Coronavirus

[SearchingforPeace]

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

....
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

....

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

.....

We have identified chloroquine as an effective antiviral agent for SARS-CoV in cell culture conditions, as evidenced by its inhibitory effect when the drug was added prior to infection or after the initiation and establishment of infection. The fact that chloroquine exerts an antiviral effect during pre- and post-infection conditions suggest that it is likely to have both prophylactic and therapeutic advantages.
...

Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.

A 2005 research study by the CDC which found that chloroquine works against SARS-CoV.

FYI, this is posting of historic information from a CDC source, not dispensing medical advice.

Given this, it isn't shocking that it might be effective vs. SARS-CoV2. But it raises the issue of why there is resistance to a treatment that the CDC previously found to be effective against a similar virus.

 

[cascadeco]

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread



A 2005 research study by the CDC which found that chloroquine works against SARS-CoV.

FYI, this is posting of historic information from a CDC source, not dispensing medical advice.

Given this, it isn't shocking that it might be effective vs. SARS-CoV2. But it raises the issue of why there is resistance to a treatment that the CDC previously found to be effective against a similar virus.

I find it shocking that folks not in the medical profession continue to believe they have the knowledge to be able to find it shocking that there is resistance.

There are still folks dispensing of the drug and who think it is working, so I wouldn't worry about 'resistance' to the idea - obviously there are enough people out there who, despite lack of scientific rigor, believe it works.

“Miracle cure” testimonials aside, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine probably do not work against COVID-19 – Science-Based Medicine


@Mods, I, for one, don't care if my post here gets scrapped to off-topic. At this point we seem to have a need for a Chloroquine Support Group thread of its own, for people to discuss the drug.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

If people could stop taking all the hydroxychloroquine so that people who need it daily could continue to have access to it, that'd be grrrrreat.

 

[á´…eparted]

At this point we seem to have a need for a Chloroquine Support Group thread of its own, for people to discuss the drug.

We allready have tellenbachs blog for that stuff, and look how all that is going . It'll just become a disinformation breeding ground.

Also, per sfp's study, it's from 2005, and his post paints it as if it's meaningful, and his past liking pattern illustrates where he stands on it. He's uninformed and it's more disinformation. Add it to the pile *head desk*.

 

[cascadeco]

We allready have tellenbachs blog for that stuff, and look how all that is going . It'll just become a disinformation breeding ground.

Also, per sfp's study, it's from 2005, and his post paints it as if it's meaningful, and his past liking pattern illustrates where he stands on it. He's uninformed and it's more disinformation. Add it to the pile *head desk*.

Well, I was being tongue in cheek re a chloroquine thread. I still do not understand why it keeps being brought up as if it's profoundly relevant, and as if any of us have any business thinking it should or should not be dispensed. I am quite confident researchers are looking into anything and everything that might be *validly* and proven to work for covid19 in particular.

Mods, this, too, can be deposited in OT as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Well, I was being tongue in cheek re a chloroquine thread. I still do not understand why it keeps being brought up as if it's profoundly relevant, and as if any of us have any business thinking it should or should not be dispensed. I am quite confident researchers are looking into anything and everything that might be *validly* and proven to work for covid19 in particular.

Mods, this, too, can be deposited in OT as far as I'm concerned.

I've seriously been thinking it needed its own thread, since it has ruined this one.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

I've seriously been thinking it needed its own thread, since it has ruined this one.

I really like reading all about that, but it has taken over here. It is its own story now and needs its own space where it isn't interrupting everything else about coronavirus.

 

[á´…eparted]

I've seriously been thinking it needed its own thread, since it has ruined this one.

I really like reading all about that, but it has taken over here. It is its own story now and needs its own space where it isn't interrupting everything else about coronavirus.

You'd think having it as it's own thread might be a good idea, but it's not, for one core reason: hydroxychloroquine as a treatment is unsubstantiated and a disinformation conspiracy. I've already posted numerous articles demonstrating this in past posts, and explained with my own knowledge why it is not meaningful and the action of suggesting otherwise is tangibly damaging. The thread would be rapidly taken over by uninformed theorists and it would drown out any meaningful discussion, but even then there isn't anything meaningful. It'd be over after a few back and forths after showing there's nothing useful there.

A more general thread on recent coronavirus research might be interesting as there is a lot of work going into it, but I hestiate to do so because it will just get overrun by armchair scientists and doctors who don't know what they are talking about, and I would end up spending the majority of my time in there debunking quack studies and theories. In practice it just flat out would not work. The other end of it is a lot of the work going into the coronvirus is pretty early and thus the research information is at a very high level, hard for a lay person to understand therefore not really that interesting to read if you aren't steeped in it. It would rather fall flat.

Basically, threads for it are a good idea on paper, bad idea in practice, and I already have enough forehead bruises.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I find it shocking that folks not in the medical profession continue to believe they have the knowledge to be able to find it shocking that there is resistance.

There are still folks dispensing of the drug and who think it is working, so I wouldn't worry about 'resistance' to the idea - obviously there are enough people out there who, despite lack of scientific rigor, believe it works.

“Miracle cure” testimonials aside, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine probably do not work against COVID-19 – Science-Based Medicine


@Mods, I, for one, don't care if my post here gets scrapped to off-topic. At this point we seem to have a need for a Chloroquine Support Group thread of its own, for people to discuss the drug.

Why do you doubt CDC scientists?

 

[á´…eparted]

Why do you doubt CDC scientists?

Sorry, couldn't resist. It's so blatant. Moving on. Mods please sweep plzkthx?

 

[cascadeco]

Why do you doubt CDC scientists?

That's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the lack of proven application to Covid19 thus far. I already linked an article as well as stated in my followup post that research is undoubtedly occurring in anything and everything.

 

[anticlimatic]

I find it shocking that folks not in the medical profession continue to believe they have the knowledge to be able to find it shocking that there is resistance.

There are still folks dispensing of the drug and who think it is working, so I wouldn't worry about 'resistance' to the idea - obviously there are enough people out there who, despite lack of scientific rigor, believe it works.

“Miracle cure” testimonials aside, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine probably do not work against COVID-19 – Science-Based Medicine


@Mods, I, for one, don't care if my post here gets scrapped to off-topic. At this point we seem to have a need for a Chloroquine Support Group thread of its own, for people to discuss the drug.

That article reads like it was written by an angst filled teenager who was a scientist once for halloween.

Still, if it doesn't work it doesn't work, and no amount of wishing into one's hand is going to make it so. The concern that it becomes the toilet paper of the pharmaceutical world is valid (though it probably already has), and ramping up production from an entrepreneurial standpoint isn't going to happen in a big way until we know whether or not it actually works (be a real bad investment if it turned out to be a dud, and you have all this now pointless infrastructure). In the short term I think it would be good (and probably is already occurring) to up production to the extent with which producers are able, without major investment in expansion, so that the people who need it for other things can be assured of getting it. If we can guarantee that, or work hard for it at least, people and doctors should be able to request and use it for COVID19 if the choice seems to be between trying that out and dying. Even if it's just a psychological placebo, that isn't nothing.

How stringent must these control groups be? I find it hard to believe there isn't enough data out there- on people who were, and were not given the treatment- including time-lines and other statistics- to quantify some kind of effect the drug has. But I am a very lazy mathematician prone to hammer-related diagnostics, so likely I am running roughshod over what would be necessary for adequate accuracy.

 

[á´…eparted]

That article reads like it was written by an angst filled teenager who was a scientist once for halloween.

Still, if it doesn't work it doesn't work, and no amount of wishing into one's hand is going to make it so. The concern that it becomes the toilet paper of the pharmaceutical world is valid (though it probably already has), and ramping up production from an entrepreneurial standpoint isn't going to happen in a big way until we know whether or not it actually works (be a real bad investment if it turned out to be a dud, and you have all this now pointless infrastructure). In the short term I think it would be good (and probably is already occurring) to up production to the extent with which producers are able, without major investment in expansion, so that the people who need it for other things can be assured of getting it. If we can guarantee that, or work hard for it at least, people and doctors should be able to request and use it for COVID19 if the choice seems to be between trying that out and dying. Even if it's just a psychological placebo, that isn't nothing.

How stringent must these control groups be? I find it hard to believe there isn't enough data out there- on people who were, and were not given the treatment- including time-lines and other statistics- to quantify some kind of effect the drug has. But I am a very lazy mathematician prone to hammer-related diagnostics, so likely I am running roughshod over what would be necessary for adequate accuracy.

Anything to keep the discussion about it alive and relevant no matter how small, eh?

 

[á´…eparted]

To bring this thread back on track, this is a good prospective on what is being done with the dead, particularly in NYC.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

That's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the lack of proven application to Covid19 thus far. I already linked an article as well as stated in my followup post that research is undoubtedly occurring in anything and everything.

Did you read the link? Or not. It is the actual research paper from the CDC researchers in 2005 saying CQ worked both for prophylactic and treatment of SARS-CoV.

It is from a previous age, so it isn't tied up in any politics of the moment. CDC scientists working with Canadian researchers recommended a treatment for SARS. COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and is similar enough to SARS-CoV that they named this one the sequel.

Whether it works or not for SARS-CoV-2 is another issue. It worked for the predecessor and was called relatively safe and cheap.

Therefore, if it was relatively safe and cheap 15 years ago, it is likely to be so now.

Other medications could be more effective, but that doesn't mean it does not work as a viable and effective treatment that could save lives.

 

[Jonny]

Why do you doubt CDC scientists?

From your own linked study:

Due to the severity of SARS-CoV infection, the potential for rapid spread of the disease, and the absence of proven effective and safe in vivo inhibitors of the virus, it is important to identify drugs that can effectively be used to treat or prevent potential SARS-CoV infections.

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
​

SARS-CoV had a 15% mortality rate. Medicine is all about weighing the risks against the potential benefits, though I'm not surprised this subtlety is lost on you. But let's not play coy here. If Trump hadn't run his mouth off and gotten shit for this, you wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[rav3n]

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread



A 2005 research study by the CDC which found that chloroquine works against SARS-CoV.

FYI, this is posting of historic information from a CDC source, not dispensing medical advice.

Given this, it isn't shocking that it might be effective vs. SARS-CoV2. But it raises the issue of why there is resistance to a treatment that the CDC previously found to be effective against a similar virus.

Fresh off the press (2 hours ago)

Study of chloroquine for COVID-19 stopped early over concerns of dangerous heart rhythm problems | Live Science

The Brazilian researchers planned to enroll 440 people in their study to test whether chloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Participants took either a "high dose" of the drug (600 milligrams twice daily for 10 days) or a "low dose" (450 mg for five days, with a double dose only on the first day). The study was "double blind," meaning that neither the patients nor their doctors knew which dose they were receiving.

However, after enrolling just 81 patients, the researchers saw some concerning signs. Within a few days of starting the treatment, more patients in the high dose group experienced heart rhythm problems than did those in the low dose group. And two patients in the high dose group developed a fast, abnormal heart rate known as ventricular tachychardia before they died.

 

[Luminous]

 

[rav3n]

At present, there have been 577,632 confirmed (tested) infections in the U.S. with 23,232 deaths. Only 43,011 have recovered from this virus so we'll likely see a lot more infections and deaths before this is over.

COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

 

[á´…eparted]

MSNBC and CNN cut away from Trump + admin after Dr. Fauchi ended speaking, and Trump began to air a propaganda video. GOOD, as they should! It's a crying shame it's taken so long for them to acknowledge this, but at least it does demonstrate that some major media outlets will draw a line in the sand. Hopefully, they will continue this trend and more solidly draw the line to eliminate Trump and his bullshit lies.

Disinformation is a problem, and people are starting to get it.

CNN, MSNBC Cut Away From Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Briefing – Deadline