One of the great things about medicine is that convincing conclusions are seldom reached. COVID-19, on the other hand, has been of such tremendous interest to humans worldwide that it doesn’t seem unreasonable to hope for answers.
We were told that vitamin D might protect us against coronavirus, e.g., in “Study suggests high vitamin D levels may protect against COVID-19, especially for Black people” (University of Chicago, March 19, 2021). But has the correlation/causation situation been worked out? People who are healthier and more robust will tend to spend more time outdoors and therefore have higher vitamin D levels. These same people will be harder for coronavirus to kill, but maybe it is because they are strong and healthy, which is why they were outdoors instead of inside watching TV, not because they happen to have high vitamin D levels.
Similarly, the debate over hydroxychloroquine does not seem to be settled. “Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated Covid Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic” (medRxiv from Saint Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey) was published on May 31, 2021 describing what happened to patients who were admitted prior to May 1, 2020 (i.e., it took more than a year to crunch the numbers). The paper certainly proves that ventilators are not very helpful. 78.8 percent of the ventilated patients died. Only 3.5 percent were “discharged to home without any cognitive or motor deficits and off oxygen therapy” (i.e., “walked out of the hospital”):
We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients. By using causal analysis and considering of weight-adjusted cumulative dose, we prove the combined therapy, >3 g HCQ and > 1g AZM greatly increases survival in Covid patients on IMV and that HCQ cumulative dose > 80 mg/kg works substantially better.
With so many people around the world supposedly afflicted with COVID-19 and so many $trillions of dollars being thrown at this medical problem, how is it possible that we don’t have the seemingly simplest questions answered?
Because there aren’t any trillions in using drugs that have been out of patent for decades and cost pennies per dose. Even worse, the Emergency Use Authorizations that allow Big Pharma to sell their experimental vaccines without FDA approval depend on there being no other safe and effective treatment available, so they’d actually lose out on those trillions if treatments weren’t being suppressed.
From what I’ve found, hydroxychloroquine is somewhat effective as a treatment when given together with zinc and/or azithromyacine (I may have that spelling wrong), but not as effective as ivermectin, which is highly effective both as a treatment and a preventative. Naturally this makes ivermectin an even greater threat to Big Pharma.
Impact of Prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine on People at High Risk of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2021 Jun 13
Abstract
There are no proven prophylactic interventions for COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 were searched in several engines until 8 December 2020. Primary outcomes included RT-PCR positivity, COVID-19 infections (positive RT-PCR or compatible COVID-19 symptoms), and all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 5579) and one cohort (n = 106) were included. Placebo was the comparator in four RCTs, and usual care in one RCT. Compared to the controls, five RCTs showed that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis did not reduce RT-PCR positivity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16), COVID-19 infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.22), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.99). There were no differences of effects by pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.58-13.19). There were no effects of hydroxychloroquine on other secondary outcomes. Quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 infections, defined either as RT-PCR positivity or as a composite of RT-PCR positivity or compatible symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, or adverse events.
This is a crappy meta-analysis, which appears as it must have been designed to reach desired conclusion rather than find the truth. (I actually read this paper, unlike most people who qoute its abstract, LOL:) Just off the bat, it immediately excludes two thirds of available primary studies – but no criteria for exclusion are described. Then it uses some exotic statistical mumbo-jumbo to assign comparable weights to studies with dozens and thousands of cases. Then it looks at cases with way too low HCQ doses to be of any effect. Finally, it doesn even mention zinc once.
I send what averros wrote !!
I agree with commenter Ken Hagler 100%. We HAVE answered these questions. Both are indeed effective, when taken properly. For HCQ proper usage is EARLY in the course of the disease (days 1-5), with zinc and Zpak. But the answers are intentionally being obfuscated to help the vaccine agenda. For example, many of the trials administered it totally inappropriately — too late and/or wrong dose and/or without zinc. And of course, the results from those flawed trials are the ones that we get to hear about… The author is either very naive or is asking this intentionally, as part of the obfuscation agenda
Oops, just noticed that the question is about prophylactic use. Wish I could edit my first reply, but will have to add to it instead… Here, the most effective remedy available is Ivermectin, which is at least as effective as the vaccines, when taken properly. One can find the latest protocols at FLCCC.NET Weekly doses of HCQ have also been proven to be an effective prophylactic, in studies done in Asia. But one has to take it for a while (a month) before it builds up sufficiently to provide statistically significant protection. Best is 6-8 weeks. As for vitamin D, it has been shown that sufficient levels of it (50 or above), while not preventing Covid, do prevent the cytokine storm, thereby greatly increasing survival rates.
It’s interesting that a US-authored hcq-on-covid study is 3x likely to be negative – probably TDS.
However, worldwide the benefit doesn’t look impressive any more (probably more than 0).
Have heard ivermectin dominates hcq.
Promising N=55 czech study will claim Imunor (some immune boosting pig extract) also helps – see https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.idnes.cz%2Fostrava%2Fzpravy%2Fimunor-rozhovor-lek-covid-ucinek-studie-bystron-imunolog-fakultni-nemocnice.A210629_141656_ostrava-zpravy_woj%3Fzdroj%3Dotvirak&prev=search&pto=aue&fbclid=IwAR3G9o8RP7e817cNi1hJcy5n0lIzW86tyVqNNIS49ZZPcJObSzC_RCgUaps
I have anecdotal evidence about efficiency of vitamin D/C combo agains the virus, but I will not bother you with unscientific tidbits.
Now, that you moved to Florida, you don’t to worry about vitamin D as much, but in Seattle basically everyone is deficient. My wife is GP an she said that in all years of testing only one of her patients tested to the top range of moderate band, very few to moderate and everyone else from deficient to severely deficient. I myself tested to deficient, so I’m taking 4000 IU daily and barely getting to low end of moderate. For myself I can report reduced tiredness at winter time.
Anyway, moral of the story is get your vitamin D level tested and just take vitamin C, it’s not going to hurt.
I hear snorting a mixture of ground up Tylenol, fingernails and dried tabasco peppers prevent Covid. People swear by it; big pharma doesn’t want the secret to get out.
Was there ever any real proof that HCQ was viable AT ALL against Covid-19? Where did this idea come from, and why and the hell did it get more attention than my remedy above? Seems to me the whole thing started off as purely anecdotal from some optimistic/crackpot medical “professional,” then had a meteoric rise based on speculation and rumor, fueled by the strong prevailing American contrarian sentiment and idiot-in-chief: Trump and his merry band of contrarian supporters. If the crap worked at all, surely there would be some proof by now. Bolsonaro in Brazil was perhaps more hyped on the stuff than even Trump. Surely a large enough sample of doctors and hospitals around the world tried it by now to know if it worked or not.
Optimism and ignorance are a dangerous combination. As far as I’m concerned, HCQ is no better than any of the other trillions of dollars of snake oil, homeopathic, or alternative nonsense people all over the world throw money away on. Even Steve Jobs, genius that he was, succumbed to the nonsense.
“Was there ever any real proof that HCQ was viable AT ALL against Covid-19? Where did this idea come from”
I too found that unclear when it was proposed, but much later heard that HCQ was successfully used to treat SARS back in the day. Worth a try?
Senorpablo, HCQ was being systematically used in Asia and Europe before Covid even reached USA! And the way US frontline doctors learned about it is by communicating with their colleagues oversearch who saw itworking first-hand. Here is an interview with Here is a June 13 interview with Dr. Luigi Cavanna, who worked at the epicenter of the Italian epidemic in February-March going door-to-door to find and treat sick people. READ WHAT HE HAS TO SAY (hint: search for “hydro”)
https://www.italiaoggi.it/news/covid-nessuno-dei-miei-e-morto-2454154
Golding – I’m aware it was being used elsewhere early on, which I reference as the anecdotal hype. It’s been over a year now, where’s the credible data and proof that it actually works? For Christs sake, we have half a dozen vaccines now. Surely one of the HCQ champions has had enough time to prove it works by now? Is big medicine preventing everyone from doing science now?
> Is big medicine preventing everyone from doing science now?
Maybe not everyone but close enough.
>>>
“In the 1985-86 edition of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine [a highly recommended book for students studying medicine in medical colleges], Dr Fauci wrote that HCQ worked an anti-viral agent despite being an anti-malarial drug. There was no Covid-19 back then. HCQ’s anti-viral properties were known.”
<<>>
In their conclusion, the researchers said, “HCQ is effective in reducing risk of Covid-19, at 800 mg loading and 400 mg weekly dose with more than 2 weeks dosing.”
They said the HCQ was “well tolerated” among the participants. As policy implications of the study, the authors said, “Vaccine has its own limitations, and therefore an alternative strategy of prophylaxis such as HCQ is important, especially in low resource settings.”
<<>>
The outcome of the study is significant given that India is facing acute shortage of vaccine doses, and it is still likely to take a few months before availability of vaccines improves in the country. However, the decision on who could be advised to go for HCQ prophylaxis would require a relook by the Union health ministry and the ICMR.
<<<
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/remember-donald-trump-touted-hydroxychloroquine-study-india-backs-as-covid-19-cure-1811892-2021-06-07
I am a clinical laboratorian, though I do not have a vast amount of academic credentials, I have been working in medicine for 30 years and the last 20 analyzing blood and body fluids.
When Tom Frieden the ex-CDC director penned an op ed in lat March of 2020 that Vitamin D may be helpful in Covid 19 I wanted to know why. Since, I have spent an estimated 2000 hours studying research on Google Scholar, Pubmed and the like. The theory behind vitamin D and how important it is in immunity is fascinating. To find out that white blood cells specifically the macrophage/monocyte have the same hardware the kidneys have, to convert precursor 25(OH)D to usable 125 D at point of attack is amazing.
There are in-fact several pilot studies where they gave active form Vitamin D and it did influence outcome.
We know that single bolus dosages do not work thanks to the study in South America.
My research did not stop there. One day I fell asleep watching a Youtube video where Bruce Hollis talked about why vitamin D trials fail. I awoke to the next video where a pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig was talking about Fructose possibly being implicated in Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Endothelial Dysfunction, forms of Cardiovascular disease, and metabolic dysfunction.
When Dr. Lustig said that it causes significant mitochondrial oxidative stress in endothelium I almost fell out of my bed.
I started looking into fructose and its ability to destroy nitric oxide levels in endothelium due to Oxidative stress. The interesting thing is that Sars CoV-2 Virus reacts in similar fashion with the reactive oxygen species in endothelium.
Recently, started looking into fructose long term potential to reprogram the monocyte from a path homeostatic balance to a path of inflammation. It has to do with NLRP3 inflammasome the mitochondria and the lack of antioxidants. By the way this NLRP3 Inflammasome is of utmost importance since it reacts with Caspace 1 and signals interlueken 1beta.
Vitamin D being a hormone is also an antioxidant and upregulates nitric oxide in endothelium and deactivates NLRP3 inflammasome.
Fish Oil is an antioxidant and upregulates nitric oxide in endothelium and deactivates nlrp3 inflammasome.
Omega 9 fatty acid (olive oil) deactivates nlrp3 inflammasome and has the ability to coat the VDL particle that is responsible for oxidative stress in the endothelium.
Melatonin is a very potent antioxidant and has the ability to deactivate NLRP3 inflammsome.
The question is, did we set ourselves up over time with saturated fats and fructose (table sugar is 50% fructose) in our diet and reprogram our immune system over time only to have a Virus come in and add more oxidative stress to the system. Did this potential weakening of the immune system allow Sars CoV-2 to exploit those who have not had proper antioxidants.
Honestly I do not know where to start. This study has been so deep for me and there is no bottom.
BTW, I analyze vitamin d levels as part of my Job and I live in Central Texas (I am also a sport photographer so I do get outside). I started taking 5000 iu of vitamin D in March of 2020 because I found my level to be 12.9 ng/mL which is deficient. On the same dosage my level by late august peaked at 59 ng/mL. The sun was so important in summer that my level of Vitamin D on the same 5000 iu daily by late Nov. fell 18%. I then concluded that if you are not supplementing Vitamin D in winter, there is no chance that you can have sufficient levels.
Going back reading this, I did not do my explanation justice.
Thank you for your time.
To me, the only study that mattered worth a damn about hydroxychloroquine was produced out of New York State about a month after Trump’s infamous “bleach” presser. At first the results were delayed because of some kerfuffle or another, but when they finally came in, they “showed” that HCQ didn’t help at all. That was picked up by the big media and NPR and after those results, the only thing HCQ was any good at ending prematurely was one’s medical and/or academic career in the United States. It showed what they wanted it to show and that was THAT.
I’ll try to find it, it was done in New York hospitals and had Dr. Cuomo’s stamp of approval on it.
In other words, you support pharma by having people pop (cheap) pills of questionable prophylactic value (and definite side effects) for years(?) rather than vaccinate and be done with it?
You’re a constant dissapointment in your advanced age Phil.
>>> rather than vaccinate and be done with it?
you mean an experimental mRNA-based vaccine developed in record time & originally commissioned by orange hitler (operation warp speed?). You sure it’s not without its long-term effects?
>>> you support pharma by having people pop (cheap) pills of questionable prophylactic value (and definite side effects)
see my comment above:
”
HCQ was “well tolerated” among the participants. As policy implications of the study, the authors said, “Vaccine has its own limitations, and therefore an alternative strategy of prophylaxis such as HCQ is important, especially in low resource settings.”
”
But. the real game-changer might just be the 2DG being developed by DRDO:
https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/drdo-anti-covid-drug-2dg-developed-in-collab-with-dr-reddys-lab-priced-at-990-per-sachet.html
Here’s that study I was thinking about: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
It took some doing to find–most of the news articles mentioning it have been memory holed, and those that weren’t didn’t link to it.
Update: Here is the study I’m referencing above. If you google: “Hydroxychloroquine Study New York State”:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hydroxychloroquine+study+new+york+state
You’ll see the results. It was published in JAMA – the Gold Standard for physicians in the USA, produced by University of Albany School of Public Health, it studied 1,438 “severely ill” hospitalized patients and concluded that HCQ+Azith did nothing good for them and carried serious risks. It was very widely touted – New York Times, CNN, and perhaps most importantly – POLITICO, where the headline read:
“Hydroxychloroquine shows no benefit against coronavirus in N.Y. study”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/11/hydroxychloroquine-shows-no-benefit-against-coronavirus-in-new-york-study-249429
“A decades-old malaria medicine touted by the president as a coronavirus treatment showed no benefit for patients hospitalized in New York….President Donald Trump had repeatedly championed hydroxychloroquine from the press briefing stage, saying it had “tremendous promise” and was safe because “it’s been used for a long time.”
And that, my friends, is all anyone needed to know. Donald Trump was wrong (and crazy), The Univeristy of Albany and Andrew Cuomo were correct, and above the politics on the tippy top of the mountain, flattening the curve, and after that, HCQ became a fringe/crank subject that no clinician in this country would touch, even wearing triple masks, an eye shield, and a ten-foot pole.
It does not matter that the Politico headline was deliberately misleading. It does not matter that the study was not randomized and had nothing to do with prophylaxis – these were 1,438 “seriously ill” already-hospitalized patients with advanced COVID-19. It does not matter that the most important promulgator of this “research” was a POLITICAL magazine. It just DOES NOT MATTER. Comprende?
Another big issue is that the most likely mechanism of anti-viral action of HCQ is zinc ionophoresis… which means HCQ w/o aggressive zinc supplementation did exactly nothing (severely ill patients are likely to be zinc-deficient already).
Anyway, the fact that HCQ was somewhat effective against coronaviruses at early stages was well-known in medical community before SARS2. Even Fauci himself noted that.
Given the fact that even the New York Magazine Intelligencer knows that the Moderna vaccine had already been designed by January 13, 2020 and that it took until November for its efficacy trials to be completed under Operation Warp Speed, one might have taken the perspective I did regarding HCQ and/or Azith: It sounded like an outside chance – it was an antimalarial, and malaria is a bacterial illness – but instead of castigating the President and officially ostracizing anyone who mentioned it, it might be a good idea to conduct a set of really good, randomized and controlled studies on a wide range of patients including asymptomatic patients and really come to some definitive answers about *if* and *when* and *how* it might or might not be helpful. Especially since we had nothing else but masks and locking down the country.
But to the best of my knowledge, that is absolutely not what we did. We did not want those answers. We wanted the headline as Politico wrote it, and that’s what we got.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-design.html
January 13, 2020! From February to November (and indeed, until Donald Trump had been removed from office) – all we had against the virus was surface cleaning, brass and stainless steel “no-touch” tools, lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, social distancing, masks, double masks, bandannas, triple masks, testing, contact tracing, and fear. We did not WANT anything else, because we didn’t even do the research to find it. We know what the categorical imperative was.
Philip, I’m going to just give you my conclusions, because you know me personally and you know how good I am with data. I’ve discussed this in hundreds of postings on Twitter, and I am *not* interested in arguing with your commenters here, who are exhibiting a mix of innumeracy, ignorance, illogic, and gullibility.
1) HCQ works EARLY especially in combination with an antibiotic and supplements like Zinc or Vitamin D
2) Ivermectin works even better than HCQ, and at later stages of the disease too
3) neither is a reliable cure but both reduce the severity and prevent most of the deaths that would occur without them, and their risk profiles are mild and VERY well known
4) the vaccines are effective (but almost as effective in 1 dose as 2, the original studies were mis-analyzed on purpose so they could sell twice as many doses)
5) the mRNA vaccines appear to be quite risky as vaccines go and it’s crazy to give them to children or pregnant women. In the absence of reliable information in the media, I downloaded and analyzed the VAERS database myself, and decided to get the Pfizer vaccine, but only one dose, as the vaccine risks were larger than the incremental protection (2nd shot ups vaccine effectiveness from 90% to 95%).
6) the misinformation and propaganda about the risks of virus, the drugs, and the vaccines are colossally pervasive; I consider myself a very well-qualified and experienced media expert, and it still took me many months of very serious effort and scientific review to reach these conclusions.
Joseph Shipman, what is your point of view on Johnson and Johnson viral vector vaccine and its comparison to Pfizer mRNA vaccine?
For some taking one dose if 2 are recommended can be a hassle because organizations may treat it as not-vaccinated and hassle with health checks. For not so young not so trim by functionally fit and athletic, do you recommend any vaccine before moving to not controlled environment? Johnson and Johnson now claims to be efficient against Delta variant and give immunity for at least 8 months