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
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.
The medcram videos are excellent. Unfortunately most of the HCQ ones have been pulled by youtube.
Fortunately all are available (at no cost with, free subscription) at https://www.medcram.com/
Youtube just put them back, today.
A powerful and timely statement. Thank you Prof. Marcos N. Eberlin.
Weeeellllll…I’m guessing Prof. Eberlin has been deleted from several Christmas card lists…
Great post.
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.
The BBC as usual was scornful of Trump and his use of this drug. They’ll get him re-elected at this rate
How many US voters given a damn what BBC says ( or even aware of their coverage ).
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.
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.
CPAP? full COVID lockdown? Has she tested positive for the bug?
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.
There is another reason – CASH.
They won’t make much money on HCQ.
Perfectly on target!
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.
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.
Stupid phone…drug not grub.
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.
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.
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?
And you believe, no verifications have been done ? (beside these with manipulated protocols)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Congratulations. Only real experts dare to say “I don’t know”.
Shame about the facile aside on what Imperial College happens to be called.
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.
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.
Thank you, icisil. I have zinc gluconate incoming.
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.
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.
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.
+1
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.
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.
ROTFLMAO. The wheels are coming off quickly now. The leaks are coming faster as real doctors and scientists are calling “Bovine Scatology” (BS) on this over reaction.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/27/its-all-bullsht-russias-coronavirus-information-chief-says-of-virus-fears-a70398
https://www.thelocal.dk/20200529/leaked-emails-show-how-denmarks-pm-steam-rollered-her-own-health-agency/amp
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/29/german-official-leaks-report-denouncing-corona-as-global-false-alarm/
Zinc can be toxic as well. It takes 10 grams or more (says webMD https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-982/zinc
I take 2 calcium pills with 50 mg Zn total. I’m counting on the gin and tonic to get it to my cells
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.
“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!
🙂