Can Boosting Immune System Stop Covid-19?

maximillia

maximillia

Member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
Why would I beg for hydrochloroquine? It's not a miracle drug and some reports are coming out that it isn't effective in those with serious cases. I'd have consulted with pulmonologists and called in favors with old grad school friends who went to work at the CDC. Telemedicine loopholes and ordering from foreign countries like India, where we get most of this drug, are ways to get it. The same day that Trump mentioned this drug, there was a person in this forum that posted a link to get it at the same kind of vanity clinic that you can get viagra pills from online. And how many people here get "research chemicals" and other illegal crap online? So you're really going to pretend that the only way is somehow guarded by physicians?

And fine, say the only way is to go to physicians. Like I've already stated, most people see community docs and they're going to get tired of turning people down, so it's not going to be difficult to get that way. Plus, a patient shouldn't be coming in and asking for a treatment before a physician has had a chance to make a diagnosis.
2 Things:
1. Personal responsibility
2. Personal responsibility

Trump only said it might be useful and he's right- it might. If you go on twitter right now, you will see many docs tweeting that it helped. Proof? No. Interesting? Yes. That's all I am saying. Now, again, If a shmuck gets it, takes way too much, and meets his maker, that's on him.

Also, you might be overestimating how easy it is to get this drug. I really don't know what the situation is on the ground in America, but I can't imagine it's as easy as you are making it sound. I am in India and I don't have it. You can't get it without a prescription. Online, I imagine you will have to go to the deep web, and even if not, you will be dealing with an illegal organisation. That's doable, but it's not as easy or straightforward as people are making it sound. AND, IF somebody is going to that trouble? Then it's squarely on them. The system did it's best- Made it illegal to procure on your own, and we all know there will always be loopholes and people will exploit them, but don't blame the system for that. I can get DNP if I really really wanted to. BUT the system has done it's job and made it hard to find. They just couldn't eradicate it. I think we are really talking in circles here. At the end of the day. Nothing bad happened and let's just leave it at that. If I get it, I want to try it. So that I can potentially get well in the shortest time possible. In case it works.
 
~Vision~

~Vision~

Member
Awards
0
(This is not a promo, its just a for educational purposes only)

I made this ad the other day.. I removed the sales site addy for forum reasons ( please do NOT message me for sales or details I will not bend nor flex)..
Im posting this for educational purposed ONLY.. You can find this inject version online.. It's out there, and read up on many many many studies about Glutathione and corona and other POM treatment

There's a ton of data stating that Glutathione is not only the most important cellular defense that allows the body to prevent and fight infections and disease, it's also
On the front lines of defense like magnesium, bicarbonate, iodine and selenium, as well as Vitamins A, D and C. Another principle nutritional agent that can be applied intravenously, if one is already suffering the worst, is glutathione. (copied info and pastes)

Importantly glutathione can be Nebulized directly into the lungs with bicarbonate for an excellent treatment when the lungs become inflamed. This can be important for ICU and emergency room doctors as well as patients at home who are suffering with the flu that is affecting the lungs.

I've offered it Mainly because of it's amazing properties.. Read about it, along with it's anti-inflammatory properties with the lungs and the flu.
There's tons a data, peer reviewed real data not anecdote reports. It's used in Treatment of Pulmonary Diseases and Respiratory-Related Conditions.. Read up guys..

192918


TAD600- Glutatione 646mg/vial + water solution
Condition: New product
Supplier: Biomedica Foscama ,Italy
Chemical Name:Glutatione
Comes In: 600mg/vial
Dosage: 600mg one or twice per week
Active time: 1-3 days
Class:Anti oxidant & anti Toxins therapy

Glutathione-Capped Ag2S Nanoclusters Inhibit Coronavirus Proliferation
through Blockage of Viral RNA Synthesis and Budding.

Abstract

Development of novel antiviral reagents is of great importance for the control of virus spread. Here, Ag2S nanoclusters (NCs) were proved for the first time to possess highly
efficient antiviral activity by using porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) as a model of coronavirus. Analyses of virus titers showed that Ag2S NCs significantly suppressed the infection
of PEDV by about 3 orders of magnitude at the noncytotoxic concentration at 12 h postinfection, which was further confirmed by the expression of viral proteins.
Mechanism investigations indicated that Ag2S NCs treatment inhibits the synthesis of viral negative-strand RNA and viral budding. Ag2S NCs treatment was also found to positively regulate the generation of
IFN-stimulating genes (ISGs) and the expression of proinflammation cytokines, which might prevent PEDV infection.
This study suggest the novel underlying of Ag2S NCs as a promising therapeutic drug for coronavirus.
____

Glutathione

Glutathione (GSH) is recognized as the most important antioxidant produced in the human body. Glutathione is present in every cell of the body,
and the depletion of glutathione is noted in a wide range of medical conditions.
Low concentrations of glutathione have been noted in in individuals with asthma and viral infections.
Glutathione is particularly known for its ability to recycle other antioxidants such as vitamin C and vitamin E.
Glutathione inhibits coronavirus.

Glutathione: The Great Detoxifier and Immune Regulator

Glutathione has been called the ‘mother’ of all antioxidants—and there are over 142,000 peer reviewed studies published to prove it.
It’s our built-in natural detoxification system,
and it works at the cellular level. It’s a critical step in detoxification system, binding and ‘sticking’ to toxins and free radicals of all kinds,
so that your body can safely carry them into your bladder and gut and out of your body.
But what is less well known about glutathione is how profoundly it supports the immune system.

When intracellular glutathione level dips, white blood cells called lymphocytes are impaired and viral infections can percolate.
The synthesis of new DNA and new cells is exquisitely sensitive to free radical damage,
and high levels of glutathione protect it. And rapid decreases in glutathione levels have been seen after infection with viruses.
Optimal levels of glutathione support a balanced immune response.

When intracellular glutathione stores are rich, immune molecules are stimulated, and both viruses and bacteria are inhibited. When reserves of glutathione are low,
the immune system switches away from a “Th1” innate immunity response toward a stronger “Th2” inflammatory response, which is dominant in autoimmune diseases,
allergic reactions and viral infections like flu and cold. Glutathione has been proven to help improve the balance between Th1 and Th2,
and to improve immune response to bacterial infections and even eliminate the bacteria.

Though oral glutathione is not reliable as a supplement, because stomach acid can easily degrade it, liposomal glutathione has been shown to markedly increase glutathione stores.
In one month-long study glutathione went up 40% in whole blood and 100% in the immune system’s critical T cells, B cells, and natural killer cells.
Immune function markers were also enhanced—and amazingly, natural killer cells cytotoxicity, or ability to kill, was elevated by up to 400% with liposomal glutathione.

"This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Didn't take more than a 5 minute search to see it for other uses in daily doses of hydroxychloroquine up to 5 mg/kg and is safe in pregnancy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31612996

This page on the toxicity of Choloroquine shows anything over 2.3 mg/day is high risk and for parasites/malaria has gram doses up to 1 gram a day for 2 days and then 500 mg/day for 2 weeks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537086/
If you take another 5 minutes to read the articles (not the abstracts) and do the math, the proposed dosage for COVID-19 is above what is being called safe per these two articles.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
If you take another 5 minutes to read the articles (not the abstracts) and do the math, the proposed dosage for COVID-19 is above what is being called safe per these two articles.
Only one of those links is an abstract, if you clicked them. There was no need to dig up the full study - especially in light of the other links provided. It was merely supportive.

Not really sure where you are getting your math or dosing guidance from. You keep saying it's this or that but don't give any specific dosing protocols, so it's just vague. Do you know what the FDA suggests?

https://www.fda.gov/media/136537/download

Seems to be well within normal ranges based on the info provided. If you have more information, I look forward to seeing it and learning.
 
Last edited:
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Not really sure where you are getting your math or dosing guidance from. You keep saying it's this or that but don't give any specific dosing protocols, so it's just vague. Do you know what the FDA suggests?

https://www.fda.gov/media/136537/download

Seems to be well within normal ranges based on the info provided. If you have more information, I look forward to seeing it and learning.
Did you read this one or do you just google and copy/paste the first thing that comes up? This is an emergency dosage for "CERTAIN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS" and "The optimal dosing and duration of treatment for COVID-19 is unknown."

"The suggested dose under this EUA for hydroxychloroquine sulfate to treat adults and adolescents who weigh 50 kg or more and are hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible, is 800 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine sulfate on the first day of treatment and then 400 milligrams daily for four to seven days of total treatment based on clinical evaluation."

Even the CDC took down the dosage recommendation because it's anecdotal.

As far as the math, the links you posted earlier put 5 mg/kg as the threshold for risk. 50 kg adult or adolescent at 5 mg/kg puts their limit at what? Or do I have to do the math for you too? It's not until you get up to 80 kg that these blanket doses even make sense. Even if you use the 6.5 mg/kg dose to account for the tablet vs base weight it still puts the limit below 400 for some and well below 800.

So is this an option for patients in the hospital who are being monitored and have no other choice? Sure, it's an option. Not a good one at that dosage, but it's a risk they can choose to take. And it's not a safe option that we know the safety profile of in these patients regardless of how many times you say that we do. Is it something everybody should be taking or take for prevention? Hell no. Up to now I've been talking about dosing in a vacuum, but the US population has a hell of a lot of comorbidities and polypharmacy that increases the risk. You're also going to run into trouble with the dose you think you're getting and pharmacokinetics if you take the drug and anything that messes with P450 metabolism.
 
djbombsquad

djbombsquad

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I take 2-4 grams of immunolin every day and I feel that’s helping me too !! Separate from the nutriferon supplement I started to take along side 8000 iu d3.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Not sleeping. If your body can't sleep neither can any virus! Make it stay up, don't let it sleep...
Am considering playing nothing but Barry Manilow, and Barbara Streisand to make any virus leave my body if it is there...
Super dosing coffee is probably not a great idea.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
Not sleeping. If your body can't sleep neither can any virus! Make it stay up, don't let it sleep...
Am considering playing nothing but Barry Manilow, and Barbara Streisand to make any virus leave my body if it is there...
Super dosing coffee is probably not a great idea.
I've been doing coffee enemas, and listening to death metal since Covid hit my area...
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Did you read this one or do you just google and copy/paste the first thing that comes up? This is an emergency dosage for "CERTAIN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS" and "The optimal dosing and duration of treatment for COVID-19 is unknown."

"The suggested dose under this EUA for hydroxychloroquine sulfate to treat adults and adolescents who weigh 50 kg or more and are hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible, is 800 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine sulfate on the first day of treatment and then 400 milligrams daily for four to seven days of total treatment based on clinical evaluation."

Even the CDC took down the dosage recommendation because it's anecdotal.

As far as the math, the links you posted earlier put 5 mg/kg as the threshold for risk. 50 kg adult or adolescent at 5 mg/kg puts their limit at what? Or do I have to do the math for you too? It's not until you get up to 80 kg that these blanket doses even make sense. Even if you use the 6.5 mg/kg dose to account for the tablet vs base weight it still puts the limit below 400 for some and well below 800.

So is this an option for patients in the hospital who are being monitored and have no other choice? Sure, it's an option. Not a good one at that dosage, but it's a risk they can choose to take. And it's not a safe option that we know the safety profile of in these patients regardless of how many times you say that we do. Is it something everybody should be taking or take for prevention? Hell no. Up to now I've been talking about dosing in a vacuum, but the US population has a hell of a lot of comorbidities and polypharmacy that increases the risk. You're also going to run into trouble with the dose you think you're getting and pharmacokinetics if you take the drug and anything that messes with P450 metabolism.
LOL, that is funny. You are a lot of fun man. This post is going to be more than you're used to reading, so you may want to break it into manageable pieces and read it a little at the time.

I feel like I am arguing with a Tandy 2000 - you know, where no matter what input you give, you get a random selection from 4-5 canned responses.

Me: Tandy, What color is the Sky

Tandy: Did you read more than the abstract?

Me: What? I'm looking for the color of the sky

Tandy: Did you read what you posted?

Me: Tandy, what's your point?

Tandy: Let me do the math for you.

I've begun seriously questioning your involvement in the medical field, but if you are in the field, I am not surprised you are in touch with attorneys on a daily basis.

Do you even think through what you are saying? I mean, you've called people a liar in this thread and simultaneously thrown out that HCQ has a low LD50 - but how do you know that? Where are your links? Where is your data? Or are you just making it up? Is it a lie (#1)?

And when someone posts links you have the same canned responses: Did you read more than the abstract. The irony here is, out of 3 links, only one was just the abstract but you were too lazy to even click the links that were being SPOON FED to you to know that. If you were so lazy that you didn't even realize only the first link was an abstract - where did you find all the effort to go pull up the full study on the abstract, read it, and comprehend it (lie #2)?

Then you state that you want to see more studies on Covid patients and the doses being used in Covid patients is much higher than in other uses. Ok, fine. We're all for more studies - but it still doesn't eliminate the safety profile we have. We have loads of data on the safety profile - even breaking down what issues become more likely at specific doses.

I post links showing all kinds of information on safety, and dosing after you say twice a day dosing is being used in Covid patients at high doses. You go after the math? Because you don't realize that there are MULTIPLE protocols and cut offs for applying this drug (because we have the safety data)?

So then you say the math is off and stick to doses in covid patients being higher. Yet, you have provided not a single shred of evidence of that. You expect others, like Manifesto, to prove every thing they say with evidence - do you have ANY evidence?Any at all?

So, shooting in the dark at this mythical covid-19 superdosing schedule you are claiming; I pull the FDA guidance - which is BELOW the dosing used in Malaria treatment. Wait, I'm not good at math. Let me lay it out so you can check for me:

Malaria Patients: 1,000 mg for 2 days.
Covid 19 Patients: 800 mg for 1 day.

800 < 1000 - I think that's the answer I gave my 2nd grade teacher. Can you check for me?
1 day < 2 days - again, feel free to check.

Then 500 mg for up to 14 days in malaria patients, and 400 mg for up to 7 days in Covid-19 Patients.

I am getting:
400 < 500
7 < 14.

Is my math wrong buddy? Help me out here. I obviously don't have this on lock down.

And I fully read what I posted, and then some. Up to 60 kg is the cut off. Some places use 50 kg. After that, they have mg/kg guidance. Yes, this is further evidence of a safety profile. So if you're 60 kg and we know the TOXIC dose is around 20 mg/kg - hold on, let me grab my calculator - yup 1,200 mg for a 60 kg person. And that's real weight. And we know most people who have serious issues with covid have things like, I don't know, obesity. So I'm not sure how many 132 pound Americans are in the hospital right now receiving these high doses you're keep suggesting. And that isn't LD50. At some point, if you're worried about saving someone's life, things like retinal issues fall a little on the priority list.

Also, you either KNOW you are wrong or are outright lying a 3rd time now - you pull up the retinopathy study, which you claim you read the entire study on...right? Didn't you? Huh, huh? Or was that just a canned response you use for everyone when you disagree because you don't have clue what you're talking about? Because, I would assume if you were going to use it as part of your argument, you wouldn't fall for the same thing right? Oh yeah, you didn't even bother to follow the other links, so why would I expect you found the full study.

Anyway, the 5 mg/kg you quote is from the discussion on dermatology - i.e. - chronic dosing. You know, like every day for long periods of time. But you would have known that if you even followed any of the other links I posted. Or read the full study like you pointed out.

So we have data on standard dosing, the FDA guidance on Covid dosing - and no data from you on your mythical super dosing so far? Ok, just because it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't true - but it certainly doesn't help me to believe you in the face of data suggesting otherwise.

So, you have the FDA data and have a chance to provide evidence of something and your response is to highlight this: "adults and adolescents who weigh 50 kg or more and are hospitalized with COVID-19 for whom a clinical trial is not available, or participation is not feasible,"

Of course you do this, after you accuse me of not reading it - slick. But, you show your inability to comprehend what you're even highlighting.

Since you are so gracious to do math for me, let me help you out by summarizing something for you:

1. You say: We don't have safety data, we need studies in Covid-19 patients.
2. I say: Here is the FDA's guidance.
3. You say: Yeah, but that's only for people who are not in clinical trials. They are using higher doses in clinical trials.

Ummmm.....wow....you're sooooo close. Can you put it together? Come on. I'm rooting for you here.




Ok, I was hopeful, let me help you out. You want more studies, because higher doses are dangerous, and then use the studies that are actually happening at a higher dose as your defense? What? Isn't that what you were asking for in the first place? Now that we are trying it, it's stupid? How do you come up with this stuff?


What you just said, proves we have safety data on it. Without any further research, we have recommendations FROM THE FDA, directly in COVID. The fact we may have trials trying to further define that safety margin (to push it higher) doesn't mean we don't have a lot of data. However, per your statements, we are running trials at EVEN HIGHER doses in covid patients to see how far we can push this and gather more data. That is assuming what you are saying about people running higher doses is true; but you've yet to provide any evidence of that so I'm not sure. We've already established you lie and play games.
 

user567

Active member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
High RBC is protective?
Not necessarily you still have the iron ion issue. Ironically this iron ion is needed to deliver oxygen but hangs around and causes damage in a different state.

Here’s where COVID-19 comes in. Its glycoproteins bond to the heme, and in doing so that special and toxic oxidative iron ion is “disassociated” (released). It’s basically let out of the cage and now freely roaming around on its own. This is bad for two reasons:

1) Without the iron ion, hemoglobin can no longer bind to oxygen. Once all the hemoglobin is impaired, the red blood cell is essentially turned into a Freightliner truck cab with no trailer and no ability to store its cargo

2) That little iron ion, along with millions of its friends released from other hemes, are now floating through your blood freely. As I mentioned before, this type of iron ion is highly reactive and causes oxidative damage (TO THE LUNGS)


Perhaps the high dose vitamin C regimens that have been so successful is negating the oxidized iron ion.
 
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Not necessarily you still have the iron ion issue. Ironically this iron ion is needed to deliver oxygen but hangs around and causes damage in a different state.

Here’s where COVID-19 comes in. Its glycoproteins bond to the heme, and in doing so that special and toxic oxidative iron ion is “disassociated” (released). It’s basically let out of the cage and now freely roaming around on its own. This is bad for two reasons:

1) Without the iron ion, hemoglobin can no longer bind to oxygen. Once all the hemoglobin is impaired, the red blood cell is essentially turned into a Freightliner truck cab with no trailer and no ability to store its cargo

2) That little iron ion, along with millions of its friends released from other hemes, are now floating through your blood freely. As I mentioned before, this type of iron ion is highly reactive and causes oxidative damage (TO THE LUNGS)


Perhaps the high dose vitamin C regimens that have been so successful is negating the oxidized iron ion.
Soooo, cycle up and megadose the C!!!
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Do you even think through what you are saying? I mean, you've called people a liar in this thread and simultaneously thrown out that HCQ has a low LD50 - but how do you know that? Where are your links? Where is your data? Or are you just making it up? Is it a lie (#1)?
1) Show me where I said anything about the LD50

2) Show me the safety data that you keep claiming exists. Not copy/pasting several links of random reviews that you don't even bother reading. Really simple. Show the data that you seem to have yet every major medical institution is saying doesn't exist.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
1) Show me where I said anything about the LD50

2) Show me the safety data that you keep claiming exists. Not copy/pasting several links of random reviews that you don't even bother reading. Really simple. Show the data that you seem to have yet every major medical institution is saying doesn't exist.
It has a fairly low lethal dose too, so there's isn't a ton of wiggle room.
Oh, so, um, we should be looking at studies and the FDA and physicians for guidance - except..um...when you don't agree with it? Then it is random? Got it.

And Trump shouldn't be saying things about HCQ to promote its trials to save lives, but you can go online and say whatever you choose without backing it up?

And everyone on here should provide evidence up to your standards, yet you don't need to provide any at all. We should just believe you?

Do the rules only apply to everyone else? But not to Aleksandar? Got it.

Why don't you show some evidence to back up what you are saying. Anything. Anything at all. Or even one legit medical institution saying we don't have "safety" data on hydroxychloroquine. What we are lacking is efficacy data in Covid use.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Oh, so, um, we should be looking at studies and the FDA and physicians for guidance - except..um...when you don't agree with it? Then it is random? Got it.

And Trump shouldn't be saying things about HCQ to promote its trials to save lives, but you can go online and say whatever you choose without backing it up?

And everyone on here should provide evidence up to your standards, yet you don't need to provide any at all. We should just believe you?

Do the rules only apply to everyone else? But not to Aleksandar? Got it.

Why don't you show some evidence to back up what you are saying. Anything. Anything at all. Or even one legit medical institution saying we don't have "safety" data on hydroxychloroquine. What we are lacking is efficacy data in Covid use.
http://www.med.umich.edu/asp/pdf/adult_guidelines/COVID-19-treatment.pdf
Page 3. Now show us the safety data that you claim exists.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Oh, so, um, we should be looking at studies and the FDA and physicians for guidance - except..um...when you don't agree with it? Then it is random? Got it.
The FDA guidance you showed is for hospitalized patients with no other choices. I don't disagree with their guidance at all, but I do disagree that it supports the statements being made for widespread use to treat and prevent COVID-19. You've moved the goalposts every time I've answered. And the one person I accused of lying, admitted to lying.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
~Vision~

~Vision~

Member
Awards
0
Pick wouldn't come up bro....post it in here lol
It was just a hyperlink that had a small video of what I was saying before. You don't have to click on the link but I promise you it's safe, but if you want to feel safer just go on Google and search for husband and wife both addicted to coffee enema. I'm telling you man, you're going to roll out of your chair.
Her husband is so beta, he's only doing it so he can keep her. ROTFLMBO
you'll probably find it pretty easily because there's not many stories like this one. Lol
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
After you find it and watch it or read it, let me know your thoughts.. haha
I honestly just wanted to check it out because you said she was cute lol
 
~Vision~

~Vision~

Member
Awards
0
I honestly just wanted to check it out because you said she was cute lol
She's very cute, she looks like a cute little wife. When the episode first came on I was intrigued,but after they said the substance I was totally turned off.. I was just grossed out when they actually showed what she was doing, but they would blur out the camera.. her whole town knows SMH
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
The FDA guidance you showed is for hospitalized patients with no other choices. I don't disagree with their guidance at all, but I do disagree that it supports the statements being made for widespread use to treat and prevent COVID-19. You've moved the goalposts every time I've answered. And the one person I accused of lying, admitted to lying.
Going to start with this one just because I believe definition is important. I have never said anyone SHOULD be taking this as a prophylactic for Coronavirus right now. If anything, I have said such use is stupid at this point. I have never said we should make it's use available to the population as a whole. I have said, "We do have a safety profile on it".

We have lots of data on the safety on it, and presumably we would have to since it has FDA approval.

We know that this drug can be used within a reasonable margin of safety for daily use and acute use. We know pretty well what doses will start to cause which issues, etc.

That doesn't mean the drug is hands down safe for everyone to take without worries, all the time, etc. If that's the standard for saying we have safety profile, then we don't have a safety profile on very many drugs, for any use.

And that is one of the reasons this drug is getting attention - it appears to kill the virus in models and it is readily available around the world, and we don't have to build a safety profile from the ground up here - we know a lot about its toxicity in humans.

And I have said that Trump could say things better - but he's not exactly wrong if he meant to say, "it could be used as a prophylactic" as in - maybe it can be used, we need to find out. After all, the drug is safe enough to be used for prophylactic purposes already. We know this safety margin and can make an educated decision based on the profile and data we already have about using it preventative. And it is generally accepted as safe enough to use in this way. But this isn't really the point, it's a political angle that I care little about.

I have also taken the stance that it MAY not be working. It may not be effective. But effective and safe are two different issues. My stance is, we have to hurry up and finish the trials as quickly as possible and get the data for efficacy.


http://www.med.umich.edu/asp/pdf/adult_guidelines/COVID-19-treatment.pdf
Page 3. Now show us the safety data that you claim exists.
First off, I gotta point out that you call NCBI and FDA sites "random links" that aren't up to your standards, and then you go to the University of Michigan? It's a good medical school, sure. I presume their info is reliable. But what happened to the previous standard?

What the site says, "The current body of literature and local experience does not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection."

And I can agree with this, it's never been my argument. As a matter of fact, I would wager a bet that I have posts on here saying HCQ looks like it's circling the drain from an efficacy standpoint before anyone else on here.

Obviously if a drug doens't work for a disease, it isn't supported in use to treat that disease - not because of safety, but because of efficacy.

But, I've already posted the evidence that we have a safety profile on this drug. We have known doses, etc.

Your response to this was to go after abstracts, claim I hadn't read them, and claim the doses being used were well beyond what was in those links and that I hadn't bothered to do the math.

Yet, you still haven't posted any links showing any doses are being used outside of clinical trials potentially (which is the point of a clinical trial) that exceed the known safety limits. And, by your own admission, those high doses are only anecdotal.

But hey, let's try playing your game. Did you even bother to read your source? Or did you just find a random link and post it up? Because one click away from your source I found this (you know, where they supply their actual original data):

“Thus far, results from more than 100 patients have demonstrated that chloroquine phosphate is superior to the control treatment in inhibiting the exacerbation of pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, promoting a virus- negative conversion, and shortening the disease course according to the news briefing”

I also found dosing protocol in that link - multiple protocols with the highest being 500 mg/day as a single dose, 200 mg every 8 hours, 400 mg 2X per day. So again - where is your "super dosing" and danger?

As a matter of fact, taking a look at their original sources I am surprised at the success rate that they are showing. I was more skeptical. I see in one study the HCQ group actually took more time to eradicate the virus from their system - which is obviously concerning. But beyond that, the other 5 studies show some success. Of course they aren't ideal...especially with most of the groups being very small numbers of people. I can agree it isn't proven, but that link makes me more hopeful.

Not sure you wanted to use that as your source. Maybe you should read more than the last line of the abstract. (Hey, I can see why you do this all the time, it's kind of fun).


The uptodate (the website used by many physicians as a resource for disease states and treatment) entry for hydroxychloroquine use in COVID-19: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/hydroxychloroquine-drug-information?topicRef=126981&source=see_link

"At this time, safety and efficacy have not been established."
Again, so, uptodate is superior to NCBI? You really don't understand how science works but ok.

Also, you do know you can say that "safety" has been established and still say "Safety and efficacy has not been established", right?

But, I agree it is more complicated than that because, "safety" isn't a yes or no situation. It's more about balancing risk/reward. And even a drug with mild health risk is not "safe and effective" in treating a disease it does not treat.

But UMich's sources do point to some success, so maybe we are on our way.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
The FDA guidance you showed is for hospitalized patients with no other choices. I don't disagree with their guidance at all, but I do disagree that it supports the statements being made for widespread use to treat and prevent COVID-19. You've moved the goalposts every time I've answered. And the one person I accused of lying, admitted to lying.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask - where did the person you accused of lying admit to it. I missed that.
 
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I have a question for everyone. Does anyone believe that herd immunity will work for this virus? And that the lockdown and social distancing will slowly let us all get it but in such a way the medical community can handle it instead of a massive surge?
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
No. My concern is the virus may be dormant in those survivors like in South Korea and then come back. They may not get as sick but as in the Spanish Flu the second wave was far worse.

We must be more diligent. This talk of May 1. Restarting of economy or what you want to call it should probably be June at the earliest.
 
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
No. My concern is the virus may be dormant in those survivors like in South Korea and then come back. They may not get as sick but as in the Spanish Flu the second wave was far worse.

We must be more diligent. This talk of May 1. Restarting of economy or what you want to call it should probably be June at the earliest.
Agreed.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Again, so, uptodate is superior to NCBI? You really don't understand how science works but ok.
You asked me to show this: "Or even one legit medical institution saying we don't have "safety" data on hydroxychloroquine." I showed that.

I'm not saying any site is superior to another as your straw man is attempting to claim. Saying that an article you posted isn't relevant for a specific reason (and I do actually give reasons) isn't saying anything against pubmed. That's like claiming that I hate a library because I said the book you recommended isn't relevant. Rather than trying to troll with this whole accusation of my understanding of science, why not defend the links you're posting? And saying take it or leave it isn't actually defending them. Show me and the others what part of an article is relevant and why.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
You asked me to show this: "Or even one legit medical institution saying we don't have "safety" data on hydroxychloroquine." I showed that.

I'm not saying any site is superior to another as your straw man is attempting to claim. Saying that an article you posted isn't relevant for a specific reason (and I do actually give reasons) isn't saying anything against pubmed. That's like claiming that I hate a library because I said the book you recommended isn't relevant. Rather than trying to troll with this whole accusation of my understanding of science, why not defend the links you're posting? And saying take it or leave it isn't actually defending them. Show me and the others what part of an article is relevant and why.
Both of the links you posted suggest dosing. Are they suggesting that, for human use, in the absence of data on the drugs safety?

None of the links you provided say we lack safety data, at best they say that we lack data for "safety and efficacy" in Covid-19. Your inability to grasp the difference is an issue.

The links I've posted discuss side effects and dosages in various diseases. They stand on their own. Your inability to grasp this is also an issue.

The fact that you cannot even grasp that the mere fact we have dosing guidance, knowledge of side effects, etc. (as per your very links) - is evidence of SAFETY DATA. I.e. - how do we know these things if we don't have data.

Ok, I'm trolling. Let's see here. Again, you can accuse people of being liars - but lie yourself. You can accuse people of not knowing math, but no one can point out your demonstration of a lack of how science works?

So far you have lied about knowing the lethal dose of the drug.

You have lied about evidence of higher doses being applied to Covid patients.

You have lied about digging up "full studies" instead of abstracts.

You have lied and said that the person you called a liar admitted it.

All the rules apply to everyone else, but not to you. And I am the troll. Cool. I'm good at leaving it there. I will let the evidence stand on its own.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
What are your guys' opinions on Vitamin A? I have been taking 8000 iu lately. I started this for immune support.

Is it safe to take Vitamin A long term? I was speaking to my mothers doctor about supplementation, and he said Vitamin A could cause cancer....
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
What are your guys' opinions on Vitamin A? I have been taking 8000 iu lately. I started this for immune support.

Is it safe to take Vitamin A long term? I was speaking to my mothers doctor about supplementation, and he said Vitamin A could cause cancer....
A is fat soluble so yes at high doses for a longer length of time could cause toxicity. mostly stuff like this tend to depend on individual genetics. I know a few people in their 80's who have smoked and drank most of their lives, and others who have never smoked or drank who get cancer in their 30's.
 
GreenMachineX

GreenMachineX

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Anyone have any thoughts on supplements or things we do that could increase risk of complications from COVID-19? For example, overreaching/overtraining right now probably isn’t a great idea, and neither is a huge caloric deficit, but any supplements that could cause issues that we commonly use around here (stimulants, etc)?
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
This just in!

Researchers have purposefully delayed an effective vaccine for Covid-19. The reason it's been delayed is they cannot figure out how to make it cause autism.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
This just in!

Researchers have purposefully delayed an effective vaccine for Covid-19. The reason it's been delayed is they cannot figure out how to make it cause autism.
This is extra funny to me because one of your fellow reps is an anti-vaxxer 😂😂😂
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
This is extra funny to me because one of your fellow reps is an anti-vaxxer 😂😂😂
Really?
Well... in his / her defense ( I don't know who )
I never get the flu vaccine. My wife just loves that. Ha.

I've not been sick in... quite a few years. Pneumonia x2 about 15 years ago.
 

Similar threads


Top