ADVERTISEMENT

COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw a twitter post yesterday from an ER doctor (not sure where, possibly NYC) who said they are seeing plenty of patients with covid who were on HCQ for other conditions (lupus, RA, etc), the obvious implication being that it doesn't work all that well as a preventive med for covid. Now, maybe those conditions predispose people to getting covid or having poor responses, maybe the HCQ will work better in people without those conditions.

Amazing how much controversy this is causing, with a few doctors claiming near-miraculous results and others saying it doesn't seem to do anything. We really need to find out if it can help prevent the infection from progressing to the ICU/vent stage because at that point, seems like the majority of people don't make it. Info from the China studies should be out soon. Fingers crossed...we need something that works consistently.
Agree completely about thwarting the progression of this disease. We need a treatment that avoids progression to hospitalization, etc.

I do not find it amazing/surprising regarding the controversy. One of the things I learned in my career (about to turn 56 in a few days) is that the overwhelming majority of human beings are enslaved to their prejudices, beliefs, ideology, etc. Chemists, pharmacists, nurses, doctors, lawyers, statisticians, analysts, marketers, sales people, etc...no one is immune. I see it in almost every thread on this board including this one. Most people are blind to it. Most people never realize how debilitating it is to solving problems. The goal has to be to solve the problem by preventing and/or inhibiting the disease progression. We need a vaccine that works and is safe. We need treatments that slow or halt the progression of the disease. Nothing else matters. Period. I could not care less about who looks good or bad as a result of the solutions. We need real solutions as this is far from over. Politics has no place in real science.
 
Last edited:
From the beginning Fauci was pushing the strategy of blunting the curve, which limited the # of cases at any one time, but elongated the timeline. To how long? That was never fully explained, I think because he knew it depended upon too many things, but it always seemed to me that this was going to be a long term process. People were saying "close it down for 2 weeks and be done with it" but that was certainly not the strategy Fauci was trying to implement.

Japan was lauded for a bit for there control of the situation yet there #'s have grown dramatically in the past week.

South Korea seems to have done a really good job controlling this thing, but even they have not shut it down completely as the continue to see new cases around 100 per day. Though that is a # that a medical system can handle.

So yeah, until we figure out a treatment or a vaccine I think this is just going to continue on.


but all the numbers coming in way below what all the models have been saying

fact is we are going to have cases in this country, we are going to track them as they will be in smaller numbers. Its something how we will have to live with while practicing things like not shaking hands, limiting some contact with compromised and limiting big gatherings...but life is going on this summer
 
So shutting down thousands of non essential businesses makes sense, but making masks mandatory is asking too much?

Is that a commentary on the vanity of Americans?
No, that was an attempt to inject a little humor into the thread.

VO2DJHN.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: wisr01
Agree completely about thwarting the progression of this disease. We need a treatment that avoids progression to hospitalization, etc.

I do not find it amazing/surprising regarding the controversy. One of the things I learned in my career (about to turn 56 in a few days) is that the overwhelming majority of human beings are enslaved to their prejudices, beliefs, ideology, etc. Chemists, pharmacists, nurses, doctors, lawyers, statisticians, analysts, marketers, sales people, etc...no one is immune. I see it in almost every thread on this board including this one. Most people are blind to it. Most people never realize how debilitating it is to solving problems. The goal has to be to solve the problem by preventing and/or inhibiting the disease progression. We need a vaccine that works and is safe. We need treatments that slow or halt the progression of the disease. Nothing else matters. Period. I could care less who looks good or bad as a result of the solutions. We need real solutions as this is far from over. Politics has no place in real science.
This may be the best, most accurate post in the history of these boards. Some of the most intelligent seem to be the leading culprits and they just can't help themselves. Even if it is pointed out to them respectfully they will still never see it. It's a microcosm of society. The politicization of everything is rampant on both sides. When it slows down (because it will never stop) is when our country will begin to become a better, more respectful place.
 
but all the numbers coming in way below what all the models have been saying

fact is we are going to have cases in this country, we are going to track them as they will be in smaller numbers. Its something how we will have to live with while practicing things like not shaking hands, limiting some contact with compromised and limiting big gatherings...but life is going on this summer
Again, I point to Fauci and his dislike of models.

Saw one the other day where we were going to have no new cases in NJ by May 1st. Sounds completely unrealistic.
 
I saw a twitter post yesterday from an ER doctor (not sure where, possibly NYC) who said they are seeing plenty of patients with covid who were on HCQ for other conditions (lupus, RA, etc), the obvious implication being that it doesn't work all that well as a preventive med for covid. Now, maybe those conditions predispose people to getting covid or having poor responses, maybe the HCQ will work better in people without those conditions.

Amazing how much controversy this is causing, with a few doctors claiming near-miraculous results and others saying it doesn't seem to do anything. We really need to find out if it can help prevent the infection from progressing to the ICU/vent stage because at that point, seems like the majority of people don't make it. Info from the China studies should be out soon. Fingers crossed...we need something that works consistently.

Posted on the lupus angle yesterday...where the Lupus registry folks said: “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.”

HCQ is not the answer and never had been and I doubt the various combos are effective either, but I look forward to seeing the clinical data on those, as I would happily be wrong on that. The bottom line is people claiming they have a cure to the media before their medical peers is a sure sign that they're hucksters, like our President, who should not be shilling for an unproven medication. I truly believe the plasma-antibody therapy will be the best thing we see until a vaccine, but I still want to see robust clinical data on it before declaring victory.

That's a nice tutorial on how the virus works, but it contains no data on whether or not HCQ + Zn would work in COVID patients. There are clinical trials going on with HCQ and Zn, so we'll hopefully see whether that has any efficacy.

My skepticism on HCQ and HCQ/azithromycin is based on lack of controlled clinical data and the small studies that have been published to date are inconclusive for various reasons (too small, not randomized, etc.). That plus the fact that I've seen reports of 25-50% of COVID patients being given some form of HCQ in various countries and the fatality rate has only gone up, in general, over the last month or so. That's not proof, but if HCQ was any kind of "cure" I'd expect to see some amazing reduction in deaths, but we're not seeing that.

By the way, if anyone is curious, despite reports to the contrary including the POTUS speculating HCQ might be preventing those with lupus from getting the virus, there does not appear to be any protective benefit of taking HCQ in lupus patients, as per below.

“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.”

In addition, here is more of Dr. Trump speculating on medical science inappropriately:

“They should look at the lupus thing. I don’t know what it says, but there’s a rumor out there that because it takes care of lupus very effectively as I understand it, and it’s a, you know, a drug (HCQ) that’s used for lupus,” President Trump said during the briefing. “So there’s a study out there that says people that have lupus haven’t been catching this virus. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not.”

It is not true.


https://creakyjoints.org/symptoms/lupus-patients-do-get-coronavirus/
 
  • Like
Reactions: satnom
Again, I point to Fauci and his dislike of models.

Saw one the other day where we were going to have no new cases in NJ by May 1st. Sounds completely unrealistic.
Maybe that model was based on us using the Chinese govt for the reporting of new cases in NJ effective May 1st. Hey we have them do almost everything else for us.
 
Posted on the lupus angle yesterday...where the Lupus registry folks said: “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.”

HCQ is not the answer and never had been and I doubt the various combos are effective either, but I look forward to seeing the clinical data on those, as I would happily be wrong on that. The bottom line is people claiming they have a cure to the media before their medical peers is a sure sign that they're hucksters, like our President, who should not be shilling for an unproven medication. I truly believe the plasma-antibody therapy will be the best thing we see until a vaccine, but I still want to see robust clinical data on it before declaring victory.

The antibody therapy might be another thing where there is more benefit for people earlier in the disease course. Give it to people before they wind up in the ICU. It really should work but there may be too much damage to overcome once people get to the vent stage. Right now there seems to be a lot of focus on the really advanced cases which is understandable since there are so many, but there are also a lot of cases behind them that might be stopped.
 
Posted on the lupus angle yesterday...where the Lupus registry folks said: “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.”

HCQ is not the answer and never had been and I doubt the various combos are effective either, but I look forward to seeing the clinical data on those, as I would happily be wrong on that. The bottom line is people claiming they have a cure to the media before their medical peers is a sure sign that they're hucksters, like our President, who should not be shilling for an unproven medication. I truly believe the plasma-antibody therapy will be the best thing we see until a vaccine, but I still want to see robust clinical data on it before declaring victory.
So will you apologize here if you are wrong and HCQ works or proves to be a drug that can slow the virus down...In a scenario where you contract the virus and are admitted to an ICU , will you allow them to put you on a ventilator with a prospect of coming off off of it at 15% ?
 
This doctor working on CV19 patients thinks the disease is different from what staff expected. He thinks the ventilators - while needed - might be making people worse. He says he's not seeing pneumonia but something more like oxygen deprivation/ altitude sickness





Doc in vid is being interviewed on Medscape

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156

Do COVID-19 Vent Protocols Need a Second Look?
After treating patients with COVID-19, a New York city physician suggests ventilator protocols may need revisiting
 
  • Like
Reactions: jreinsdorf
The antibody therapy might be another thing where there is more benefit for people earlier in the disease course. Give it to people before they wind up in the ICU. It really should work but there may be too much damage to overcome once people get to the vent stage. Right now there seems to be a lot of focus on the really advanced cases which is understandable since there are so many, but there are also a lot of cases behind them that might be stopped.
Absolutely, but it's going to take some time: there are 10,000 seriously ill patients right now and if it works for them, they ought to get it first, while the additional ~50K who are hospitalized would be lower priority. I don't think it can be scaled even up to 10K that quickly, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Need definitive data first, of course.
 
Watching Cuomo's presser now and they showed their new model projections plateauing right now with the peak around 20-25K in hospitals vs. the 110K model projection a few weeks ago and even the 50K projection from a week or so ago. This is great news, as it should mean the NY hospitals are not going to be overwhelmed, per se (but conditions are still very difficult there and elsewhere), but we can't let achieving a lower peak and seeing a decline mean we stop social distancing, as this virus will come back with a vengeance if we "go back to normal." We need to go back to work, but not "normal" and that's going to be a big challenge to figure out what the "new normal" looks like.

There's no way "normal" can be allowed anywhere until we either have herd immunity (50% infected?), which we won't have as the highest estimates I've seen are 5-10% infected now (vs. the 0.1-0.2% tested positive for the virus), or a very effective treatment that keeps people from getting very sick and dying once infected, as people might be willing to go back to normal if they knew there was a life-saving option out there (since the vast majority of people won't get appreciably ill).

In my opinion, the only short term (available in maybe a month if the trials come back positive - we already have blood collection and plasma distribution systems in place - we'd just need to get the plasma to the right patients) hope for that is the plasma-antibody therapy if it pans out as well as it has looked in very, very small, uncontrolled applications. That could easily be scaled to treat tens of thousands of people at a time (there are only about 9000 seriously ill right now in the US, although we'd probably want to be able to treat 10X that to prevent people from getting seriously ill).

I'm almost certain that HCQ isn''t the answer as we'd know it by now, given how many are on it and there's been no obvious death rate decrease. Beyond that the engineered antibody approaches will be ready by late summer and they hold great promise. I just don't see vaccines being ready before the end of the year, though.

And I doubt any of the other treatments will work well enough to give people confidence to go back to normal. Maybe some of the engineered antibody approaches could be in place by late summer, from what I've read and a vaccine is at least 11-12 months away, so the prospects for allowing large crowds are very low right now.

Summary of today's US/NY/NJ data and some Cuomo presser comments. Since both NY and NJ appear to have reached the “peak plateau” in new cases, with some decline even looking like it’s occurring, I decided to reduce the volume of text and bullets on these notes, since we’re no longer at much risk of overwhelming our hospitals in NY/NJ and don’t need to dissect everything as closely. This should also save me some time. I also wanted to make these daily updates include a bit more on the situation in the World, the US and NJ, not just NY; hence the new graphics included. Feedback welcome...
  • 4/5: NY now has 340K tests, reaching the greatest testing per capita rate (17K tests per 1MM population) of any major country (only countries like Switzerland, Iceland and Norway have more)
  • The Earth hit 1.4MM cases on 4/6 with 400K positive cases in the US, although the daily new case rate in the US appears to have leveled off.
  • NY/NYC/NJ: new cases have peaked and plateaued and appear to be starting to decline.
  • US deaths continue to climb, hitting 1941 on 4/6, and NY deaths per day are still climbing a bit with 731 yesterday, up from 599 yesterday; NJ deaths jumpe from <100/day to 220 yesterday. Even with new cases leveling off or even declining, deaths would be expected to keep climbing for a few more days before leveling off, since deaths lag cases.
  • Total number of hospitalized in NY is leveling off and is expcted to peak around 20-25K in the next few days.
  • The daily number of ICU admissions has dropped the past few days, which is great news and will hopefully mean NY is ok with the number of ventilators they have.
  • While NY/NJ are doing better, plenty of states are still having cases rising fairly quickly.
  • Cuomo talked a lot about planning for how we might start returning slowly to “normal” once we (hopefully) decline to a much lower level of infections in the next couple of weeks. He said he’s working on regional plan with NJ and CT with a focus on one of the main things I had hoped to see: ensuring rapid viral testing to instantly know when there's a flare-up and antibody testing to see who can safely go back to work/life. Hopefully, he’ll add to that putting much better contact tracing/quarantining systems in place, so we can better prevent spread, especially from asymptomatic/infected contacts.
sHKhcPS.png


Fu13PoH.png


SRfen86.png


jjGs5Hc.png


e6pwhqc.png
 
So will you apologize here if you are wrong and HCQ works or proves to be a drug that can slow the virus down...In a scenario where you contract the virus and are admitted to an ICU , will you allow them to put you on a ventilator with a prospect of coming off off of it at 15% ?
Not at all. You continue to not understand medical science and clinical trials. I would love to see a bunch of treatments, including HCQ, being shown to be safe and effective, which is why I support 100% the ongoing controlled clinical studies on HCQ and many other compounds. As I said in the post you quoted and apparently didn't read, I'd be very happy if HCQ was a cure and I'll never apologize for wanting to pursue the best medical science.

However, I absolutely can't stand people "hawking" clinically unproven drugs to the public as "cures" without any the appropriate clinical data to say that, as Raoult and Smith did on Fox. And I despise the POTUS weighing in on medical matters he is clueless about - it's completely inappropriate and if HCQ proves to be as ineffective as I expect it to be, he will have diverted attention away from focusing on other potential treatments.
 
Been thinking more about surgical masks and I know many are saying not to wear them from a prevention of catching perspective since they're so misused (I've said that a few times too). Fair enough. However, it's well established that surgical masks greatly reduce the likelihood of infected people transmitting the virus to those they come in close contact with (by sneeze/cough/breath), i.e., friends, strangers, bartenders, clerks, whatever, which is why doctors wear them in surgery, an ER or anywhere patients are immunocompromised.

So given the significant risk of infected/asymptomatic or infected/mildly symptomatic people infecting others (which has been well established with this virus) maybe part of the answer is to simply assume everyone is infected and require them to wear surgical masks when out in public, which we've seen in most of Asia. And having them wash their hands frequently too (especially if they like to shake hands) since surface driven infection, while a minor vector of transmission, is not zero.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/03/study-highlights-ease-spread-covid-19-viruses

Interesting article below about many experts thinking that masks for the "healthy" (who could be infected and not know it) have been a key reason that Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Japan and other Asian countries have done much better than the rest of the world in containing the virus (and even China/South Korea have done better after the initial surges there and they were the masks), while many in the West/US have not supported masks for "healthy" people and that there's even a stigma of wearing a mask in the US. I think the US is on the wrong side of this one.

https://time.com/5799964/coronavirus-face-mask-asia-us/

It's nice to see the Administration and CDC coming around on this issue, but I wish they had done so weeks ago (well months ago, really) when it likely would have made a more major positive impact on reducing transmission rates, although I wonder if anyone would have complied back then without very strong messaging. It would have been nice if we also had a supply of surgical masks for the general public and N95 respirators for public-facing employees at highest risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LETSGORU91
Do you think doctors are lying about some of the positive results?
No, I highly doubt they are lying, but I think a few are guilty of extrapolating anecdotal observations into unwarranted scientific conclusions. Many doctors are prescribing HCQ or HCQ combos and seeing their patients getting better, but the vast majority of symptomatic patients (except those that go on ventilators, most of whom die) get better on their own with just standard respiratory illness therapy. I also acknowledge it's possible HCQ is helping patients and will be shown in clinical trials to work for some patients. I hope it is. As I've said many times, I just don't like seeing people touting this as a "cure" without the appropriate clinical data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ewc128
Related to the doctor in video saying his patients seemed "oxygen starved" Chris Martensen pointed out a "Heme theory" getting play


uqY5sdX.jpg
 
No, I highly doubt they are lying, but I think a few are guilty of extrapolating anecdotal observations into unwarranted scientific conclusions. Many doctors are prescribing HCQ or HCQ combos and seeing their patients getting better, but the vast majority of symptomatic patients (except those that go on ventilators, most of whom die) get better on their own with just standard respiratory illness therapy. I also acknowledge it's possible HCQ is helping patients and will be shown in clinical trials to work for some patients. I hope it is. As I've said many times, I just don't like seeing people touting this as a "cure" without the appropriate clinical data.

Two very interesting developments on HCQ today, which highlight the difficulty in trying to figure out if HCQ is truly safe and effective or not without the appropriate clinical trials. On the one hand the American Thoracic Society recommended use of HCQ for patients with pneumonia, although they acknowledge that the evidence of impact of HCQ is "contradictory" - but feel we can "learn while treating."

https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/medical-group-backs-giving-hydroxychloroquine-to-coronavirus-patients/

The American Thoracic Society issued guidelines Monday that suggest COVID-19 patients with pneumonia get doses of the anti-malaria drug.

The medical group said evidence about the impact of hydroxychloroquine is “contradictory” but it is worth experimenting with during a public health crisis to treat very sick patients.

“We believe that in urgent situations like a pandemic, we can learn while treating by collecting real-world data,” said Dr. Kevin Wilson, chief of guidelines and documents at the American Thoracic Society.

On the other hand, Derek Lowe, famed Pharma R&D blogger, who writes "In the Pipeline," came out with an article highlighting a host of recent scientific articles showing that HCQ (and combos) are not showing efficacy in several clinical situations. One French study tried to duplicate Raoult's original study showing HCQ/azithromycin could lower viral loads and it failed miserably. In addition, the Society that publishes the journal that Raoult's original paper was published just concluded that the paper does not meet their standards. He also shares a preprint of an NYU paper showing potentially dangerous QT prolongation in a high percentage of patients on HCQ, which can lead to fatal arrhythmia.

And finally, Lowe tried to explain a bit about what I've said many times in reference to HCQ and general standards for clinical proof of safety and efficacy - how important statistical power is in clinical trials, i.e., having a large enough sample size of patients to definitively show that the treatment statistically shows efficacy and safety. One cannot obtain this kind of data, normally, with observational, ucontrolled studies. See below.

It’s no wonder that this work has set off so many arguments: statistically, it’s like a funhouse mirror. Here, though, is where some of the folks pinging me on Twitter and sending me emails tend to get more worked up, especially to that point about anecdotal data. I can see where they’re coming from: if you haven’t done this stuff, you can look at a report of people responding to such a treatment and figure that the answer is here – right here, and anyone who doesn’t see it must have some ulterior motives in ignoring what’s in front of their face. But that’s not how it works.

It’s weird and startling, though, if you haven’t had the opportunity to go back through clinical research (and even patient treatment) and seen how many things looked like they worked and really didn’t. It happens again and again. Alzheimer’s drugs, obesity drugs, cardiovascular drugs, osteoporosis drugs: over and over there have been what looked like positive results that evaporated on closer inspection. After you’ve experienced this a few times, you take the lesson to heart that the only way to be sure about these things is to run sufficiently powered controlled trials. No short cuts, no gut feelings – just data.

What do I mean by “sufficiently powered”? That gets to the concept of “effect size”, which is something that most people outside of medical research probably don’t spend much time thinking about. One of the favorite arguing points that I get sent my way is “You don’t have to run a controlled trial to see that parachutes work! What are you going to do, take up a planeload of people and toss half of them out without a chute to prove your point?” Ah, but the effect size of having a parachute at 10,000 feet is very, very large. And the larger the effect size, the smaller a trial can be and still have meaning. In drug research, though, we do not approach parachute levels of difference very often. Drugs help some parts of the patient population, to varying degrees, whereas a parachute helps every single person who’s tossed out of a plane (and the result shows up in a very hard, dramatic, and easily measurable endpoint!)


https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/06/hydroxychloroquine-update-for-april-6
 
Work is mistaken. Case growth is not only decelerating in NJ, it dropped at least two of the last four days, if not three.
Thanks. I'll let our task force know when we meet at 9 today that we can disband, bring all our workers back and go on as business as usual because RUJohnny said it was okay.
 
Posted on the lupus angle yesterday...where the Lupus registry folks said: “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.”

HCQ is not the answer and never had been and I doubt the various combos are effective either, but I look forward to seeing the clinical data on those, as I would happily be wrong on that. The bottom line is people claiming they have a cure to the media before their medical peers is a sure sign that they're hucksters, like our President, who should not be shilling for an unproven medication. I truly believe the plasma-antibody therapy will be the best thing we see until a vaccine, but I still want to see robust clinical data on it before declaring victory.
A few posts before this one you "like" a post by wisr that calls for setting politics aside and minutes later you call the president a "huckster." Cut the shit. For all the useful posts you've made you just can't help yourself.
 
Thanks. I'll let our task force know when we meet at 9 today that we can disband, bring all our workers back and go on as business as usual because RUJohnny said it was okay.
Ha, ok man. Words matter. It's irresponsible to say that cases are increasing when they're decreasing.
 
Last edited:
There is a dark horse drug used for pancreatitis that the patent holder believes

Ha, ok man. Words matter. It's irresponsible to say that cases are increasing when they're decreasing.
Just go away. Sharing the information I see. Haven't included on personal commentary or opinion on the data; people can make their own conclusions. If you don't like it because it doesn't fit your agenda, skip over the posts (or put me on ignore).
 
Just go away. Sharing the information I see. Haven't included on personal commentary or opinion on the data; people can make their own conclusions. If you don't like it because it doesn't fit your agenda, skip over the posts (or put me on ignore).
I don't have an agenda. You posted something that's blatantly false. NJ has seen case declines in 3 of the last 5 days and the moving average is flat. Your place of work said cases are accelerating in New Jersey. They aren't and that isn't open to interpretation.
 
@LETSGORU91 @RUfubar - just curious on your take on whether you'd rather be using convalescent plasma as an "emergency last resort treatment" or HCQ/HCQ-combo (or if you don't think we should be trying unproven treatments)? You know what I think, but I don't have the medical knowledge you guys have. Thanks. And any other docs feel free to weigh on (can't always tell who's an MD here).

WFAN s Shmoozer discusses HCQ with some guy from Jersey
 
Last edited:
I don't have an agenda. You posted something that's blatantly false. NJ has seen case declines in 3 of the last 5 days and the moving average is flat. Your place of work said cases are accelerating in New Jersey. They aren't and that isn't open to interpretation.
NJ average is not flat. We are starting to flatten but it is not flat yet. Data I get from work comes from a reputable reporting agency and is certainly not false so cut the crap. I deal with this situation daily in keeping us operating and our employees safe. Thankfully we have had only 2 positives across our 35 locations in the US. We ramped up production right before the shutdowns to increase inventory so we were able to continue to satisfy orders even though many of the plants were eventually shut down. About a third of the plants that were shut down are restarting this week. While March showed no decrease in sales we are seeing a 20% drop in demand for 2nd quarter now. Again, those things I've stated are not "blatantly false", those are real facts. I deal with this every day now.
 
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0124/v1

This relays the same concern I have mentioned previously. Our clinical trials are ignoring the in-vitro science and not including zinc therapy. This paper calls for the consideration to add it to clinical trials. Might as well test the science behind HCQ. This is the main reason why I mentioned reviewing the clinical trials on HCQ. If we are ignoring the in-vitro science and the anecdotal evidence of doctors who say HCQ works when given with AZ and zinc we are wasting precious time getting answers we do not need.

In a similar vein, evidence is mounting that are intubation treatment protocols are treating the wrong condition and in fact might be doing more damage than good. I hope what is being observed and learned on the front line can help us better treat those who degrade to the worst of conditions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT