COR Corona COVID-19 forum
Alles over het corona / COVID-19 virus.
Nog meer bewijs dat vroeg toedienen HCQ heel goed werkt:
Peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations among early treated outpatients
'What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on'
A peer-reviewed study analyzing the effectiveness of a triple drug cocktail including hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients found that the treatment was effective and that it significantly reduced hospitalization and mortality rates for those in the treatment group.
The study, authored by the controversial Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in partnership with two German doctors, was accepted for peer-review and will be published in the December issue of the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. An online-only version of the study was published Oct. 26.
Dr. Zelenko and team, Drs. Roland Derwand and Martin Scholz, sought to describe the outcomes of high-risk patients with laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 who received early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin. A total of 141 diagnosed COVID-19 patients were prescribed the triple treatment over a five-day period. They were compared with a control group of 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients who did not receive the treatment.
The study found that treated patients were 84% less likely to be hospitalized than untreated ones. Of 141 treated patients, four were hospitalized, which was significantly fewer than 58 of 377 untreated patients who were sent to the hospital. Additionally, the mortality rate for treated patients was lower. Only one patient in the treatment group died versus 13 patients in the untreated group. The patient who died had a history of cancer and only took one daily dose of the triple therapy before hospital admission.
The anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has been the subject of intense public debate after President Donald Trump championed it as a potential "game changer" in March just after the onset of the pandemic. Earlier studies conducted in April and May found that the drug had no positive impact on patients. Another study published in Lancet claimed that the drug could be dangerous for some patients, but was later retracted by its authors. A more recent study published in November found patients treated with hydroxychloroquine showed no signs of significant improvement in "clinical status" compared with those given a placebo.
Zelenko and his co-authors claim that their research differentiates itself from other studies that have shown mixed or negative results for hydroxychloroquine by focusing on outpatients treated at an early stage of the disease.
"All studies that used HCQ with rather contradictory results were in hospitalized and often sicker patients," the study notes. Additionally, this study focuses on using hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin, where other studies may have analyzed the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by itself.
"What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on," Derwand said in a news release about the study.
"It's unfortunate that much of the media coverage surrounding hydroxychloroquine has been negative. These three medications are affordable, available in pill form, and work in synergy against COVID-19," Zelenko said. "Hydroxychloroquine's main role is to allow zinc to enter the cell and inhibit the virus' reproduction. And azithromycin prevents secondary bacterial infection in the lungs and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications."
"This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms," Scholz added. "The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc. This data can be used to inform ongoing pandemic response policies as well as future clinical trials."
https://www.theblaze.com/(...)udy-hospitalizations
Peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine study finds 84% fewer hospitalizations among early treated outpatients
'What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on'
A peer-reviewed study analyzing the effectiveness of a triple drug cocktail including hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients found that the treatment was effective and that it significantly reduced hospitalization and mortality rates for those in the treatment group.
The study, authored by the controversial Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in partnership with two German doctors, was accepted for peer-review and will be published in the December issue of the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. An online-only version of the study was published Oct. 26.
Dr. Zelenko and team, Drs. Roland Derwand and Martin Scholz, sought to describe the outcomes of high-risk patients with laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 who received early treatment with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin. A total of 141 diagnosed COVID-19 patients were prescribed the triple treatment over a five-day period. They were compared with a control group of 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients who did not receive the treatment.
The study found that treated patients were 84% less likely to be hospitalized than untreated ones. Of 141 treated patients, four were hospitalized, which was significantly fewer than 58 of 377 untreated patients who were sent to the hospital. Additionally, the mortality rate for treated patients was lower. Only one patient in the treatment group died versus 13 patients in the untreated group. The patient who died had a history of cancer and only took one daily dose of the triple therapy before hospital admission.
The anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has been the subject of intense public debate after President Donald Trump championed it as a potential "game changer" in March just after the onset of the pandemic. Earlier studies conducted in April and May found that the drug had no positive impact on patients. Another study published in Lancet claimed that the drug could be dangerous for some patients, but was later retracted by its authors. A more recent study published in November found patients treated with hydroxychloroquine showed no signs of significant improvement in "clinical status" compared with those given a placebo.
Zelenko and his co-authors claim that their research differentiates itself from other studies that have shown mixed or negative results for hydroxychloroquine by focusing on outpatients treated at an early stage of the disease.
"All studies that used HCQ with rather contradictory results were in hospitalized and often sicker patients," the study notes. Additionally, this study focuses on using hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin, where other studies may have analyzed the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine by itself.
"What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting, and only high-risk patients were treated early on," Derwand said in a news release about the study.
"It's unfortunate that much of the media coverage surrounding hydroxychloroquine has been negative. These three medications are affordable, available in pill form, and work in synergy against COVID-19," Zelenko said. "Hydroxychloroquine's main role is to allow zinc to enter the cell and inhibit the virus' reproduction. And azithromycin prevents secondary bacterial infection in the lungs and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications."
"This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms," Scholz added. "The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc. This data can be used to inform ongoing pandemic response policies as well as future clinical trials."
https://www.theblaze.com/(...)udy-hospitalizations
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Leugens over HCQ zijn gebruikt om HCQ te verbieden:
Meer info:
A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling
On its face, it was a major finding: Antimalarial drugs touted by the White House as possible COVID-19 treatments looked to be not just ineffective, but downright deadly. A study published on 22 May in The Lancet used hospital records procured by a little-known data analytics company called Surgisphere to conclude that coronavirus patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine were more likely to show an irregular heart rhythm—a known side effect thought to be rare—and were more likely to die in the hospital.
Within days, some large randomized trials of the drugs—the type that might prove or disprove the retrospective study’s analysis—screeched to a halt. Solidarity, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) megatrial of potential COVID-19 treatments, paused recruitment into its hydroxychloroquine arm, for example. (Update: At a briefing on 3 June WHO announced it would resume that arm of the study.)
But just as quickly, the Lancet results have begun to unravel—and Surgisphere, which provided patient data for two other high-profile COVID-19 papers, has come under withering online scrutiny from researchers and amateur sleuths. They have pointed out many red flags in the Lancet paper, including the astonishing number of patients involved and details about their demographics and prescribed dosing that seem implausible. “It began to stretch and stretch and stretch credulity,” says Nicholas White, a malaria researcher at Mahidol University in Bangkok.
Today, The Lancet issued an Expression of Concern (EOC) saying “important scientific questions have been raised about data” in the paper and noting that “an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly.”
Artikel gaat verder:
https://www.sciencemag.or(...)ls-may-be-unraveling
De teruggetrokken paper:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
Meer info:
A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling
On its face, it was a major finding: Antimalarial drugs touted by the White House as possible COVID-19 treatments looked to be not just ineffective, but downright deadly. A study published on 22 May in The Lancet used hospital records procured by a little-known data analytics company called Surgisphere to conclude that coronavirus patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine were more likely to show an irregular heart rhythm—a known side effect thought to be rare—and were more likely to die in the hospital.
Within days, some large randomized trials of the drugs—the type that might prove or disprove the retrospective study’s analysis—screeched to a halt. Solidarity, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) megatrial of potential COVID-19 treatments, paused recruitment into its hydroxychloroquine arm, for example. (Update: At a briefing on 3 June WHO announced it would resume that arm of the study.)
But just as quickly, the Lancet results have begun to unravel—and Surgisphere, which provided patient data for two other high-profile COVID-19 papers, has come under withering online scrutiny from researchers and amateur sleuths. They have pointed out many red flags in the Lancet paper, including the astonishing number of patients involved and details about their demographics and prescribed dosing that seem implausible. “It began to stretch and stretch and stretch credulity,” says Nicholas White, a malaria researcher at Mahidol University in Bangkok.
Today, The Lancet issued an Expression of Concern (EOC) saying “important scientific questions have been raised about data” in the paper and noting that “an independent audit of the provenance and validity of the data has been commissioned by the authors not affiliated with Surgisphere and is ongoing, with results expected very shortly.”
Artikel gaat verder:
https://www.sciencemag.or(...)ls-may-be-unraveling
De teruggetrokken paper:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Ik zie en lees geen bewijs anders dan wij van WC-eend (Zelenko).quote:Op maandag 30 november 2020 18:40 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
Nog meer bewijs dat vroeg toedienen HCQ heel goed werkt:
Verder meen dat het HCQ verhaal maar een zeer beperkte werking en toepassing bleek te hebben bij de behandeling van Covid19 patiënten en sws te weinig om nog veel aandacht aan te schenken.
HydroCQ (en zusje Chloroquine) is een algemeen onstekingsremmend middel dat afhankelijk van dosis (en patiënt) schadelijk kan zijn. bron: wiki
Dat het middel door sommigen blijft schreeuwen om aandacht is vooral dreinen op de golven.quote:bron: WebMd
The evidence is mixed. There’s interest in hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment because early studies in the lab showed promise. They found that the drug had some antiviral effect on the cells infected with SARS-CoV-2. That’s the virus that causes COVID-19. So far, there’s no strong evidence that it does the same thing in people. The studies have since been retracted, or pulled back.
"On bended knee is no way to be free" Peter R 1954-2021 (©Zapata)
Hegel: "De waarheid is subjectief"
Covid19: "Doctors can’t cure stupid, but at least they can sedate it."
Hegel: "De waarheid is subjectief"
Covid19: "Doctors can’t cure stupid, but at least they can sedate it."
Staat gewoon in de bijsluiter. Een van de mogelijke bijwerkingen is ernstige hartritmestoornissen. Dit spul is rotzooi wat je niet zomaar preventief kunt gebruiken.quote:
[..]
In onderzoek van de WHO en Oxford had men de dubbele dosis HCQ gebruikt, terwijl men al decennia wist wat de veilige dosis was!
Ik weet niet of dat van die hartritmestoornissen uit dat foutieve onderzoek voortkwam?
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 03-12-2020 03:09:45 ]
‘Only a one in 17 billion chance hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work’: medical professor
Hydroxychloroquine really works says Professor of Medicine Dr Peter McCullough, describing the treatment as “the most widely used therapeutic” to treat COVID-19 in the world.
“The chances that it doesn’t work are calculated to be one in 17 billion,” he told Sky News.
“There’s no controversy over whether or not hydroxychloroquine works. The controversy is on the public health approach to COVID-19."
Mr McCullough said “the virus invades inside cells, so we have to use drugs that go inside the cell and work to reduce viral replication".
“The drugs that work within the cell and actually reduce viral replication are hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, doxycycline and azithromycin”.
“Sadly, in the United States and I know in Australia this happens all the time, patients get no treatment whatsoever. They literally are told to stay at home until they are sick enough to go to the hospital”
“I think that honestly it’s atrocious.
“History will look back on that and think it was the worst way to handle a potentially fatal illness."
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6212859932001
Hydroxychloroquine really works says Professor of Medicine Dr Peter McCullough, describing the treatment as “the most widely used therapeutic” to treat COVID-19 in the world.
“The chances that it doesn’t work are calculated to be one in 17 billion,” he told Sky News.
“There’s no controversy over whether or not hydroxychloroquine works. The controversy is on the public health approach to COVID-19."
Mr McCullough said “the virus invades inside cells, so we have to use drugs that go inside the cell and work to reduce viral replication".
“The drugs that work within the cell and actually reduce viral replication are hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, doxycycline and azithromycin”.
“Sadly, in the United States and I know in Australia this happens all the time, patients get no treatment whatsoever. They literally are told to stay at home until they are sick enough to go to the hospital”
“I think that honestly it’s atrocious.
“History will look back on that and think it was the worst way to handle a potentially fatal illness."
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6212859932001
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
chance is goed, Proof is beter.quote:
‘Only a one in 17 billion chance hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work’: medical professor
Hydroxychloroquine really works says Professor of Medicine Dr Peter McCullough, describing the treatment as “the most widely used therapeutic” to treat COVID-19 in the world.
“The chances that it doesn’t work are calculated to be one in 17 billion,” he told Sky News.
“There’s no controversy over whether or not hydroxychloroquine works. The controversy is on the public health approach to COVID-19."
Mr McCullough said “the virus invades inside cells, so we have to use drugs that go inside the cell and work to reduce viral replication".
“The drugs that work within the cell and actually reduce viral replication are hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, doxycycline and azithromycin”.
“Sadly, in the United States and I know in Australia this happens all the time, patients get no treatment whatsoever. They literally are told to stay at home until they are sick enough to go to the hospital”
“I think that honestly it’s atrocious.
“History will look back on that and think it was the worst way to handle a potentially fatal illness."
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6212859932001
Als dit werkelijk zulke goede kansen zijn, waarom is er dan eigenlijk 0 goed bewijs voor.
Er is wel degelijk goed bewijs voor en dat bewijs wordt onder andere in dit topic getoond.quote:
[..]
chance is goed, Proof is beter.
Als dit werkelijk zulke goede kansen zijn, waarom is er dan eigenlijk 0 goed bewijs voor.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Is dat nog steeds bezig die Hydroxychloroquine hype? Er zijn meerdere middelen die werken, sommigen beter dan een ander. Maar omdat Baudet etc. het steeds opbrengen, is het nog steeds relevant om steeds weer te zeggen dat het zo goed werkt?
De virusontkenners geloven nog steeds dat HCQ de heilige graal is en er helemaal geen lockdown/maatregelen nodig zijn. Het idee is dan dat alles terug kan naar normaal en iedereen preventief aan de HCQ gaat.quote:
Is dat nog steeds bezig die Hydroxychloroquine hype? Er zijn meerdere middelen die werken, sommigen beter dan een ander. Maar omdat Baudet etc. het steeds opbrengen, is het nog steeds relevant om steeds weer te zeggen dat het zo goed werkt?
ALS er wel degelijk goed bewijs is? Wat deze dokter aangeeft is dat het niet werkt bij 1/17000000000, waarom is er dan zo weinig goed bewijs? Als het werkelijk zo goed werkt, waarom laten alle goede uitgevoerde onderzoeken dit dan niet zien?quote:
Er is wel degelijk goed bewijs voor en dat bewijs wordt onder andere in dit topic getoond.
Dat zegt eigenlijk al iets genoeg over de betrouwbaarheid van deze claim.
HCQ of Ivermectin hebben nog nergens in goed onderbouwde onderzoeken significante verbeteringen laten zien.
De onderzoeken die wel iets laten zien, laten "wat" effect zien of geven aan, verder goed onderzoek is noodzakelijk.
Ik dit topic heb ik zelf menige claim al ontkracht en eigenlijk lees ik iedere keer dezelfde false claims voorbij komen.
[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door Rolfieo op 28-12-2020 08:58:31 ]
Wat een vreemde opmerking om Baudet hier bij te halen...quote:
Is dat nog steeds bezig die Hydroxychloroquine hype? Er zijn meerdere middelen die werken, sommigen beter dan een ander. Maar omdat Baudet etc. het steeds opbrengen, is het nog steeds relevant om steeds weer te zeggen dat het zo goed werkt?
HCQ is GEEN wondermiddel. Maar als je het vroeg toedient in de juiste dosis kan het gewoon levens redden.
Wanneer je het te laat toedient heeft het geen effect. Dit is gewoon wat uit onderzoeken naar voren komt.
Nogmaals:
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
He lekker overdrijven om je punt kracht bij te zetten!quote:Op zondag 27 december 2020 19:59 schreef Gehrman het volgende:
[..]
De virusontkenners geloven nog steeds dat HCQ de heilige graal is en er helemaal geen lockdown/maatregelen nodig zijn. Het idee is dan dat alles terug kan naar normaal en iedereen preventief aan de HCQ gaat.
"Virusontkenners" en "heilige graal"
Waarom zou een virusontkenner überhaupt praten over een remedie als ze niet geloven in het virus?
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Dat het werkt wilt nog niet zeggen dat het goed werkt. Als het echt goed zou werken dan was dat nu wel overduidelijk geweest en zou het wereldwijd ingezet worden. Maar het bewijs is mager, erg mager. Dat wilt niet zeggen dat het zeker niet werkt. Zeggen dat de kans heel klein is dat het niet werkt, is iets heel anders dan zeggen dat het een groot effect heeft. En je kunt je afvragen waarom zo'n professor het heeft over de kans dat het niet werkt, en niet over hoe effectief het nu werkelijk is.quote:
[..]
Er is wel degelijk goed bewijs voor en dat bewijs wordt onder andere in dit topic getoond.
Er is een review gedaan van de HCQ studie uit augustus 2020:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext#seccesectitle0001
Conclusie is nog steeds dat HCQ wel degelijk een positief effect heeft, wanneer toegediend in de juiste situaties.
Het is crimineel dat HCQ nog steeds niet serieus wordt genomen als onderdeel van een behandel-methode. Maar ja, we moeten niet hebben dat Trump een punt had he?
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext#seccesectitle0001
Conclusie is nog steeds dat HCQ wel degelijk een positief effect heeft, wanneer toegediend in de juiste situaties.
Het is crimineel dat HCQ nog steeds niet serieus wordt genomen als onderdeel van een behandel-methode. Maar ja, we moeten niet hebben dat Trump een punt had he?
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Ik wist niet dat Facebook een oversight board had, maar goed... hier nog even hun verandering van positie over HCQ voor wat het waard is:
The Oversight Board has overturned Facebook’s decision to remove a post which it claimed, “contributes to the risk of imminent… physical harm.” The Board found Facebook’s misinformation and imminent harm rule (part of its Violence and Incitement Community Standard) to be inappropriately vague and recommended, among other things, that the company create a new Community Standard on health misinformation.
About the case
In October 2020, a user posted a video and accompanying text in French in a public Facebook group related to COVID-19. The post alleged a scandal at the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (the French agency responsible for regulating health products), which refused to authorize hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin for use against COVID-19, but authorized and promoted remdesivir. The user criticized the lack of a health strategy in France and stated that “[Didier] Raoult’s cure” is being used elsewhere to save lives. The user’s post also questioned what society had to lose by allowing doctors to prescribe in an emergency a “harmless drug” when the first symptoms of COVID-19 appear.
In its referral to the Board, Facebook cited this case as an example of the challenges of addressing the risk of offline harm that can be caused by misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gaat verder:
https://oversightboard.co(...)ase-2020-006-fb-fbr/
The Oversight Board has overturned Facebook’s decision to remove a post which it claimed, “contributes to the risk of imminent… physical harm.” The Board found Facebook’s misinformation and imminent harm rule (part of its Violence and Incitement Community Standard) to be inappropriately vague and recommended, among other things, that the company create a new Community Standard on health misinformation.
About the case
In October 2020, a user posted a video and accompanying text in French in a public Facebook group related to COVID-19. The post alleged a scandal at the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (the French agency responsible for regulating health products), which refused to authorize hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin for use against COVID-19, but authorized and promoted remdesivir. The user criticized the lack of a health strategy in France and stated that “[Didier] Raoult’s cure” is being used elsewhere to save lives. The user’s post also questioned what society had to lose by allowing doctors to prescribe in an emergency a “harmless drug” when the first symptoms of COVID-19 appear.
In its referral to the Board, Facebook cited this case as an example of the challenges of addressing the risk of offline harm that can be caused by misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gaat verder:
https://oversightboard.co(...)ase-2020-006-fb-fbr/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Hoezo had Trump een punt? Hij riep nog net niet dat hij het door zijn ontbijt heen had gekiepert.quote:Op vrijdag 29 januari 2021 17:10 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
Er is een review gedaan van de HCQ studie uit augustus 2020:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext#seccesectitle0001
Conclusie is nog steeds dat HCQ wel degelijk een positief effect heeft, wanneer toegediend in de juiste situaties.
Het is crimineel dat HCQ nog steeds niet serieus wordt genomen als onderdeel van een behandel-methode. Maar ja, we moeten niet hebben dat Trump een punt had he?
🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️₿🕰️ TikTok next Block
COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study
Highlights
•First COVID-19 outpatient study based on risk stratification and early antiviral treatment at the beginning of the disease.
•Low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.
•Significantly reduced hospitalisation rates in the treatment group.
•Reduced mortality rates in the treatment group.
https://www.sciencedirect(...)ii/S0924857920304258
Highlights
•First COVID-19 outpatient study based on risk stratification and early antiviral treatment at the beginning of the disease.
•Low-dose hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and azithromycin was an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19.
•Significantly reduced hospitalisation rates in the treatment group.
•Reduced mortality rates in the treatment group.
https://www.sciencedirect(...)ii/S0924857920304258
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Deze dokter heeft gelijk, het belachelijk maken van HCQ als behandelmethode is een grote schande! Meerdere onderzoeken hebben inmiddels laten zien dat een vroege toediening van HCQ levens kan redden. En het onderzoek waardoor HCQ in eerste instantie werd verboden is allang weer ingetrokken omdat het een waardeloos onderzoek bleek te zijn.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Maar iedereen moet aan het vaccin. Begrijp dat dan. De farmaceutische industrie moet wel miljarden kunnen verdienen.
Chloroquine werkte in ieder geval heel goed tegen SARS:
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Website die iets makkelijker te lezen is:
https://virologyj.biomedc(...).1186/1743-422X-2-69
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Website die iets makkelijker te lezen is:
https://virologyj.biomedc(...).1186/1743-422X-2-69
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Nu alleen nog even leren snappen dat 'In cell culture' een heel premature staat is in biomedisch onderzoek.quote:
Chloroquine werkte in ieder geval heel goed tegen SARS:
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Website die iets makkelijker te lezen is:
https://virologyj.biomedc(...).1186/1743-422X-2-69
Volkorenbrood: "Geen quotes meer in jullie sigs gaarne."
EN omdat Trump op een gegeven moment berichtte dat HCQ zeer goed werkzaam zou kunnen zijn, moest HCQ wel verkeerd zijn.quote:
Maar iedereen moet aan het vaccin. Begrijp dat dan. De farmaceutische industrie moet wel miljarden kunnen verdienen.
Scratch a liberal and you will find a fascist
Toch wel bijzonder dat die wappies zweren bij hcq, maar de vaccinaties die veel specifieker zijn ontwikkeld en onderzocht als rotzooi bestempelen.
In reageerbuisjes leek HCQ ook heel goed te werken tegen SARS-CoV-2. In patiënten van vlees en bloed not so much.quote:
Chloroquine werkte in ieder geval heel goed tegen SARS:
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Website die iets makkelijker te lezen is:
https://virologyj.biomedc(...).1186/1743-422X-2-69
Huilen dan.
Ja dat, of die shit werkt gewoon niet? Lastig lastig.quote:
[..]
EN omdat Trump op een gegeven moment berichtte dat HCQ zeer goed werkzaam zou kunnen zijn, moest HCQ wel verkeerd zijn.
Huilen dan.
|
|
