it probably wouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. Opponents of Trump objected to his mentioning the drug as a possible treatment. If Trump had not brought it up, it likely would not be a controversial topic. Armstrong is a Republican activist, serves as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, serves on the advisory board of the Black Voices for Trump coalition and is one of Texas’ two Republican National Committee members.
“When this hydroxychloroquine came out, I was a bit skeptical,” he explained, “because I know the World Health Organization actually was not initially including it in their study, because they didn’t think that it was very effective.”

Dr. Armstrong reminded the reporter that hydroxychloroquine is not a cure for COVID-19. He said in his experience, though, it does reduce the severity of the symptoms.



Actor who contracted coronavirus believes hydroxychloroquine was ‘crucial’ to his recovery
Hot Air

URL: https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/20 ... -recovery/
Category: healthNews
Published: March 23, 2020

Description: Actor Daniel Dae Kim, who has had rolls in Lost and Hawaii Five-0, made news last Thursday when he announced he had tested positive for the coronavirus. Kim made a point of taking issue with President Trump’s use of the phrase “Chinese virus” in his announcement:
“Yes, I’m Asian. And yes, I have coronavirus. But I did not get it from China, I got it in America. In New York City,” Kim said in the Instagram video. “Despite what certain political leaders want to call it, I don’t consider the place where it’s from as important as the people who are sick and dying.” “If I did, I would call this thing the ‘New York virus,’ but that would be silly, right?” he continued.

Today, Kim published a follow-up announcement on his Instagram page in which he says he’s feeling much better and says he considers his doctor’s decision to prescribe him hydroxychloroquine was a key to his recovery.

Daniel-Dae-Kim.jpg

“I’m happy to report that my progress has continued and I feel practically back to normal,” Kim said. A bit later he explained that one of the first questions he was asked when he announced his illness was “What medicines did you take?” After giving a brief disclaimer that his is not a doctor, Kim said he was prescribed a cocktail of drugs including tamiflu, the antibiotic Azithromycin, an inhaler to prevent inflammation, and hydroxychloroquine. “And here’s what I consider to be the secret weapon: hydroxychloroquine,” Kim said. He continued, “This is a common anti-malarial drug that has been used with great success in Korea in their fight against the coronavirus. And yes, this is the drug that the president mentioned the other day. It is also the drug that Dr. Anthony Fauci cautioned us about. “He said that evidence that the drug is promising is anecdotal and that is correct. It means it wasn’t studied and is only based on personal accounts. Well add my name to those personal accounts because I am feeling better.” Later, Kim added, “I won’t say that it’s a cure and I won’t say definitively that you should go out and use it but what I will say is that I believe it was crucial to my recovery.” It’s clear from the clip that Kim is not saying this out of any desire to support President Trump. On the contrary, he’s saying it despite that. Of course, he’s just an actor but he is following the orders of a doctor who seems to believe this works. However, it’s worth noting that the doctor whose name he mentions in this clip below tried to distance himself from this a bit saying he wasn’t the person who prescribed this drug cocktail for Kim:
Wanted to give a shout out to our friend @danieldaekim for sharing his #coronavirus journey to help educate and comfort our very anxious world. I do want to clarify that I was not the doctor who treated him nor did I prescribe the regimen of Tamiflu, Zithromax, and Hydroxychloroquine that he received. I think the initial data on this regimen is very encouraging and while I am hopeful, I think we still need to study this some more. So please do not start taking these meds on your own as there are some potential associated side effects. Above all, do your best to keep your immune systems robust and practice good hygiene and social distancing.

So the debate over the use of this drug goes on. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by two doctors who argued that, while the definite proof of hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness does not exist yet, it should be considered a “first-line treatment.”
We had been using the protocol outlined in the research from China, but we’ve switched to the combination prescribed in the French study. Our patients appear to be showing fewer symptoms. Our experience suggests that hydroxychloroquine, with or without a Z-Pak, should be a first-line treatment. Unfortunately, there is already a shortage of hydroxychloroquine. The federal government should immediately contract with generic manufacturers to ramp up production. Any stockpiles should be released. As a matter of clinical practice, hydroxychloroquine should be given early to patients who test positive, and perhaps if Covid-19 is presumed—in the case of ill household contacts, for instance. It may be especially useful to treat mild cases and young patients, which would significantly decrease viral transmission and, as they say, “flatten the curve.”

The doctors conclude, “We can use this treatment to help save lives and prevent others from becoming infected. Or we can wait several weeks and risk discovering we didn’t do everything we could to end this pandemic as quickly as possible.”
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Hydroxychloroquine and the Political Polarization of Science

Postby smix » Wed May 06, 2020 8:07 pm

Hydroxychloroquine and the Political Polarization of Science
Boston Review

URL: http://bostonreview.net/science-nature- ... -political
Category: Politics
Published: May 4, 2020

Description: How a drug became an object lesson in political tribalism.
On January 29 the Hubei Daily, a state-owned Chinese newspaper based in Wuhan, reported on a promising development. Teams of researchers associated with the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had tested dozens of existing pharmaceuticals for possible efficacy against the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. They had identified three antiviral drugs that seemed to inhibit the virus from reproducing or infecting other cells in a test tube. Within a week the highly regarded journal Cell Research published a peer-reviewed letter by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that reported on two of these in more detail: chloroquine, developed in the 1930s to treat malaria, and remdesivir, a newer drug developed for Ebola. Within days Chinese researchers announced new clinical studies to test these drugs in patients, along with another antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, which is derived from chloroquine and is generally considered safer. The science has continued apace, and results of most of the clinical studies are still pending. In the meantime, something strange happened. It started with a series of tweets. On March 11 an Australian entrepreneur living in China tweeted at a Bitcoin investor that chloroquine would “keep most people out of hospital.” That investor then co-authored and shared a document making the case for chloroquine. On March 16 Elon Musk began tweeting about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine and shared that document. Two days later Tucker Carlson did a segment on Fox News discussing these drugs with one of the document’s co-authors. That same day, March 19, President Trump gave a press conference in which he announced that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine had shown “very, very encouraging” early results. Since then, Trump has repeatedly touted hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 miracle drug. Over the following weeks, the question of whether hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 became a locus for political tribalism and polarization. Trump supporters on social media share evidence, often anecdotal or clinical, that hydroxychloroquine is effective; Trump’s critics share evidence that it is not and argue there are significant costs to promoting an unproven drug. Even traditional media has weighed in. The right-leaning Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by doctors supporting the use of the drug; the left-leaning Washington Post emphasized that there are warnings from medical experts about “dangerous consequences” of using it to treat COVID-19. Of course, polarization is hardly a new phenomenon in the United States. Growing polarization over political values has bled into polarized beliefs about matters of fact, from the relative sizes of Trump and Obama’s inauguration crowds to what the U.S. unemployment rate actually is. And issues of both established and ongoing scientific research are not immune: just consider polarization over global climate change, evolutionary theory, and vaccine safety. With the arrival of COVID-19, new opportunities for polarization have emerged. Recent surveys have found a stark divide, with Democrats consistently expressing greater concern about the seriousness of COVID-19, while Republicans are more likely to think it is exaggerated. More Democrats report taking precautions such as avoiding crowds and washing their hands. And these differences seem to extend to specific matters of fact, such as the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. Yet with all this polarization, there is still something distinctive and puzzling about these disagreements over COVID-19. Most notable cases of polarization over matters of fact have relatively mild day-to-day consequences. Nobody dies from skepticism about evolution. And while skepticism about global climate change or vaccines may ultimately cause significant harms, long time scales in the first case and herd immunity in the second help to protect non-believers from immediate consequences. Given that COVID-19 can kill within a matter of weeks, and that bad choices can put a person in immediate danger, one might think there would not be much room for tribalism. After all, we do not expect polarization over whether, say, drinking antifreeze—or injecting disinfectants, for that matter—is a good idea. Why are we seeing the polarization over hydroxycholorquine, then, in spite of the serious consequences? The explanation may lie in the kind of information available to the public about COVID-19, which differs importantly from what we see in other cases of polarization about science. When it comes to the health effects of injecting disinfectants, there is no uncertainty about the massive risks. And for that reason, we don’t expect polarization to emerge, even if Trump suggests trying it. But even the best information about COVID-19 is in a state of constant flux. Scientists are publishing new articles every day, while old articles and claims are retracted or refuted. Norms of scientific publication, which usually dictate slower timeframes and more thorough peer review, have been relaxed by scientific communities desperately seeking solutions. And with readers clamoring for the latest virus news, journalists are on the hunt for new articles they can report on, sometimes pushing claims into prime time before they’ve been properly vetted. All this means that there is a huge amount of information circulating that has some scientific legitimacy but that may be dramatically underdeveloped and more likely than normal scientific findings to be overturned. Claims about hydroxychloroquine fall into this category. Despite widely reported but hardly definitive recent studies, which Trump’s media critics have latched onto as evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not improve outcomes, the scientific jury is still out. We do not yet know whether hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or other possible treatments are effective for COVID-19. This legitimate uncertainty means that pundits and journalists who treat claims supporting hydroxychloroquine as akin to typical misinformation (or radical conspiracy theories) are misdiagnosing the situation. Trumpeting hydroxychloroquine is undoubtedly risky, both because current evidence is too mixed to support that claim and because it can lead to problems like drug hoarding. But sharing anecdotal accounts of the success of hydroxychloroquine in various clinical settings is not necessarily misinformation—and neither is sharing information about failed clinical trials or shortages for patients who need the drug for other purposes. These are all pieces of evidence that should inform any reasonable person’s beliefs about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19.
--
This is not to say that nothing has gone badly wrong with the public discourse about the drug. Amidst a sea of uncertainty, people are deciding which way to swim by attending to social factors, rather than scientific ones. Part of the reason this happens is that facts can mislead when they are shared with incomplete context or without other relevant facts. Telling one isolated truth, rather than the whole truth, can be just as bad as telling a falsehood. This is especially true for issues related to human health, where data is often messy. Some COVID-19 patients who take hydroxychloroquine will recover; some will die. What is difficult to determine is how many who recover would have recovered anyway, and how many who die after taking the drug would have died anyway. In the absence of high-quality studies, determining the proper context for any fact is exceptionally difficult, and even experts struggle to do it well. The upshot is perhaps counterintuitive: people can wind up misinformed even in the absence of misinformation. Or maybe it is best to think of misinformation as a function of the whole ecology of information available—how it is framed, who shares it, where it gets circulated, and so on—not simply a matter of isolated claims being true or false, more justified or less. In particular, people become misinformed because they tend to trust those they identify with, meaning they are more likely to listen to those who share their social and political identities. When public figures such as Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh make claims about hydroxychloroquine, Republicans are more likely to be swayed, while Democrats are not. The two groups then start sharing different sorts of information about hydroxychloroquine, and stop trusting what they see from the other side. People also like to conform with those in their social networks. It is often psychologically uncomfortable to disagree with our closest friends and family members. But different clusters or cliques can end up conforming to different claims. Some people fit in by rolling their eyes about hydroxychloroquine, while others fit in by praising Trump for supporting it. These social factors can lead to belief factions: groups of people who share a number of polarized beliefs. As philosophers of science, we’ve used models to argue that when these factions form, there need not be any underlying logic to the beliefs that get lumped together. Beliefs about the safety of gun ownership, for example, can start to correlate with beliefs about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When this happens, beliefs can become signals of group membership—even for something as dangerous as an emerging pandemic. One person might show which tribe they belong to by sewing their own face mask. Another by throwing a barbeque, despite stay at home orders. And yet another might signal group membership by posting a screed about hydroxychloroquine. There is nothing about hydroxychloroquine in particular that makes it a natural talking point for Republicans. It could just as easily have been remdesivir, or one of a half dozen other potential miracle drugs, that was picked up by Fox News, and then by Trump. The process by which Trump settled on hydroxychloroquine was essentially random—and yet, once he began touting it, it became associated with political identity in just the way we have described. (That is not to say that Trump and his media defenders were not on the lookout for an easy out from a growing crisis. Political leaders around the world would love to see this all disappear, irrespective of ideology.) Sharing encouraging news about possible treatments for a devastating disease is an appropriate thing for political leaders or public health officials to do under many circumstances. But it must be done with utmost care, not only because the information politicians share may directly influence others’ behaviors in dangerous ways, but also because the very fact that a politician or government expert is perceived as representing a particular political tribe can mean their information becomes attached to their positions in preexisting disagreements. The result is that some substantial portion of the population—and in the case of hydroxychloroquine, we still do not know whether it will be Republicans or Democrats—ends up inappropriately skeptical about an important matter of fact. This tribalism about COVID-19 may be exacerbated by media practices. There is tremendous interest in the disease, and thus tremendous opportunity for journalists to capture readership. Readers are drawn to claims that are surprising and novel, including those that emphasize extreme events. For instance, we see many articles about the most overwhelmed hospitals in the world and the worst-case scenario predictions for COVID-19 deaths, even when many other hospitals in the same regions are not overwhelmed and well-informed predictions of total fatalities vary widely. By contrast, evidence that fits neatly into our current, best theories of COVID-19 is relatively underreported in the mainstream news. This bias toward extremes means that once opposing camps have formed, there is a lot of fodder for each side to appeal to as evidence of bias. Furthermore, with COVID-19, it is often the case that the different groups only trust one of the extremes. Extremity bias can thus amplify polarization, especially in an already factionalized environment. The end result is that even without misinformation, or with relatively little of it, we can end up misinformed. And misinformed decision makers—from patients, to physicians, to public health experts and politicians—will not be able to act judiciously. In the present crisis, this is a matter of life and death. There are no easy solutions to polarization, writ large. Telling journalists not to report on extreme events is hopeless, though we might do well to call for more nuanced and contextualized reporting—telling the whole truth, rather than some isolated part of it. Politicians, for their part, have plenty of incentives for playing up polarization. But individuals, including physicians and others whose expertise we rely on, can resist, by attempting to recognize the ways that their own belief factions may be distorting the evidence they see and trust. Perhaps more importantly, we must recognize that not everything shared or believed by those with whom we disagree is misinformation, even if it later turns out to have been false.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Chloroquine May Fight Covid-19—and Silicon Valley’s Into It

Postby smix » Wed May 06, 2020 8:46 pm

Chloroquine May Fight Covid-19—and Silicon Valley’s Into It
Wired

URL: https://www.wired.com/story/an-old-mala ... s-into-it/
Category: Science
Published: March 19, 2020

Description: The old malaria drug is getting used against the coronavirus. Tech enthusiasts are abuzz. One missing step: clinical trials.
The chatter about a promising drug to fight Covid-19 started, as chatter often does (but science does not), on Twitter. A blockchain investor named James Todaro tweeted that an 85-year-old malaria drug called chloroquine was a potential treatment and preventative against the disease caused by the new coronavirus. Todaro linked to a Google doc he’d cowritten, explaining the idea. Though nearly a dozen drugs to treat coronavirus are in clinical trials in China, just one—remdesivir, an antiviral that was in trials against Ebola and the coronavirus MERS—is in full-on trials in the US. Nothing has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. So a promising drug would be great—and even better, chloroquine isn’t new. Its use dates back to World War II, and it’s derived from the bark of the chinchona tree, like quinine, a centuries-old antimalarial. That means the drug is now generic and is relatively cheap. Physicians understand it well, and they’re allowed to prescribe it for anything they want, not just malaria. Todaro’s tweet got thousands of likes. The engineer/tech world picked up the idea. The widely-read blog Stratechery linked to Todaro’s Google document; Ben Thompson, the blog’s editor, wrote that he was “wholly unqualified to comment” but that the anecdotal evidence favored the idea. Echoing the document, Thompson wrote that the paper was written in consultation with Stanford Medical School, the University of Alabama at Birmingham medical school, and National Academy of Sciences researchers—none of which is exactly true. (More on that in a bit.) One of Todaro’s coauthors, a lawyer named Gregory Rigano, went on Fox News to talk about the concept. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted about it, citing an explanatory YouTube video from a physician who’s been doing a series of coronavirus explainers. To be fair, Musk wasn’t all-in on the idea absent more data, though he wrote that he’d received a life-saving dose of chloroquine for malaria. It’s the definition of “big if true.” Part of the story of Covid-19, of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is that it is novel. Humans don’t have any immunity to it. There’s no vaccine, no drug approved to treat it. But if a drug did exist—if a cheap, easy drug can stave off the worst, ventilator-requiring, sometimes-fatal complications of coronavirus infection, or maybe prevent that infection in the first place, what are we all socially isolating for, like suckers? That if—as the saying goes—is doing a lot of work. The Covid-19 pandemic is causing, reasonably, a worldwide freak-out as scientists and policymakers race to find solutions, not always competently or efficiently. It’s the kind of thing that rankles the engineer-disruptor mindset. Surely this must be an easily solved problem that’s primarily the fault of bureaucracy, regulation, and people who don’t understand science. And maybe the first two things are true. The third thing, though, is where the risks hide. Silicon Valley lionizes people who rush toward solutions and ignore problems; science is designed to find solutions by identifying those problems. The two approaches are often incompatible. What happened here, specifically, is that Rigano sought Todaro out. Todaro’s tweet identified Rigano as being affiliated with Johns Hopkins; Rigano’s LinkedIn profile says he’s on leave from a masters degree program there in bioinformatics, and has been an advisor to a program at Stanford called SPARK, which does translational drug discovery—finding new uses and applications for approved drugs. “I have a very unique background at the crossroads of law and science,” Rigano tells me. “I have been working with large pharmaceutical companies, universities, biotechs, and nonprofits in the development of drugs and medical products.” He says those contacts told him about the use of chloroquine against Covid-19 in China and South Korea, so he started reading up on it. (Johns Hopkins did not return a request for comment; a spokesperson for Stanford Medical School emails: “Stanford Medicine, including SPARK, wasn’t involved in the creation of the Google document, and we’ve requested that the author remove all references to us. In addition, Gregory Rigano is not an advisor with Stanford School of Medicine and no one at Stanford was involved in the study.“) It turns out that people have been pitching chloroquine as an antiviral for years. In the early 1990s researchers proposed it as an adjunct to early protease inhibitor drugs to help treat HIV/AIDS. A team led by Stuart Nichol, the head of the Special Pathogens Unit at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published a paper in 2005 saying that the drug was effective against primate cells infected with SARS, the first big respiratory coronavirus to affect humans. That’s an in vitro test, not live animals—just cells. Nichol didn’t respond to a request for comment, but a CDC spokesperson emailed this: “CDC is aware of reports of various medications being administered for either treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19, including those demonstrating in vitro activity against SARS-CoV- 2. At this time, it is important to ensure robust clinical data, gathered from clinical trials, are obtained quickly in order to make informed clinical decisions regarding the management of patients with COVID-19.” At a World Health Organization press conference in February, a reporter from the fact-checking group Africa Check asked whether chloroquine was an option. Janet Diaz, head of clinical care for the World Health Organization Emergencies Program, answered that WHO was prioritizing a couple of other drugs in testing along with remdesivir, and acknowledged that Chinese researchers were working on even more. “For chloroquine, there is no proof that that is an effective treatment at this time,” Diaz said. “We recommend that therapeutics be tested under ethically approved clinical trials to show efficacy and safety.” Chloroquine and an alternative version called hydroxychloroquine seem to work on viruses by inhibiting a process called glycosylation, a chemical transformation of the proteins in the virus’s outer shell that’s part of the infection process. Chinese researchers have initiated perhaps a half-dozen randomized trials of the two versions in humans and gotten at least some promising initial data. With that data in mind, a French infectious disease researcher named Didier Raoult published a fast review of existing in vitro studies of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and (along with some other researchers) has recommended not only spinning up research in humans but also starting to use the drugs clinically. (Raoult didn’t return a request for comment, but a publicist at the hospital where he works sent a link to a video in which Raoult presents data he says shows efficacy in a small group of actual humans. That data hasn’t been published or peer reviewed.) Except for that video, which hadn’t come out yet, Rigano put all that together and got in touch with Todaro. “I essentially wrote the publication based on my interface with various Stanford researchers and others, and we developed this body of evidence and hardcore science,” Rigano says. “James, Dr. Todaro, was doing the best job, I thought, of anyone in the media, any doctor, any news outlet, anyone on Twitter, of covering coronavirus. I’d been following his research on other items, like decentralized computing, for several years.” Todaro, who got an MD from Columbia and is now a bitcoin investor, was interested enough to collaborate on the document. “I added stuff that pertained more to the medical side of things, and gave a more, I guess, clinical feel to it,” Todaro says. “Something that Big Pharma is not going to like—it’s widely available, it’s pretty cheap, and it’s something that at least a million people are already on. It’s really got a lot of the aspects of something that can be rolled out quickly if the right clinical data is there.” Todaro and Rigano together started talking to Raoult about the small study he was then preparing, and they also called a retired biochemist named Tom Broker. He was originally listed as the first author of the Google doc, his name followed by “(Stanford).” That’s where Broker got his PhD, in 1972, but Broker has been, for years, at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His area of research is adenovirus and human papillomavirus, which have DNA as their genetic material, as opposed to the RNA inside coronaviruses. They’re pretty different. Broker says he wasn’t involved in producing the Google doc and would never advocate the use of a drug without formal trials. Todaro and Rigano have since removed his name from it, at Broker’s request. “I neither contributed to, wrote any part of, nor had knowledge of this google.com document. I have never conducted research on RNA virus pathogens … I have no professional credentials or authority to suggest or recommend clinical trials or practices,” Broker wrote in an email. “Apparently I was inserted as a ‘gratuitous’ author, a practice that I have always avoided over my 53-year career. Moreover, I have never engaged any part of social media, privately or professionally. All of my scientific publications are processed through peer review. I suggest that you communicate with one of the actual authors.” Asked about Broker’s statement, Todaro says that Broker just didn’t want to engage with the attention the idea and document were getting “I don’t personally know Tom Broker. My correspondence has been with Mr. Rigano,” Todaro says. “When we started getting inquiries from the press, my impression was, Mr. Broker got very overwhelmed by that.” Rigano says that was his impression as well. “Dr. Broker is a scientist of the highest order. He’s not used to this type of media attention, so we kind of just have to proceed without him here,” Rigano says. “He’s not ready for the media, becoming a celebrity.” The chloroquine document Todaro and Rigano wrote spread almost—sorry about this—virally. But even though some people are hyping this is a treatment, it still has not yet undergone a large-scale randomized control trial, the gold standard for evaluating whether a medical intervention like a drug actually works. Until that happens, most physicians and researchers would say that chloroquine can’t be any kind of magic bullet. “Many drugs, including chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, work in cells in the lab against coronaviruses. Few drugs have been shown to work in an animal model,” says Matthew Frieman, a microbiologist who studies therapeutics against coronaviruses at the University of Maryland. What happens if you put the drugs into animals? No one knows yet. Probably nothing bad, because they’ve been used for decades. But maybe they don’t actually help a person fight off the virus. Chloraquine’s action, Frieman says, “has been known for some time for other coronaviruses but never developed as a tested therapeutic in humans. There is reason to believe that will change now, along with other therapeutics that have efficacy in the lab.” That’s because the new coronavirus is encouraging research to pick up again on just about anything that has ever shown any effect on coronaviruses, and some new ideas too. Rigano says he and Todaro are now spinning up their own clinical trials, though it isn’t clear how they intend to collect or present the data. They’re hoping to have clinicians enroll as subjects, and they’d then prescribe hydroxychloroquine to themselves as they treat patients with Covid-19. When asked what the control group would be—case-matched physicians who didn’t take the drug, perhaps?—Rigano had a couple of ideas. “You can use historical controls, the rate of medical doctors being infected that were not on hydroxychloroquine regularly. And if there are doctors that would like to participate in the study that would like to not take hydroxychloroquine, they would also be excellent controls,” Rigano says. “Ethically speaking, we don’t want anyone to contract this virus. It’s really a wonderful design.” Rigano says he's talking to staff at four Australian hospitals about spinning up a bigger, randomized trial after the one with volunteer physicians is underway. Rigano and Todaro know that a Google doc shared over Twitter isn’t the way science typically gets done. But they say there’s no time to waste, that the pandemic is moving too fast for traditional science. “That would take months,” Todaro says. “I’d hate to bank on things we would find in months, or a vaccine that comes out in mid to late 2021.” They’re not the only ones with those worries, of course. The latest model from Imperial College London of Covid-19’s progress lays out a worst worst-case scenario that involves millions of deaths, or social distancing and sheltering in place across the planet for more than a year. Social distance might give hospitals a better chance to accommodate and treat the sick, but unsheltering means the disease just comes back. The only things that would shift those outcomes are vaccines or drugs. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine aren’t the only candidates. There’s a protease inhibitor called camostat mesylate that a team of German scientists says works against the mechanism that SARS-CoV-2 uses to attach to the cells it infects. Virologists are pitching nucleoside analog inhibitors—remdesivir is one of these—that screw up the virus’ ability to replicate its RNA. Trials are actually going on—in China—on drugs like darunavir and cobicistat and interferon. And that doesn’t even get into the world of monoclonal antibodies that amp up a person’s own immune system to fight the virus. It’s good that all these things are in the works, and chloroquine’s relatively easy access does make it attractive … but no one knows which of these things is going to help people with Covid-19. All of them have side effects, to greater or lesser extents. Even chloroquine, well known and well tolerated, can cause nausea, heart palpitations, and—at the most extreme—eye damage and hallucinations. Here’s the even deeper irony: Physicians are already using chloroquine anyway, because there’s nothing else yet. President Donald Trump actually mentioned it in a press conference on Thursday, praising the fact that it’s already approved by the FDA, albeit, again, not specifically for Covid-19. “It’s show—encouraging, very, very encouraging early results,” Trump said. “And we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately.” Not only is it already available, as it has been for almost a century, but Covid-19 patients are already getting it. Montefiore Medical Center in New York has already started seeing the surge of Covid-19 patients that public health experts have been warning about. The hospital is participating in the remdesivir trial and is giving Covid-19 patients chloroquine. “All of our patients get put on chloroquine, as well as on antiretrovirals. We’re using Kaletra. Different places are using different antiretrovirals,” says Liise-anne Pirofski, chief of infectious diseases at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore. “Everybody gets that, unless they have some contraindication.” And, according to Axios, the pharmaceutical company Bayer is getting ready to donate some large amount of the drug to the US—unclear what agency, though Axios cites an anonymous source at the Department of Health and Human Services—for use against Covid-19. So it’s entirely possible that the disruptors are right about chloroquine, but wrong about how to prove it. Right now, in the midst of a crisis, they’re on the same page as the front-line practitioners facing a tsunami of sick people and nowhere near enough ventilators to keep them all breathing. Chloroquine has a chance of helping; the doctors are hoping it’ll do no harm.



The Info War Over Chloroquine Has Slowed Covid-19 Science
Wired

URL: https://www.wired.com/story/the-info-wa ... 9-science/
Category: Science
Published: May 1, 2020

Description: There’s been a lot of heat but not much light on whether the antimalarial drug helps coronavirus patients. That’s because we still need a big clinical trial.
On March 9, members of a team of infectious disease researchers based at the University of Minnesota found themselves with four free days. An HIV conference they were supposed to attend had been called off on account of the global pandemic, which gave the group an unusual moment of breathing space. “This was right when community spread was beginning to happen, and we realized it was going to be a problem,” says David Boulware, a physician and leader of the group. “We wanted to focus on prevention and early treatment. At the time, no one was really doing that.” Even then, research interest was circling around the decades-old antimalarial drugs chloroquine and its cousin, hydroxychloroquine. Silicon Valley hadn’t yet turned its disrupt-o-vision on the drugs, but they killed the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the lab, and a small, preliminary study in China seemed to suggest they worked in actual people too. Because physicians were already allowed to prescribe the drugs—for malaria and immune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus—they were starting to use it, Hail Mary–style, on Covid-19 patients in the hospital. It was, in short, worth a look. But not, in Boulware’s mind, for people so sick they were already hospitalized. “Late-stage severe disease, there’s a lot of things going on with the virus and the immune system. We realized six weeks ago hydroxychloroquine probably didn’t work then,” he says. But what about if it was prescribed early, to prevent people from getting the disease, or from getting very sick if they did? The team put together a plan for a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial—hydroxychloroquine versus a placebo. The US Food and Drug Administration gave them an Investigational New Drug approval to use the stuff in this new way. Just eight days after coming up with the idea, Boulware and his team enrolled the first subject into the trial, which is asking if the drug can help people in the early stages of Covid-19 infection and protect at-risk people such as health care workers and people taking care of infected family members. And then things got more complicated. The day before that first subject signed up, on March 16, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted about the drug, sparking interest among the crowd that wants to extend its life with metformin and blood from young people. Three days later, President Donald Trump said during a Covid-19 press briefing that he thought the drugs “could be something very, very incredible,” sparking a run on pharmacies. Whether someone believed the drugs worked against Covid-19 came to be a symbol of how they felt about the president. And all that happened without any real, solid scientific results. As of now, no one really knows if hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine help fight Covid-19. And an information war is hindering the struggle to find out. It’s not implausible that chloroquine could be helpful. As early as 2005, research showed that—in a laboratory mix of African green monkey cells, at least—it inhibits the virus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, a coronavirus related to the one that causes Covid-19. The drug kept cells from becoming infected and helped them fight off infection as well—a preventative and a therapy. Researchers even worked out its mechanism. A coronavirus anchors onto a cell via a specific docking port, a receptor called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Chloroquine seems to keep this ACE2 docking port from opening and also make the interior of cells less acidic, and so less friendly to the virus once it gets inside. Sounds good, right? So much so, in fact, that as The Washington Post reported, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison lobbied President Trump to build a national system for monitoring the drug. A family doctor in New York named Vladimir Zelenko started getting national attention for a series of videos he made touting the success of a protocol of his own devising against Covid-19, combining hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc. Fox News picked up on the president’s early cheerleading, and started talking about the drugs as well. By the end of March, the president was tweeting that hydroxychloroquine in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin could be “a game changer.” The US Department of Health and Human Services started adding millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine to the Strategic National Stockpile of drugs for eventual distribution to states. The FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization telling physicians they could prescribe the drug to people hospitalized for Covid-19. (Many already were; it’s relatively cheap, already in the pharmacopeia, and they didn’t have anything else.) Demand for hydroxychloroquine spiked to such an extent that people who depend on it to treat their rheumatoid arthritis or lupus started to worry that they wouldn’t be able to get it. The evidence wasn’t as hot as the market. Unorthodox research methods and a seeming rush to publication, or even prepublication, muddied the situation. Early studies from an infectious disease researcher named Didier Raoult, director of the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases in Marseille, seemed promising, albeit un-peer reviewed. On March 20, Raoult’s group published a second trial as a preprint and then in a peer-reviewed journal: a non-randomized, open-label trial. Instead of following the gold-standard protocol for testing drugs against diseases, the researchers simply gave Covid-19 patients the drugs and then monitored their viral counts, comparing them to Covid-19 patients elsewhere who didn’t get the drug. No placebo, no double-blinding. (Raoult has said in interviews that he doesn’t think randomization is necessary in infectious-disease drug research.) The larger research community and scientific watchdogs quickly tore into Raoult’s methodology. The data seemed sketchy to them—not every patient who died was accounted for, and the comparisons among the groups weren’t rigorous. Some of the math behind the statistical analysis didn’t work out. And the paper itself seemed to cruise through ethical gatekeeping and peer review too quickly. The publishers of the journal, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and Elsevier, would eventually issue a joint statement expressing “concern” with the research. “The French stuff was low quality in terms of evidence of whether this thing works or not,” says Walid Gellad, head of the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh. Of course, Raoult wasn’t the only scientist on the case. Chinese researchers had been studying chloroquine since early on in their experience with the pandemic. But few published results, it seems. According to one, a randomized controlled trial with 30 subjects in the early stages of Covid-19 infections published in the Journal of ZheJiang University, roughly the same number of people improved whether they were on the drug or not. Those who had taken hydroxychloroquine showed moderate benefits in terms of lung damage seen on a CT scan. “There was a small trial in China that showed it did have an effect—a randomized trial showing an effect in some measures, when given early,” Gellad says. Meanwhile, other clinical trials are spinning up. The World Health Organization’s Solidarity trial of Covid-19 treatments and the United Kingdom’s Recovery trial both include tests of hydroxychloroquine. Around the world, nearly 150 are either underway or set to begin soon. As that global race to investigate the drug began, though, it hit what looked like speed bumps. In late April, a preprint—no peer review—detailed results for 368 people treated for Covid-19 in Veterans Affairs hospitals with hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, or none of the above. The drug didn’t reduce the risk of being put on a ventilator, and it slightly increased the chances people would eventually die of the disease. Suggestive, and not in a good way. And then the results of a Brazilian trial of chloroquine in people hospitalized with severe Covid-19 seemed to sap even more momentum. A safety committee actually stopped that randomized, double-blind study early. Nearly 40 percent of the people receiving a very high dose of chloroquine had died, and many showed a heart problem called QT interval prolongation, a known side effect of the drug and one potentially made worse when it’s used in combination with azithromycin. On April 24, the FDA issued a new statement—a Drug Safety Communication—warning that physicians shouldn’t prescribe the drugs to people outside a hospital or trial. The FDA had also received more “adverse event” reports on the drugs, primarily related to heart problems. “While we are unable to offer more specifics on the small number of cases we have reviewed at this time, we will continue to investigate the risks associated with the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 and will share any additional information or analysis publicly as we’re able,” the statement read. Sounds bad, right? Except … again, the research wasn’t clear. The VA study was retrospective, and small. That Brazilian study was only of very sick people, exactly the group that big studies like Boulware’s and the international trials planned to exclude on the grounds that they’re probably too sick to help. (Or, perhaps more importantly, it would be too hard for researchers to disaggregate the effects of the drugs from everything else going on in those people’s bodies.) And that high dose of the drug? It was really high—600 mg twice a day for people in the high-dose arm of the trial, and on the low-dose arm 450 mg twice a day on the first day and then once thereafter. That’s compared to a recommended 400 mg twice a day for one day and then once thereafter in US protocols. “What’s being used in the US is much more like the low-dose arm, and there are no issues,” Gellad says. “The high-dose arm had people with other risk factors. It doesn’t tell us much about the way it’s going to be used in the US.” As for the FDA’s caution? “I think what’s happened is there’s been a lot of promotion of this drug as a cure-all by politicians and by the media. And, parenthetically, at the same time there’s been a lot of unnecessary vilification of the drugs,” Gellad says. “The reality is, there’s a ton of uncertainty … My guess is the FDA wanted to pull back on the idea that the government was promoting the use of this drug, not pushing this therapy but being very responsible, using it in clinical trials.” The FDA wanted to remind primary care physicians that while they were allowed to prescribe these drugs off-label, they had real side effects—and that some people who don’t have Covid-19 infections really need them for other reasons. “We understand that health care professionals are looking for every possible treatment option for their patients, and we want to ensure we’re providing them with the appropriate information needed for them to make the best medical decisions,” FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn said via press release. “While clinical trials are ongoing to determine the safety and effectiveness of these drugs for Covid-19, there are known side effects of these medications that should be considered.” The agency also didn’t want to step on ongoing research. Yet the ongoing back-and-forth about safety and efficacy has done exactly that. As soon as the drug hit the Strategic National Stockpile and started making its way to state hoards and the medicine cabinets of the worried well, “our enrollment started to tank,” Boulware says. Remember, being in a randomized controlled trial means you have a good chance of being in the placebo group—of not getting the drug. Trials aren’t meant to treat people; they’re meant to advance science. With so much positive spin, Boulware says, people figured: “Hey, it clearly works. Why would you be in a randomized controlled trial?” A clinical trial might not help each person, but it does help everyone; without them, no one can know if the drugs actually work. Boulware’s group has 1,200 people enrolled already, but they need 180 more. And he’s having a hell of a time getting them signed up. So far, Boulware says, no one in the study has had any safety issues remotely like what the Brazilians experienced—probably because of the lower dose. Yet the fights over hydroxychloroquine continue, on the internet and in real life. If the drug works, some partisans argue, it’s wrong to delay its widespread use by waiting for results; if it doesn’t, it’s wrong to even try it on people. “The social media perspective is: About half of people think it’s an unethical trial because it clearly works, and the other half thinks it's clearly dangerous and we shouldn’t do it,” Boulware says. “We’re just trying to get the answer. Having a solid study design and having the actual answer is really important for both the country and the world, and that’s our goal.” Meanwhile, though, it’s important to remember that nobody actually knows that answer. The Silicon Valley adherents insisting that the problem with the negative results thus far is that researchers tested the wrong kind of people, or used the wrong dose, or didn’t use zinc—they don’t have the data that can say whether any of that is true. The people saying that hydroxychloroquine is clearly unsafe, or that it can’t possibly work? They don’t have that data, either. Nobody does. The studies aren’t finished. “It’s going to be May 1, and we still don’t know if it works. It’s a giant failure,” Gellad says. “We should have had an answer. All you need is a randomized controlled placebo trial with 1,000 patients, and we’d know.” The president’s unjustified early enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine (and his equally unjustified apparent abandonment of the idea) didn’t translate into a centralized, rapid-response study to determine the actual truth. The National Institutes of Health didn’t spin one up until the first week of April, a month after Boulware launched his. “Ideally, you would think, this is a national emergency and there would be coordination centrally, at the federal government level,” Boulware says. “The UK put together a nationwide trial for treatment. We weren’t able to do that.” But if we were? Imagine the satisfaction of knowing a true fact—of being able to help sick people, or knowing that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help and being able to move on. Imagine, if you can, being able to decisively win a fight on Twitter.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Italy Finally Starts Mass Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine

Postby smix » Thu May 07, 2020 12:04 am

Italy Finally Starts Mass Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine
Trustnodes

URL: https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/03/29/i ... hloroquine
Category: healthNews
Published: March 29, 2020

Description: Doctors in Italy have finally began widely prescribing hydroxychloroquine in certain combinations in Rome and the wider region of Lazio with a population of around six million. According to Corriere della Sera, a well known Italian daily newspaper, Dr. Pier Luigi Bartoletti, Deputy National Secretary of the Italian Federation of General Practitioners, explains that every single person with Covid-19 that has early signs, like a cough or a fever for example, is now being treated with the anti-malaria drug. The drug “is already giving good results,” Bartoletti says while Malaysia reveals they have been using it since the very beginning. Bartoletti further adds that the drug: “Must be used with all the necessary precautions, it must be evaluated patient by patient. It can have side effects. But those that take it are responding really well. We have just understood that the virus has an evolution in two phases and that it is during the second phase, after a few days (about a week), that the situation can suddenly, in 24 or 48 hours, worsen and leads to respiratory failure requiring intensive care. The results that we are starting to accumulate suggest that hydroxychloroquine administered early, gives the possibility of avoiding this evolution in a majority of patients and is also helping us to prevent hospitals from filling up.” Incredible. What is more incredible are the statements of Professor Christian Perronne, Head of the Infectious Diseases Department at the Garches University Hospital, made in an interview with a French weekly magazine. Referring to the European Discovery trial in which UK is taking part with only 800 patients, Perronne says: “I refused to participate because this study provides for a group of severely ill patients who will only be treated symptomatically and will serve as control witnesses against four other groups who will receive antivirals. It is not ethically acceptable to me. We could perfectly well, in the situation we are in, evaluate these treatments by applying a different protocol. In addition, the hydroxychloroquine group (which was added to this study at the last minute), should be replaced by a hydroxychloroquine group plus azithromycin, the current reference treatment according to the most recent data. Finally, the protocol model chosen will not provide results for several weeks. Meanwhile, the epidemic is galloping. We are in a hurry, we are at war, we need quick assessments.” America is to start yet another study which is to take one month even while one thousand people or more are dying worldwide today. In Italy however doctors are finally not waiting anymore with Perronne saying: “Even though the overwhelming evidence from large randomized studies is still lacking, I am in favor of a broad prescription for the following reasons:
1. We have a large body of evidence showing that in vitro hydroxychloroquine blocks the virus. We also have several clinical results indicating that this product is beneficial if administered early and we have no mention that it harms or is dangerous in this infection (only one study, poorly detailed, Chinese, on 30 patients with control group, did not observe any benefits but also no harmful effects). What is the risk of administering chloroquine straight away: nothing!
2. This drug is very inexpensive 3. It is well tolerated in long-term treatment. Personally, I have successfully used it clinically in the chronic form of Lyme disease for 30 years at a dose of 200 mg or even 400 mg/day.
I and hundreds of other doctors are able to judge its excellent tolerance in humans. The main contraindications are severe retinal and unbalanced heart disease. Cardiovascular events remain exceptional if care is taken: to proscribe self-medication – to check with the elderly taking a lot of drugs that there are no drug interactions (with long-term diuretics in particular) and that the rate of blood potassium is within the norm. Apart from these precautions, the undesirable effects are minor. They are even more so as the treatment is short, which is the case against Covid-19. It would therefore be wise to produce hydroxychloroquine in very large quantities without further delay, to make it easily accessible to infected people… I note that Italy has just authorized the wide distribution of hydroxychloroquine on medical prescription from the start of the infection and that other countries are preparing to do the same. What are we waiting for? To have more dead?” Incredibly the doctor says in regards to this European study for which we have to wait six weeks (and as a note all these quotes are from a rough translation): “There will be nothing to hope from this study concerning hydroxychloroquine is administered too late. The protocol indicates that the product can be given only if the oxygen saturation of patients is less than 95%, that is to say patients with a massive oxygen supply or who must be put on artificial ventilation. This is not the right indication.” As the doctor said above, treatment needs to be given early to stop the second phase from kicking in as that is what is causing hospitalization and in some cases even death. Quite interestingly, now that they have began treatment, Corriere della Sera has just tweeted: “Contagions in decline in Lombardy.” So hopefully UK, US and other countries will now learn from Italy and get this early treatment out there before deaths reach Italy levels or even more for USA as they will if people are not treated, but with early treatment this should be contained as in South Korea and many other countries where they have been giving early treatment from nearly the very beginning.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Coronavirus: Turkey says hydroxychloroquine dramatically reduces pneumonia cases

Postby smix » Thu May 07, 2020 12:33 pm

Coronavirus: Turkey says hydroxychloroquine dramatically reduces pneumonia cases
Middle East Eye

URL: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/coro ... t-progress
Category: healthNews
Published: April 8, 2020

Description: Most coronavirus patients taken to intensive care or put on ventilators are there because they have developed pneumonia
Turkey has made significant progress in treating coronavirus patients in the early stages of the disease with the controversial malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, Turkish officials have said. “Turkey had stockpiled one million units of them before the first case appeared in the country,” Turkish Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said on Tuesday evening in a live broadcast, without specifying the name of the drug. A senior Turkish official with knowledge of the stockpile told Middle East Eye that the drug was hydroxychloroquine and that it was being sold under the brand name Plaquenil. “Many countries prescribe this drug to intubated patients,” Koca said. “However, our science board suggested that the drug is really beneficial in the early stages to prevent the spread of the virus in the body.” The health minister reminded viewers that one of the fundamental features of the disease was lung infection. “We believe beginning early treatment [with this drug] played a big role in reducing the rate of lung infection among the patients,” he said. Ever since US President Donald Trump promoted the drug as a “game-changer” for treating patients, medical professionals around the world have expressed mixed views on its use. Trump’s comments followed clinical research by French doctor Didier Raoult, who claimed that he saw promising results on a small sample of patients in February. However, Raoult’s research has come under fire over its methodology. Many doctors argue that the drug has not been tested enough yet to be used to treat coronavirus patients. However, earlier this month, doctors in China reported that hydroxychloroquine had helped to speed up the recovery of some patients who had mild symptoms.
Dramatic fall in pneumonia rates
The Turkish official told MEE that the drug was effective against pneumonia, which is seen as among the leading causes of death for coronavirus patients. Most of the patients taken to intensive care or who are put on ventilators are there because they have developed pneumonia. “The minister, instead of underlying the importance of the drug itself, has pointed out the benefit of using the drug in the early stages, before the patient becomes severely ill,” the official said. Statistics released by the Turkish health ministry on Tuesday showed that since beginning the treatment, new cases of lung disease among coronavirus patients have greatly decreased. On 24 March, 60 percent of coronavirus cases registered were patients with pneumonia, while on 6 April that had fallen to 19.5 percent. The Turkish Clinical Microbiology and Infection Diseases Association (KLIMIK) said last month that data on the use of the drug was still limited, and warned that it should not be used as a prophylaxis (a treatment given to prevent a disease). “It should be appropriate to use it in the early stages for some of the coronavirus patients with symptoms,” the statement said. The association warned that it would not be appropriate to use the drug for medical workers to protect themselves before engaging with the virus.
Mandatory confinement extended
Koca said hospitals in Turkey had enough stocks of the drug and that the country was in a better state than many Western nations. “Our intensive care units capacity is only at 62 percent use. Even the use of bed capacity hasn't reached 50 percent,” he said. Turkey announced on Tuesday that 76 more people died from the disease in the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 725. The health ministry said that 3,892 more patients had tested positive, the highest in a single day so far, with the surge in numbers taking the total to 34,109 cases. However, health officials said given the increase in the numbers of daily tests, which reached 20,023 on Tuesday, the new number of infections was not a matter of concern because the numbers were stalling. The country has conducted 222,868 tests so far. Since the virus reached Turkey, the government has unleashed an array of measures aimed at curbing its spread, including closing down schools, universities and cafes, banning congregational prayers, indefinitely postponing sporting events and suspending flights to many countries. Last week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan extended a mandatory confinement order for everyone under the age of 20, but stopped short of declaring a complete lockdown. The government earlier imposed a curfew on senior citizens above the age of 65.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Russia to treat virus cases with anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine

Postby smix » Thu May 07, 2020 12:40 pm

Russia to treat virus cases with anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine
Financial Express

URL: https://www.financialexpress.com/lifest ... e/1931775/
Category: healthNews
Published: April 17, 2020

Description: (AFP) - The government published an order late Thursday allowing the use of hydroxychloroquine on patients after China donated more than 68,000 packs of the tablets to Russia. The Russian government has authorised the use of an anti-malarial drug to treat coronavirus patients despite international concerns over its safety and effectiveness. The government published an order late Thursday allowing the use of hydroxychloroquine on patients after China donated more than 68,000 packs of the tablets to Russia. The order was published after President Vladimir Putin had a phone conversation with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday evening. It said the drug would be distributed to hospitals that are caring for patients who have tested positive for coronavirus or are suspected of having it. It said the drug’s safety and effectiveness will be monitored by the state health watchdog. Hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades against malaria and is being tested worldwide against the virus along with another anti-malarial drug, chloroquine. Both have potentially serious side effects, especially in high doses or when administered with other medications, and their use to treat the virus is still experimental, without having gone through exhaustive clinical testing. Some see them as a potential weapon in the fight against the virus while there is still no proven cure or vaccine. Hydroxychloroquine has shown early promise against COVID-19 in small-scale studies in France and China to reduce virus levels among people badly infected. US President Donald Trump has touted it as a coronavirus treatment and in the US a limited emergency-use authorisation has been granted to the drug. But many scientists are urging caution until larger trials show whether it is safe and effective. The European Medicines Agency has said that both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine need to go through clinical trials and should not be used to treat virus cases unless there is a “national emergency.”
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

The Effect of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin on the Corrected QT Interval in Patients w/ SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Postby smix » Thu May 07, 2020 6:33 pm

The Effect of Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin on the Corrected QT Interval in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection
American Hearth Association Journals

URL: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161 ... 120.008662
Category: healthNews
Published: April 29, 2020

Description: Abstract
Background - The novel SARs-CoV-2 coronavirus is responsible for the global COVID-19 pandemic. Small studies have shown a potential benefit of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19. Use of these medications alone, or in combination, can lead to a prolongation of the QT interval, possibly increasing the risk of Torsade de pointes (TdP) and sudden cardiac death.
Methods - Hospitalized patients treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin from March 1st through the 23rd at three hospitals within the Northwell Health system were included in this prospective, observational study. Serial assessments of the QT interval were performed. The primary outcome was QT prolongation resulting in TdP. Secondary outcomes included QT prolongation, the need to prematurely discontinue any of the medications due to QT prolongation and arrhythmogenic death.
Results - Two hundred one patients were treated for COVID-19 with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Ten patients (5.0%) received chloroquine, 191 (95.0%) received hydroxychloroquine and 119 (59.2%) also received azithromycin. The primary outcome of TdP was not observed in the entire population. Baseline QTc intervals did not differ between patients treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (monotherapy group) vs. those treated with combination group (chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) (440.6 ± 24.9 ms vs. 439.9 ± 24.7 ms, p =0.834). The maximum QTc during treatment was significantly longer in the combination group vs the monotherapy group (470.4 ± 45.0 ms vs. 453.3 ± 37.0 ms, p = 0.004). Seven patients (3.5%) required discontinuation of these medications due to QTc prolongation. No arrhythmogenic deaths were reported.
Conclusions - In the largest reported cohort of COVID-19 patients to date treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine {plus minus} azithromycin, no instances of TdP or arrhythmogenic death were reported. Although use of these medications resulted in QT prolongation, clinicians seldomly needed to discontinue therapy. Further study of the need for QT interval monitoring is needed before final recommendations can be made.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey

Postby smix » Fri May 08, 2020 8:25 am

Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey
Washington Times

URL: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... herapy-do/
Category: healthNews
Published: April 2, 2020

Description: Drug known for treating malaria used by U.S. doctors mostly for high-risk COVID-19 patients
An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors released Thursday found that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus. The survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options. Of the physicians surveyed, 3,308 said they had either ordered a COVID-19 test or been involved in caring for a coronavirus patient, and 2,171 of those responded to the question asking which medications were most effective. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave chloroquine and its next-generation derivative, hydroxychloroquine, emergency-use authorization Monday for treating the novel coronavirus, although the drug was already being used off-label by some doctors and hospitals for COVID-19 patients. The survey also found that the most commonly prescribed treatments are analgesics (56%), azithromycin (41%) and hydroxychloroquine (33%). Azithromycin, known by the brand name Zithromax or Z-Pak, was rated the second-most effective therapy at 32%, followed by “nothing,” analgesics (including acetaminophen), anti-HIV drugs and cough medicine. Hydroxychloroquine, which is sold under the brand name Plaquenil, was prescribed mainly in the United States for the most severe cases, but not so in other countries. “Outside the U.S., hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients,” the survey found. The 30 nations surveyed included those in Europe, Asia, North America and South America, as well as Australia. No incentives were provided to participate in the poll, conducted March 25-27, according to Sermo.
ANNOUNCEMENT: To create a centralized & dynamic knowledge base we published results of our COVID-19 study, which over 6.2K physicians in 30 countries participated in:
— Sermo (@Sermo) April 2, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine usage was most widespread in Spain, where 72% of physicians surveyed said they had prescribed it, followed by Italy at 49%, and least popular in Japan, where 7% had used it to treat COVID-19. The poll found 23% of U.S. medical professionals had prescribed the drug, which has been FDA-approved for malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Debate about hydroxychloroquine has raged in the United States since President Trump touted it two weeks ago as a potential “game-changer” in the fight against the deadly pandemic, prompting critics to accuse him of peddling unproven remedies, or “snake oil,” as USA Today put it.
Trump-touted malaria drug takes center stage in coronavirus treatment fracas - @washtimes #hydroxychloroquine #chloroquine #COVID19
— Valerie Richardson (@ValRichardson17) April 2, 2020

Sermo CEO Peter Kirk called the polling results a “treasure trove of global insights for policy makers.” “Physicians should have more of a voice in how we deal with this pandemic and be able to quickly share information with one another and the world,” he said. “With censorship of the media and the medical community in some countries, along with biased and poorly designed studies, solutions to the pandemic are being delayed.” The survey also found that 63% of U.S. physicians believe restrictions should be lifted in six weeks or more, and that the epidemic’s peak is at least 3-4 weeks away. The survey also found that 83% of global physicians anticipate a second global outbreak, including 90% of U.S. doctors but only 50% of physicians in China. On average, U.S. coronavirus testing takes 4-5 days, while 10% of cases take longer than seven days. In China, 73% of doctors reported getting rest results back in 24 hours. In cases of ventilator shortages, all countries but China said the top criteria should be patients with the best chance of recovery (47%), followed by patients with the highest risk of death (21%), and then first responders (15%). In China, the survey said doctors prioritized patients at greatest risk of death.



Trump-touted malaria drug front and center in coronavirus treatment fight
Washington Times

URL: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... oronaviru/
Category: healthNews
Published: April 1, 2020

Description: A 65-year-old drug used mainly for treating malaria has suddenly become the world’s most hotly debated pharmaceutical, thanks to the novel coronavirus and President Trump. Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared chloroquine and its next-generation derivative, hydroxychloroquine, for treating COVID-19, social media has been ablaze with warnings about the drug’s potentially deadly side effects. “Human beings are not guinea pigs. We took a solemn oath to ‘first, do no harm,’” tweeted Dr. Eugene Gu, a prominent Trump critic. “That means not testing drugs that have deadly side effects without any proven benefit against the coronavirus with no evidence from clinical trials. This is the most basic rule of ethics in medicine.” Both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine come with a risk of sudden drug-induced cardiac arrest for those with prolonged QTc, a lengthier-than-normal interval between heartbeats as shown on an electrocardiogram [ECG], said Dr. Michael J. Ackerman, a genetic cardiologist and director of Mayo Clinic’s Windland Smith Rice Sudden Death Genomics Laboratory. “The patient’s QTc value reflects the health of the heart’s electrical recharging system,” said Dr. Ackerman. “If the QTc is prolonged, it indicates that the system is inefficient or pokey, and in that setting, if QT-prolonging medications like hydroxychloroquine are added to the mix, that can be a dangerous and even deadly combination.” He said the good news is that the danger of such reactions is “really rare” and can be mitigated. How rare? “About 90% of us would be absolutely fine being exposed to these medications,” said Dr. Ackerman. “Five to 10% of us would be at increased risk where I would want my physician to make some adjustments … and 1% of us are at significantly increased risk for this tragic side effect.” Taking azithromycin with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, as some U.S. medical centers are now recommending to treat COVID-19, can exacerbate the situation. The solution begins with awareness. Even before the FDA took action, Mayo Clinic Proceedings published an “urgent guidance” for health-care providers recommending that they identify at-risk patients and determine their “baseline QTc status,” either by using an ECG or a mobile device, such as AliveCor’s KardioMobile 6L, which recently received FDA emergency clearance. Instead of being unaware or resigned to the side effects — or too “QT paranoid” to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 — Dr. Ackerman recommended that medical professionals be aware of the issue and navigate it. “Even if you are in that 1%, that doesn’t mean that sudden cardiac death is around the corner,” Dr. Ackerman said. “It just means that your risk has increased enough that there had better be a tremendous amount of respect and awareness given to this QTc issue.” A COVID-19 vaccine is at least 12 to 18 months away, but there is hope that hydroxychloroquine “may have life-saving therapeutic efficacy against COVID-19,” said the Mayo Clinic guidance. “And if it does, we hope that this simple QTc surveillance strategy, enabled by innovation and FDA’s emergency approval, will help prevent altogether or at least significantly reduce the number of drug-induced ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac deaths,” said the guidance. After Mr. Trump touted hydroxychloroquine two weeks ago as a potential “game changer,” reaction has ranged from fans celebrating the drug as a savior to critics blasting the president for pushing “snake oil,” as a USA Today editorial put it. At least two states with Democratic governors — Michigan and Nevada — have issued restrictions on the antimalarial drugs, citing concerns about hoarding as well as the lack of clinical evidence on their efficacy in treating the novel coronavirus. After the FDA authorization, however, the Michigan Health and Human Services Department changed course. “Based on the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization to allow the use of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) for certain patients with COVID-19, we are pursuing a request for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine from SNS,” said Lynn Sutfin, Michigan HHS spokesperson, in an email. Last week, the state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs warned doctors against prescribing the drugs, citing lack of evidence about their efficacy against COVID-19 and reports of stockpiling, adding that reports of such conduct “may be further investigated for administrative action.” Pharmacists were also instructed not to fill prescriptions if they believed they could be used for reasons “other than legitimate medical purposes” or “cause harm to a patient,” adding that medical providers had an obligation to report “inappropriate prescribing practices.” The Trump administration said it had received 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated by Sandoz and one million doses of chloroquine phosphate donated by Bayer Pharmaceuticals for the national stockpile of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. At a Monday press conference, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said her administration needed to be “nimble in this crisis,” adding that “we are continually updating and adjusting as we need to.” “We want to ensure that doctors have the ability to prescribe these medicines,” Ms. Whitmer said. “We also want to make sure that people who have prescriptions that predated COVID-19 have access to the medication that they need. And so all of the work that we’ve done is trying to strike that balance.” Most of the evidence behind using hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 is anecdotal, although small studies out of France and China have found the drug to be beneficial. A study published Wednesday in medRXiv by Chinese researchers found that in a trial of 62 COVID-19 patients, the duration of coughing and fever were “significantly shortened” in the hydroxychloroquine treatment group, although two suffered “mild adverse reactions.” The research was conducted Feb. 4-28 at Renmin Hospital at Wuhan University.



Hydroxychloroquine 'very safe,' says Dr. Scott Atlas; blasts 'garbage' medical studies
Washington Times

URL: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -science-/
Category: Politics
Published: August 29, 2020

Description: White House coronavirus task force member blasts hype over widely used drug
BEAVER CREEK, Colorado — The drug hydroxychloroquine has gotten a bad rap thanks to a politics, media hype, and some “garbage” medical research, according to Dr. Scott Atlas, a member of the White House coronavirus task force. “What’s happened with hydroxychloroquine is that the system has gone mad,” Dr. Atlas said Friday at the Steamboat Institute Freedom Conference. “I sort of make the analogy that we all know objective journalism is basically dead in this country, I’m very cynical about that, and now what we’re seeing is that objective science is nearly dead.” He emphasized that the drug has not been proven as a treatment for the novel coronavirus—“I’m not going to say it’s proven to work because it’s not”—but challenged those who have accused President Trump of pushing snake oil. “Hydroxychloroquine is super safe. It’s a complete myth, it’s a total distortion, to say that, oh, my God, this drug is very dangerous for people,” said Dr. Atlas. “It’s been used for 65 or 70 years, not just prophylactically for malaria, which I used it myself for that many years ago, but also used for people with things like rheumatic arthritis, auto-immune-type diseases. Very safe drug.” The FDA issued and then withdrew an emergency-use authorization for using the drug for COVID-19, saying that it showed “no benefit” for hospitalized patients, and recommending its use only in clinical trials and in hospitals, and citing the risk of “serious heart rhythm” problems when used with azithromycin. Research showing hydroxychloroquine does nothing to help severely ill patients miss the point, said Dr. Atlas, a former Stanford University Medical Center professor and physician, who serves as special advisor to the president. “There’s no surprise there,” said Dr. Atlas, who spoke at the conference via Zoom. “The drug was never thought really by most people to be effective in that kind of patient; the drug is more likely to be effective early on, or even preventing the infection, like it’s used in malaria.” He said the mechanism of the drug’s action suggests it should work, and cited what he called a “good study” on hydroxychloroquine released in July by the Henry Ford Health Center in Detroit, which showed in a retrospective analysis a 50% reduction in mortality for patients who took the drug versus those who didn’t. “It’s being used all over the world, and I’m not going to say it’s proven to work because it’s not, but there’s certainly some data that suggests that it will, and the basic science says it should,” said Dr. Atlas. He contrasted the Henry Ford study to the “many, many papers that were published that were literally garbage that should have never been published,” some of which were later withdrawn. “It’s been intensely political ever since the president said, this drug is great, it’s going to work,” said Dr. Atlas. “All of a sudden that changes the mold. In a way, he should have said, this drug will never work, and then people would have said it worked.”
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Sermo Reports on Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy, Rise in Prophylaxis Use; Over 80% Expect 2nd Outbreak

Postby smix » Fri May 08, 2020 8:48 am

Sermo Reports on Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy, Rise in Prophylaxis Use; Over 80% Expect 2nd Outbreak
Sermo

URL: https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/la ... n-context/
Category: healthNews
Published: April 2, 2020

Description: New York, New York – April 2, 2020 – Widespread confusion, conflicting reports, inconsistent testing, and off-indication use of existing and experimental drugs has resulted in no single source of information from the frontlines. To create a centralized and dynamic knowledge base, Sermo, the largest healthcare data collection company and global social platform for physicians, leveraged its capabilities to publish results of a COVID-19 study with more than 6,200 physicians in 30 countries. The study was completed in three days. Data covers current treatment and prophylaxis options, timing to the outbreak peak, effectiveness of government responses, and much more. Results of the first wave can be found at sermo.com. Multiple study waves including a deeper dive into treatments will be conducted over the next several weeks, and Sermo is calling all physicians globally to participate. Key findings; Sermo Real Time Barometer*:
Treatments & Efficacy
* The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
* Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK and 7% in Japan
* Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters)
- 75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S. and 13% in the U.K.
* The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
- (38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
- (26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days
* Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
* Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients
Second Wave of Outbreak
* The second global outbreak is anticipated by 83% of global physicians, 90% of U.S. physicians but only 50% of Chinese physicians
Average Testing Time
* On average tests in the U.S. take 4-5 days, and in 10% of cases the wait is more than 7 days
* 14% of U.S. physicians and over 50% in all of Europe and Japan report getting test results in 24 hours; in China 73% of doctors get tests back in 24 hours, while 8% get tests back within the hour
Prioritizing Treatment if Ventilator Shortage
* In all countries except China, the top criteria for deciding who should receive a ventilator first was patients with the highest chance of recovery (47%) followed by those most ill and at highest risk of death (21%), then first responders (15%)
- In China the priorities were reversed as the most ill and highest risk of death received ventilators
* First responders were more important in the U.S.
* France, Japan, and Italy prioritized age
* Brazil and Russia prioritized higher risk patients
Peak Timing & Restrictions
* In the U.S., 63% of physicians recommend restrictions be lifted six or more weeks from now and 66% believe the peak is at least 3-4 weeks away
Government Effectiveness
* The large majority of physicians globally believe government actions are very to somewhat effective
* A majority of physicians believe state and government are weighing public and economic concerns appropriately
Top Three Equipment Needs
* Top three needs globally are Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), followed by rapid COVID-19 testing kits, then ventilators
Top Three Information Needs
* Physicians are most in need of knowing when rapid tests will become available, when new treatments will become available, and the efficacy of existing medications to treat coronavirus
COVID-19 Concerns
* A majority of physicians are very concerned about spreading it to family members and ~50% are concerned about catching COVID-19 in the next two months
* 81% of physicians have taken special precautions at home, including changing their clothes and showering before joining family; some even stay in isolation
* Close to a quarter of physicians and over a third of patients report extreme stress
For the full methodology click here.
“This is a treasure trove of global insights for policy makers. Physicians should have more of a voice in how we deal with this pandemic and be able to quickly share information with one another and the world,” said Peter Kirk, CEO, Sermo. “With censorship of the media and the medical community in some countries, along with biased and poorly designed studies, solutions to the pandemic are being delayed. We invite global physicians to contribute to help inform policy makers, their colleagues, and the public.” “This survey of front line doctors shows the value of critical information sharing between countries. That is the only way that a new insight from one country can rapidly save lives around the world,” said Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, professor of psychiatry and medicine at Duke University School of Medicine and a scientific advisor to Sermo.
{*) Results provide physician observations but are not a substitute for official medical guidelines.
Methodology
Results are reported for individual countries with a minimum sample size of 250. Such a sample size provides for point estimates with a +/- 6% precision at a 94% confidence level. Thirty countries included in the study are the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, Poland, Russia, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, China, India, and Hong Kong. No incentive was offered to respondents.
Full methodology.
About Sermo
Sermo is the largest healthcare data collection company and social platform for physicians, reaching 1,3MM HCPs across 150 countries. The platform enables doctors to anonymously talk real-world medicine, review treatment options via our proprietary Drug Ratings platform, collectively solve patient cases, and participate in medical market research. For more information, visit sermo.com.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

A Detailed Coronavirus Treatment Plan from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko

Postby smix » Tue May 12, 2020 9:08 pm

A Detailed Coronavirus Treatment Plan from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko
The Internet Protocol

URL: https://internetprotocol.co/hype-news/2 ... r-zelenko/
Category: healthNews
Published: April 14, 2020

Description: In the village of Kiryas Joel, in about an hour’s drive from Manhattan, there are 35,000 Hasidic Jews. In March, its residents heard about the promising plan of treating the novel coronavirus from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. They were hoping for his help because COVID-19 quickly spread throughout their community. Since the beginning of March, the doctor has been treating people with symptoms of coronavirus, and he developed an experimental treatment. The treatment was simple, and it included the following drugs:
hydroxychloroquine (an anti-malaria drug), azithromycin, and zinc sulfate.
"We know that hydroxychloroquine helps Zinc enter the cell. We know that Zinc slows viral replication within the cell. Regarding the use of azithromycin, I postulate it prevents secondary bacterial infections. These three drugs are well known and usually well-tolerated; hence the risk to the patient is low," wrote Dr. Zelenko in the letter.

These drugs were tested on hundreds of patients. Some patients had minor symptoms at the time of arrival at the hospital. However, Dr. Zelenko made a solemn statement. He claimed that 100% of them survived the disease without hospitalization and without even needing ventilation. "I see tremendous positive results," the doctor announced in a video message addressed to the US President Donald Trump on March 21. Earlier, we published the exclusive letter from Dr. Zelenko to Donald Trump. We contacted Dr. Zelenko once again to tell us his story in detail. Here is his answer:

a-letter-from-doctor-Zelenko.png

a-letter-from-doctor-Zelenko-2.png

We are very grateful for the information Dr. Zelenko kindly provided us with.



Update, April 16th, 09:30 PM ET: Added data provided by the FDA: After the publication of Dr. Zelenko’s letter, we were approached by a lot of people asking about whether the use of the drugs that Dr. Zelenko recommends in the fight against coronavirus disease COVID-19 is correct. We conducted research and, referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we found another recommendation regarding COVID-19 treatment. It is our understanding of the document from the FDA, and we would like to emphasize that both the letter from Dr. Zelenko and the FDA document are only recommendations. You can not take these drugs without a doctor’s prescription. The suggested dose for chloroquine phosphate is 1 gram on day one for adults and adolescents who weigh 50 kg, who are hospitalized with COVID-19, and for whom a clinical trial is not available or participation is not feasible, followed by 500 milligrams daily for four to seven days of total treatment based on clinical evaluation.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 2118067
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Epidemiology - Contagious Diseases, Vaccines


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement