More evidence hydroxychloroquine works

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Josephwalker, Jul 28, 2020.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The patients treated by Dr. Immanuel and the other Doctors at the press conference are still alive.
    Anyone really interested in exposing quackery would be focusing on the treatment given to the now over half a million patients who died from the Wuhan China Virus and the hospitals and doctors who "cared" for them.

    Dr. Fauci has admitted that he lied about the effectiveness of masks. Surely you know that.
     
  2. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    During a health emergency, especially during a pandemic waiting for double blind control studies is unethical.
    Doctors should be treating patients with whatever works - immediately. Instead of waiting until over half a million human beings die.

    You have been misinformed. Science is broken. People need to wake up and pay attention.
    Fake Science Kills.


    "If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?
    In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?"
    SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    iF i HAVE TO WEAR THE STUPID MASK because we don't really know one way or another.. then If I get the Whu Flu.. I'll try the stpid pills and therapy.. 'cause we really can't decide whether it works... one way or anothe.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hehe, yes, I'm criticizing the class of pundits and politicians... but I'm not a member of their class so it's not up to me to defend them. If we have a politician here, he/she is welcome to berate me, LOL.

    557, I have great news for you. I was talking to a colleague today and I mentioned the ionophore issue with HCQ and zinc. He said he listened to an interview by Dr. Paul Marik, the creator of the enormously successful MATH+ protocol, and apparently (according to him) Dr. Marik was saying that by now he doesn't believe that HCQ has any efficacy against COVID-19 beyond the ionophore effect, that is, getting zinc inside the cells to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2, but he added some stuff I didn't know about, that when one takes HCQ it is immediately absorbed by red blood cells and slowly released back into the circulation, taking forever to achieve levels that could be efficacious (10 days), which is one of the reasons he thinks that it only helps if it is given very early so that it builds up better. But given the issue of QTc prolongation, Dr. Marik signaled that we can use a much better ionophore to get the zinc in, and it is faster and completely harmless, which is why he included quercetin 500mg BID in his protocol with Zinc Picolinate 50mg. Now, while this again hasn't been thoroughly studied, it has been indeed suggested, see here:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968089606007310

    Now, see, this was with the first SARS, in 2006. No mention of zinc. But it's promising.

    So, hey, this might be the solution! Let's bypass the whole HCQ conundrum and try the harmless quercetin instead, and it does have other good stuff as it is a good antioxidant and it also has its own antiviral properties:

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01451/full

    Now look at this, not a paper, but it has fragments of an interview with a good guy from UNC:

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87373

    Relevant part:

    "The agent promotes SIRT2, which then inhibits the NLRP3 inflammasome assembly involved with COVID-19 infection, said Samuel F. Yanuck, DC, of the Program on Integrative Medicine at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, who co-authored a review of emerging research on the subject. It also plays a role in facilitating zinc transportation across lipid membranes, Yanuck said. "It's not a bizarre or experimental substance and given it has these potential important biological roles, I think it's worth being considered as part of an overall strategy," Yanuck told MedPage Today, adding that quercetin would need to be one part of a multifactorial treatment regimen."

    Here is Yanuck's paper, it makes reference to zinc 53 times. I haven't had the time to read it and digest it (it is complex); if you do and you can tell me what you think it's appreciated.

    http://imjournal.com/oa/evidence_su...to_covid-19_from_prevention_through_recovery/

    I have noticed today that Dr. Paul Marik has changed the MATH+ protocol again (it's periodically updated on the website of his medical school) and now from optional, he says that HCQ is plain contra-indicated in all phases including prophylaxis, and this may be because he now believes that he has developed a faster, more reliable, and more harmless way to deliver the ionophore effect.

    --------

    You asked me for the Annals of Internal Medicine paper. Here it is, but do know the following: only 58% of subjects were PCR-tested, but many of the ones who weren't were contacts of confirmed cases, who then also developed rather typical symptoms. Also, they relied on patient self-report of symptoms and mailed the medication to patients (so compliance might have been an issue). They did preserve the randomization and the double-blindness. An editorial from the Annals stated that they understand the low testing rate due to the difficulties in getting a cohort of patients who are isolated at home and not in hospitals and clinics, tested, with the testing shortages, and with the lockdown orders they had to use questionnaires and the mail, but research must be done anyway. The peer-reviewers and editors praised the paper very much despite the limitations.

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207

    Now that I learned from Dr. Paul Marik that it takes 10 days for HCQ to reach level I'm less enthusiastic about this study... They used HCQ for only 5 days. There are many studies out there with short courses of HCQ. If Dr. Marik is right this may be the key to many failures.

    Hey, look at what I found. The interview my colleague saw that streamed live, was actually saved on YouTube and is available. One hour 20 minutes and I don't have the time or the stomach to watch it now, but I'll see if I watch it this coming weekend. Cheers. Oh, and by the way, Dr. Marik's protocol mentions vitamin D too, 1,000 to 4,000 units per day. I'm taking 2,000.



    Now, to others here who may not be following my dialogue with the poster 557, it needs to be said that the above is not some attempt to find some groundless quackery. These are legitimate scientists publishing out of reputable American medical schools. This is not the crazy stuff we see elsewhere. But I'm not trying to sell the idea of Quercetin. I'm merely passing on what these proponents of it are saying (but I must add, it is very interesting).
     
    557, Ddyad and Quantum Nerd like this.
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks bunches. I’m bushed tonight as well so won’t get all the links read either tonight.

    For what it’s worth, there’s a podcaster I listen to occasionally and he’s been on and pushing quercetin for quite a while. I do think it sounds promising.

    @Quantum Nerd had a thread on some other replacements for HQC a while back. PB28 I believe was one. I think you are lurking QN, if you have something to add on PB28 or quercetin and zinc I’d be interested. I felt bad your thread degenerated into politics before you had a chance to add much detail.

    Anyway, thanks again for the links and I’ll follow up.

    Oh, good info on time for HCQ to become effective after initial dose. Never heard that. Clears up some questions for sure.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020
    Quantum Nerd and CenterField like this.
  6. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, with whatever works... not with what doesn't work and does more harm than good.
    But in any case, doctors did NOT do what you implied. The emergency authorization was issued exactly because the pandemic was raging, so people jumped into using everything that seemed promising including and especially HCQ, while they waited for the RCTs. Then the RCTs concluded, and the emergency authorization was appropriately withdrawn.

    I never implied that people should have waited with their arms crossed, doing nothing. I never berated professor Raoult for having the idea in the first place, or berated others for trying it out and putting it to the test. However, I certainly didn't like the hype and the political interference, and non-medical politicians going on TV to dispense medical advice ("You have nothing to lose, take it" Donald J. Trump, April 7, 2020).

    In the beginning of the pandemic, when I said in another forum that HCQ hadn't been shown to work yet, when someone asked me "would you use it for a loved one with a severe case, or would you do nothing and wait for the RCTs?" I highlighted that it hadn't been shown to NOT work either, so yes, absolutely, I'd use it (and have). But ask me the same question today, after the data came in. I'll say "absolutely not." Not only the data now shows that it doesn't work, but also shows that it harms, especially severe cases. So why should I use something that has risks that outweigh the benefits? It makes no sense.

    With quercetin emerging now as a safer and more efficient alternative to HCQ's role in working as a ionophore for zinc, there is even smaller reason to use it even in early cases, which is why the Eastern Virginia Medical School MATH+ protocol has been updated again on August 1st. First, the protocol recommended HCQ. Then it made it optional. And finally, with the latest update, it made it contra-indicated:

    So what do they do instead? They use quercetin 250-500 mg twice a day with 30-50mg of zinc as prophylactic (after the first month; initial dose 50-75), and if people do get sick they keep the same quercetin dose and increase zinc to 75-100mg.
     
  7. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @557 I'm reading Yanuck's paper. Several words of caution - I knew this guy for his being an assistant professor at the very good University of Chapel Hill School of Medicine, but I'm a bit dismayed to see that he is not an MD but rather a DC, or Doctor of Chiropractic. He is a chiropractor... Oh well, he does seem to be better than most. First of all, Ivy League undergrad (Cornell University). Married to an MD, she is a staff person at his clinic too so I guess she takes care of signing prescriptions, haha. Now, he seems to be a self-taught immunology expert, including, teaching a course at UNC called "Immunology of Autoimmune Disease, Inflammation and Chronic Infection." His paper as far as I know (I'm not an immunology specialist and my immunology studies are a few decades distant; I don't consider myself up to date in this ever-evolving specialty) appears to be sound with abundant references and I haven't seen anything preposterous yet as far as the medications I do know are concerned, including with appropriate warnings about correct drug-drug interactions. Then, the authors go on and on about herbal supplements and I know nothing about them and generally am very suspicious of them, in terms of solid evidence versus a good dose of mysticism (Yanuck also trained in Chinese medicine and acupuncture). Anyway, regardless of his training, the paper also got extensive input, as acknowledged by him, from a PhD who is the Director of the Applied Immunobiology Laboratory at UNC Chapel Hill. I think overall there is good information in it, and I skipped over all the herbal parts. The paper has 383 references which is certainly impressive and does enable verification of the validity of his claims, by interested parties.

    One of the authors, Helen Messer, is an MD/PhD who graduated from the University of Calgary Medical School and is a licensed MD in California. She has published three papers on T-Cell receptors. So of the four she does seem to be a bit more legit, although with a rather thin resumé.

    The two other authors scare me. Kara Fitzgerald, ND. Naturopathic Doctor... calls herself a physician (unfortunately their association has lobbied enough to ensure that in 17 US states, naturopaths are legally allowed to call themselves physicians... although their training is not recognized by any state medical board as such). Trained in herbalism and nutrition. I guess we know now from whom the numerous citations of herbal supplements come from. Same with the other one, Joseph Pizzorno, also an ND. Licensed in Washington State (apparently they allow this kind of thing, there). He founded a naturopathic school called Bastyr University. Its entry on Wikipedia reads: "Bastyr's programs teach and research topics that are considered pseudoscience, quackery, and fake by the scientific and medical communities. Quackwatch, a group against health fraud, put Bastyr University on its list of "questionable organizations." ~snip Bastyr University and similar naturopathic programs are not accredited as medical schools but as special programs that are overseen by a naturopathic council which is not required to be scientific. Bastyr's naturopathic program has been accused by critics of misrepresenting its medical rigor and its ability to train primary care clinicians."

    So, anyway, I guess we'll take from this article the half about immunology mechanisms and the more widely accepted treatments, and will discard the herbal crap.

    You'll like these paragraphs:

    Zinc - Zinc plays a crucial role in the function of essentially all immune cells. Deficiency of this critical element has a profound impact on immune response, increasing susceptibility to a variety of infections.208-212 One of zinc's critical roles in immune function is its role in thymulin production and activity.213

    In addition, zinc has specific and well-known antiviral properties.214 Increasing intracellular zinc concentrations in cell culture impairs the replication of a variety of RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-1. Intracellular zinc has been shown to inhibit RNA synthesis by suppressing the SARS-CoV-1 replication and transcription complex.215 In vivo evidence for zinc's antiviral role comes from a Cochrane review that found zinc intake was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of the common cold. Many of the studies showing benefit when taken during the course of an infection were in the form of a zinc lozenge.216 It makes sense to utilize this mode of delivery during the acute infection phase.

    Zinc has also been shown to suppress Th17 cell development.217 Interleukin-17 (IL-17) made by Th17 cells has been shown to drive an inflammatory feedback loop via IL-6 induction.218 Zinc dependent transcription factors are involved in the regulation of the gene expression of IL-6 and TNF?.219 The effect of SNPs in genes encoding zinc transporters on blood zinc levels in humans has been examined.220 Older individuals with gain of function IL-6 SNPs have been shown to have a greater need for zinc.221 Zinc supplement in older individuals with gain of function IL-6 SNPs and low zinc were shown to have lower IL-6 and MCP-1 levels upon zinc supplementation.222

    ~ snip

    Zinc deficiency greatly impairs immune function, especially resistance to viral infections. Notably, inadequate dietary consumption of zinc is found in almost half the older population.224

    Quercetin - As discussed above, the antiviral roles of zinc are well documented. However, protection of cells against viral appropriation of cellular metabolism to replicate viral RNA requires adequate intracellular zinc. Ionophores play a critical role in facilitating transport of zinc into cells. The commonly available flavonoid quercetin is a zinc ionophore and has been shown to facilitate transport of zinc across lipid membranes. This is particularly relevant as chloroquine is also a zinc ionophore, which has been postulated as a possible mechanism for its apparent efficacy against SARS-CoV-v2.240,241

    Quercetin is also important as one of multiple flavonoids shown in vitro to block the activity of MERS-CoV 3CLpro, a critical enzyme for coronavirus replication. Animal studies are limited at this time but support efficacy.242

    In a molecular docking study looking for agents that could bind to the SARS-CoV-2 Viral Spike Protein and thus have potential to inhibit its infectivity, researchers found quercetin to be the fifth most effective.243 However, quercetin has low bioavailability and therefore requires special formulations to achieve clinically effective blood levels. A trial with a phytosomal quercetin formulation has been started in Italy on 660 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (private communication with study PI).
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Long before half a million people die under treatment regime of the "experts" it is time to question the judgement of the experts, and stop their interference with the doctor patient relationship.

    "Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media, and outpatient trials results are not expected until September. Early outpatient illness is very different than later hospitalized florid disease and the treatments differ. Evidence about use of hydroxychloroquine alone, or of hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin in inpatients, is irrelevant concerning efficacy of the pair in early high-risk outpatient disease.

    Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe."
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, By Harvey A Risch, American Journal of Epidemiology, kwaa093, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa093, Published: 27 May 2020. (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)
    https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes and now free of demons and succubi!

    upload_2020-8-5_1-5-4.jpeg
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    From May this year

    I suggest you find more current research
     
  11. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you saying that Dr. Immanuel is a quack?
     
  12. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The critics have been caught red handed fudging their data. Why do you suppose they did that?
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    One paper

    there are lots of others that have NOT “fudged the data”

    Quite frankly at this point the only two people touting this drug appear to be a half wit and someone who believes that STDs are caused by demon spawn

    But by all means take it yourself

    I certainly won’t though and I will not recommend it to anyone I know
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Just in case people need to know more about the “expert” promoting HCQ

    upload_2020-8-5_1-15-0.jpeg
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  15. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When Lancet and NEJM are caught red handed publishing Fake Science blind faith in "scientists" is irrational.
     
  16. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, yeah, professor Risch, I've already told you what I think of his papers. He is an epidemiologist, not an infectious disease or critical care doctor who actually treats patients, and not a pharmacology researcher. He should stick to his lane. The studies he quotes are laughable in their methodological shortcomings. I'll much better go with the large RCTs showing no efficacy including in early cases.

    Keep betting on this dead horse. Be my guest.

    Now, regarding this phrase "Long before half a million people die under treatment regime of the "experts" it is time to question the judgement of the experts, and stop their interference with the doctor patient relationship" you seem to be trying to destroy the way the medical sciences have advanced for the last several hundred years. Do you think it's the front-line non-scientific doc who provides info on what treatments are reliable and efficacious? LOL, that's the weakest category of evidence of them all. What doctors EVERYWHERE do in medical school, then in practice with continuous medical education, is to pay attention to, and read what the "experts" (who are also doctors) are providing in terms of data. Virtually ALL front-line doctors look at studies to substantiate their practices. The few who don't are arrogant quacks who often get sanctioned by State Medical Boards for practicing outside of the standard of care and accepted evidence. You know, the snake oil folks who pretend that they have developed their own "cures." Everybody else practices according to expert consensus and evidence-based medicine which relies on scientifically-obtained data.

    Your posts are interesting but frankly I think you don't have very clear notions of how the art and science of Medicine work. Besides, nobody is interfering with anything. Physicians can still prescribe off-label if they feel so inclined and are willing to accept the malpractice risks.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  17. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would reject the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY to embrace the discredited conclusions regarding HCQ published in Lancet and NEJM?

    When advocates are caught red handed fudging their data to push an agenda that side has lost all credibility. I would stop beating their dead horse if people stopped trying to take a ride on it.
     
  18. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you seriously unaware that Epidemiology and Therapeutics are two very different fields? Again, the good professor of Epidemiology at Yale's School of Public Health (not their Medical School) should stick to his lane and leave Therapeutics to the people who actually treat patients. Why do you suppose his paper on Therapeutics wasn't accept by one of the Therapeutics journals like the Journal of Infectious Diseases? You got it, because it is flawed, but his epidemiology buddies gobbled it up.

    You continue to be under the impression that medical journals are some sort of author. They are the vehicle, the messenger. You are shooting the messenger. The papers they publish are not authored by themselves. They merely provide a publication space. The Lancet and NEJM got BRIEFLY fooled by fraudulent papers that got retracted; this has NOTHING to do with the merit of other papers authored by completely different people who have no ties whatsoever to the fraudsters.

    I understand that lay people don't get it. They think of journalistic operations like HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Breitbart, etc., that have an agenda and try to push a "side" and only publish what is convenient for that "side." Scientific journals, however, operate very differently. They do not take "sides" and have no agenda. Unlike the name "journal" might suggest, they are not newspapers, magazines, or websites. In the same issue of a medical journal you can find papers for and against certain treatments or approaches (or across different issues). The same Lancet and NEJM that naively gave the peer-reviewing approval and briefly published the two fraudulent papers against HCQ have also published other studies that seemed to suggest efficacy for HCQ.

    There are no "sides" here. What there is, is a couple of fraudulent papers that didn't fool too many people for too long and got retracted within days. It happens, like you demonstrated yourself with your 150 papers retracted per year... but you never replied to my putting this into the perspective that 2 million papers are published per year so 150 out of 2 million is ridiculously small, and the 150 tainted ones do not mean that the other 1,999,850 papers are also tainted. Gee!

    When researchers do a randomized controlled trial they are not taking "sides" - they merely design and run the study - double blindly exactly to avoid the bias of "sides" - and the data will tell the story. What the data show is that HCQ doesn't work. No "sides" involved. It doesn't work, period, regardless of your strong desire for it to work. You're the one with a "side" - the side of trying to force reality into something that it is not, and present some sort of alternative facts.

    I've told you this many times, but you don't want to listen, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think I get it. In my opinion, you seem to have a clear anti-science agenda. You must be delighted that two fraudulent papers BRIEFLY made it into two journals (before being quashed by a vigilant scientific community) because in your *opinion* it fuels your contempt for and suspicion of the sciences.

    I wonder why you're using a computer somewhere to post here. You know, computers are a product of applied sciences. I think you should take a good look at the lifestyle of the Mennonites and the Amish. They might suit better your allergy to sciences. No computers. No electricity. No cars. Just horse-drawn chariots. I guess among them you'll be safe from the evil tainted science that you see everywhere.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  19. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m less than halfway through this because I got distracted by the section on macrophages and this viruses ability to circumvent and even kill them. I seem to remember from college children have higher levels of macrophages than adults. I can’t seem to be able to verify that 25 year old memory. Is that our understanding today? If so the kid tolerance to infection makes sense on that level. They may have concentrations of macrophages able to outcompete viral replication at least until the adaptive immune system is activated. Also we know the immune system regulatory functions of macrophages can fail in the aged, leading to cytokin storm events in other diseases. The aged being the most effected could be a result of this coupled with the notion the virus kills or renders the “healthy” macrophages the older person has left.

    Furthermore, obesity affects macrophage behavior as well as T cells in adipose tissue. I think there is so much going on here it’s going to take a lot of research to nail it all down. Talk about a research rich environment.

    I’ll go back to reading your link but I’ll forget this if I don’t put it down in text now. :)
     
  20. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet another generally unresponsive rather verbose post. For the most part you are debating with yourself. Hint: When Breitbart and the "lifestyle of the Mennonites and the Amish" creeps into your copy you should check to see if you haven't left center field for a seat in the peanut gallery. :)

    Are you seriously saying that epidemiology is Fake Science, and has no credibility with regard to the treatment of infectious disease?

    "There are no "sides" here. What there is, is a couple of fraudulent papers that didn't fool too many..."CF

    Why post that when you know it is not true? The Lancet and NEJM Fake Science fooled many.
    Why deny the obvious?

    Apologists for Fake Science are anti-science.
    Critics of Fake Science are pro-science.

    "The organization that uncovered the world of offshore tax havens and rogue international finance in the Panama Papers and Luxembourg Leaks has shifted its attention to fake science. In collaboration with reporters from 18 news outlets all over the world, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung examined 175,000 scientific articles published by five of the world’s most prominent pseudo-scientific publishing platforms. The result? The collaboration found that some 400,000 scientists worldwide have been published in these journals since 2013."

    MOTHER JONES, 400,000 Scientists All Over the World Have Been Published in Fake Journals, Journalists investigated widespread fraud within the scientific publishing community., BY KARI SONDEJUL. 20, 2018.
    https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/07/real-news-tackles-fake-science/

    Fake Science Kills. Reject it.
     
  21. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, yeah, fellow, again you've demonstrated that you don't understand medical care. Hint: epidemiologists don't treat people. I didn't say Epidemiology is fake science. That's you putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that. I just said that as a professor of Epidemiology the good doctor should stay on his lane and publish papers on, well, epidemiological measures to contain a virus outbreak (you know, social distancing, masks, appropriate rates of vaccination that need to be achieved, herd immunity thresholds, look at contagion trends, analyse the virus' reproduction numbers, look at the graphs of progression, make predictions of future directions for the contagion, etc.) and should leave to the people who have expertise on therapeutics, the commentary about how to TREAT the infected. I'm a bit surprised that you don't understand such a basic distinction but still berate *me* - and please don't give me the "verbose" excuse. I'm not responsible for other people's attention span or lack thereof. If you dislike a post that is a bit longer, do you want me to use pictures, next time?

    Mother Jones, are you kidding me? You berate medical journals as prestigious and well-established (despite a couple of hiccups; nobody is perfect) as The Lancet and the NEJM (two of the top five medical journals in the world, together with the BMJ, the JAMA, and the Annals of Internal Medicine) and you quote... Mother Jones? LOL

    Dismissed.

    Have a nice day.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  22. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While like I said immunology is not my strongest knowledge base, I do seem to remember that children indeed have better functioning macrophages (not sure about numbers) which sometimes backfire on them with conditions such as Macrophage Activation Syndrome. Definitely asthmatic children have more, but a healthier child, I don't know in terms of numbers. At the very least they are better performing than old people's macrophages, that's for sure:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397845/
     
    Bowerbird and 557 like this.
  23. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Ddyad you know what? The dialogue with you and your hyperbolic, groundless, and repetitious claims of FAKE SCIENCE OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING and your propensity to put words in my mouth are a distraction from the much more interesting conversation I'm having with 557, so, I'm sorry, mate, but I'll need to take advantage of what I need to do to skip your "contributions" all together. On this note, I wish you a long and productive life, safe from the virus. I certainly don't mind if you prefer to take this new stance of mine as some sort of proof that I'm short of arguments or something; it's not that, it's rather that life is too short to waste time with certain things, but if it comforts you to assume otherwise, be my guest. Another reason is, when it gets to this, we start sliding into a less than civil discourse and I don't prefer this style. So, I apologize if anything I said to you has sounded offensive. Over and out, forever. Good bye.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  24. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "FAKE SCIENCE OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING" CF
    Dude, just stop - really. ;-)

     
  25. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Am I supposed to have discussed whether or not epidemiologists treat people?
    Read more carefully - it helps. ;-)

    Thanks for finally admitting that Lancet and NEJM fooled a lot of people by publishing Fake Science to suppress the use of HCQ.
    OTOH, has MoJo published any Fake Science?
    I assumed, after you dissed Slate, and HuffPo that Mother Jones might be a more acceptable source for you. Sorry it disappointed you. I tried. :)
     

Share This Page