SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (COVID-19)

think about it.... we can 'help' against methanol poisoning .... by downing booze ... i'll drink to that .... oh the irony. Wait .... you mean i have to give the VICTIM my margarita. Never mind.

.

 

In Cell Studies, Seaweed Extract Outperforms Remdesivir in Blocking COVID-19 Virus

"Heparin, a common anitcoagulent, could also form basis of a viral trap for SARS-CoV-2"

Sulfated polysaccharides effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

 

Effect of moist heat reprocessing of N95 respirators on SARS-CoV-2 inactivation and respirator function | CMAJ

 

COVID-19 research: Anti-viral strategy with double effect

Frankfurt scientists identify possible Achilles' heel of SARS-CoV-2 virus

 

Well, it's been a week or so and some responses are turning up, though more on bloggy/watchdoggy sites than in august (small a) publications:

Yale Doc Backing HCQ Cites Questionable Data | MedPage Today

Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19: Evidence can't seem to kill it – Science-Based Medicine

I guess MedPage Today has been around since 2001, and sciencebasedmedicine since 2008. Other than that, I know little about either source. Interestingly, the ScienceBasedMedicine founder is a Yale colleague of author Risch.

 

i'm confused by some of the experts. on one hand, you have some claiming hydro works in some cases when administered properly.
the people refutingthe studies say they're biased because it was administered to certain patients at specific times in the infection.
and if administered improperly, can cause other complications. isn't that true of most drugs?

 

Huh ... if I'm reading this stuff right, it seems to be Risch who was making the specific-times-in-the-infection argument (as in "I'm just talking outpatient, so the studies showing no benefit inpatient can be disregarded"), while the "people refuting" are raising a variety of points (that being one of them, but also the lack of any randomized controlled study among his citations, his citation of "publications" that aren't, his Newsweek op-ed and AJE follow-up being completely silent about major randomized trials having just reported showing no benefit, his two papers being sole-author deals in a journal where he sits on the editorial board, and so on).

 

no question, any randomized trial is showing no or little benefit, from what i've read. makes you wonder why certain people hang on to these beliefs. but that seems to be the nature of medicine, where some practitioners will go outside the box looking for solutions when there isn't anything mainstream available.

 

Science works best with a double-blind study. Patients are randomly separated into two groups and their medical staff are given identically labeled but serialized medicines. Half are a placebo and the other half the real medication. Only those conducting the study have the key to which are placebo and real. Then after a statistically valid sample of patients, at least 34 but more is better, have passed through the study, the key is broken and relative outcomes deciphered.

A study like this can not 'prove' anything. Rather it works on testing a hypothesis to determine if it is false. So the hypothesis, "Does medication A have a different outcome than a placebo?" can be tested. So far, double-blind studies show the quinine medications are the same as taking a placebo.

BTW, the experiment conductor does do early examine of the results. There have been cases where a medication was so effective in the early data that it would unethical to use placebos on any critically ill patient.

WHEN or IF you are under a physician's care, they get to choose your treatment plan. Many times these are not your personal family physician but a hospital staff physician. They too are subject to the same strengths and weaknesses as those of us discussing this issue. If you are lucky, you get an empirical physician who follows peer reviewed literature. If not, you get "demon sperm" physician.

Bob Wilson

ps. When my late Dad was the Chief Medical Officer of Kansas, he had to police the medical practices across the state. One physician had a great weight loss program: B12 and diuretic in Kansas. The initial weight loss was great and then the Kansas summer heat killed them.

 

yeah, she's off my list. until mainstream physicians tell me there's nothing more that can be done.

then it's 'give me that demon sperm!

 

Better explanation:

 

My concern is the rush in some areas to go to ordinary classrooms can lead to a substantial increase in infections:

• 25 students/class
• 50 minutes per class
• 6 classes per day
• 7-14 days to detect infections

Masks and decontamination can help but that requires compliance ... by kids. Personally, I would tell the school that your family is quarantined for 14 days due to exposure. This is not an experiment I would prefer others take the lead.

Bob Wilson

 

colleges and universities are of concern to me. i expect we're going to see the second wave this fall originally predicted by the cdc.

some states are already showing a bit of upward creep.

 

... when we haven't finished one yet?

 

i didn't say now

'this fall' ends around 12/21

however, here in ma, i think we've already seen the first wave come and go

 

Is the drug not being given at the right time? Should it be given earlier in the disease process?

If so, the ideal test would be to expose people to the virus, give half of them hydroxychloroquine in a random, double-blind study, and see the effects. Obviously this wouldn't be ethical. But in Canada they figured out a way to do something similar. They recruited people who came in for testing because they had been exposed to the virus, but hadn't developed the disease yet--a total of 821 people.
Covid-19: Hydroxychloroquine was ineffective as postexposure prophylaxis, study finds | The BMJ
They gave half of them hydroxychloroquine in a double-blind study and monitored what happened. There was no difference in outcome other than some of the ones taking the hydroxy were affected by side effects such as nausea.

" hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within four days after exposure.”

This is now probably one of the most studied drugs in the world. It hasn't been found to be helpful.

 

newsweek/politico:

dutch head of disease control jaap van dissel says, 'from a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect from wearing face masks.'

so they have decided not to implement a national requirement.

 

Are masks now optional in surgery?

Bob Wilson