Brazilian scientists and academics write an Open Letter on the “science” of the #coronavirus pandemic

From CONEXÃPOLÍTICA

The coordinator of the statement is Marcos Nogueira Eberlin. He is a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of Campinas. After postdoctoral work at Purdue, he founded the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, growing it into a highly distinguished lab and supervising some 200 graduate and post-doctoral students, scientists who today work as researchers and professionals all around the globe.

Text of letter:

The “science” of the Pandemic

During this pandemic, the term “science” has been used “ad nauseam”, that is, has been repeated to exhaustion: “Science, science, science”, “I’m pro-science”, “For from the science, through the science and to the science I guide my decisions and acts” and “I am, therefore, fully right to do so”. It is clear that the intention here is to lead all of us to the idea of ​​decisions based on something unquestionable and infallible, as scientific as law, as the law of gravity.

Groups of “science experts” or famous YouTube scientists, many of them still “beginners” in science, some of them with a minimal or no experience in fighting pandemics, are selected by the establishment and the media to give “scientific aura” for the lockdown and the condemnation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an ineffective drug; worse, as a deadly poison.

That disastrous apocalyptic simulations from the “Imperial College” – this pompous name that brings us to the idea of ​​a center of excellence of infallible, omnipotent and unquestionable knowledge, an “College of the Empire” – are being used to place everyone at home, and then, to compare data as being the absolute reference of the truth. “We did something and as a result, we reduced those many deaths. Therefore: ‘blessed be the science!’”.

But what kind of “science” is that to which they are appealing? And who, in the name of this “science”, would be allowed to speak? Science (I know that there are controversies, as scientists even debate on its meaning) is “the dispassionate search for the truth about the Universe and life”. But ironically, we seek truths that we don’t even know what those truths would be like, or where they would be found. For this reason, sometimes, ironically, even when scientists find a truth that is indeed true, yet they doubt that they have found it. We literally zigzag in the dark, searching for solutions to our problems. Therefore, we sometimes say that: “eating eggs is bad, it increases cholesterol”; and sometimes: “eggs are good, eat at ease”.

Richard Feynman put it this way: “Science is the culture of doubt”. And I would add, “science is the culture of debate, of divergence of opinions”.

Rarely, there are situations in which we reach consensus in science, even a momentary consensus. Some defend the “Big Bang” and the theory of evolution, others, including myself, are skeptical of them. Some defend with data and papers the central role of men in global warming, others defend, with the same data and papers, that human activity is irrelevant. Scientists are human beings, therefore, skeptics and enquirers who can and should speak for themselves, like all scientists have the right to do, but NEVER A SCIENTIST OR A GROUP OF THEM CAN DECLARE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!

Nobody, absolutely nobody is allowed to speak for science or declare that he is “been guided” by science! In times of pandemic, this impossibility is even greater, as we face an unknown enemy. Data is still being collected and researches are being performed and published by scientists divided by their worldviews, and by their political and party preferences.

Whoever said he acted in the name of science, dishonestly usurped science prestige. For what type of “science” is this, unanimous and consensual, that no one has ever heard of? Could someone give me its address so I can confirm its consent? Its phone, email and WhatsApp?

As for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the inevitable scientific clash between theses is clear when renowned scientists from around the world and in Brazil – such as virologist Paolo Zanotto (with 7,400 scientific citations) and doctors Didier Raoult (with 148,000 citations), Philip M. Carlucci and Vladimir Zelenko – defend its use based on studies and articles, whereas other scientists, also renowned and based on the same or other studies and articles, condemn it. Numerous countries such as the USA, Spain, France, Italy, India, Israel, Russia, Costa Rica and Senegal use the drug (HCQ) to fight covid-19, whereas other countries refrain from using HCQ as one of the strategies to contain the pandemic, betting on other controversial tactics.

Who then speaks here in the name of “science”? Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”? Where is such authorization found?

One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish with it the “sacred mantle of science”.

Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.

Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.

Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”. But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies. Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”? Others have developed atom bombs. Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.

The Manaus’ study with chloroquine (CQ) performed here in Brazil and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [1], is emblematic to this discussion of “science”. Scientists there used, the manuscript reveals, lethal doses in debilitated patients, many in severe conditions and with comorbidities. The profiles of the groups do not seem to have been “randomized”, since a clear “preference” in the HIGH DOSE group for risk factors is noted. Chloroquine, which is more toxic than HCQ, was used, and it seems that they even made “childish mistakes” in simple stoichiometric calculations, doubling the dosage with the error. I’m incapable of judging intentions, but justice will do it. The former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta quoted this study, supported it, and based on it, categorically stated: “I do not approve HCQ because I am based on ‘science, science, science’!”.

Another study published by Chinese researchers in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and which is still persistently used against HCQ was also at least revolting [2]. In it, the authors declared: “we administer 1,200 mg for 3 days, followed by 800 mg for 12 to 21 days, in patients with moderate to severe symptoms”. In other words, they gave a huge dosage of the drug that could reach the absurdity of 20 grams in the end, and it given was too late to patients (HCQ should be administered in the first symptoms or even earlier). And even worse, overdosing on HCQ or any other drug for severe cases is poisonous. What do you think, was it good science? The recommended dosage in Brazil, since May 20th, 2020, by the new Ministry of Health, for mild symptoms is 2 times 400 mg in the first day (every 12 hours) and 400 mg for 5 days for a total of 2.8 grams.

In other published studies, also in these internationally renowned journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and BMJ [3-5], once again, “problems” are clearly noted, since or the patients were randomized in irregular ways, placing older, more susceptible or most severe and hypoxemic patients in the higher (lethal) dose groups, or more men (almost 3 times more deadly by covid than women), or more black people (in the USA, black people have displayed higher mortality) and more smokers, and where most of the deaths occurred in the first days of the studies (signs that were deaths of critically ill patients, who at this stage would be more “intoxicated” than “treated” with HCQ), or they administered HCQ isolated, when it is known that it is necessary to associate HCQ at least with azithromycin. One of these studies [5] administered HCQ only on the sixteenth day of symptoms (for really early treatment, HCQ administration should be started up to fifth day), in other words, at the end of the disease, when the drug can do little good or nothing to the patient.

These studies indicate that some scientists either forgot how “science” is done or that there is a huge effort to disprove, whatever it takes, that HCQ works. How can someone or even Councils and Academies of Medicine cite such studies as the “science” of their decisions? How can that be?

On the contrary, the study published – and today with more than 3 thousand patients tested – and carried out by Dr. Didier Raoult in France [6], using the correct dosage and at the right time, with a very low mortality rate (0.4%), and the Prevent Senior’s clinical experience in Brazil – also quite encouraging – are disqualified with very “futile” arguments such as: “Didier Raoult is a controversial and unworthy researcher”, “At Prevent Senior Clinic they were not sure of the diagnosis” (but none of the hospitalized patients with clear COVID symptoms died), “Placebo effect” (what a supernatural power of inducing our mind that reduces mortality from 40% to zero, I want this placebo!), “Study performed by a health plan company” (I do not doubt that this people indeed want to save lives, because the patients were their customers who pay their bills), and similar ephemeral arguments.

I post on my Facebook, almost daily, works, studies and incredible reports in favor of HCQ. Many sympathize with me, but some are vehemently opposed, and confront me with arguments such as: “how can such a respected scientist lose his prestige to defend such a president [Bolsonaro]?”. Some of them I know personally, others I search on their profiles. They may exist, I know, but I haven’t found even one of these Facebook friends so far who is not a leftist, fight against the current president of Brazil and, as a rule, is in favor of the clumsy #StayAtHome.

But the most important question I think it should be ask is this: are we absolutely certain by “science” that HCQ is efficient and saves lives? No, we are not. The chance is high, but certainly no scientist is sure about it. In a few years, we will know better. Are we then absolutely certain today that HCQ does not work? Of course we are not, no one honestly is certain of it. Therefore, I want to leave the “science of doubt” aside, since scientists diverge, and appeal to another area: the law. Here in Brazil the use of HCQ has even been questioned to the supreme court asking judges to settle the debate based on “science”. Nobody knows, however, who will speak “in the name of science”. But there is, in Law, a unquestionable and consensual position that could be used to define the dilemma:

“In dubio pro reo”. In other words, in case of doubt, favor or absolv the defendant (in this case, the HCQ).

If there is doubt by “science”, and a plausible possibility is the cure with HCQ, and if the drug is cheap (nearly free), available and distributed by several pharmaceutical companies ( in Brazil by Cristália, Apsen, EMS, Armed Forces , Sanofi-Aventis), and since it has minimal side effects in acute dosages of only 5 days (many take the drug daily for years), similar to all drugs (see aspirin and paracetamol), and considering that the defendant is likely to face a higher risk of life, if not medicated, then we should all be PRO-LIFE!

THAT ALL, ABSOLUTELY ALL BRAZILIANS WHO WISH TO DO SO, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH HCQ.

It’s a fair legal decision. And that is it.

This is science, not the “science” that I like or the “science” that others have appropriated it, but the “science” that we have here and now, based on the current facts, based on reason.

Finally, let us all remember that in the face of a new disease and its extremely rapid progression in the most debilitated patients with very serious complications, and so many uncertainties in the diagnosis, and as we don’t treat papers or health forms, but PEOPLE, it is imperative to the doctor look face to face their patients and decide invoking not the “science of some”, but the valuable compass of medicine that has saved many lives since the beginnings of medicine: “THE CLINIC IS SOVEREIGN!”

Prof. Marcos N. Eberlin

229 thoughts on “Brazilian scientists and academics write an Open Letter on the “science” of the #coronavirus pandemic

  1. An excellent piece, but no doubt he will be hit by “the science is settled” weapon.
    The “science is settled” arguments have more degrees of freedom on viruses than they do on climate!!!!!!
    If that is possible.

      • Prof Eberlin’s analysis is spot on. Bolsonaro was in favour, so any self respecting lefy must oppose its use. HCQ was damned in the USA because Trump said “it looks promising”. This meant the liberal media and half the country decided they had to #resist its use, irrespective of the medical realities of the treatment.

        The rest is propaganda.

        Part of the deception is the recent mode to referring to “the science” . This sneakily tries to imply ( while carefully avoiding being challenged by never stating it openly ) that “the science” is one immutable entity: you either accept what you are told “the science” says, or you are wrong, a “science denier”.

        This linguistic trick has become so ubiquitous that it usually goes unperceived, like some kind of subliminal perception technique: which of course is what it is.

        Science means knowledge, so we can compare to saying ” I’m acting on our current knowledge of the virus” or “I’m following the knowledge”. The latter sounds quasi religious , not scientific.

        We are well used to linguistic tricks in place of science. Any deviation from some arbitrary mean temperature is a “temperature anomaly” ie abnormal. “Climate change” is a disaster obviously caused by man as though climate never changed before 1950.

        Political word games replace logical argument and facts.

        • Fourier said the atmosphere raises surface temperature, and most have been uncritically repeating it ever since. It doesn’t matter to them that Fourier never witnessed any amount of glass layers raising surface temperatures above that provided by solar radiation – the assumption of the GHE.

          While science is the search for truth, others can lie and keep calling it science. In a democracy, those who shout the loudest get to define what science is – and fools for it.

        • “We are well used to linguistic tricks in place of science. Any deviation from some arbitrary mean temperature is a “temperature anomaly” ie abnormal.”

          err no.

          a climate normal is a convention, not arbitrary. Nice linguistic trick.
          The convention has rules.
          A) it has to be long enough, the time period is not selected arbitrarily.
          B) a deviation from normal is called an anomaly. Not abnormal.
          For example you can have anomalies that are totally normal or expected.

          So you have played 2 tricks with language

          1. applied the term arbitrary, where conventional is more appropriate
          2. Synonomized anomaly and abnormal.

          • I think the whole point of Greg’s comment is that the tricks of language are used in the place of science, but Steven seems to pick up the point as if it were something Greg approved of.

        • ““it looks promising”.

          You are playing tricks with language

          “tremendous promise”
          “I think it’s going to be great,”
          “It’s not going to hurt people,”
          “It can help them, but it’s not going to hurt them.”
          “one of the biggest game-changers”

          he did not do himself or HQC any favors.

          kinda sad.

          • Mr. Mosher;
            Would you kindly explain to me the mindset of any “scientist”, health care director, or any individual for that matter who would jump at the opportunity to remove a class of medications during a pandemic when there are no know effective treatments?

            This is precisely what happened with HCQ.

            It would also be interesting to understand why India has < 2.8% fatalities while the USA has 5.8%.

          • Steven Mosher

            At last!

            Commenting on a subject you actually understand, the use of the English language.

            Yet whilst you criticise other non experts for their use of it, a scientist criticising your use of the science they know about (and you don’t) is, somehow, wronger than you are.

            Fakir.

        • Thanks to Prof. Marcos N. Eberlin.

          He has stated many of the observations that I have not had time to record or publish, concerning the rejecting of HCQ based on flawed studies, some of which seem to be deliberately sabotaged – politicized science?

          I still don’t know if HCQ works or not, but I reject many of the studies that have been published as hopelessly incompetent or biased.

          Concerning Prof. Eberlin’s other rant, most politicians are hopelessly incompetent regarding science – on technical matters they can’t find their butts with both hands. After decades of disproofs, they still believe in very-scary global warming/climate change hysteria, and squander trillions of dollars and millions of lives on this imbecilic fantasy.

          They also grossly over-reacted the Covid-19 flu, which is so mild to the majority that there was NO justification for the full lockdown – their cure was much worse than the disease.

          If we held these politicians and their leftist minions criminally responsible for these costly fiascos, they’d be hanging from the lampposts.

          • “Concerning Prof. Eberlin’s other rant, most politicians are hopelessly incompetent regarding science –”

            Your qualifier “regarding science” was unneeded when describing politicians. Their incompetence knows no boundaries

        • “Greg May 31, 2020 at 10:13 am

          HCQ was damned in the USA because Trump said “it looks promising”…”

          And Trump’s words, if they are the ones I am thinking of, was also misrepresented because he asked a question, didn’t make a statement unlike has been reported in MSM.

  2. “The term “science” has been used ad nauseam, that is, has been repeated to exhaustion; “Science, science, science”. It is clear that the intention here is to lead all of us to the idea of ​​decisions based on something unquestionable and infallible, as scientific as law, as the law of gravity”

    A great description of the climate change movement!

    • Indeed Chaamjamal ….. my awakening came when (it must be decades ago) the so called “super computers” were constantly cited as though running poorly writen programs with bad data on a super computer gave the results legitimacy. The climate movement was always about anti capitalist control and very childish in its desire to shut down industry etc with no intelligent alternative.

    • The fools who cry “science, science, science” are probably paying attention to the science, how else can they be so wrong so often? If they didn’t pay any attention, you’d expect them to be right about half of the time.

      It’s clear that many of the vacuous claims from the left about following science are just lame attempts to juxtapose the China virus and climate change and it in both cases, they use the same transparent tactic of cherry picking studies that fit the narrative. What the IPCC did by replacing the objectiveness of the scientific method with conformance to a political narrative has spread.

      Far too many have been fooled by CAGW and many of the same people are being fooled again by politically biased pseudo-science regarding virology. How many times do they need to be fooled before they notice? Its incredibly how political bias can make people so incredibly stupid and I blame the progressive left for dumbing down America by infiltrating the education system and poisoning our youth through indoctrination and propaganda. This was necessary to push their ideology since those who are properly informed will choose freedom over the regressive and suppressive policies that define progressive politics. Infiltrating education is the same tactic Communists and Nazi’s use to push their harmful ideologies. What’s next? Rounding up conservatives and putting them in concentration camps, or perhaps give the camps a progressive name like ‘re-education’ camps as China calls them.

      • “How often have things been simple and easy of accomplishment, and yet most men have been heedless, and busied themselves with that which wasteth their time!”
        – Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

    • “I am following the science” is a safe-play abnegation of responsility to make judicious judgements by defering them to the “experts and professionals” and, of course, “the science” they propound.

  3. Ah yes the constant mantra of politicians “I base my decisions on science”. That has replaced god as the ultimate authority now. It sounds good and is short enough for them to remember and recite.

    Ask them what the scientific method is. If they are truly making science based decisions they would know.

    I love to ask them “What predictions have happened for you to hold that position?”.

    • Modern politicians determine what is science.
      Hermann Goering (?) : I determine who is a Jew.

      • Three threads intertwine in CG’s post:
        1) Science means to test by observation, doubt and test again.
        2) Politicians by definition depend on Goering, to hope that the lies they tell are heard by the right people, and eventually believed,
        and 3) They are supported in this effort by becoming Kleptocrats, licking the hand that feeds them (cash).

        • Science is the philosophy and practice of observing, testing, and replicating within a specified, notably limited, frame of reference.

      • Good analogy, George. Your (Anglicized) spelling of Goering’s last name is also correct. For a while, as the head of the Prussian State Police (which morphed into the Gestapo), Goering was the guy who decided who was a Jew – although I doubt he actually wrote the Nuremberg Laws, he wasn’t all that smart.

      • Göring was a follower of the PC Church with a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion, including selective-Jew or life deemed unworthy of life, diversity (i.e. color judgment), and redistributive change. Today, the Church and religion are responsible for normalizing several hundred thousand excess deaths annually in America alone. #WickedSolution

  4. Dr. Eberlin’s daughter, Livia Schiavinato Eberlin is studying the use of mass spectrometry as a surgical tool in the operating room. She’s at the University of Texas, in Austin and also works with researchers in Houston. The tool can be used to determine for instance if all malignant tissue has been removed. I attended talks by both in Chicago just prior to the shut down.

    Good commentary by Dr. Eberlin, though I’m continually surprised by the lack of attention to zinc.

    • I thought zinc was the purpose HQC was used to facilitate zinc transport into the infected cells preventing the virus from replicating.

    • Scissor, regarding the innovative use of mass spec for assessing surgery in cancer patients, it occurred to me some time ago that because of our training as specialists, our thinking in problem solving is circumcribed by the very specialization itself. For example with approaches to dealing with viruses and bacterial infections, our tool kit contains basically ‘how-does-the-bug-operate’, its DNA, and medical/ pharmaceutical preps to interrupt it.

      We do not study the physical properties of pathogens(?): what does a chemical assay of it show? Is it magnetic, paramagnetic (weakly +), diamagnetic (repulsed by a mag field). Does it have mechanical strength, etc. If it’s paramagnetic (messes with your blood?), maybe a strong MRI would incapacitate or weaken it. Or the tensile strength of the pathogen is such that it would be ripped apart.

      If the pathogen contains positive ions (Na+?) in solution (water?), a mass spectrometer may add electrons and cause reaction to form, say, NaOH (caustic soda).

      I have some personal experience with this idea. A person I knew 50 years ago died of peritonitis. Taken to the hospital in critical condition, one of the surgeons, who was a scuba diver and was experimenting with a decompression chamber used for scuba divers who contracted ‘bends’, said that bacteria go dormant under pressure, and possibly it might give the patient a chance to fight off the infection although there might already be too much organ damage. He kept the person alive for 4 or 5 days and vital signs seemed to stabilize, but organ damage did end his life.

  5. Anyone looking at this with a logical eye can see that a drug used safely, for decades, and prescribed for adults and children worldwide, as a prophylaxis for Malaria, can’t suddenly become dangerous and toxic when the same dose is administered for another disease. The fact Trump supported its use appears to have some mystical negative effect.

    • Hot

      You offered the opinion, “… can’t suddenly become dangerous and toxic when the same dose is administered for another disease.” Do you have evidence to support such a claim? What impact might age (one of the greatest risks for COVID-19) have on the tolerance to what is effectively a toxin to the malarial parasite? How might co-morbidities, known to be a serious risk factor, impact the ability of the body to metabolize and excrete the drug, that is, change its half-life, and allow the concentration to reach levels not reached in an otherwise healthy person? How might an immune system, challenged by a serious illness, have its ability to remove toxins (HCQ) compromised?

      You also claimed that the dose given for COVID-19 is the same as a prophylaxis for malaria. It isn’t! The malaria treatment is one pill per week, while the treatment for COVID-19 is one or two pills per day. You would be more persuasive if you got your facts right.

      “The fact Trump supported its use appears to have some mystical negative positive effect.”

        • Krishna
          Fundamentally, you are appealing to authority. What’s more, the person you have elevated to a position of authority you probably never even heard of before a couple of months ago! What kind of a track record does he have before his recent 15 minutes of fame? Did he cure polio and smallpox? Does he have a cure for ED? Has he reversed aging? If he hasn’t done any of these things, why are you so ready to claim he walks on water when in fact he might well slip off the rocks just under the surface?

          • Gee, Clyde, I think most here know that the gold standard is proper randomized testing with a control group. However a very long experience with a common cheap drug still widely used for malaria lupus and arthritis gives a fair amount of confidence at least that the drug is reasonably safe.

            Probably randomized tests were done to discover its effectiveness and safety for lupus and arthritis, both auto-immune diseases by the way, which seems also to be a factor in later stages of covid where large fluxes of antibodies cause their own serious inflamation. Anti-aids drugs have also been mentioned re covid just because of the autoimmune aspect.

            You are also wrong about dosages for malaria. There is a once a week pill, but I have in front of me a prescription from a tropical medicine clinique for one pill daily -Atovaquone (a modern quine family drug) 250mg with added HCQ 100mg. It is prescribed for a business trip in 2017 to Minas Gerais, Brazil. I’m 82 years old. I also had a wife and two children with me when I worked for the Geological Survey of Nigeria in the mid 1960s, all of us on HCQ and all my colleagues and their families the same with no one suffering any debilitating side effects. How many military personnell have had this over the past 70yrs? Workers, tourists, local people – 300+ million? Surely that counts as a test. Actual quinine (HCQ was invented as a more effective drug with fewer side effects) was used by Spanish plunderers in the 16th century – a traditional medicine in Peru.

            The author of this article mentions ridiculous toxic dosages used by some researchers (a lethal dose of milk will kill you!) who may be wanting to kill usage of HCQ because Trump thought it might be a good idea.

            Recommendation from work in France, Brazil and elsewhere is for 400mg a day (author). You know as well as anyone the extent alarmists and TDS folk will go to.

          • “However a very long experience with a common cheap drug still widely used for malaria lupus and arthritis gives a fair amount of confidence at least that the drug is reasonably safe.”

            sadly you dont know how it might interact

            ask me about being floxxed.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03267-5

            “For decades, regulatory agencies and the medical profession were sceptical that a brief course of antibiotics could have such a devastating, long-term impact. But after persistent campaigning by patient groups, attitudes began to change in 2008, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the first of what would be a series of strong alerts about the side effects of fluoroquinolone drugs, including tendon rupture and irreversible nerve damage. In 2016, the agency accepted the existence of a potentially permanent syndrome that it calls fluoroquinolone-associated disability (FQAD), and recommended that the drugs be reserved for serious infections. That move has triggered other regulatory agencies to reassess the antibiotics: Health Canada warned doctors of rare cases of persistent or disabling side effects in January 2017, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is expected to publish the results of a safety review this year, after a public hearing planned for June.”

          • Gary
            Please define “reasonably safe.” While you are at it, how many deaths from side-effects are acceptable?

      • Plaquenil ( HCQ ) has been used for decades for lupus and arthritis.

        Lupus 200-400 mg/ day; arthritus 400-600mg/day.

        You would be more persuasive if you got your facts right.

        • I’ve been on 400 mg HCQ/day for years. Age 77 and heart problems. None of my doctors indicated it was any kind of threat other than a very rare eye condition. That’s the only additional thing they’re monitoring.

          • Ralph
            I’d suggest looking for another doctor. Look at the known problems here:
            https://reference.medscape.com/drug/plaquenil-hydroxychloroquine-sulfate-343205

            While vision problems are one of the more common, the side-effects are highly variable and unpredictable. There are special tests for vision (I know because I had to have them.) whereas, you get your blood pressure checked every time you see your doctor and are probably monitoring your BP at home. So, if you had a bad reaction, you or the doctor would know. The other side-effects are generally obvious and would raise a red flag even to you.

          • Clyde Spencer suggested my “looking for another doctor. Look at the known problems” with hydroxychloroquine.

            I did look at the side effects in the link Clyde Spencer provided. The one thing left out is incidence rates (“Frequency Not Defined”). Without that information any list of side effects is virtually meaningless.

            My rheumatologist prescribed it, as he does for other people with autoimmune disorders. My cardiologist knows that I’m taking it and felt no need to warn me about it, or have any kind of special monitoring.

            What are Clyde Spencer’s qualifications to make medical recommendations?

          • Ralph
            I’m not making medical recommendations. I’m pointing out a citation of side-effects that are known to exist, and are apparently unpredictable with regard to who is susceptible and what the severity might be. The point is, there are many here (and you implied as much) that there are either no significant side-effects or are limited to only one. Such claims are not supportable and I have to wonder why anyone would make such claims.

            As to my expertise, I have personally experienced some of the side-effects, which started almost immediately.

          • Today I met a man who has been on plaquenil for years because of Lupus. He reported no heart issues, but some blurry vision. According to his prescribing doctor none of his Lupus patients has had COVID. Third hand hearsay, but still…. (When do a bunch of anecdotes become data?)

        • HCQ plus Zinc Sulfate appears to be 100% effective in treating covid patients. 700 patients and no one, requiring ICU, except for one who stopped treatment and died.

          This is a link to the interview of the Jewish doctor who used Zinc sulfate plus Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin to treat 700 covid patients.

          …. and the one death was a person who stopped taking HCQ plus zinc sulfate.

          I like that the person speaking about treatment option, HCQ plus zinc sulfate, is a front line doctor and that he first treated 500 patients, gave an interview, and then treated 200 more.

          A Real doctor. Orthodox Jewish person. No reason he would lie or risk his mortal soul. I have listened to his interview. This man would not knowing harm his patients or anyone else.

          There is link below to a paper that shows Hydroxychloroquine is a Zinc ionophore, it gets the positive Zn +2 ion into our negatively charged cells.

          Our cells take the Zn+2 ion and use it to make the ACE-2 connector molecule slightly positive, which it has been shown in vitro tests to stop, the covid virus from replicating.

          Evolutionarily, it makes sense that our cells have evolved to stop the viruses from connecting to the ACE-2 molecule and replicating. Only a tiny amount of zinc is required. The problem is our cells are slightly negative.

          https://techstartups.com/2020/04/03/updates-from-dr-vladimir-zelenko-now-treated-700-coronavirus-patients-with-99-9-success-rate-using-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-sulfate-and-z-pak-1-outpatient-died-after-not-following-protocol-exclusi/

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/

          Zn 2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

          Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/pdf/pone.0109180.pdf

      • This is a good summary from New Delhi: The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the country’s apex body in the field, has found that consuming the drug hydroxychloroquine reduces the chances of getting infected with Covid-19.

        The takeaway is use it early as phropalaxis to reduce the incidence of infection. The second takeaway is watching for the known side effects and curtailing use if seen.

        https://theprint.in/health/hcq-breakthrough-icmr-finds-its-effective-in-preventing-coronavirus-expands-its-use/427583/

      • The antimalarial that I took as prescribed for a month long trip through Africa was a 40 day regimen of Atovaquone 250 mg with Proguanil Hydrochloride 100 mg taken daily. I experienced no noticeable side effects. I don’t know the equivalency of Atovaquone to Hydroxychloroquine but I suspect they are similar. The Brazilian Ministry of Health recommendation for early stage treatment does not look out of line to me: 2 x 400 mg on Day 1 and 400 mg/day for the subsequent 5 days.

        • Greg
          You shared that “I experienced no noticeable side effects.” That is akin to someone saying that they have never personally observed a bank being robbed, and concluding that bank robberies don’t exist.

      • Clyde Spencer,

        You stated that “the malaria treatment is one pill per week”, it isn’t, the treatment regime for Malaria is a loading dose followed by a 6-8 hourly dose, then a daily dose; which is the same, or similar treatment regime generally given for Coronavirus. The dose you quote is the prophylaxis dose for malaria; which is not used as a treatment.

        Because I unwisely used the word “can’t”; and my post may be misinterpreted by some, what I should have written is;
        Anyone looking at this with a logical eye can see that a drug used safely, for decades, and prescribed for adults and children worldwide, as a prophylaxis for Malaria, with mostly known side effects and drug interactions, is unlikely to become dangerous and toxic when used early for those with Coronavirus symptoms, when a similar dose has been used relatively safely to treat malaria and other diseases.

        The fact Trump supported the use of HCQ (with Zinc) appears to have some mystical negative effect. Although, prior to Trump supporting its trial, Turkey has been widely prescribing HCQ and Zinc, for patients with symptoms and there are anecdotal reports of good outcomes.

        It is yet to be proven by randomised double blind trials whether it improves outcomes or is not safe to use for such patients.

        Fixed!

        • When I was in the military it was administered 1 tablet every day.

          Apart from the constant dribbling into my keyboard, I’m fine /sarc.

          No really, I only ever dribble into the keyboard is when I read mosher’s drivel. There’s no safe dosage for that level of drivel.

      • Clyde your dosages are incorrect. The treatment (dosage) for malaria and COVID are identical.

        Everyone: you may be interested in a comparison between what you already know about the effectiveness of HCQ when given early (before the cytokine storm starts in earnest) and the effectiveness (or not) of Remdesivir. See video 77 at MedCram (came out today). It reports the effectiveness of this wonder drug from Gilead.

        I feel the main reason for the CDC’s reluctance to approve HCQ was not the absence of demonstrated effectiveness – that was a-plenty. It was that Gilead had no approved use for Remdesivir. The held up widespread (known) use of HCQ while applying on an emergency basis, for permission to demonstrate Remdesivir. Check out who at CDC Board level is a big-shot at Gilead. Please report here.

        Well, it didn’t turn out so well for the super-expensive drug. In late stages when it is supposed to kill the viruses, it is too late. Those getting the drug were no better off than taking nothing at all.

        It has a small positive effect when given early, but HCQ provided a better result that Remdesivir, if I remember all the numbers correctly. So far, no side-by-side reports. MedCram also has a video a few days old that discusses a trial with HCQ. Compare the results.

        There is a trial in the UK just started with 10,000 front line workers and HCQ. That will be helpful to show if it has prophylactic ability.

        Video 77 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXtY_3A0WN8&feature=em-lsp

      • Clyde Spencer May 31, 2020 at 9:33 am
        ” The malaria treatment is one pill per week”

        You forget that the drug has been used for other diseases and was prescribed at one or two pills per day for life.

        • John
          I was responding directly to the claim that the prophylactic dosage for malaria was the same as as been recommended for COVID-19.

    • ” can’t suddenly become dangerous and toxic when the same dose is administered for another disease.”

      This is a testable conclusion.
      that has not been tested in a gold standard fashion.

      so it’s an opinion

        • Yep. Steven’s assumption that HCQ is dangerous and toxic IS AN OPINION, not fact. So it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

    • WATTS worse, [I couldn’t resist.], HCQ would have become, to my knowledge to become the first “off patent, Generic drug selected for Global use. This would be directly competing with Biogen’s and others’ untested, expensive candidates. From my reading, the tests being run at present, are all the “branded” candidates.

      Having written the negative forecast above, there is hope. Malaysia, a country of 45 million isn’t biting. HCQ is being used. Senegal, one of the African countries ravaged by Ebola is also using HCQ.

      The poor countries of the world are watching.

      I hope serious people get a place at the table.

      • Good news.

        The New York Times is reporting an agreement between Brazil and the U.S, for a shipment of millions of HCQ doses from the U.S. to Brazil for “early use”.

        Thank goodness serious people are answering my prayer.

        I never thought I’d say this. Look at the NYT.

        Regards,

    • Once again “The Donald” is on track, now. Please *Chit Not News” front page ( impossible)

  6. But HQC is a low profit drug no longer exclusive or patentable. Every patient successfully treated with it is one more impediment to marketing a high profit vaccine. Nothing should be allowed to get in the way of profiting from this viral opportunity. It is just good business sense to demonize HCQ.

      • That is certainly the case in Europe where EU “clinical studies” on HCQ and other patented drugs have been specifically structured to give HCQ only to seriously ill patients ( ie known to be too late and thus sure to fail to give a +ve result ) and without an antibiotic or zinc.

        The HCQ part of the tests have now been discontinued following last weeks supposed “global” meta study based of dubious data, the sources of which they refuse to divulge and are not even country specific let alone institution specific which would at least allow a first degree of verifiability.

        The hand of powerful pharmaceutical lobbyists is clear everywhere you look in this story.

      • ferdberple
        Consider: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fact-check-dr-anthony-fauci-bill-gates-wont-profit-from-drug-remdesivir/ar-BB145pnc

        While Big Pharma may see profits, the average person will have most of the cost covered by their insurance. Because this effectively effects everyone, not a small minority, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the government step in and insist that the treatments be handled like seasonal flu — no-cost vaccinations.

        Developing new drugs is very expensive. Without an incentive, drug companies will look elsewhere or simply go out of business. There is currently concern about all the illnesses that are becoming resistant to main-line antibiotics because there are very few new replacements being developed. Since when are commenters on this blog unhappy that capitalism works?

    • Richard (the illogical one)
      Then why hasn’t the pharmaceutical industry demonized HCQ for malaria and developed a more expensive replacement?

      • Because, sir Spencer, the use is HCQ for malaria has entrenched momentum from the time it was developed as an improvement over straight quinine. I have taken both those, sometimes as a preventative, sometimes as a cure for malaria. As Big Pharma has become more powerful and profitable the unscrupulous motives have grown. I do not condemn all drug development or malign all pharmaceuticals. But the campaign to discredit cost effective and potentially beneficial treatments has been marked by deceit and greed.

        • Richard
          Not a very convincing argument. It comes across as a rationalization to defend your original unsupported opinion.

      • Umm, because the market is primarily in poor countries where demand for anything more expensive would be near zero? Because the safety and efficacy are so well established that even crony capitalists couldn’t get anybody to believe that one? I dunno Clyde, why do you think?

        • Rich
          You said, “… because the market is primarily in poor countries where demand for anything more expensive would be near zero?” OK, at first blush that seems reasonable. But, the argument that has been put forward is that Big Pharma is ONLY interested in money. If we accept that for the sake of argument, then why should Big Pharma care if sales are “near zero” in poor countries? They could focus on selling expensive anti-malarials to rich tourists all over the world. That would be the logical conclusion if Big Pharma is motivated only by profit. There is potentially more profit in moderate sales of high-margin anti-malarials than in large-sales of low- to no-profit anti-malarials manufactured in China. So, the marketing plan would be to point out the problems with HCQ, and tout the effectiveness of the ‘New and Improved’ drug with fewer side-effects. Ca Ching, ca ching [sound of a cash register registering sales]

          • Nope. Big Pharma ceded those markets decades ago to local firms. They aren’t making bupkis on HCQ. Remember the business about Trump convincing Modi to deliver on US orders to Indian Pharma companies?
            Why would a rational economic actor invest billions to develop and get approval on a drug that could never hope to be priced competitively with a decades-old generic?

            First world customers with healthcare systems that hide most of the true costs from consumers are subject to that ka-ching ka-ching process, but poor countries can’t play that game. They need value from the products that they buy.

          • To answer your point more directly, there isn’t a big enough market from western tourists to justify the R&D, clinical trials, and regulatory fees. That’s because HCQ is very effective and benign.

            It should not be taken as a flaw in the system that pharmaceutical companies are profit-driven. Without that, we would not have the effective drugs that we have.

            The flaw is one that Adam Smith pointed out more than two centuries ago.

            People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

    • You must be very careful doing recovery statistics on the curative properties of any given medication when 92% of infected recover regardless. Placebo effect can make 5% difference, the additional attention paid to patients can make a couple of percent difference. The screening requirements can make a big difference, for example, is the potential test patient capable of describing their symptoms? ….There is a Senegal study saying 80% recovery with HCQ while we have jurisdictions with 98% recovery without any attempt to use HCQ….another that says their death rate dropped to 0.4%, so is 1-.04 statistically better than 98% ? Not unless you tested hundreds of patients several times over.
      And many places started HCQ studies and stopped. Why ? Because it made no obvious difference. Get over it HCQ believers…..it’s about as effective as CNS….chicken noodle soup…

  7. The magnitude of the outbreak in Brazil is already being used politically to pillory “populists.” Unfortunately, Brazil cases will likely exceed one million cases and perhaps over 100,000 deaths.

      • Brazil has it’s own problems with high density slums and high levels of poverty. As an example, it used to be that poor families sent their child into the garbage dumps to scavenge. I don’t know if that’s still the case, but poverty limits how one may respond.

        • Brazil has the unique problem of greater acetaldehyde air pollution than anywhere else in the world due to its heavy use of ethanol fuels. Acetaldehyde causes “popcorn lung” (bronchiolitis_obliterans), which has symptoms like covid-19(84). Due to diagnosis bias and fear, I can imagine people showing up with popcorn lung and being diagnosed with and treated for covid-19(84). Treating an environmentally-caused respiratory disease as a viral respiratory disease might not go so well. For example, during the SARS outbreak a Chinese girl with tuberculous pneumonia was misdiagnosed with, and treated for, SARS. The drugs she was given damaged her liver (pg 7).

          http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/SARS.pdf (link is to pdf)

      • Nick,

        The wrong action can produce equally bad, or even worse, results. Basing an action on cherry picked information among a large body of contradictory information is inexcusable, so why is this any better than inaction?

        At the time the decision to shut down our economy was reached, a far cheaper alternative was already known and that would have saved many more lives. This was to give hydro chloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic to as many of those at risk as possible. Since Trump was a proponent of this drug cocktail, the loony left and its lackey MSM took their usual position against anything Trump stands for, and this far better alternative was not just ignored, but demonized which suckered the weak minded masses to go along with the deception.

        Shutting down the economy and driving unemployment into the stratosphere to protect a tiny fraction of the population at serious risk to the China virus was not the right action. If it was, why don’t we destroy the economy every flu season, or even permanently? It would protect the same people. Yes 1/3 of all china virus fatalities are those over 85, but 1/3 of deaths from all causes are also people over 85, many of which have some disease, perhaps even the common cold, combined with preexisting conditions as the proximate cause.

      • Corruption in Brazil is standard practice. It’s a country with a lot of resources and potential but is characterized by rule by an elite class. The elite live in gated communities with armed guards, in addition to controlling the police.

        The typical Brazilian wants to get away from elitist rule, which can go a number of directions.

    • 100,000 deaths, that’s remarkable considering Brazil records only about 200 cold and flu deaths every year… out of a population of 200 million.

      Yeah, I believe that.

      • This article says flu deaths average 1.01 per 100,000 in Brazil. de Vigilância em Saúde S. Informe Epidemiológico: Influenza SE 382016. 2016. That’s still low, but an order of magnitude higher than 200.

        If COVID-19 deaths in Brazil don’t exceed 100,000, it’ll probably be because of relatively young demographics.

  8. Thank you Dr. Eberlin and Anthony for the focus on a treatment plan. We have so many statistical mavens that focus on infections and or deaths but not on success of treatment plans. Quite possibly tens of thousands of lives have been lost because of that lack of focus on successful treatment plans.

    • The same consensus exists in the social sciences, with the same adverse effects for color blocs, since they don’t see people… persons. And they use science, technical terms of art (e.g. semantic games), quasi-religious (“ethics”, its relativistic cousin) fervor, em-pathetic appeals, and inferential statistical models to shutdown… shout down their critics.

    • HCQ+AZ act as disinfectants part of a Planned Pathogen protocol. They do not reverse damage to cells, tissue, and organs, but they reduce the viability of the virus and its posterity.

  9. 2003 TV episode developed with help from the CDC (right after the SARS outbreak) about a SARS-like virus that is vanquished by chloroquine.

    • … and started in China.

      That’s so close it’s not funny. Surprised it was not on the Simpsons.

  10. I am appalled at doctors who deliberately kill patients with lethal doses of HCQ to “prove” that it does not work.Or maybe to bring Trump down.

    • Or administer it late and in isolation. It’s not a magical elixir that reverses the disease’s progress, but rather mitigates it in combination with the body’s systems and defenses.

      • n.n
        COVID-19 is a disease that often has mild to uncharacteristic symptoms. Most who become ill will recover on their own, even if they don’t see a doctor. It is those who are seriously ill, and are not responding to ‘best practice’ treatments, that become candidates for off-label treatments. Doctors with a serious case that is not responding are desperate and will try almost anything. Thus, they administer HCQ “late” (How do we really know what is “late” since there is no prior experience with this disease?). When it is administered early, it may not be needed. Early administration of HCQ to someone who is old and sick may expose them to unnecessary risks. I’m appalled at how many here ‘de-Nye’ that there are even risks for the medication and cite statistics that exclude those who quit using HCQ for the approved uses because they obviously didn’t tolerate it well, or who sucked it up and continued usage because malaria was so much worse than the side-effects.

        • The risks are minuscule compared to anti-virals that can permanently damage the liver. Ribavirin, which was used extensively during SARS, and is used for covid-19(84), but less so, is a DNA chain terminator that prevents cell division. It destroys blood cells and suppresses bone marrow, which as treatment for a respiratory disease in which patients can’t get enough oxygen is just nuts. Yet it’s part of a popular cocktail for covid-19(84).

          • icisil
            That is really a strawman argument. If Ribavirin has the claimed problems, then its risks should be objectively evaluated before use. HCQ was being promoted before we even knew about the cardiovascular problems, and many here were ‘de-Nye’ing side-effects even existed. I doubt if any drug is as safe as water and their uses will always be a trade-off that only a patient can decide on, when given full knowledge. (Not that even water is completely safe!) Common sense is necessary, which I find highly lacking in many commenters here.

            What patients need to be told is, “We don’t have any treatments that have passed comprehensive gold-standard trials to verify the efficacy. Some doctors have recommended the use of HCQ, under “compassionate use” guidelines, but you have to understand that there are unpredictable side-effects sometimes, and we don’t really know the optimal dosage or the length of time to be used. We would be treating based on a small number of limited trials. If you are willing to sign a waiver of liability, I can try administering HCQ and see if it seems to help.”

          • @Clyde Spencer
            If you like to read the Raoul papers published everywhere you will ceratainly find out, that the patients tested with HCQ with and without AZ had of course got all informations and had to sign the respective acceptances. Or do you realy believe he doesn’t ? Are you realy so ignorant ?

        • “that become candidates for off-label treatments. ”

          That is because “compassionate use clause” is the only legal avenue in US unless it is specifically authorized. It makes it useless.

          It does not mean it could not be authorised directly thus avoiding the need to fall back on “compassionate use”.

          They managed to suspend half the damned constitution, they could fix it for HCQ use on first symptoms.

        • Clyde,

          “HCQ was being promoted before we even knew about the cardiovascular problems, and many here were ‘de-Nye’ing side-effects even existed.”

          What do you mean “before we even knew about the cardiovascular problems”? Are you somehow under the misconception that HCQ was just developed this year? HCQ has been in use for literally decades. Any side effects of the drug were known long ago. Ask any doctor.

          Hell, I am allergic to penicillin. Treating me with penicillin could kill me. But most people don’t have that allergy. Should they be denied use of penicillin because it might kill me as a side-effect?

          • Tim
            The point is that many people here are denying that there are ANY significant side-effects and recommending that HCQ be given to everyone, even before they show symptoms. Fortunately, doctors are aware that penicillin has problems and ask if one has any problems with penicillin before prescribing it.

            You said, “Any side effects of the drug were known long ago.” Yes, I’m the lonely voice in the wilderness that has been trying to make that point to all the commenters who are in denial about any side-effects!

          • For the vast majority of patients there are no side effects. Since this is a prescription drug with known side-effects, consult your doctor before taking. You sort of have to to get the prescription.

            If you, yourself, are at risk because of any of the contraindications (well known), your doctor will advise.

            Medicine is supposed to be practiced by physicians, often in a clinic.

            We need randomized trials of this as much as we need randomized trials on the effectiveness of parachutes.

            Government: Do not make any recommendations. Instead publish all the test results and inform the physicians of the results of _all_ the clinical results. Especially the results where it has been shown to be effective. It may be that some of these would, in fact, have been mild cases not requiring hospital anyway. We could run a double blind study to see how many untreated people have mild cases. Then we can know that, yep, HCQ prophylaxis really is the difference.

            Much like having some jump with and some without a parachute. Cruel. Unneeded. But ‘real’ scientific proof.

    • Curious George wrote, “I am appalled at doctors who deliberately kill patients with lethal doses of HCQ to ‘prove’ that it does not work.”

      Would those doctors have taken the Hypocrite Oath?

      Stay safe and healthy, all.
      Bob

  11. Science is, with cause, the philosophy and practice in the near-domain. Dr. Eberlin is renaissance man in a secular world, that has deferred judgment to the [sociopolitical] consensus of mortal gods, goddesses, and the special and peculiar interests they serve. A true scientist and skeptic.

    New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19?

    The multiple molecular mechanisms by which chloroquine can achieve such results remain to be further explored. … preliminary data indicate that chloroquine interferes with SARS-CoV-2 attempts to acidify the lysosomes and presumably inhibits cathepsins, which require a low pH for optimal cleavage of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

    Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

  12. Dr. Eberlin and every man and woman who have not lost sight of scientific discipline in our “secular” times. Awesome.

  13. Very good article, thank you.
    I do not have much faith in “experts” but it seems all political leaders are surrounded by experts and, which is worst, many political leaders consider themselves experts.

  14. “NEVER A SCIENTIST OR A GROUP OF THEM CAN DECLARE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE”
    So what do we have here? A group of scientists, with an open letter. And why should we take notice of them? Apparently, because they have a lot of citations? In what field? Well, never mind.

    • Well, never mind.

      Yes, “never mind” would be the logical response to your . . . objection(?) . . . commentary(?)

    • Listen for a moment or just pile up the bodies. Hide in the shadows and snipe or try to solve the problem.

    • Mr. Stokes, I do not see the author or his fellow scientists claiming to speak for ‘Science’ but to be pointing out that evidence and opinions vary and the exclusion from consideration of politically unfavored opinions is at odds with the scientific process. I think it is perfectly valid and appropriate to point out observed deficiencies in politically promoted understandings of the ‘Science’ and contrast these with their own understandings.

      • Greg
        You said, “… to be pointing out that evidence and opinions vary and the exclusion from consideration of politically unfavored opinions is at odds with the scientific process.” At the same time, the author is castigating those who have objections to the use of HCQ.

        What I’m seeing here is less than objective support of HCQ. It instead seems to be driven by some sort of misguided hero worship rather than science.

        • What part of “many doctors have seen good results from HCQ” don’t you understand? Are you presuming they’re unqualified?

          • icisil
            They may be good technicians, but I have met few practitioners that had the mindset of a good scientist. They often fly by the seat of their pants and employ trial and error from the inventory of medicines available to them. The person easiest to fool is yourself. These doctors supposedly reporting success with HCQ are probably the last to realize what was wrong with their protocol. While a gambler can get a run with the roll of dice, that doesn’t mean they can beat the odds over the long-term. That is why large-scale tests are necessary.

            I’ve said this before. I don’t have a problem with you personally, or others, being volunteers to test HCQ should you get infected. But, I think it is irresponsible to promote it based on the poor evidence available to you.

          • @Clyde Spencer
            But, I think it is irresponsible to promote it based on the poor evidence available to you.
            What in your thoughts is “poor evidence” ?

            These doctors supposedly reporting success with HCQ are probably the last to realize what was wrong with their protocol.
            Yes, they all idiots, unable to read a successful protocol. when these are the doctors of you choice, please search you a new one.

          • Ribavirin and the other antivirals have less evidence of safety and efficacy than HCQ does. Do you consider doctors irresponsible to promote it?

          • icisil
            May 31, 2020 at 12:11 pm

            You can’t fix stupid or perverted minds.

            If a perverted mind decides that a clear case of gross malpractice actually is a case of “proving” the validity or not of a medical treatment,
            where instead in reality it being only just a clear case of medical malpractice at large, and subject only to/for a self owned serious investigation on it,
            then trying a argue or convince such minds out of the fallacy,
            is quite a “mission impossible”.

            What clearly not fixable, can not be fixed… 🙂

            cheers

          • “They may be good technicians, but I have met few practitioners that had the mindset of a good scientist. They often fly by the seat of their pants and employ trial and error from the inventory of medicines available to them.”

            Good technicians are what Doctors are supposed to be! They are trained to synthesize various factors and come up with the best method of treatment for their patients, be they untried or not. What do you think Trump’s “right to try” legislation was all about?

            Doctors are responsible for their patients, not for blindly following treatment protocols from on high.

            Scientists have no such responsibility. If they think they have to wait anywhere from 2 years to 15 years before using a treatment proven safe for other diseases its mox nix to the scientists.

            What you are truly advocating for is the use of computers for treating patients using only treatment protocols “approved” by scientists that are at least one part removed from direct contact with the patients. If the computers can’t treat a new disease because they haven’t been programmed to and have no ability to synthesize new treatment protocols then that is just too bad, right?

          • icsil
            When have I ever promoted ribavarin? That is a red herring. What I have consistently done is point out (with citations) that there are side-effects to HCQ, that many here are denying even exist.

    • It’s spelled-out pretty clearly in the article, Nick.

      Once again, are you just pretending to be that clueless, or is it for real?

      • Key points people are missing here:

        1. There is a long history of prescribing (FDA) safety approved drugs “off label’, that is for diseases other than the original approved use. Over time many drugs are discovered to have additional uses. Over time doctors will develop treatment protocols.

        2. Doctors may choose to prescribe HCQ, based on their judgement, their reading of others’ reports and their patient’s history.

        Right now we have State medical boards (Arizona, Illinois and others) blocking prescriptions. This is absurd. Pharmacists, PhD (not MD), and other administrators should not be making these decisions.

        3. To those who claim that “controlled” (double blind) studies are needed. That is both unreasonable and unethical. We don’t have time. Further, doctors who believe the drug works should not have to enter into a clinical “experiment” in order to use the drug.

        Given that there are no clinically proven treatments for Covid19, I think it is immoral to deny treatment to patients. Many of those who are blocking treatment appear to be at the very least conflicted, either politically, financially, or both. Further, many of these people proposal non existent and controversial solutions, in particular, waiting for a vaccine.

        Finally, who out there will do proper clinical trials of a vaccine. Vaccine advocates fail to mention how safety and efficacy of a vaccine can ever be determined.

        • Penicillin didn’t move out of the lab until 1941 when better production protocols were developed. By 1942 it was in widespread use among the Allied military during WWII.

          Clyde would have us believe that shouldn’t have happened. There should have been years of clinical trials to prove its safety and effectiveness before being used to help save our military during the war.

          God save us from our elites!

          • Tim
            You are misrepresenting my position. To be clear, I don’t actually have a problem with people volunteering to be guinea pigs. However, I think that they should provide an informed consent, and to do so they have to have all the facts. What I am railing against are the significant number of commenters who are in denial about any risks associated with HCQ, Its almost like I’m arguing with theists who don’t let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

    • Another straw argument. I don’t think that the signatories are saying that we have to accept their views because they are speaking ‘in the name of science. Unlike some perople thety are not claiming to speak on behalf of ‘science’ but are merely putting forward a view which we can accept or reject. Nowhere do they say, “You have to believe us. We are scientists.”

      • “Nowhere do they say, “You have to believe us. We are scientists.””

        So why do they list each one’s citations? Or impress us with a claim that “The researchers who sign the letter add up to more than 69,000 citations.)”. Or tell us that the coordinator is “Winner of the prestigious Thomson Medal (2016) and the former president of the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation”.

        The heading says
        “Brazilian scientists and academics have written an open letter on the “science” of the coronavirus pandemic.”

        It might as well say
        “Brazilian scientists and academics say don’t listen to scientists”

    • Another straw argument. I don’t think that the signatories are saying that we have to accept their views because they are speaking ‘in the name of science. Unlike some perople thety are not claiming to speak on behalf of ‘science’ but are merely putting forward a view which we can accept or reject. Nowhere do they say, “You have to believe us. We are scientists.”

  15. I may be stupid but has anyone interviewed regular users of HCQ who use it for lupus and arthritis. There must be millions of users world wide. If the incidence of Covid 19 deaths in this group is substantially below the general population, this would be a pretty strong indicator that those people have gained some protection from the disease by using the medication. It might not be relevant because I assume zinc is not also used but it would give some confidence that it may work.
    I have serious fears that the trial work on HCQ has been corrupted either by a political desire to damage Trump or a financial motive to favour Remdesivir a Gilead product. I was concerned by the favourable treatment being given to Remdesivir on the basis of pretty average results. My suspicions were intensified when I learned that many members of the US advisory panel had current or past associations with Gilead including Fauci.

    • https://creakyjoints.org/living-with-arthritis/coronavirus/treatments/lupus-patients-do-get-coronavirus/

      According to the above site patients on HCQ (luges and arthritis) are getting Covid-19. according to the site:
      “On April 2 — two days before the President’s recent statements about lupus and hydroxychloroquine — the registry Tweeted: “One frequently asked question: Over 25% of patients who developed a COVID-19 were on HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] at the time of diagnosis.”

      Last night, the registry tweeted: “Based on early data currently available in our registry, we are not able to report any evidence of a protective effect from hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. A randomized, controlled trial would be the only way to study this to get a reliable answer to this question.””

      • I have worked programming epidemiology at a major pharmaceutical manufacturer.
        “A randomized, controlled trial would be the only way to study this to get a reliable answer to this question.”
        That is similar to saying that a parachute should not be used since there have been no randomized control studies of with and without parachutes.

        Here is how the random controlled trial (RCT) would work. Take random healthy pigs guaranteed to be SARS-CoV2-free. Give half of them HCQ. Then infect them all. Then do the same with humans.

        That claim of an RCT needed is silly. As silly as running one for parachutes.

        In epidemiology there is a distinction between ‘efficacy’ and ‘effectiveness.’ The former used when the mechanism is hypothesized and being tested while the latter is simply about if it treats.
        Effectiveness is clinical real-world data. Efficacy is determined with RCTs.
        An efficacy test for HCQ would be to run RCTs testing the in vivo (in vitro has been proved) nature of being a Zinc ionophore. Trials with added Zinc vs. none added. Also compare with other Zinc ionophores like Quercetin (an OTC flavinoid).

        HCQ has been through RCTs. Contraindications have been identified. Side effects of a wide variety of dosages are known. It has been approved as effective for malaria.

        Any physician may prescribe an approved drug for ANY CONDITION even if it was not the one it was approved for. This is because the MD knows the contraindications and risks before prescribing.

        It could be that HCQ exacerbates some COVID-19 symptoms sometimes. Clinical data shows that possibility when given late and/or in large doses.

        If there was medication that clinics have shown to work as a prophylaxis and was safe for almost everyone, would you take it if your doctor, having reviewed your condition, prescribed it?

        There was a study that showed that vitamin E was as effective as the compound being tested which was to reduce cascading trauma following brain injury. Funny how all the doctors in epidemiology started taking 400IU of E daily. See? A compound safe for most could work.

        HCQ can’t hurt, might help.

  16. In our round about Covid-19 and HCQ we here have the one or the other discussant pointing only on the possible sideeffects as if HCQ only consists of them. And worse, reproaching the pro HCQ discussants as being not as sceptical as in climate science, and pointing on the point, to be “with” Trump, to avoid the reproach to suffer of TDS.
    Strange…..

  17. During this pandemic, the term “science” has been used “ad nauseam”

    When someone does this, it is very often an indication that they are actually NOT doing what they are claiming.

  18. Why do climate and coronavirus modelers always see things as worse than we expected? It is because they always look at what might happen in some future time and never look back at what has happened. We could have got off lightly with the number of deaths we have had and the virus is burning itself out but that then would be better than we expected and not allowed in the present political outlook. I don’t think we have much choice in dealing with this pandemic it is controlled by nature and will end just like the “Spanish flu” or the “Hong Kong flu”.

    • On Climate and Coronavirus Models – aka CCCrapModels:

      What do Climate and Coronavirus Models, aka CCCrapModels, have in common?

      They are written. not by scientists but by political scientists.
      They are written to deliberately cause false alarm.
      They greatly exaggerate the problem, which can be real (but tiny) or imaginary.
      They fail to model the past or the future correctly – they have negative predictive skill.
      Political scientists and politicians believe in them – real competent scientists do not.
      When used to create policy, trillions of dollars and millions of lives are squandered.
      They are impervious to logic and the Scientific Method –they exist as Lenin/Goebbels propaganda
      They are concocted by scoundrels, who know they are false, and believed in by imbeciles, who don’t.
      They will always be with us, as long as half of humanity is of below average intelligence.
      – Allan MacRae

  19. Thank you Charles Rotter
    I have posted the article on my facebook page.
    If you are kindly able to furnish the original Portuguese language material or a link thereto, I shall be very grateful
    Regards
    michael@michaeldarby.net

  20. Excellent letter. I fully concur.

    The ‘science consensus’ behind the lock-downs and the banishment of HCQ seems to be driven by the same people who are behind the ‘settled science’ of climate change and the ‘Green New Deal’. It reminds me of the widely held belief at the end of the 19th century that science had nothing new to discover, because everything was already known, as well as the middle-age inquisitions against anybody challenging the ‘settled science’ that the earth was flat. It also reminds me of (Francis Fukuyama’s) ‘The End of History’.

    What seems to be behind the attacks on science is an attempt to stop human development. Thus the objective of the ‘Green New Deal’, is to restrict the energy use needed for human development. The people behind ‘The End of History’ are the ones supporting the ‘Project for a New American Century’ whose goal is to suppress any challenges to the established order. The ‘lock-downs’ pick-up from GND and PNAC that have failed to get sufficient traction.

    It seems to me that the neo(-liberal) fascists who are behind this effort to stop human development want to create a ‘static’ world. Because in a ‘dynamic’ world everything constantly changes, including who is in power. And this is the crux of the matter. It is all about maintaining in power the ‘Western’ transnational elites who currently think that they run the world.

    However, they are doomed to failure. In the chaotic environment in which humanity lives change is constant. If there is one iron-clad rule of nature it is ‘Adapt or Die’. Science, more than anything else, is about developing the ability to adapt. The attack on Science, led by these neo(-liberal) fascists, is an attack on the ability of humanity to adapt. Their efforts to create a ‘sustainable (i.e. static) world’ will not ‘save the planet’, but rather lead to humanity’s demise.

  21. MedCram.com has a very good ongoing series of reports into research on SARS CoV2, the biochemistry of its attack on cells and the various drugs, minerals and vitamins which influence the processes. The presenter is Dr. Roger Seheult and the video presentations can be found by searching YouTube for “Covid 19 Pandemic Update …). The series is now up to Update #76. He discusses the roles of zinc, zinc ionophores, Vitamin D, and much more. He finds support for the hypothesis that the infection attacks endothelial cells of the very thin membranes of the vascular system – the alveolar membranes in the lungs and the vascular system more generally, affecting the bowels, the brain, etc. The attachment of the viral spike proteins to the ACE2 receptors on the cell membranes results in a cascade of events involving down regulating the function of ACE2 which results in disruption of the Angiotensin control, reducing Angiotensin ii and raising AT i,7 which promotes the production of the superoxides the body uses in its normal immune response. The resulting oxidative stress causes endothelial cell dysfunction eliciting an inflammatory response which in turn stimulates the release of von Willebrands Factor which promotes clotting which causes thromboses which block the flow of blood through the capillaries. This stops oxygen exchange locally and results in low blood oxygen levels. If you watch the videos you will gain an understanding of the reason that Vitamin D, zinc, zinc ionophores (such as Hydroxychloroquine) have a role in the prophylaxis and treatement of SARS and the reason that an antibiotic such as Azithromycin is required for treatment of downstream bacterial infection of cells damaged by hyperimmune reaction and why immune suppressants may be beneficial rather than contra-indicated as originally thought.

  22. Weeeellllll…I’m guessing Prof. Eberlin has been deleted from several Christmas card lists…

    Great post.

  23. Now if Obama had approved the cocktail treatment he would have “won” another nobel peace prize and be proclaimed savior of the world. He would also have pocketed another 100 million in the process. Boy did he ever blow this opportunity.

  24. The BBC as usual was scornful of Trump and his use of this drug. They’ll get him re-elected at this rate

  25. Spot on article. Defending their draconian lock-down legislation politicians all claim they are following science – whereas they are really only following a host of differing opinions of scientific opinions.

    But anyway, legislators should not necessarily follow science. Legislation must first and foremost be fair, rational, ethical and charitable. Lock-down legislation is not. Its impact on various sections in society varies greatly. If you have a secure income and job, a roomy home and plenty of assets, a lock-down can be positively enjoyable – but if you happen to be poor, if your business is just scraping along, if you are literally existing from payday to payday, etc., etc., it is a different story altogether.

    I wonder whether lock-downs would have been ordered if each and every legislator had known with certainty that as a result of the legislation he/she would become personally insolvent and queuing up for charity food parcels.

  26. My daughter is currently in a maternity ward, having delivered twins. If she uses her CPAP for her obstructive sleep apnea, she will be put on full COVID lockdown in her room, forbidden to visit the babies in the NICU and nurse would have to put on full kit just to take her blood pressure. As it is, if my son in law must stay in her room: if he leaves, he will not be allowed back into the ward. He is given a ‘standard’ diet and at 6’4 is hungry all the time. No nurse came to assist her to stand up and get moving after a C-section; they did not even tell him to do it. No one can even deliver clean knickers or flowers to them in their confinement, now in its 4th day.

    Maybe all this is necessary, but this is what has happened to medical procedures that cannot be put off. I look forward to seeing my new grandchildren sometime in the future. If I visit them when they are finally released, my other daughter cannot visit until I have completed 14 days of quarantine, because she is a working nurse and must maintain strict distancing to be able to work. This is the safe world. It is a far cry from my memories of 1957 – Mum came home in a ‘dandy’ (chair carried by 2 men) with a skinny squawling infant after an emergency C-section to 4 kids and husband with the flu, with the rainy season well underway in the foothills of the Himalayas.

    As regards chloroquine, I heard a whisper that at least one doctor working in NY was taking it prophylactically, despite the governor banning it.

  27. There is one reason, and ONLY one reason for the opposition to HCQ – because Trump spoke favorably about it. Appalling that they would rather people die than concede that Trump might have been right about something.

    • And possibly because it doesn’t work any better than CNS, chicken noodle soup, and most of the preliminary studies didn’t publish because it didn’t work on the small sample size they had. That’s not a good sign.

      • That’s right. It’s not a magical elixir. It is in the class of drugs and vaccines that only function within a specified frame of reference. Once the disease has progressed (“Planned Patient”) and the body’s systems are no longer viable, then its too late to restored or rebuild critical systems. HCQ+AZ is part of a Planned Pathogen (PP) protocol that will abort and reduce the viability of the virus before it has made significant progress.

  28. This is simply based on the idea that we must live in fear and listen to the authorities. If there was a treatment that worked even on half of those that became ill, none of this would be necessary and we could treat it like a flu and go about our business. Weird world we find ourselves in.
    And for those that want to slam me for being a fan of HCQ, my wife has lupus and it has been a life changing grub with zero problem. And her doctors tell her they don’t see issues so I am not impressed by any so called study saying how dangerous it is.

  29. There ain’t no thing as science. There is no single unified thing properly named Science. There exists Political Science, after all.
    I have myself a Goddess. Mother Nature is Her name. She is the Oracle of Truth. She has but one Commandment: My Way. There just is no other highway.
    The Scientific Method is to ask Her questions with observation and experiment. The primal Oracle behaves as an Oracle must. Her answers, always true, can be, nonetheless, misleading. And so each generation repeats the measurements anew.

    • Exactly, if someone refers to “the science” they are probably lying to you. Science is a collective noun like knowledge. You don’t say “the knowledge” , it’s just knowledge.

  30. In a similar vein to HCQ, I have concerns about H2O.

    Numerous times, when I have been dehydrated, I drank several glasses of H2O to seemingly a positive outcome — I was no longer thirsty, and I felt better overall. But now I worry, after I learned that a “scientist” dosed a thirsty person with five gallons of water a day for three straight days, and the person died. I, thus, am considering stopping drinking water.

    </sarc, of course.

    • “… there is a huge effort to disprove, whatever it takes, that HCQ works.”

      That is exactly how science is supposed to work! If someone makes a claim, the claim is supposed to be vetted by replication and verification. The claim should be examined for confounding factors and the limits to validity should be explored. Anything less falls under the title of “Trial and Error” instead of controlled experiments.

      While Nietzsche was talking about the human spirit when he said, “That which does not kill you makes you stronger,” it applies to hypotheses. If a hypothesis can withstand the most severe trials, it makes it stronger. We are still testing Einstein’s theories. That isn’t some kind of political conspiracy. It is good science.

      • That is exactly how science is supposed to work!

        Sure, as long as the motivation behind the effort is knowledge. I’m loathe to infer conspiracy from anecdotalisms, but there *IS* an awful lot of filthy lucre to be made here.

        Shall we dismiss this truism out of hand?

      • That is exactly how science is supposed to work! If someone makes a claim, the claim is supposed to be vetted by replication and verification.

        If you change the protocol of the claim, you can’t replicate or verify the claim, that’s the way science does not work, but that’s the way to descredit the claim, the drug, the author of the claim.

        You just put the salty finger in the wound.

    • Robert
      Thank you for the excellent example of a logical fallacy. Everything can be toxic in sufficient quantity. To quote Dirty Harry, “A man has to know his limits.” All industrial chemicals and medicines are assigned an LD50 for which 50% of the lab animals are expected to die for a dose of a specified toxin per unit weight of the test subject. [e.g. grams per kilogram body weight] Hexavalent chromium is toxic in relatively small doses, as are many heavy metals, yet it is an essential ‘mineral’ required by humans. There is an optimal range for tolerance. And, that is one of the inherent problems with HCQ. The dosage was arrived at with test animals, and confirmed with generally young, healthy humans. The dosage is a compromise between effectiveness and tolerance by those using it. There are no long term studies on humans as to how tolerance varies with various co-morbidities, particularly high blood pressure or diabetes.

      While there seems to be some inconsistencies in the cited toxicity of HCQ, the LD50 may be as low as 2 times the doses commonly prescribed. And that is for healthy animals, not those who are on death’s doorstep.

  31. Science = (the new) religion = crowd control.

    Religion has ever been used by the secular authorities to maintain and advance their power and control over the mob.. and of course for their enrichment, and that of the priests’.

    Science does not have to be right, just the words of God, intimated to the priests, delivered ex cathedra with a Bishop’s imprimatur.

    None then may disagree or disobey the word of God – not even the secular authorities, who are just obeying orders from higher authority.

    I thought that was well known and understood… perhaps not.

    • What passes for science beyond the near-domain, pattern matching, liberal assumptions/assertions, certainly. The problem in so-called “secular” societies is the advent and progress of mortal gods and goddesses that infer knowledge from hypothesis (e.g. models), circumstantial evidence, personal beliefs, and brown matter with secular incentives (e.g. indulgences) for sociopolitical leverage and a beachfront estate.

  32. If this drug worked, we wouldn’t be seeing over 1000 deaths per day here in the USA, or the pandemic spreading worldwide. Doctors found that lying patients prone helps more than this drug.

  33. Excellent article but I wish that while it pointed out the arrogance of claiming that one speaks for science it would also point out that there are things that aren’t science and that the use of “science” for political ends is one of them.

  34. Here in the Netherlands we do not have science based but expert based decisions and the experts are good as they say we (they) know very little about the virus.

  35. Just consider how receptive the public would be to anyone saying, “I don’t believe in science and don’t follow it. However, I had a dream that if I held my breath, drank a large glass of pineapple juice, and recited ‘Mary had a little lamb, …’ as often as I could without taking a breath, I’d be cured of [your favorite medical problem of the day].”

    Only a few of the more gullible wing-nuts would give it serious consideration. On the other hand, if Trump were to say it, I’m afraid a lot of commenters here would respond, “Well, there are no obvious side-effects, and people have been drinking pineapple juice forever, what’s to lose as long as I take it as soon as I think I’m becoming ill and don’t wait until it is obvious that I need medical attention?”

    Cargo Cult Science!

    • There’s lots of clinical evidence that HCQ works. You seem to be in denial, or not give much credit to doctors’ ability to make such claims.

      • There is also lots of clinical evidence that it showed no benefit. Many studies have been stopped or not published due to inadequate size of test group. This is not a good sign. If it worked consistently, small groups with high recovery would be sufficient.
        It’s probably safe to say….

        HCQ has NO BENEFIT for those infected with CoVid 19, except as a placebo.

        • It is not a magical elixir. It will result in Planned Patient (PP) when served in excess and late after the disease has already made progress and caused irreparable damage.

        • Read the scientific papers following the initial protocol, ask, why Turkey is treating all patients with HCQ and ask, why Turkey has a so small quantity of death / day.
          They have many new cases per day, but in mid April, the highest number of deaths was 129 / day, while in Germany, the highest was 356 / day about a week later ?

        • You’re making the assumption that where HCQ failed it was administered correctly. I’ve seen things that make me think that was not the case.

          • A honest scientific researcher points on the change of the protocol and has to conclude, that, under the changed conditions, HCQ doesn’t show positive effects. But it doesn’t concern the treatment of the initial protocol.
            So “studies” without the statement are designed to descredit science.

  36. This stupid letter is not science.

    No data in the stupid letter, just a lot of words. That is odd. Medical treatments work or they do not work. This is not opinion.

    Science has data, observations, logic drawn from the data.

    Alternatives. Specifics about dosage and when to treat. And so on.

    Based on actual clinic evidence with 700 covid patients, in the US, in New York, and complete success. Only one death and the death was someone who stopped taking medication.

    HCQ works when it is given, in low dosage, less(no more than) than 200 mg/day with zinc sulfate as soon as the patient starts showing symptoms.

    Those advocating HCQ in huge dosages are evil. On the dark side. The Chinese and the South Koreans both issued ‘Medical’ guidelines, in January, for HCQ 500 mg/day and 1200 mg/day, no link to medical studies, ….

    I would assume the super high dosage HCQ ‘recommendation’ and….

    …. the hiding of the fact that HCQ must be given with Zinc sulfate… was done because the Chinese and the South Korean are on the same side.

    And the US people are on the other side.

    It also appears the US medical industry is not on the people’s side.

    HCQ is a zinc ionophore.

    It gets a tiny amount of zinc (Z+2) into our negatively charged cells.

    And the Zinc makes the ACE-2 molecule slightly positive which it has been shown in vitro stops the covid virus from replicating.

    There is evidence that humans have a natural mechanism that also gets zinc into our cells and stops this entire class of viruses that must connect the ACE-2 molecule to replicate.

    This is a link to the interview of the Jewish doctor who used Zinc plus Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin to treat 700 covid patients, who were sick and showing symptoms, with only one death.

    https://techstartups.com/2020/04/03/updates-from-dr-vladimir-zelenko-now-treated-700-coronavirus-patients-with-99-9-success-rate-using-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-sulfate-and-z-pak-1-outpatient-died-after-not-following-protocol-exclusi/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/

    Zn 2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

    Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/pdf/pone.0109180.pdf

    • I was recently diagnosed with lupus and have my first appointment with a rheumatologist in couple weeks. I will definitely discuss the possibility of starting HCQ with her.
      I have been taking quercetin, which is also a zinc ionophore, as a prophylactic against SARS-CoV-2. My diet is fairly high in zinc and my multi-vitamin has it, although as zinc oxide.

      • It doesn’t have to be zinc sulfate; that’s just what the Dr in NYC uses. Zinc oxide would work, but it’s not very absorbable. Zinc citrate, acetate and gluconate (among some others) are all better absorbed. Zinc oxide is probably the worst.

    • I found the letter rambling for the first third or so, if I remember correctly. Lots of words, for sure.

      I thought the major point could have been made earlier and more precisely. The style seemed a bit self indulgent for a science person. It’s too story-like. I don’t think it properly represents what I understand science to be — surely, there is no absolute certainty, but there is reasonable certainty that provides the guide for rational action.

      I want to re-write it, but I won’t.

      Unfortunately, I don’t think that it is a strong open letter, for the reasons mentioned.

    • The same is true for every drug and vaccine, which is why they are not generally distributed. There are no magical elixirs, not even those characterized through clinical tests.

  37. I spent 13 years of my youth studying. No holidays for the kids and my wife. Ended with having passed 46 different exam papers, Full tech qualifications, BSc MSC both in physics only to come across people like Mickey and his crowd who attached a label of ‘scientist’ to themselves.

    I have never been more ashamed to say that I was a scientist. Utterly ashamed.

  38. A major problem we have is that neither politicians nor the media understand anything about science or the scientific method.

    • William
      What you are presenting is little better than anecdotal stories. Are you willing to volunteer to be infected and test HCQ? If not, why not?

      • Does that go for every drug and vaccine, which are known to cause injury and excess death? There are no magical elixirs. HCQ+AZ is generally well tolerated, and is part of a Planned Pathogen (PP) protocol to abort and reduce the viability of the virus.

      • If one day I need a CoV19 treatment I just will ask for HCQ+AZ+Zn.
        But I’d have problems when for what ever reason I have to take Aspirin, I’m not sure if I’ll take it 😀

      • There’s no need or purpose to pose the question like that. I think many here would volunteer to take it if they became ill. And why not? It has a long track record of safety and has good reports of efficacy. What better is there to take?

        • icisil
          You asked, “And why not? It has a long track record of safety and has good reports of efficacy.” The answer to “why not?” is the same as for someone who is allergic to penicillin.

    • Phillip
      What you say is, unfortunately, quite true. However, I’m afraid that there are many commenters here that don’t understand the scientific method and don’t know the difference between anecdotal stories and evidence.

      • I pity you if you ever have an unusual illness and find yourself in the hands of a scientist. Doctors are informed by science, but they are not scientists; they are healers and are informed by much more than science.

        • icisil
          Unfortunately, in my long life I have frequently been in the hands of a doctor who was not particularly effective. I wouldn’t have been any worse off if it was a medical scientist.

  39. Impressive letter by Prof Eberlin. He is soo right about the discussion. If there are many murky studies around, money or politics (or both) are involved. The only caveat against HCQ is that there are certain subsections of the population in areas with malaria reacting bad to the drug – but in general it appears to be of great use, if applied correctly, and under supervision.

    Didn’t know about the story about the firing of the Brazilian Health Minister, firing was deserved, and, if true, criminal charges for those killing patients with overdoses need to come. Fingers crossed for Brazil!

    • The only caveat against HCQ is that there are certain subsections of the population in areas with malaria reacting bad to the drug

      Every drug and vaccines, when they are available, too.

    • “The only caveat against HCQ is that there are certain subsections of the population in areas with malaria reacting bad to the drug

      Due to a fairly rare genetic G6PD deficiency.

  40. My father who is no longer with us took Quinine every time he acquired any symptom of virus throughout the fifties and sixties until it was made unavailable over the counter.He was adamant that quinine blocked all viruses.Having seen the result I believed him. If true ,and quinine went into widespread use”big pharma” would stand to collectively lose trillions in over-the-counter meds. Just saying.

  41. “Scientists are human beings, therefore, skeptics and enquirers who can and should speak for themselves, like all scientists have the right to do, but NEVER A SCIENTIST OR A GROUP OF THEM CAN DECLARE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!

    of course he goes on to do the exact thing he outlawed.

    • Nonsense. He never claims to speak in the name of “Science.”

      Twaddle off and [try to] play with Brad dood!

      🙂

  42. Science in action, or politics in action? WHO looks at study in Lancet and says ‘white is white’, and shuts down numerous world wide studies, another hundred or so experts, say ‘white is black’, pointing out numerous flaws, and questions why this study was accepted .

    https://zenodo.org/record/3864691#.XtRW6TozaM8

  43. My preferred definition of ‘science’. It’s the art of realising that you got it wrong. Your reasoning for why something happened is just philosophy. What sets science apart is the hard work that shows that your impressive logic was actually faulty. Experts are the people who are really good at spotting the faults. They are not the ones who claim that the science is settled.

    Ambitious people around you, sometimes behaving like 13 yo girls, are the reason that you forget that.

  44. I’ve taken a lot of abuse from commenters who seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Before leaving this thread, let me just say that what I have taken issue with is the many people who are advocating widespread use of HCQ based on the false premise that there are no significant side-effects to the drug, despite numerous reports to the contrary. Any decision to use HCQ should take into account the possibility that the drug could do more harm than good. As to the efficacy, I personally am unconvinced. However, should you come down with COVID-19, what I believe is unimportant, and it is ultimately between you and your physician what you decide to do. But, I think it is irresponsible for any of you to promote the use of HCQ and potentially be responsible for someone else being the guinea pig.

  45. Power corrupts.

    In a society steeped in science, law, history, and economics, it seems remarkably attractive to shift the foundations of one’s sovereign away from robber barons and machine politicians, and toward scientists, lawyers, historians, and economists. (And journalists, of course. But the journalists of 1909 were already quite corrupt enough.)
    However, from a long-term perspective, the decision is fatal. Robber barons and machine politicians will never be nice people, but both professions are competitive enough to prevent much decay. Consider the political conditions of the Italian Renaissance. It is impossible for power to corrupt a kleptocracy: a kleptocracy is already corrupt. This does not render the structure ideal, but it lends it a certain long-term stability which is of great value.
    It is possible to corrupt science, law, history, and economics. It may be impossible to uncorrupt journalism. For a society ruled by bad journalism and condemned to bad science, bad law, bad history and bad economics, there is no exit but destruction. I think we still have some good science. Perhaps there is a little good history, and some decent law. For economics, there is just no hope. Fuzzy fields rot fast.
    When you ask experts, who claim to be performing a technical service in which individuals are interchangeable, to wield power—for example, when you exempt their advice from any independent review, or even allow them to control their own funding streams—you are basically sliding the Ring on to the collective fingers of some of the most important professions in a modern human society.
    —Mencius Moldbug, 2009.

    And that’s how you get Peter Gleick and his ilk. Perhaps not Gilead’s pet researchers, this form of corruption is older, but now there’s a more comfortable environment for such types.

Comments are closed.