some home-testing kits that will indicate if they (pills) are needed...added to increased immunization...could get us back to 'normal' much faster. Pfizer's pill has been shown to be 89% effective in keeping infected people out of the hospital if taken within a few days of infection (thus the need for quick at-home testing).
Now...is there anyone here who can find something about this development that is cause for alarm, medical community bashing or politicization?...come on...think hard ;-).
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/us/politics/us-pfizer-covid-pill.html
Found this study on the NIH website: "The present molecular docking and MD simulation studies suggest that the drug hydroxychloroquine may have considerable effect on structure protease of SARS-COV-2, which may lead to significant inhibitory effect on the latter."
But since no RCTs were ever performed using hydroxychloroquine/zinc/azithromycin on vulnerable, non-hospitalized patients, we had to "invent" a new drug.
Link: Hydroxychloroquine study on NIH website
Mark, you are correct in your past posts that the studies used to ban the very safe and cheap an widely available drug Hydroxychloroquine were based on inpatients when the niche where it was found to be effective (and even used in the POTUS early on in the pandemic) was in the earlier outpatient setting to prevent worsening of the disease to the point of hospitalization.
It is also true that Pfizer’s (and Merck’s) new drug does indeed target the same class of proteases that Ivermectin does also inhibit.
The specific proteases are different however which could be crucial. Still, it is amazing how the liberals were marched out with the impression that these alternatives were witch doctor medicine when in the case of Hydroxychloroquine, there were AT THE TIME good studies out of France, China, and Detroit at the time when there was no other options. Still it was banned from off label use. Ivermectin was portrayed as nothing more than an animal med for worms, when it’s mechanism of action had sound medical reasoning.
Having been in the system for many years, I do find the politicization and demonizing of reasonable off label options (at the time) by this administration and it’s state controlled media to be both disturbing as well as convenient wrt to the Big Pharma profits.
At the same time, off label options should really only be used when proven options are not available. Both drugs from Pfizer and Merck are more proven, and even if based on the molecules themselves that were condemned, they are more specific and undoubtedly more effective.
Here’s a nice simple summary to date. Of the options listed, the treatment for severe disease that is by far the best so far are monoclonal antibodies. They are a lifesaver.
PS - Pfizer’s new drug will cost $700 per treatment regimen.
Link: https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treatments-for-covid-19
and HCQ's inability to deal with it...thus rendering HCQ fundamentally ineffective in treating or preventing SAR-Cov-2 infections in real people's lungs...this is apparently why promotion of HCQ is considered a joke.
...btw...since I'm just going with my reading of the published reports that have made this finding, I'll see if I can get our Micro Biology professor to comment on this as well (not kidding).
Hopefully, based on this information, we can finally put this issue to bed.
saying...HCQ is not a recommended treatment. On the other hand, the linked article had positive things to say about Merck's and Pfizer's anti-viral medications...and for the latter drug "Paxlovid" from Pfizer, the following excerpts caught my eye...
"Paxlovid is a protease inhibitor antiviral therapy made up of a medicine called PF-07321332 and the HIV drug ritonavir. PF-07321332 was developed by Pfizer; it interferes with the ability of the coronavirus to replicate. Ritonavir slows the breakdown of PF-0732332 so that it remains active longer at higher amounts."
To me this shows a drug being developed with a focus on the COVID-19 pathogen...including another drug (Ritonavir) that helps the primary inhibitor remain effective for a longer period of time...probably something that Hydroxychloroquine does not have...and might explain why it hasn't proven to be effective...even if 'theory' indicates it 'might be'. HCQ might be cheap and widely available, but if it doesn't work, then reliance on it can be "Very Expensive" in terms of "Morbidity and Mortality"...no?
And this...which also answers "Protagonist"'s question...
"The prospect of having an oral antiviral to combat COVID-19 is exciting, but is not a substitute for getting vaccinated. The COVID vaccine remains more important than ever. We need layers of defense against this viral threat. Hopefully oral antiviral medications will be part of that defense."
Again...thanks for showing the value of well-sourced links.
NOTE: None of the foregoing had anything to do with politics...
(no message)
report when you fail to read how it negates your intended point of emphasis...actually more humorous than the Babylon Bee IMO.
Had you read this one to the end, you'd have come across the section entitled "is hydroxychloroquine safe and effective for treating COVID-19?" and seen the response...
"The NIH treatment guidelines recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, in both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients."
How many times do I have to explain this? Hydroxychloroquine was proven ineffective in RCTs of hospitalized patients. Unlike Merck's and Pfizer's "new" drug, no RCTs were ever performed on vulnerable patients given hydroxychloroquine well before potential hospitalization is necessary.
Why weren't these RCTs performed? The observational data, as Drs. Risch and Fareed have pointed out, overwhelmingly show h/z/a works incredibly well when given at the same time the new drugs are said to work. This is basic logic.
continue to hawk HCQ and Ivermectin...much like what you're doing.
As Dr. Risch has researched it, virtually every good collection of observational data shows h/z/a to be in the realm of 85% in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. There have been zero RCTs to date performed on vulnerable patients within 5-7 days of symptom onset.
The Great Fauchino says such observational data are useless - from what I have researched, a minority opinion in the medical profession - and therefore cannot be used.
So the questions are, at the very least, don't you think RCTs should have been performed on vulnerable patients within 5-7 days of symptom onset? And why should the observational data be discounted when his own NIH website says, if done correctly, they provide valuable insight?
settings, because in the "real world" those lung cells express the protease TMPRSS2 which inhibits the effectiveness of HCQ...that's why no one apparently wants to invest in it...at least that's my admittedly personal opinion after reading this paper...(see link)
Another perspective...There are other papers I came across (see link after this paragraph) that discuss in deep esoteric detail the complexity of finding a drug that will specifically inhibit the spike protein found on the SARS-COV-2...and they include what seems to be hundreds of candidates...what are the odds of a simple off-the-shelf anti-malaria drug being the "perfect solution" to this highly complex problem?...seriously...what are the odds?
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2021.622898/full
Here is an excerpt from the linked report that describes the studies of HCQ snd the TMPRSS2 protease....
"Author summary
The novel pathogenic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 and remains a threat to global public health. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been shown to prevent viral infection in cell-culture systems, but human clinical trials did not observe a significant improvement in COVID-19 patients treated with these compounds. Here we show that hydroxychloroquine interferes with only one of two somewhat redundant pathways by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein is activated to mediate infection. The first pathway is dependent on the endosomal protease cathepsin L and sensitive to hydroxychloroquine, whereas the second pathway is dependent on TMPRSS2, which is unaffected by this compound. We further show that SARS-CoV-2 is more reliant than SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) on the TMPRSS2 pathway, and that this difference is due to a furin cleavage site present in the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Finally, we show that combinations of hydroxychloroquine and a clinically tested TMPRSS2 inhibitor work together to effectively inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry. Thus TMPRSS2 expression on PHYSIOLOGICALLY RELEVANT SARS-CoV-2 TARGET CELLS (e.g. Lung Tissue) may bypass the antiviral activities of hydroxychloroquine, and explain its lack of in vivo efficacy."
It's been educating for me to go through some of this material...kind of fun, actually, but there are limits, and I can see the end on this one...you're welcome to carry on, but please don't spend your hard earned money on HCQ and for heaven's sake, please don't get involved in trying to sell it.
Link: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009212
Dr. Risch's paper points out even more studies than the one you mentioned, and to this day he says the research says hydroxychloroquine, combined with zinc and azithromycin, are incredibly effective, around 85%, like Pfizer's new drug.
The mystery to me is why, given all the observational data of h/z/a's effectiveness, not one RCT was ever performed on vulnerable patients early, like the Merck and Pfizer drugs were. It's almost like they didn't want safe, cheap, effective and already-readily-available drugs to be used...not because they were ineffective, but because they wouldn't be as profitable.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Prevention is always better than treatment.
first place...best case scenario...also, after hundreds of millions of doses given, vaccinations definitely reduce the severity of any "breakthrough" infection...second best case...so, if you also have treatment pills (which only work if you take them within 3-5 days of infection) you'll really reduce your chances of a severe outcome. Drop the vaccines and you up your risk level...not a wise choice since there are no awards or payoffs for coming "this close" to a severe case of COVID-19.
Remember...somewhere around 98% of hospitalized ICU COVID patients right now are un-vaccinated...no lie...that should tell you all you need to know about getting vaccinated.
Hope this perspective helps.
(no message)