Renowned epidemiologist sees 'massive disinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle discussing my concerns with posting studies of patients with LATE corina virus infection, and then Leaf and others pretending this is somehow evidence against EARLY corona virus infection.
It is not up to me to answer for you as to why you have been critical.
Click to expand...
Well you keep posting studies abiut LATE corona virus infection (hospitalized patients) . . .
. . . and applying it to EARLY corona virus patients.

And I have explained WHY that is irrelevant andyou keep doing it.

You just posted another one several posts ago.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle discussing my concerns with posting studies of patients with LATE corina virus infection, and then Leaf and others pretending this is somehow evidence against EARLY corona virus infection.
It is not up to me to answer for you as to why you have been critical.
Click to expand...
Where are the successful trials of early corona virus patients? The links you’ve given are all old news. The doctor in the original post doesn’t cite any either. We can’t be swung just on one or two random say so’s.
Click to expand...
 
To the readers here.

I will again explain part of the physiology or functional biology of corona virus infection (this is not complete. But it isn’t intended to be either.)

The person contacts the corona virus either by foamites (i.e. a sneeze, cough, etc.) or by surface touch then accidental self-innoculation (i.e. they pick their nose with corona virus on their fingers).

One of three things are physiologically going to happen regarding the early treated vrs. untreated vrs.the late treated patients physiologically (there are exceptions to all of these scenarios which are beyond the scope of this post) . . . .

.

.

Early Treated

The virus starts descending down the respiratory tract.

But treatment ensues so the virus hits a wall.

The virus cannot get into the cells (or keep getting in) because the hydroxychloroquine BLOCKS the ACE II receptors the corona virus NEEDS to enter the cell to do its damage.

The corona virus “dies” OUTSIDE of the cell and can do no more damage.

The patient recovers.

These are the outpatients (early infection) that have had very little study…

.

.

Not Treated:

The virus starts descending down the respiratory tract.

But the virus hits no wall because there is no hydroxychloriquine or other ACE receptor blockade to lock it out of the cell.

The virus can now readily get into the cells (and keep getting in) because the virus is unimpeded regarding its attachment to the ACE II receptors corona virus NEEDS to enter the cell to do its damage.

So the corona virus “thrives” by entering INSIDE of the cell and injects its RNA into YOUR RNA comandeering your cellular metabolism.

Hopefully you can amount an immune response soon because if you don’t the virus will eventually get down to the air-exchange cells and the patient will drown on their own lung edema from the virus hijacking your cellular metabolism.

These are the (name removed by moderator)atients (late infection) that have been studied. Some of them of course die at home (or get better at home or in the hospital or get better from their eventual immune response.

They may or may not have distant (lung, liver, heart, brain, etc) inflammatory complications.

These patients are informally studied at autopsy when they have them.

They may be placed in a research study and formally studied too.

We know a lot about these patients considering the short amount of time the virus was just discovered.

1/2 . . .
 
Last edited:
2/2 . . .

Late Treated with Hydroxychloroquine . . . “Tardy Treatment” (needed to be hospitalized):

The virus starts descending down the respiratory tract.

The virus again hits no wall because there is no hydroxychloriquine or other ACE receptor blockade.

The virus can now readily get into the cells (and keep getting in) because the virus is unimpeded regarding its attachment to the ACE II receptors corona virus NEEDS to enter the cell to do its damage.

So the corona virus “thrives” by entering INSIDE of the cell and injects its RNA into YOUR RNA comandeering your cellular metabolism.

The patient gets sicker and sicker.

Some guy comes by and gives hydroxychloroquine to the patient to block the corona virus from getting into the cell.

There is only one problem with that.

The corona virus is ALREADY IN THE CELL!

So the hydroxychloroquine CANNOT help much.

These are the (name removed by moderator)atients (late infection patients). Hospitalized patients.
And they are already sick with a significant amount of viral load IN THE CELL ALREADY
which is WHY they NEED to be hospitalized.

So some research guy comes by and gives them HCQ
after the virus is ALREADY IN THE CELL, . . .
. . . then wonders WHY the HCQ did not keep the virus from getting in the cell.

These are the hospitalized patients, the late infections that keep getting
inappropriately referenced here as “evidence” of the futility of hydroxychloroquine.

But once you know the physiology, you can readily see WHY the HCQ is ineffective in such cohorts.

It is like putting up a fox-proof door to your chicken pen,
AFTER the fox is ALREADY IN THE PEN,
and sitting around wondering why all your chickens in the pen are dead.

The studies quoted by the media in large part have had BAD cohorts.

So it makes SENSE to STOP these hospitalized (late corona virus infection) studies.

And morph those studies to earlier OUTPATIENT infections,
so these patients don’t get to the drowning stage from unfettered viral advancement in the first place.

And THIS type of study is what is lacking.
(On purpose or by accident, these studies are not advanced enough yet.)
Not completely, but in part.

And the front line doctors are not allowed to tell you these things for political reasons.

But re-read everything I said about the physiology and notice “Trump” is not implicitly or explicitly mentioned.

The real science is apolitical. At least it is supposed to be.

Notice also that I have not suggested you or anyone else gets treated or not treated here.

It is just the physiology. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

But if you quote a study with hospitalized or very sick cohorts getting HCQ initiated,
and attempting to nuke HCQ in the process,
I am going to reject those claims on scientific grounds.

Keywords: Physiology, Corona virus, HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, Tardy Treatment, ACE II, fox, fox in the pen, fox-proof, covfefe,
 
Last edited:
But where are the studies that prove HCQ is effective? The Fox news interviewer says there are 53 studies that show this but doesn’t cite one. He cites different studies that he is debunking, but never any of the 53 he claims as proof.
 
Last edited:
Motherwit . . .
But where are the studies that prove HCQ is effective?
Click to expand...
I’ve been putting them up for months but get crticized that they are anecdotal, not double-blinded, etc.

All of which I have readily acknowleged but that is the best you can do on an emergent basis with a new pathogen.

Those studies need to be done. (Randomized, prospective, double-blinded studies that can be reproduced and verified by other research groups.)
The Fox news interviewer says there are 53 studies that show this but doesn’t cite one.
Click to expand...
He is almost certainly talking about the same types of studies I too, have already referenced.
 
Last edited:
RidgeSprinter.

You are referencing @LeafByNiggle’s articles to harpoon hyrdoxychloroquine.

In my opinion, this was politically based
and not scientifically grounded.

Why do I think that?

Well . . . Here is one of the articles you referenced.
And Leaf just provided 2 more up above.
Click to expand...
(Here is one of them for an example.)


This was written by . . . .
James P. Kiley, Ph.D., Director, Division of Lung Diseases, NHLBI, is available for interviews.
Click to expand...
Do you understand Dr. Kiley has no Wikipedia page?

I want you to hold yourself to your own standards
and I think you should tell Leaf he shouldn’t be citing this! (I don’t think that but using the RidgeSprinter motif we saw here from you, you should.)

And of course you should not be referencing it either!

But do you understand WHY I agree with halting these studies?

Hint: This from the page I mentioned that you and Leaf appealed to . . . .
aimed to enroll more than 500 adults who are currently hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department with anticipated hospitalization.
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

Do you see WHY these (not all) hydroxychloroquine studies SHOULD be halted?
Even if the guy reporting it, has no wiki page?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
You can stop beating the drum for HCQ now.
Click to expand...
I just got done agreeing with your reference post of a hydroxycchloroquine study being halted and you still are critical.

Do you see WHY the study should be halted scientifically? Even with no drum beats?
 
LeafByNiggle . . . .
And do you see that . . . most front-line doctors want nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...
No. I don’t see that.

I see a lot of front line doctors frustrated with leftist politicians attempting to influence what they can and cannot prescribe.

And they are tired of being silenced by social media political police.
 
Last edited:
Here is an article from “Cell” (front page sample only) showing some of the physiology I have discussed here.

And the effectiveness of protease inhibition on corona virus and the targeted cells.

This article talks not about hydroxychloroquine, but protease inhibitors (I have posts talking about those too. Search “Cathoholic” + “Protease” or “Camostat” [which is a protease inhibitor] or some such and you will find them).

But the utility of this article for the purposes of this thread, is it gives the readers a schematic of some of the physiology we have been discussing here.

You can go to “Cell” if you have access and see the whole thing for yourself.

The physiology is outlined elsewhere too.

Anyway here is the page one sample . . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
From my understanding as well, Ivermectin is showing much greater promise…a drug also available as a generic.
Click to expand...
Amazing. I can buy it at any farm product store. It’s used to treat parasites in cattle, and appears to be harmless to humans just as it is with cattle. I always get some on me by accident when I treat cattle with it. It’s absorbed through the skin as a pour-on. Maybe it will protect me???
 
Ridgerunner said:
Maybe it will protect me???
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn’t bet on it but I wouldn’t rule it out either! Ivermectin is the ingredient in heart worm medicine for dogs, too.

Years ago, we did an experiment on determining the minimum dosage for killing heart worm without triggering co-morbidities in dogs. One of the issues with heart worm in dogs is that once they get an established infection, it’s almost impossible to kill the heart worm without also killing the dog. Like most involved with part of a research project, I never read the final results and I don’t think they were able to establish a curing dose without harm to the dog.

Yeah, ivermectin would be an awesome treatment if it pans out. This was also the hope with HCQ, too. It’s too bad that HCQ isn’t quite showing the promise they’d hoped for. Plus, getting politicized didn’t help at all.
 
Ivermectin pour-on is really inexpensive. It’s not cheap for the massive amount you use for cattle, but a human-size dose would be really small and inexpensive. And there are a number of companies that make both the pour-on and the injectible.

True or not, a vet once told me there is no difference in the preparation of medications for animals and humans, though the ingredients can vary. Sure wouldn’t be hard to ramp up a lot of Ivermectin.
 
Is much publicly known about Dr Steven Hatfill, the virologist that is being quoted in the OP’s interview?

I just googled him and found a very questionable history there. He had been a suspect in the 2001 anthrax mailing scandal that resulted in the death of 5 people. A year before that attack he had commissioned a paper from a retired bioweapons expert William Patrick III, on how an anthrax attack might be undertaken, supposedly for creating a security pamphlet. He was investigated between 2001 and then that investigation was dropped in 2008 and he recieved a multi million dollar payout for his troubles.

Then in November last year he published a book called “Three seconds until midnight” which was about a hypothetical pandemic flu virus possibly resulting from a crossover from wild water fowls in ‘feral’ cities. One month later such a virus showed up in Wuhan. He has now inserted himself into the limelight as an expert.

It’s an incredible lot of coincidences?
 
Motherwit . . .
Is much publicly known about Dr Steven Hatfill, the virologist that is being quoted in the OP’s interview?
Click to expand...
I know you know this Motherwit.
he had commissioned a paper from a retired bioweapons expert William Patrick III . .
Click to expand...
Perhaps that is WHY he was a suspect. Not too many people study that kind of thing.

Was he indicted, tried, or convicted?

For the benefit of the readers, the interview was with conducted with Dr. Harvey Risch. Not Dr. Hatfill.

I get that. Levin used a comment from him.
An excellent comment.

If readers are interested, here again is my OP link.

Renowned epidemiologist sees 'massive disinformation campaign' against hydroxychloroquine | On Air Videos | Fox News

Renowned epidemiologist sees ‘massive disinformation campaign’ against hydroxychloroquine​

Aug. 24, 2020 - 6:30 - Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Mark Levin on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Apparently he won his lawsuit against the purveyors of the last previous slander. Perhaps he will again.
 
An appeal to (alleged) authority is not an argument.

But from the article in post 67:

" In various studies, the drug had demonstrated antiviral activity, an ability to modify the activity of the immune system, and it has an established safety profile at appropriate doses, leading to the hypothesis that it may have also been useful in the treatment of COVID-19."

The NIH study was on patients who were hospitalized. It is my impression from numerous sources that HCQ’s usefulness is earlier on than that, if at all. That has been known a long time. So it’s no surprise NIH dropped the tests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top