The race is on to find a COVID-19 treatment pill

What we need is preventing death and lasting consequences.

We don't need big pharmas to add medicine to improve confort only tot hose who will have mild symptoms.

The effect of covid that block the economies is the crippling of hospitals with ventilated patients.

Just look at how much time it has taken to find a good antiviral cocktail for HIV, that would let people understand how difficult is to find and develop antivirals. Even Tamiflu is just a partial success that don't prevent the disease completely but only shortens the duration of the influenza.

Lots of people are searching for a silver bullet against COVID-19, with literally dozens of reports every month about drugs (new and old) that show some effect in small clinical trials, everybody is hoping for these results to be confirmed in bigger, better designed trials but at the moment none have given definitive results of clinically significant improvement. Even the already approved drugs give only a small advantage.

This is complicated with false hope from drugs that once appear to have some use but later were proved to be completely useless, like HCQ, people became so in love with the idea of a cheap drug that could cure everybody without danger that they actively ignore the scientific consensus that says the drug was proved to be worthless, have dangers and was promoted based on manipulated unethical trials that properly re-analyzed proved the benefit was nowhere to be found. Now for these people all is a conspiracy to suppress this magical drug.

We already has some, but they are not profitable for big pharma.

We already has some, but they are not profitable for big pharma.

Of course you can cite some well respected medical or scientific institutions that say the same, right? Nobody would believe you if you said every single one of them is in the conspiracy to hide the drugs from their own family and friends.

It's called Ivermectin

Ivermectin is one of those drugs that have good results on tiny studies, but on big ones the effect is invariably reduced or even disappears, at this moment the evidence is contradictory and thus it cannot be said it is an effective treatment, it could still be noise or it can be a confounding variable, but definitely is not as clear as many people are trying to make it appear as.

Once the biggest studies finish there will be more to say, but since the drug is being tested mostly as a complementary drug for the treatment it is extremely unlikely it will become a silver bullet.

Yeah, large studies require lots of money and therefore generally involve pharma backing, which has already been shown many times to result in biased results by the Cochrane Library, Raoult's group, and others.

Because big pharma does not want these studies to succeed, they are often designed to fail. Such as the HCQ study (RECOVERY?) that gave suicidal doses of HCQ to late stage covid patients. Hundreds of studies have shown HCQ+azithromycin to be effective, but many continue to keep their heads ... in the sand and pretend that all those hundreds of studies are "bad" studies.

And yes, ivermectin is another effective medicine against covid.

What about all the meds that Trump got? I'm sure they saved his bacon.

Yeah, large studies require lots of money and therefore generally involve pharma backing, which has already been shown many times to result in biased results by the Cochrane Library, Raoult's group, and others.

Bias is an explanation when you find data that do not correspond to the rest of the literature, it is not present in every study nor it could explain a consisten lack of evidence of efficacy in all the well designed studies all over the world. In reality this is mostly an excuse of science deniers when they don't want to accept what every scientific and medical institution of the world says. It is specially invalid as an excuse when the same people try to pass as perfectly adequate studies financed by HCQ producing companies, that forged ethical approvals, hid information and fabricated results to "prove" HCQ worked.

By all standards the science behind HCQ was of much lower standards, which explain why their results ended up being debunked with better science. This may be happening again with ivermectin, which is why now everybody is waiting for the best studies to finish, not to be fooled again by unethical researchers as Raoult.

I think I remember taking an oral Polio vaccine, the last time I got a booster, so yes, it can be done, we just don't know how long it will take to get it done.

The large scale Oxford Recovery trials that many use as reference to prove that hydroxychloroquine does not work is not a “good” study.

When everyone was recommending using low doses given at the early stages of infection, they were giving massive doses in the late stage. That study was intentionally designed to fail.

The British National Formulary lists the maximum dosage of HCQ at about 400mg for a 70kg person. When one of the principal researchers of that study was asked “Are there any maximum dosage for HCQ in the UK?” he replied “I would have to check but it is much larger than the 2400mg, something like six or 10 times that. … the HCQ dosage used are not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery.”

Based on this reply, it seems likely that this guy confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinoline (different molecule)!

So you are very wrong when you say that the studies showing HCQ does not work are “good” studies and the hundreds of studies showing a positive effect are “bad” or “low standard” studies (as if you actually looked at them!). The large scale Oxford Recovery trials was a joke!

I am sure that if Pfizer or Gilead come up with a new product, they will manage to conduct trials that will show it to be more effective and less toxic than it really is, as they did with Remdesivir.

When everyone was recommending using low doses given at the early stages of infection, they were giving massive doses in the late stage. That study was intentionally designed to fail.

The British National Formulary lists the maximum dosage of HCQ at about 400mg for a 70kg person. When one of the principal researchers of that study was asked “Are there any maximum dosage for HCQ in the UK?” he replied “I would have to check but it is much larger than the 2400mg, something like six or 10 times that. … the HCQ dosage used are not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery.”

To be clear, this is completely untrue. You're citing an interview with someone, rather than the study itself, which says:

In the hydroxychloroquine group, patients received hydroxychloroquine sulfate (in the form of a 200-mg tablet containing a 155-mg base equivalent) in a loading dose of four tablets (total dose, 800 mg) at baseline and at 6 hours, which was followed by two tablets (total dose, 400 mg) starting at 12 hours after the initial dose and then every 12 hours for the next 9 days or until discharge, whichever occurred earlier (see the Supplementary Appendix).15 The assigned treatment was prescribed by the attending clinician. The patients and local trial staff members were aware of the assigned trial groups.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

So this:

So you are very wrong when you say that the studies showing HCQ does not work are “good” studies and the hundreds of studies showing a positive effect are “bad” or “low standard” studies (as if you actually looked at them!).

Is pretty rich.

Oh, and hey, look where your interview quote is from, France-Soir! I wonder if they're a reliable source of information. Well, they probably are. It's not as if those who post that a global pandemic can be beaten with vitamin D and a can-do attitude are going to take their cues from a disreputable and unreliab

During the coronavirus pandemic it published many false claims and conspiracy theories about the disease [3] and in 2020, according to NewsGuard, this media "fails to adhere to several basic journalistic standards".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France-Soir

Oh. Okay.

The large scale Oxford Recovery trials that many use as reference to prove that hydroxychloroquine does not work is not a “good” study.

As demonstrated your misrepresentation of the study is not valid, the report makes it clear the dosing was appropiate and should be significant. But even more importantly the consensus of science (that makes every well recognized institution of science or medicine say the opposite of what you believe) do not depend ever on one single study. Many different studies and meta-analysis are referenced until the evidence is clear.

I am not the one that decides the scientific consensus, so I am neither the one that concluded HCQ was only seem to be beneficial because of low quality studies, the scientific and medical community in general is the one that do that, and their general opinion is much more valuable than one single person, especially if this person thinks one study decides things and even misrepresent that study to make a point.

Till the time such a pill is developed, there are other treatments which can reduce the severity of the disease and quicken recovery. One interesting observation was that chronic asthmatic individuals were, contrary to expectations, less likely to be hospitalized with COVID. And it was because of the widespread use of inhalers (which inhibit the ACE2 receptors in the lungs) among asthma patients.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext#%20

In the hydroxychloroquine group, patients received hydroxychloroquine sulfate (in the form of a 200-mg tablet containing a 155-mg base equivalent) in a loading dose of four tablets (total dose, 800 mg) at baseline and at 6 hours, which was followed by two tablets (total dose, 400 mg) starting at 12 hours after the initial dose and then every 12 hours for the next 9 days or until discharge, whichever occurred earlier (see the Supplementary Appendix).15 The assigned treatment was prescribed by the attending clinician. The patients and local trial staff members were aware of the assigned trial groups.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

Thank you for the details. But did you actually read what you pasted?

It is much higher than the maximum daily dose in the British National Formulary:

"200-400mg daily, daily maximum dose to be based on ideal body-weight; maximum 6.5mg/kg per day."

In the Recovery trial, according to your own quote, they gave 1600mg in the first 6 hrs, followed by 400mg every 12hrs (800mg daily)!

Dr John Campbell did a good job describing this study when it came out, and he showed the actual page of the British National Formulary. He also discusses other studies, that were done correctly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro&t=225s

And there have been many more studies since...

Sorry kid, but that dosage is not only appropriate, but it’s recommended by the NIH in the US. Do you think British and American bodies react differently to medicine?

Of course the first dose is higher, it’s called a loading dose. Look it up.

But the thing is, you said 2400mg were given every single day. That’s just not true.

You also said that everyone was given a “suicidal” amount of HCQ. But the study showed no statistical difference between those who took HCQ and those who didn’t. If everyone taking HCQ was given a suicidal amount... wouldn’t they all have died? Or did they get better after they died? Did you slip them some vitamin D at the funeral?

You didn’t read the study. I doubt you even read the France-Soir interview at its source. I think you regurgitated something you saw on Facebook without thinking about it.

And there have been many more studies since...

He says, citing none.

So why does the British National Formulary state for HCQ:

"200-400mg daily, daily maximum dose to be based on ideal body-weight; maximum 6.5mg/kg per day."

But the thing is, you said 2400mg were given every single day.

But the thing is, I didn't say that. Read my post again.

And there have been many more studies since...

He says, citing none.

I've done so before. Must I provide them every time?

Anyways, here it is:

https://c19hcq.com/

've done so before. Must I provide them every time?Anyways, here it is:

https://c19hcq.com/

That is not a study, that is a compilation of low powered studies, without even a hint of statistical analysis to discriminate between real effects and noise, that is why it has not been referenced positively by anybody that does research professionally.

And again, the consensus do not come from any single article but from the literature in general, how do you explain that no recognized institution of science or medicine shares your opinion and instead many openly say that HCQ is worthless as a treatment for COVID? still believing every single one of them is in the conspiracy to hide treatments from their friends and family?

I doubt you even read the France-Soir interview at its source. I think you regurgitated something you saw on Facebook without thinking about it.

https://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/interview-exclusive-martin-landray-recovery-hydroxychloroquine-game-over-uk

France Soir is actually very good. I highly recommend it to those who understand French.

Please gets this pill to work.

how do you explain that no recognized institution of science or medicine shares your opinion and instead many openly say that HCQ is worthless as a treatment for COVID?

I've already explained it many times. So here is a reference that documents it in greater detail for France. The same probably applies in most western countries (those that do not use HCQ).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520300627?via%3Dihub

"A total of €678 527 was paid by the company Gilead Sciences, manufacturer of remdesivir, over 7 years, to doctors who are members of CMIT (Table 1). This represents an average of €6924 per doctor. All reporting companies combined, a total of €4 603 098 was paid to CMIT physicians between 2013 and 2019 (Table 2). There was a strict correlation (Spearman test, p 0.017) between the position of doctors towards hydroxychloroquine and the average amount paid to them by the company Gilead Sciences between 2013 and 2019. In all, only 13 doctors out of 98 CMIT members did not receive any benefit, remuneration or agreement from the Gilead Sciences company between 2013 and 2019. "

CMIT=College of Professors of Infectious and Tropical Diseases

That is the same Gilead that is mentioned in the above JT article

I've already explained it many times. So here is a reference that documents it in greater detail for France. The same probably applies in most western countries (those that do not use HCQ).

Sorry but no, it is not believable that every single recognized institution of the whole world is on a universal conspiracy to hide drugs, only people that value money above everything else in life would be able to believe all those tens or hundreds of thousands of health care workers, scientist, researchers, nurses, etc. Could be willing to hide drugs that could save their sick friends and family, all for money. Again, that is the whole world. Also they would have to be genius scientists decades more advanced than anybody else, because fake, manipulated data can be found by anybody that have enough time to analyze the statistics to find undue patterns, many unethical manipulators have been found precisely because of this (and no, every single expert is not either in the conspiracy)

Didier Raoult himself receives a lot of funding from Pharma companies (if you search who gains the most from HCQ in France and the EU you would be surprised to find out it is Sanofi, who also funds most of his research projects, according to you that would make anything produced by him invalid. Because if don't that would be having double standards.

No mention above of Avigan, although I read recently somewhere in Japanese that China's PLA has somehow managed to buy up the rights to manufacture and sell it overseas, despite Fujifilm's late-stage trial not yet having ended.

Didier Raoult himself receives a lot of funding from Pharma companies (if you search who gains the most from HCQ in France and the EU you would be surprised to find out it is Sanofi, who also funds most of his research projects, according to you that would make anything produced by him invalid. Because if don't that would be having double standards.

No, examination by Transparence Santé of ties between Didier Raoult and Sanofi (and Gilead) confirmed that he received no funding between 2014 and 2019. His institute (IHU) did have some ties with Sanofi years ago, but those ended in 2015.

Why would you need to write such baseless accusations against Raoult...

No, examination by Transparence Santé of ties between Didier Raoult and Sanofi (and Gilead) confirmed that he received no funding between 2014 and 2019. His institute (IHU) did have some ties with Sanofi years ago, but those ended in 2015.

The same period he (as always) declared to never have had any kind of conflict of interest even when Sanofi was not even the only company to provide funding, according to you this kind of lie is enough to disqualify him as a reliable scientist. So, how come you use one standard for the people that say things you like to believe but another different for people that can demonstrate it as false?

France Soir is actually very good. I highly recommend it to those who understand French.

As I said, it’s conspiracy garbage.

This interview, incidentally, is in English. Poor English, granted, as the interviewer is apparently not a reliable English speaker, but English nonetheless.

So why does the British National Formularystate for HCQ:

I couldn’t say. Can you tell me why they contradict the dose recommended for fighting malaria, the purpose of HCQ?

But the thing is, I didn't say that. Read my post again.

I see. Could you tell me what other measurements you were referring to when you said they were being given high doses in the late stage?

Could you also account for your “suicidal doses” claim? I note you ignored that. Busy buying more “vitamin D is an elixir” literature?

but Pfizer, Merck and Roche say they have not received government funding to develop oral antivirals for the disease.

Trump would have had this program going at warp speed already.

Actually, the race already began with Trump's Operation Warp Speed, which aimed at, and successfully (factually) did, develop a covid-19 vaccine in any form, injection, pill, or otherwise.

Actually, the race already began with Trump's Operation Warp Speed, which aimed at, and successfully (factually) did, develop a covid-19 vaccine in any form, injection, pill, or otherwise.

Eh? I had as much to do with getting the vaccine developed quickly as Trump did. Just like him, I also wanted it to be developed fast.

You guys keep pointing at this Operation Warp Speed, not realizing it's only a name, and literally had nothing to do with getting the vaccines developed. That was done by private companies, without government funding, motivated by profits and wanting to help rid the world of a pandemic.

That was done by private companies, without government funding, motivated by profits and wanting to help rid the world of a pandemic.

Without 'government funding' does not mean the government was not involved in getting the vaccine developed. Operation Warp Speed was a US govt. initiative--all Americans are aware of this.

Without 'government funding' does not mean the government was not involved in getting the vaccine developed. Operation Warp Speed was a US govt. initiative--all Americans are aware of this.

Ok. So your logic is: "There's this thing Trump made, called Operation Warp Speed, and because I say so, it means Trump had something to do with getting the vaccine out faster."

Because that stands up to scrutiny, right?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I'm as responsible for the drug companies getting a vaccine out as quickly as they did, as Trump is.

In case it's not clear, I'm pointing out the ridiculous of believing Trump had something to do with the faster production of the vaccine, simply because he said some cool keywords. 

Not cool keywords, through an act of Congress. Which is a branch of the US govt.

Maybe I am making up the name and citation of the law here too:

H.R. 748, CARES Act, Public Law 116-136

Clearly you haven't read the article you linked to, or you would see how it literally has nothing in it that caused the drug companies to develop the vaccines any faster.

You seem to think that if you keep repeating your Trump-speak that the rest of us will be suckers and believe it like you did.

Misery loves company.

@zichi

> The funding for the American German Pfizer vaccine was provided by Germany.

Really? All of it?

https://news.yahoo.com/so-is-pfizer-part-of-operation-warp-speed-or-not-well-its-a-little-complicated-175429888.html

@Strangerland

Misery loves company.

Sorry you feel miserable.

Trump supporters got so used to their echo chambers where they could say 'lock her up' and their cultural context meant that everyone they said it to understood what they meant, think that they can use this 'operation warp speed' chant, and we're going to believe the same silly things they believed Trump when he told them.

You would think they would have learned when he started an insurrection, then ran away and didn't participate.

Trump supporters got so used to their echo chambers where they could say 'lock her up' and their cultural context meant that everyone they said it to understood what they meant

I can't imagine what echo chamber website - where far-right disinformation is allowed to spread wantonly, and those who call out disinformation are punished - you could be thinking of.