The Lemon Fool

several drugs bring better results

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/ ... 56229.html

Here's a link to the new weekly UK Covid-cases 'Postcode map', which shows -

Source: Public Health England Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS).

Data extraction: Data includes lab confirmed positive cases of Coronavirus (COVID-19) reported by 15th July with specimen dates between 6th July to 12th July 2020.

Cases from pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the Government's testing programme are included.

Suppression: Numbers from 0 to 2 (inclusive) are suppressed.

https://phe.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=47574f7a6e454dc6a42c5f6912ed7076

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

look wrote:This video is about hidroxichloroquine, azothropmicin, zinc, ivermectin

dr. Nise Yamagushi explains why h chloroquine is only good in the beginning. The quick treatment is very important.

i think you can get legends in English.

Um... which video?

I think you forgot to include the link!

Mike4 wrote:

look wrote:This video is about hidroxichloroquine, azothropmicin, zinc, ivermectin

dr. Nise Yamagushi explains why h chloroquine is only good in the beginning. The quick treatment is very important.

i think you can get legends in English.

Um... which video?

I think you forgot to include the link!

here is the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1I52TheKp8

I tought it was censorship

I still have some doubt about ivermectin

The University of Minnesota Study finally reports out it's results: Hydroxychloroquine also doesn't help Covid-19 patients who aren't hospitalized, new study finds

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/16/health/h ... index.html

The antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine did not benefit non-hospitalized patients with mild Covid-19 symptoms who were treated early in their infection, according to a study published Thursday in the medical journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

It was tested in 491 adults in the United States and Canada. Half the patients received five days of hydroxychloroquine treatment and half the patients received five days of a placebo. The adults were enrolled within the first four days of reporting symptoms, and 56% were enrolled in the trial the first day they reported any symptoms. Doctors monitored symptoms for two weeks.

At the end of two weeks, the study found that there was no advantage to taking the drug. About 24% of the hydroxychloroquine group had symptoms that persisted over 14 days, compared to the 30% who took the placebo. But hospitalizations were nearly the same -- 2% of those in the hydroxychloroquine group were hospitalized, compared to the 3% taking the placebo. The death rate was identical for both groups, at 0.4%.

The study also found there was no benefit seen among people who took zinc or vitamin C along with the placebo or hydroxychloroquine.

CNN make a reference to zinc and Vitamin C, but the report does not.

Given all these papers showing HXQ doesn't work, the thing that puzzles me is how it squares with all the anecdotal evidence that it does.

Didier Raoult for example, claimed to have treated 700 COVID patients with HXQ, Azithromycin and zinc and had only one death. Now that would seem hard to fake in a real hospital and even if it was faked, why would he gone to all the trouble of faking it? BOUND to be found out eventually.

And why would there be so much other anecdotal evidence supporting its effectiveness when this double blind trial proves otherwise? Is the placebo effect THAT powerful? Most perplexing.

Anecdotal evidence is considered weak in scientific terms. A correctly set up scientific study is much stronger and stronger still if peer reviewed. A Meta study which collates all scientific studies is as good as it gets.

Anecdotal evidence is sometimes all that is available in a fast moving situation like the early days of the pandemic but it isn't scientifically sound as there are all sorts of biases, prejudices and other issues which can affect the perceptions.

sg31 wrote:Anecdotal evidence is considered weak in scientific terms. A correctly set up scientific study is much stronger and stronger still if peer reviewed. A Meta study which collates all scientific studies is as good as it gets.

Anecdotal evidence is sometimes all that is available in a fast moving situation like the early days of the pandemic but it isn't scientifically sound as there are all sorts of biases, prejudices and other issues which can affect the perceptions.

Yes totally agree with all that. Anecdotes are the lowest standard of evidence of all, but it performs the function of provoking studies at higher levels of rigour.

The point I was making is the anecdotal evidence is unusually strong in the case of HXQ and it seems strange that the randomised placebo-controlled study proves otherwise.

And you failed to answer my point about how Didier Raoult faked it with 699 successes out of 700. Assuming he did.

Mike4 wrote:Given all these papers showing HXQ doesn't work, the thing that puzzles me is how it squares with all the anecdotal evidence that it does.

Didier Raoult for example, claimed to have treated 700 COVID patients with HXQ, Azithromycin and zinc and had only one death. Now that would seem hard to fake in a real hospital and even if it was faked, why would he gone to all the trouble of faking it? BOUND to be found out eventually.

It's politics. Ever since Donald Trump praised hydroxychloroquine most of the global media and much of the medical establishment have been desperate for it to not work. CNN is one of these.

I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually comes out that some studies were deliberately falsified in order to discredit hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus. The Lancet recently trumpeted a study which was shown to have used dodgy data in order to "prove" that HCQ didn't work.

"Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs"

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/

Another example was seen in a recently published study by the Henry Ford hospital in Detroit, which supports the use of hydroxychloroquine. Most of the media ignored it.

"Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System."

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

When people on the front line, like Didier Raoult, are saying that something works in practice I tend to believe them unless there is some seriously good evidence to the contrary.

Too many people will reflexively reject things which work in practice because they don't work in theory (a trait that's all too often seen in academic circles).

I don't know Didier Raoult so I can't comment on his experiences.

As you say if anecdotal evidence is the only thing you have then research what that throws up and see if it has any validity.

Most of my reading since this started has been research papers starting with the early ones from China. They were little more than hospitals in the thick of it getting together with other hospitals and trawling their records for what worked and what didn't. Numbers of people treated with each medication were small because they were trying just about everything they could think of. What they did do was provide enough ideas for more thorough studies to be prepared when Covid hit the rest of the world.

It isn't just one study that has found Hydroxychloroquine to be either ineffective or worse than placebo, there are now many of them. It will be interesting to see a meta analysis of them all when things get back to normal.

Another hydroxychloroquine study report

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20151852v1

Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.

NB, not peer reviewed.

sg31 wrote:Another hydroxychloroquine study report

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20151852v1

Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.

NB, not peer reviewed.

That's a preprint of the Recovery trial whose results have already been announced.
Still there have been no randomised trials that have been even vaguely suggestive that it might work.
The idea that people are desperate to see that it doesn't work is just not true. Everyone wants a working drug the idea that it could work was an idea put forward by doctors not Trump.
It's a tragedy that it gets politicised but a bigger one that there are still to few treatments that help.

Backache wrote:That's a preprint of the Recovery trial whose results have already been announced.
Still there have been no randomised trials that have been even vaguely suggestive that it might work.
The idea that people are desperate to see that it doesn't work is just not true. Everyone wants a working drug the idea that it could work was an idea put forward by doctors not Trump.
It's a tragedy that it gets politicised but a bigger one that there are still to few treatments that help.

I've not had time to look into this but it was sent to me by someone who usually only sends reports that have some credibility.

https://www.synairgen.com/wp-content/up ... tients.pdf

The study is not peer reviewed and it is obviously early days. The market cap of the company doubled today. I'm not sure if that indicates how good the drug is or how desperate investors are to get on the new hot share.

I'll leave others to check out the potential of the treatment.

I don't think this has been posted yet. My apologies if it has, I've been out most of the day and I'm struggling to catch up.

The vaccine is called AZD1222 and is being jointly developed by drug manufacturer AstraZeneca and scientists at the University of Oxford

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 40-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.

Basically it created the antibody response required. It did cause side effects such as fatigue and headaches but they weren't severe. This was a stage 1/2 trial, stage 3 has already started. results and a decision to manufacture might be ready by the end of the year.

It looks promising so far.

Video about Vanessa capsules
This capsules were invented by a hospital from Manaus. The video is a bit old, but is not useless. Unfortunately, this news is not spreading so fast like the virus. There are legends in english.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lN_jZTxid8

I know nothing about those capsules but as far as I'm aware non invasive ventiation is now standard practice in many areas. It has reduced the need for ventilators dramatically although that option is still used if non invasive techniques do not work.

My knowledge of this is a little dated now.

I've no idea if the inventor of the 'Vanessa' capsule was the first to suggest non invasive ventilation but I doubt it. Mr Google had no hits under Vanessa Capsule when I looked this morning although the inventer could have published his findings under some other title.

sg31 wrote:I know nothing about those capsules but as far as I'm aware non invasive ventiation is now standard practice in many areas. It has reduced the need for ventilators dramatically although that option is still used if non invasive techniques do not work.

My knowledge of this is a little dated now.

I've no idea if the inventor of the 'Vanessa' capsule was the first to suggest non invasive ventilation but I doubt it. Mr Google had no hits under Vanessa Capsule when I looked this morning although the inventer could have published his findings under some other title.

It seems that you didn't watch the video. It's not the first ... but it's cheap and good, they say.
The video has legends in english. Here a link with text in english.

https://www.republicworld.com/world-new ... ients.html

it seems it didn't get the attention of world midia.

sg31 wrote:I know nothing about those capsules but as far as I'm aware non invasive ventiation is now standard practice in many areas. It has reduced the need for ventilators dramatically although that option is still used if non invasive techniques do not work.

My knowledge of this is a little dated now.

I've no idea if the inventor of the 'Vanessa' capsule was the first to suggest non invasive ventilation but I doubt it. Mr Google had no hits under Vanessa Capsule when I looked this morning although the inventer could have published his findings under some other title.

I got a few hits, all dating around the end of May from Brazil. As you say trying to avoid forced ventilation at all cost seems to be standard practice these days and has saved many lives.

Seems like nothing new to see here though.

John

it seems that towns accept to use that device (vanessa capsules) only when the health system is collapsed.