By Rud Istvan
When ctm enabled the very first of my now several guest posts on this topic, it was partly because of my explicit analogies to climate change. As we delved further in subsequent posts, the climate analogies became less obvious. #6 was all about technical CoViD-19 antibody testing specificity and thrombosis, with no climate analogies at all. This #7 rumination returns to the original climate analogy theme, concerning the possible CoViD-19 therapy Ivermectin. (Much such stuff is now on various blogs, especially in Australia where it is a common anti-parasitic sheep dip.) I did some more basic research, which follows as #7.
Ivermectin is a semisynthetic derivative of a soil organism molecule originally found in Japan in 1981. So it is similar to many other ‘naturally occurring’ anti-somethings going back to Fleming’s penicillin blue mold in 1926, then its better semisynthetic derivative amoxicillin in 1972. Ivermectin is primarily an antiparasitic, and the original FDA approved indication was against African River Blindness in 1988. It has long been WHO classed as one of the three “wonder drugs” along with penicillin(s) and aspirin.
Old and off patent Ivermectin is now being toughted as a possible COVID-19 therapy. There are two adamantly irreconcilable sides, just as with climate change.
On the one side, Antiviral Research 178:104787 (2020) just published in vitro results that Ivermectin reduced Wohan coronavirus expression 5000x in 48 hours. Now that would be good news, since Ivermectin is another old generic drug with well-established safety profiles. BUT, no reason given as to why an old anti-parasitic (meaning against eukaryotic organisms) drug also has antiviral properties– just ‘is’ if to be believed. No replication study is yet available.
And on the same side, a newly ‘published’ Thailand study from 2014-2017 suggests Ivermectin has antiviral ‘nuclear transport inhibitory activity’. This would be encouraging, EXCEPT for the incontrovertible fact that Wuhan did NOT emerge until about 12/1019. So any virus, or just this virus? ‘Junk’ internet science is now on very public display. Like with climate science.
Does Ivermectin work against CoViD-19? We dunno yet. But the most recent ‘science’ at www.sciencedirect.org/antiviral research/faq/covid suggests maybe yes, it does, for reasons we dunno– while ONLY citing the Antiviral Research article cited above, so circular reasoning like in climate science is on full display.
Now on the other side, the FDA just issued a warning (see www. FDA.gov/product safety information/faq/covid) saying DO NOT use Ivermectin for CoVid-19—despite a decades long safety profile in humans and animals!
Now, that FDA false safety warning will surely discourage some properly designed clinical trials to sort out the truth. Just like the climate paleo hockey stick gang that got after Steve McIntyre, and then lost.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rud ==> I have remained mostly silent through all this madness — but have been carefully collecting materials for a future — post pandemic — piece to be titled “Modern Scientific Controversies: The Quinine Wars”.
Those who have been watching closely will have noticed the signs of a Science War that erupted almost instantly with personal attacks on Didier Raoult, anti-Trump insanity slopping over into an anti HCQ movement, involvement of major health and medical institutions advocating (on spurious grounds) against HCQ treatment — all the while WHO includes HCQ in the worldwide study SOLIDARITY and major hospitals are adopting HCQ treatment as a first-line approach.
We’ll all know in a few months, certainly by summer, what seems to work and what doesn’t and under what circumstances. So far, it appears that nothing really works once a patient is in crisis — some small percentage recover, the majority die no matter what is tried.
All in all, most people who contract Covid-19 are asymptomatic or have mild unrecognized symptoms — a small number get seriously ill or die. It is only the old (like me) and already ill (co-morbidities) that are at grave risk. [There are always those rare few cases of young healthy persons who die — even from the most innocuous infections of any kind).
Kip, according to an international survey, 60% of doctors in Spain ( Italy 25% ) said they had used HCQ treatment. If you compare to France, Spain has 2x as many cases, 2x as many cured patients yet the SAME number of deaths.
Outside of Raoult’s team, it seems that there is very little use of HCQ France and and MD cannot prescribe it without and existing order from a specialist. They allowed but banned it at the same time.
The medical bureaucracy in France is killing people by the 10s or thousand.
Greg
According to Eschenbach’s most recent world graph, Spain has a higher death rate per 10 million than France does. That does not support your claim. In fact, it may indicate just the opposite of your claim.
“Your claim. In fact, it may indicate just the opposite of your claim.”
Remember Willis’ little to rule of quoting what someone says, not what you think they said?
How do you think you can refute any claim I made about cases ( which Willis ignores as useless ) and actual deaths by comparing to Willis’ per capita figures.
I’m certainly willing to be challenged but at least do the work to make a credible claim, not a “may indicate” based on incompatible figures.
Better still go look at the numbers and see whether you have a valid point to make.
https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/?fbclid=IwAR04HlqzakGaNssQzbz4d8o8R3gz0C910U8tvfYlBT6P0lVJJvHfk9uS2rc
Here are Worldometers’ numbers as of the moment:
Country Cases Deaths Recoveries Death/Case Ratio
Spain 229,422 23,521 120,832 10.25%
France 165,842 23,293 45,513 14.05%
Dunno how comparable the two nations’ reporting standards are.
thanks John, that seems close to the figures from the source I was looking at.
So almost identical numbers of deaths but nearly three times more recoveries in Spain.
Before drawing an firm conclusions you’d need to dig into who is counting what, in particular where care home deaths are included and the death with / death from controversy. But with spanish recovery figures being so much higher, it demands closer inspection.
Greg
It is meaningless to compare absolute numbers of anything when countries have different populations. They have to have a common denominator to have comparative meaning.
There are subtle nuances. The hydroxychloroquine is rumored to be most effective in the early stages of Covid-19. So Nevada limits its use to hospitals only.
Let’s ban ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. That leaves aspirin. Aspirin used to be prescribed in Soviet medicine for anything.
It’s not a rumour. Raoult specifically recommended early use ( before ICU ) , that can and does include early hospital use.
He declared the cure before he had treated a single patient:
“Before Raoult had even begun his clinical trial, in late February, he appeared in the press to promote the idea of chloroquine as a treatment, researchers with First Draft News found.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug
I do not speak French, but this is supposed to be the video of him doing exactly that:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=617612412395872
Shortly before declaring he knew the cure based on zero evidence, he was mocking the idea of being the least bit concerned about the virus.
He declared the cure before he had treated a single patient:
“Before Raoult had even begun his clinical trial, in late February, he appeared in the press to promote the idea of chloroquine as a treatment, researchers with First Draft News found.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug
I do not speak French, but this is supposed to be the video of him doing exactly that:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=617612412395872
Shortly before declaring he knew the cure based on zero evidence, he was mocking the idea of being the least bit concerned about the virus.
His advocacy, in no uncertain terms, prior to having anything like enough evidence for such a position, meant he had from the get go painted himself into a corner, professionally and reputationally speaking.
I would be willing to bet he will insist he is correct no matter what results are forthcoming.
I know who that reminds me of.
Anyone who has left themselves no way to back off from an unfounded opinion, can be counted on to never back away from that opinion, at least not publicly, no matter what subsequent evidence shows.
He is now locked into biased advocacy.
Didier Raoult doesn’t like clinical trials. He systematically oppose randomized trials for infection treatment.
He does off label prescriptions plus observational studies. Very different.
“meant he had from the get go painted himself into a corner, professionally and reputationally speaking.
I would be willing to bet he will insist he is correct no matter what results are forthcoming.”
That would apply at least equally to all vaxxers, esp. those who denied the overwhelming evidence that the hep B vaccine causes MS.
Didier Raoult essentially said it’s game over, end of story, move along, when China published a “study” (a report, letter… not actually a study) about chloroquine effectiveness.
And he did minimize the Wuhan crisis at the beginning, basically saying: a few Chinese people die and it’s a huge story here.
It’s becoming more apparent to me is that the really dangerous thing about this illness is being intubated. There’s a high risk of fatal ventilator induced lung injury (VILI, or VALI), and/or permanent/fatal organ/brain damage from the toxic drugs used to make patients comatose. That is injury and death distinct and apart from virus pathology. So the prudent course of action is to avoid intubation at all costs.
Hate to be fatalistic, but I think that people who are going to die from this are going to die from this, despite interventions. The data are still sketchy, but the high death toll of people on ventilators, as well as the country by country worldwide death rate statistics all point in the same direction. In the case of the latter, the important variables seem to be climate (Southern Hemisphere and warm places in the Northern Hemisphere), whether you commonly wear masks (Japan), and perhaps whether BCG vaccinations are still being given. The quality of the country’s health care system does not really leap out at you from the data.
It points to the fact that they do not have sufficient understanding of what the illness or how to treat it. If the pathology is not ARS then the high pressure forced ventilation is not the right treatment.
It seems clear already that there has been a lot of inappropriate medicine going on.
Then there is the refusal in many countries to let doctors use HCQ, which while not a miracle cure does seem to a significant help in preventing patients go into critical condition where they don’t even know what to do about it.
On the face of it Spain has one of the best recovery rates and they used it extensively.
Looks like some progress is being made:
UChicago Medicine doctors see ‘truly remarkable’ success using ventilator alternatives to treat COVID-19
https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/uchicago-medicine-doctors-see-truly-remarkable-success-using-ventilator-alternatives-to-treat-covid19
There are multiple facets to covid. There is the front end where you need to help your immune system supplemented with anti virus meds. Then there is the backend where your bodies immune systems goes crazy and the body goes into sepsis shock in couple different manners.
When you see vitamin c IV treatment you know some one understands and is following the basic HAT sepsis protocol modified for covid.
As for the front end, the entire Indian heath services is going on vitc, give, zinc, and hydrocloroqine.
https://youtu.be/W9YFXo84lCk
Evms.edu/covidcare
In that video, the doctor mentions that hydroxychloroquine changes the ACE2 receptor so that the virus’ ability to bind to it is reduced. If true that is extremely significant. I would like to know where he gets that information.
Looks like he might be right. CQ + NH4Cl impairs terminal glycosylation of ACE2.
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
Clyde Spencer, you asked me a while back what I based my suspicion on that healthcare workers were using HCQ as prophylaxis. It’s mentioned in this video that they’re doing that in India, so my suspicion is confirmed.
Those actually interested in real-world clinical data about HCQ treatments (as opposed to vague extrapolations from dicey, squishy numbers not tied to actual treatments of actual patients) can refer to Todaro’s daily synopsis of publications re HCQ .
Todaro and his group have a new paper (23 April) “A two-step strategy to reopen America” that promotes HCQ/AZ/Zinc treatment.
It is NOT valid medical science to pretend to know the effectiveness of a treatment from anecdotal evidence such as “I hear Spain is using a lot of HCQ, let’s look at their death rate.” That type of approach is non-science.
In real medicine, one has to treat patients and look at outcomes — not hypothetical patients, not just any old patients, but cohorts of assumed-equal patients with exact recorded treatments and exact recorded outcomes. When the cohorts are different, such as a study treating only advanced patients in crisis, then one mustn’t confuse those results with the results of studies of the treatment of patients caught in early stages of infection.
The results of treatments with real data about real patients are beginning to mount up, giving us a good idea of what works and what doesn’t.
Thanks Kip that’s a useful resource, though I did not say “I hear Spain is using a lot” , I said “according to an international survey” and gave the figures.
Neither did I “pretend” anything. I said:
“On the face of it Spain has one of the best recovery rates and they used it extensively.”
If you want to challenge something I said please don’t distort and misreport it in order to ridicule what I did not say. Next you be claiming I recommended people mainline fish tank cleaner to avoid getting COVID.
Greg ==> This comment is not addressed to you, but to the general readership…..I was referring to w.’s looking at national death rates. And various analyses by others of differences between national figures of various sorts.
(Why you would think my comment was in response to you is a mystery to me. Isn’t this a post from Rud Istvan? I addressed him above with another question…)
BTW, if I was addressing you, I would have begun my comment with: “Greg ==>”, as is my long-standing custom and as I did with this reply to you. I do try not to be ambiguous.
Kip Hansen: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6Cls-Oz2ZAgJuyDbnICEGjMvQPEyM-aaXARUomR9Ww/edit
Thank you for the link.
In real medicine, one has to treat patients and look at outcomes — not hypothetical patients, not just any old patients, but cohorts of assumed-equal patients with exact recorded treatments and exact recorded outcomes. When the cohorts are different, such as a study treating only advanced patients in crisis, then one mustn’t confuse those results with the results of studies of the treatment of patients caught in early stages of infection.
I concur. Real clinical trials are the fastest, not slowest, ways to answer the most important questions: (1) will the drug work on these patients (perhaps with comorbidities), with this disease, treated by this team? (b) What is the incidence of adverse reactions, aka “side effects”? (every drug that works in most people produces adverse reactions in at least a few others.) Otherwise you end up comparing different patient groups (of different ages or other health status), different infection levels, and different health care teams; then you can’t evaluate what difference the drug made.
Another problem is that we really don’t have much in the way of historical data. Much less data broken out by the various cohorts.
Only 3 million known cases throughout the entire world.
There are guesses, but no solid method of determining how many asymptomatic cases there are/were.
There is no single standard for reporting whether a death was COVID19 related or not. I’ve read reports that have claimed that the numbers are vastly over stated, and read reports that claim they are vastly understated.
There isn’t a single standard to determine how to determine when someone has recovered from the virus either. Especially given the a few instances of those who had been declared recovered who later tested positive again. Are they recovered but became infected again, or were they never actually recovered in the first place. Third possibility, they were recovered, but the virus was hiding someplace in the body and was able to emerge and re-infect.
Finally we do not know what the diverting of medical resources to treat this disease has done to the rest of the world. My wife was scheduled to get a colonoscopy this year. As those are considered “elective” it’s been put off. Not just for social distancing reasons, but so the masks and gowns can be reserved for hospitals.
MarkW ==> With the broad world-based SOLIDARITY trial (and other distributed studies) we will have a “pretty good idea” about what treatments work and to what extent in just a few months, by the end of summer certainly. We won’t have perfect data, we won’t have precise numeric data — but we will have useable pragmatic data that will guide treatment in the future while the purists work out the double-blinded long-term studies.
Kip, I very much look forward to your dispassionate overview (s). Me, thanks to 2009 swine flu scars, am very much still mentally in the front line trenches with admittedly NO objective overview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
i see whre the loopy massive dose quote came from] 10×4
doesnt make sense
it would be outright stupid to drop a full strength cow dose mix into a sample to see what it did if you were looking for real human application
youd use the known safe dose at max levelas at most
something off about that- to me
I guess the FDA does not know about 1/5 prescriptions in the US are “off label?” Doctors are usually intelligent and are smart enough to make decisions which medications may work best for their patients.
Older drugs that are well-known with well-documented side effects are excellent candidates for off-label use. After all, medicine is a science and doctors use trial and error to determine which works best for an individual.
Jeffery
On the other hand, it has been my experience that a typical practitioner is prone to prescribe something that has shown utility for what the doctor thinks you have (rarely confirmed by laboratory) and then follows up with “Try this for a month, and if it doesn’t get better, come back to see me and I’ll prescribe something else.” That is, there is a strong element of Trial and Error. That might be justified for early research on an unknown problem, but does not represent the epitome of the Scientific Method.
Yes, I was quite shocked when my GP tried to suggest diagnosis by prescription as a method. I told him I was not going to take pharma drugs on a speculative basis.
Quacks are by and large pill pushers these days anyway. To be avoided as much as necessary.
As far as I have ever been able to determine, all psyche meds for conditions like ADD and ADHD and depression disorders, are given on a “Try this and see if it helps” basis.
It is extremely difficult for any clinical trials that compare these drugs to a placebo to show any significant benefit over placebo.
A not ordinarily shared here or elsewhere personal med anecdote. My (female) significant other has suffered for several years from anxiety disorder, subset PSTD, caused by a near death (literally) anaphylactic shock experience. CtM knows the details.
We have gone thru two psychiatrists prescribing 3 different meds, all of which eventually failed at increasing doses. Also two primary care physicians, since the first also mis prescribed the third drug (hint, similar names are not similar drugs) and when she overdosed on the final mis prescribed wrong eventually overdosed one, exhibited stoke symptoms ’confirmed’ by the ambulance EMTs I called but thankfully not by the resulting hospital ER neurologists.
So, I then took matters into my own hands well over a year ago since all docs had failed. Found after a month of research a small overseas clinical trial where curcuminoids were more potent than fluoxetine (Prozac) in treating anxiety. Problem was low bioavailability, solved by doubling bioavailbility with piperine (main ‘spice’ in black and white pepper).
So, several months ago (specidically, Oct last year)I switched her to my OTC stuff from her doc prescription stuff. Well, for first time in 2 plus years we got to visit my son and family in Chicago and then my daughter and family in Colorado for Thanksgiving week.
Only two ‘crisis’ days in the almost two travel weeks, easily treated by prescription clonasipam (mildest and least addictive benzodiasipam ‘tranquilizer’).
There is apparently an entire field of medicine, plus a smattering of doctors in all manner of areas of practice, who never seem to have met a single person whom they did not want to prescribe anywhere from one to a whole list of drugs to.
From what I have been able to determine, support groups and behavior modification are, for most people with a subjective emotional or mental difficulty, at least as effective as the drugs that are commonly handed to them.
I am especially dubious of the sudden finding, at some point in the mid to late 1980s or so, that school age boys who do not sit quietly with their hands folded in front of them all day, have a mental disease.
Not to say that there are no people who have serious problems that are perhaps best remedied with a pharmaceutical…there almost certainly are such people.
There is more to it than just doctors being overzealous in their usage of such drugs, and among these are the constant fear of a lawsuit. Once someone mentions to a doctor an emotional or mental problem, they are at risk if they do not do anything, and the easiest thing to do is wrote a prescription.
But too many doctors want to spend no more than a few minutes with a person before whipping out their prescription pads.
Happy to know your wife was able to find relief from her symptoms.
I started taking a dose of liquid turmeric a while back, but I did so for the possible beneficial effect on inflammation response.
I have always used a lot of black pepper. But I think I started using it liberally because when I was a small child my dad told me it would “put hair on my chest”. It never did though…even at my age I have almost all of my hair on the top of my head, not much anywhere else. I only need to shave my face a few times a week. But I loves me some pepper…especially on beef.
My father had a doctor who prescribed asthma medication without testing for asthma, so I hear ya.
I have not personally encountered a physian like that. I will not use a doctor who does not answer my questions and explain why medicine X instead of Y or Z.
Everybody’s chemistry is a little different. Some do well on medicine Y instead of X or Z. Sometimes the doctor starts with the least expensive option. Your insurance may not cover the newest, most expensive option unless you trier the cheaper options first.
“Lockdowns will only delayed later infections in Australia and NZ wait until winter.”
Yup, this will be most interesting
But – it is all good. Anything that stops tourists coming here is a bonus. NZ is back to the calm clean place I grew up in. Long may it continue
All the blow-ins who came to my local town to sup at the tourism trough are now leaving. BNB’s are empty. Life is good
Wokes in Wellington now have to admit it is the primary producers and manufacturing that ultimately drives this country. Back into woke-holes you go
A new version of “build a wall.” 🤓
Chinese studies show that it is not excess ACE2 that causes complications, but rather its deficiency. By combining with ACE2, the virus inactivates it, which must cause narrowing of blood vessels in the lungs. Therefore, people who take medicines for hypertension should not stop the treatment during illness.
” An April 2020 study of patients hospitalized in Hubei Province in China found a death rate of 3.7% for hospitalized patients who had hypertension and were on Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers versus 9.8% for hospitalized patients with hypertension not on such drugs, suggesting that the drugs are not harmful and may help against the coronavirus. [38]
Despite lack of conclusive evidence, some have advocated for and others for the cessation of ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment in COVID-19 patients with hypertension.[39] However, multiple professional societies and regulatory bodies have recommended continuing standard ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2#cite_note-Zhang_2020-38
“This has led some to hypothesize that decreasing the levels of ACE2, in cells, might help in fighting the infection. On the other hand, ACE2 has been shown to have a protective effect against virus-induced lung injury by increasing the production of the vasodilator angiotensin 1–7.[33] Furthermore, according to studies conducted on mice, the interaction of the spike protein of the coronavirus with ACE2 induces a drop in the levels of ACE2 in cells through internalization and degradation of the protein and hence may contribute to lung damage.[33][34]”
It makes sense that staying on ACEi and ARBs is a smart move if infected and showing symptoms. But IMO it makes no sense prior to infection if switching to a non-ACE2 upregulating hypertension drug can be done safely.
There are several very good reasons that ACEi and ARBs are widely prescribed all over the world.
They are perhaps the safest and best tolerated of all drugs that control blood pressure.
Prior to their discovery and becoming widely available, people used to hate the side effects of BP medications.
Managing any change in a HBP medication has to be done very carefully by a doctor that knows exactly what they are doing.
Probably one of the worst mistakes a layperson can make is telling or insisting on a treatment to their doctor.
Doing “medicine by ignorance” is a terrible idea.
Perhaps the only thing more reckless would be taking medical advice from a layperson commenting on the internet about their opinions.
There exists not one shred of evidence that these drugs are dangerous to be taking if you get this disease.
The risk of dying from this disease is very low for anyone who is not elderly.
The elderly are the people who are at the most risk from going off any medication that is giving them good control of HBP.
And uncontrolled or poorly controlled blood pressure puts an elderly person at terrible risk if they get COVID.
ACEi are not used much in E Asian countries like Japan and Taiwan; ARBs are used more so, but not as much as calcium channel blockers. So insinuating that ACEi/ARB are the only ways to control BP is just nonsense.
“So insinuating that ACEi/ARB are the only ways to control BP is just nonsense.”
Good thing he never said anything even close to that.
Yeah he actually did. It’s his usual speel whenever I mention the possibility, and possible prudence, of switching off of ACEi/ARB to something else. For some reason he feels very threatened by the idea and fights it constantly.
Everyone can read what I said.
Except Icisil.
He hallucinate all sorts of gibberish whenever he reads one of my comments.
“ACEi are not used much in E Asian countries like Japan and Taiwan…”
Interestingly, a metanalysis was published several weeks ago that looked at 5 million people in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and the US, and found that nearly half, 48%, of people who were started in a blood pressure medication got an ACE inhibitor. Another 17% started with a thiazide diuretic.
Which leaves 35% of all people in these countries starting on a blood pressure medication divided up amongst the other three classes of drugs, one of those three being ARBs.
The difference between you and me, Icisil, is I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am not full of crap.
You should try it sometime.
ACEi are less than 10% of HT drugs prescribed in Japan.
Current use of antihypertensive drugs in Japanese patients with hypertension: Analysis by age group
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ggi.13276
Take a look at what I said and what you are now focusing on.
I said nothing about any particular country.
I said nothing about “insinuating that ACEi/ARB are the only ways to control BP”
You invented that in your head, and now you are inventing some hallucinations about one particular country.
You are insane, did you know that?
I literally said none of the things you claimed, and anyone can see that.
I pointed out a recent study of countries right across the world that found that overall, nearly half of all new prescriptions were for one of the ones that you said are not much used.
You point to a small study of people who were treated only in hospitals using one particular sort of insurance.
And still you cannot look at what I originally said, and address that if you must.
It is more true to say you are claiming based on zero evidence, that one kind of drugs is dangerous, when in fact they are safe and effective, and for most people have the least side effects.
So how on earth a small study of hospital patients in one country has any bearing on what was being discussed, I can only suggest you take up with your psychiatric team.
Every day are more and more opinions and studies backing up exactly what I said.
Here is another:
““When you just look at viral pneumonia in general, before COVID, then the ACE inhibitors and ARBs had a positive effect” on pulmonary outcomes, he said. In the new numbers suggesting a survival benefit, “we see an even more profound effect . . . , which is very positive,” he said.”
https://www.tctmd.com/news/ace-inhibitorsarbs-safe-possibly-protective-hypertensive-covid-19-patients
You just make shit up, and it is sickening, and you ought to stop.
Two retrospective studies from China found no link to higher mortality, with one even suggesting lower death risk.
“New data gathered from China’s Hubei Province, home to the city of Wuhan, provide additional reassurance that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors don’t appear to increase mortality among patients with hypertension hospitalized due to COVID-19, researchers report in two retrospective analyses.
One, a single-center study published yesterday in JAMA Cardiology, showed no differences in disease severity or death based on whether patients were or weren’t taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The other, a multicenter study released early online last week by Circulation Research, takes this positive news one step further—in propensity matched, adjusted analyses, use of RAAS inhibitors was linked to a 63% lower risk of mortality compared with no use, though investigators urged caution in interpreting this striking result.”
Yup.
Thought experiments are a dangerous way to decide to discontinue a drug that is treating something like hypertension.
Hypertension is itself a known k!ller.
It used to be widely referred to as “The silent k!ller”.
Uncontrolled HBP causes strokes, congestive heart failure, and such things as aneurisms, which used to k!ll a large number of not-very-old people.
Widespread usages of highly effective treatments for hypertension are perhaps the single biggest reason for greatly increased lifespans in recent decades.
They do not have blood pressure cuffs in every doctors office in the world for nothing.
From today there is mandatory gag wearing in all German states, in shops trains, etc.
Fees for not being gagged are as high as EUR150 in the state of Bayern.
At the same time German schoolchildren are about to go to school again (still with limitations and gagged).
Also, German doctors dressing in Adam and Eve costume in protest over limited supply of protective gear.
Meanwhile Californians are sunbathing side by side on the beaches, getting some vitamin D in the brilliant Californian sun.
Volvo in Sweden has taken up production again, after having had supply issues and a brief scare that the SARS Cov2 could be many times more aggressive than most seasonal flues – which it turned out not to be.
Yes, sorry I am a Dane living in Sweden, thus I have difficulties not to relax a bit about the whole issue.
Do you think the Germans will bring black those black sedans from WW2, pick up the non mask wearing plebes and ship them off on some train?
Hi Derb, – This response you made to a fellow WUWT’s comment is not that clever when read. He contributed information about Germany in 2020, not +/- 75 years ago.
Sorry Derg for misspelling your name …
I’ve got Ivermectin in the fridge.
It is common with folks that own horses.
They tell me they do not like the taste thereof.
Guess I’ll not try it.
Wait. Hold my beer and watch this!
11.) And in his worst mistake Dr. Fauci relied on corrupt W.H.O rules to lock down the United States and destroy the US economy. Meanwhile, this delays the herd immunity that is needed to prevent a future outbreak of this deadly virus.
FDA is working for Big Pharma. Off patent drugs that have been around for many years are cheap because nobody has a monopoly on pricing like patented drugs. Big Pharma wants to sell patented drugs or vaccines as treatment. FDA which receives much of its revenue from Big Pharma not to mention other conflicts of interest such as a cushy job after retirement make it a captured agency like CDC and NIAID.
A more corrupt system has never existed.
If politicians were honest, that corrupt system would not exist. It is a global phenomena !
“It’s all the (gosh darn) money…the money and the drugs!
What’s it all mean?
What’s it leadin’ ta’?”
Medicare has a database on all medicare patients, including age, sex, medical conditions, prescriptions, smoking, weight etc. This database records all the medicare patients who have the diagnosis of Covid 19 and their treatments. For example who has taken Hydroxychloroquin, their outcomes such as death, days in the icu, and those not requiring hospitalization . If the government would throw this open to statistical analysis we would quickly have a much more granular understanding of risk factors, treatments that should be pursued etc. If there is some treatment that is dramatically detrimental or beneficial, it will jump out if we use the analytic tools at our disposal. Unfortunately there is a huge cost to get access. We should call for this information to be opened up and let many fertile minds take a look.
If an off-patent drug works in the use it is put to, they re-patent it for that new treatment!
At a much larger price!
It costs a lot of money to get a drug approved for a new disease. Shouldn’t a company be given a chance to re-coup that money?
Rud, I’m surprised that the WHO reports bo evidence that exposure provides protection.
It would seem a simple matter to check to see how many recovered patients show up later as a new diagnosis.
Authorities would need to keep track of name and address to allow patient tracking but it seems highly likely they would already be doing this.
If there was a statistical difference between infection and reinfection this would be strong evidence. That data must exist.
If something works, even if exotic, great!
But, ZINC, isn’t exotic, it’s essential.
And it works,.. it’s essential to the human immune system.
There is a body of evidence which suggests zinc deficiency may be a factor in the severity of the disease.
Zinc, not only is it essential to the immune system, it makes it stronger.
There is a longish list of minerals and vitamins in which a significant number of people are deficient, and without the proper amount of, optimum health will not occur.
For example, every time an immune cell needs to bind to an antigen, it must first have a molecule of vitamin D attach to it. Numerous other processes and cellular communications simply can not occur with a molecule of vitamin D being present to initiate the interaction.
Zinc is of course important. At atom of zinc is required in many hundreds of separate transcription factors and receptors.
But no one is doing themselves any favors by overlooking the fact that having a bunch of extra of one particular micronutrient or vitamin, will do nothing to compensate for an insufficiency of any of the others.
Nearly every food item has some zinc in it, and many have a lot.
This is because no living thing can do with out it.
Beef, chicken, and nuts are very high in zinc.
Also whole grains, many types of seafood, beans and lentils, mushrooms, oatmeal, yogurt and plenty of others.
A decent steak or burger or some chicken has well over the MDR of zinc.
Anyone who does not eat some nuts every day is forgoing the one single food item that studies have shown lowers the incidence of cancer, all cause mortality, and in the case of almonds, the only food item with a positive correlation with weight control in large studies of foods and health.
Mods, I seem to have one or more comment in moderation.
Thank you.