Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/covid19-detected-lake-water-dont-panic-191828650.html?__twitter_impression=true
 

SARS cov 2 detected in lake water in Lake Superior.  Apparently not likely to be infectious or a risk but more an indication of the extent of the outbreak in the area.

 

And maybe so much for people saying that peeing, coughing, etc in a lake worth of water is negligible. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3406

  • Pen

    2523

  • Arcadia

    1337

  • prairiewindmomma

    310

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

Thought I'd post a pic of my dd, getting ready to spend another day in a coronavirus triage tent!  

Posted Images

15 cases 2 deaths for Vic today.  I can see it staying at that level for a while unfortunately.  Nsw stayed at that level for quite a long time before finally getting on top of it.  Nsw and wa both had cases in quarantine today.  Here in my state we are now going to be allowed to have “vertical drinking” and dancing... needless to say there’s a few jokes going around about the horizontal drinking and dancing that must have been happening before.  None of that really impacts me personally I don’t think.  
 

also Singapore will open borders to Australia with the exception of Victoria from the 8th of October assuming all stays well.  We haven’t said we'll open to Singapore yet but I believe there’s plans to being international students from there in.  There’s also talk from the PM of home quarantine rather than hotel for new arrivals although that makes me nervous as it’s clearly not 100pc trustworthy.  

I think there’s a lot of awareness that international students might stick it out for one year but if we can’t figure out a way to get them back in by next year we will probably lose them forever.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sad that Australia is starting a big well funded HCQ study - but  apparently of HCQ alone no zinc and daily rather than following the Zelenko weekly after loading dose protocol with it. 

 

It seems like a waste waste of resources — assuming goal

is not deliberately to discredit it. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Pen said:

I feel sad that Australia is starting a big well funded HCQ study - but  apparently of HCQ alone no zinc and daily rather than following the Zelenko weekly after loading dose protocol with it. 

 

It seems like a waste waste of resources — assuming goal

is not deliberately to discredit it. 

There was definitely trials listed with both HCQ alone and HCQ with zinc prior to the retracted lancet study.  I can’t find whether they have been rebooted or not.  I know that Norman Swann here doesn’t really think it’s effective or worth investigating further (though he’s positive about vit D and saying we still need more or better evidence on ivermectin)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

I feel sad that Australia is starting a big well funded HCQ study - but  apparently of HCQ alone no zinc and daily rather than following the Zelenko weekly after loading dose protocol with it. 

 

It seems like a waste waste of resources — assuming goal

is not deliberately to discredit it. 

“Will zinc be used in the trial?

Hydroxychloroquine is not being tested with a zinc supplement in the COVID SHIELD trial.

In some laboratory studies, it has been concluded that zinc might support the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). 

Human blood and tissues naturally contain zinc and there is currently no evidence to indicate that supplementation with additional zinc is required for people who are not zinc deficient, when using hydroxychloroquine as a preventative therapy for SARS-CoV-2.

Pre-screening will ensure participants in the COVID SHIELD trial meet certain health criteria, which means they will be less likely to be zinc deficient and therefore will not need to take additional zinc supplements in conjunction with the hydroxychloroquine used in this trial.“
 

it looks like they aren’t supplementing zinc but are hoping that pre screening will mean less chance of zinc deficiency.  It’s a pity they won’t add a third arm with zinc.

https://wehi.edu.au/covid-shield-faqs

 

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

“Will zinc be used in the trial?

Hydroxychloroquine is not being tested with a zinc supplement in the COVID SHIELD trial.

In some laboratory studies, it has been concluded that zinc might support the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). 

Human blood and tissues naturally contain zinc and there is currently no evidence to indicate that supplementation with additional zinc is required for people who are not zinc deficient, when using hydroxychloroquine as a preventative therapy for SARS-CoV-2.

Pre-screening will ensure participants in the COVID SHIELD trial meet certain health criteria, which means they will be less likely to be zinc deficient and therefore will not need to take additional zinc supplements in conjunction with the hydroxychloroquine used in this trial.“
 

it looks like they aren’t supplementing zinc but are hoping that pre screening will mean less chance of zinc deficiency.  It’s a pity they won’t add a third arm with zinc.

https://wehi.edu.au/covid-shield-faqs

 

Yes it is a shame because it would be great to be able to definitively put this whole issue to rest either way. But as I wrote that I realized that I feel really pessimistic that some people would accept the results if they prove negative. For some it does not seem like a factual information based issue but almost rather like an ideological one. Distrust is so high that I don’t know how you can gain trust.

@Ausmumof3 just wanted to say I always look forward to getting on here in the morning and seeing your posts. Thanks for all the good info you come up with!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From this article that someone posted on the other thread: 
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/states-ranked-by-covid-19-test-positivity-rates-july-14.html
I see this statement: "*Texas changed its positivity rate reporting methodology Sept. 14. The state will now rely on a calculation that accounts for the date a test was administered versus the date the health agency receives test results. "

So, to me this means that as it usually takes several days to get test results back, the positivity rate for Texas will be inaccurate for several days - assuming they go back to recalculate the rate for the date the tests were administered. 

Are other states doing this? Or are their rates calculated by # positives test results received today (regardless of when tested)/number of total tests performed today?  Or are other states having one day turnaround on their test results? Or am I just totally confused about all of this? 

Edited by Bambam
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

“Will zinc be used in the trial?

Hydroxychloroquine is not being tested with a zinc supplement in the COVID SHIELD trial.

In some laboratory studies, it has been concluded that zinc might support the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating patients who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). 

Human blood and tissues naturally contain zinc and there is currently no evidence to indicate that supplementation with additional zinc is required for people who are not zinc deficient, when using hydroxychloroquine as a preventative therapy for SARS-CoV-2.

Pre-screening will ensure participants in the COVID SHIELD trial meet certain health criteria, which means they will be less likely to be zinc deficient and therefore will not need to take additional zinc supplements in conjunction with the hydroxychloroquine used in this trial.“
 

it looks like they aren’t supplementing zinc but are hoping that pre screening will mean less chance of zinc deficiency.  It’s a pity they won’t add a third arm with zinc.

https://wehi.edu.au/covid-shield-faqs

 

 

Again, just myself, I am saying what I would like which is an attempt to replicate the clinical experience of Zelenko in a well done RCT.  This is something very different.  Zelenko was using a “cocktail” and he was only using it as prophylaxis for people at high risk. Which in many cases may well mean elderly and others who do not have good tissue zinc levels.

Aside from profession, what you are saying is that this AU study is doing almost the opposite of Zelenko in multiple ways. 

 

It seems like this approach in the quoted part about the study may partly depend on whether above “deficiency” level is a good level for immunity, and in ability to accurately / adequately measure zinc levels and especially to be able to determine marginal status. 

Bold added to quote below:

Biomarkers of zinc status

Currently, there is not a sensitive and specific biomarker to detect zinc deficiency in humans. Low plasma or serum zinc concentrations are typically used as indicators of zinc status in populations and in intervention studies, but they have a number of limitations, including lack of sensitivity to detect marginal zinc deficiency, diurnal variations, and confounding by inflammation, stress, and hormones (38, 39).

Above quote is From: Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University 

 

https://immunityageing.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4933-6-9

Italics below to make what is quote more clear and bold added for emphasis: 

 

The trace element zinc is essential for the immune system, and zinc deficiency affects multiple aspects of innate and adaptive immunity. There are remarkable parallels in the immunological changes during aging and zinc deficiency, including a reduction in the activity of the thymus and thymic hormones, a shift of the T helper cell balance toward T helper type 2 cells, decreased response to vaccination, and impaired functions of innate immune cells. Many studies confirm a decline of zinc levels with age. Most of these studies do not classify the majority of elderly as zinc deficient, but even marginal zinc deprivation can affect immune function. Consequently, oral zinc supplementation demonstrates the potential to improve immunity and efficiently downregulates chronic inflammatory responses in the elderly. These data indicate that a wide prevalence of marginal zinc deficiency in elderly people may contribute to immunosenescence. “

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.03160/full

Bold and underline added: 

It is well-established that the nutritional deficiency or inadequacy can impair immune functions. Growing evidence suggests that for certain nutrients increased intake above currently recommended levels may help optimize immune functions including improving defense function and thus resistance to infection, while maintaining tolerance. This review will examine the data representing the research on prominent intervention agents n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), micronutrients (zinc, vitamins D and E), and functional foods including probiotics and tea components for their immunological effects, working mechanisms, and clinical relevance. Many of these nutritive and non-nutritive food components are related in their functions to maintain or improve immune function including inhibition of pro-inflammatory mediators, promotion of anti-inflammatory functions, modulation of cell-mediated immunity, alteration of antigen-presenting cell functions, and communication between the innate and adaptive immune systems. “

 

Which is to say that both not getting sick in first place and not having an excess of inflammatory overreaction can be aspects of the immune system affected and effected by various nutrients 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

Yes it is a shame because it would be great to be able to definitively put this whole issue to rest either way. But as I wrote that I realized that I feel really pessimistic that some people would accept the results if they prove negative. For some it does not seem like a factual information based issue but almost rather like an ideological one. Distrust is so high that I don’t know how you can gain trust.

@Ausmumof3 just wanted to say I always look forward to getting on here in the morning and seeing your posts. Thanks for all the good info you come up with!

 

It is not the right study set up imo. It could be interesting for itself, and specific to what it is testing (apparently will HCQ alone be helpful for well / healthy / low risk HCW in Australia - which might translate to something you are personally interested in for North America)  but it is almost as irrelevant to what I am interested in (higher risk people by age or health status) as using a bicycle to do a test of car gas mileage. It’s Apple to Oranges.  

 Or perhaps it could be similar to testing cloth mask efficacy using fish net stockings.  A negative for the fishnets would not show anything useful about a 3 layer cloth mask made of a more likely to be suitable cloth.  Sure if the fishnets seemed to reduce illness that would be really interesting. But if they did not, for me  it would be a total “ no surprise there” feeling. 

 

It is Not a problem of some faith based or political ideology. It is that it is not the right study IMO or for what I think HCQ can help with significantly (or of personal concern). Full Stop. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

It is Not a problem of some faith based or political ideology. It is that it is not the right study IMO or for what I think HCQ can help with significantly (or of personal concern). Full Stop. 

When I was talking about an ideology problem I was meaning the people I know who are totally convinced that just about everything to do with this pandemic is politically motivated. They needed no actual facts to believe HCQ was a miracle cure and I feel pessimistic, therefore, that actual facts will convince them otherwise. 


On a lighter note - we have got to the point at work of joking with each other that we shouldn’t worry because it’s all going to disappear on Election Day. If only that were so!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bambam said:

From this article that someone posted on the other thread: 
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/states-ranked-by-covid-19-test-positivity-rates-july-14.html
I see this statement: "*Texas changed its positivity rate reporting methodology Sept. 14. The state will now rely on a calculation that accounts for the date a test was administered versus the date the health agency receives test results. "

So, to me this means that as it usually takes several days to get test results back, the positivity rate for Texas will be inaccurate for several days - assuming they go back to recalculate the rate for the date the tests were administered. 

Are other states doing this? Or are their rates calculated by # positives test results received today (regardless of when tested)/number of total tests performed today?  Or are other states having one day turnaround on their test results? Or am I just totally confused about all of this? 

I noticed that yesterday

They now have a graph showing positivity rate over time calculated three different ways.

120726361_10160983049248868_134262000861

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

When I was talking about an ideology problem I was meaning the people I know who are totally convinced that just about everything to do with this pandemic is politically motivated. They needed no actual facts to believe HCQ was a miracle cure and I feel pessimistic, therefore, that actual facts will convince them otherwise. 

 

 

I don’t personally know anyone in favor of HCQ in that category.  The people I know in favor have reasons not blind faith. 

 

But from my POV even if you were only talking about “people you know” that doesn’t help to mitigate the effects of bad studies, studies that use too high doses, studies that don’t test right thing in right way with right cohorts.   “Actual facts” from bad studies really are not “actual facts”.

Moreover I am concerned that “science” loses some credibility when many poor studies are done. And IME “garbage in garbage out” studies reduce popular confidence even when excellent studies get done. 

Let alone the problem in the case of HCQ of out and out fraudulent “study” and studies that have used  out and out toxic doses . Some of these were so bad IMO they and their perpetrators should have been gone after as criminals, not merely something to be sad about for poor study design. 

 

 

1 hour ago, TCB said:


On a lighter note - we have got to the point at work of joking with each other that we shouldn’t worry because it’s all going to disappear on Election Day. If only that were so!!

 

 

I guess humor in general helps.  😊

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pen said:

... that doesn’t help to mitigate the effects of bad studies, studies that use too high doses, studies that don’t test right thing in right way with right cohorts.   “Actual facts” from bad studies really are not “actual facts”.

Moreover I am concerned that “science” loses some credibility when many poor studies are done. And IME “garbage in garbage out” studies reduce popular confidence even when excellent studies get done. 

The fact that the studies done so far have not replicated Zelenko's specific protocol does not make them "bad studies." The French study that led Trump to call HCQ one of the biggest game changers in medical history used 600 mg doses, so it's not absurd for other studies to try to replicate those findings with the same dosage.

I would also like to see a good RCT that focuses on zinc plus ionophores (including HCQ, quercitin, and possibly others) but the assumption that one doctor's protocol should form the basis of all HCQ studies going forward and that any study that differs from it is "garbage" is really unwarranted. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The fact that the studies done so far have not replicated Zelenko's specific protocol does not make them "bad studies." The French study that led Trump to call HCQ one of the biggest game changers in medical history used 600 mg doses, so it's not absurd for other studies to try to replicate those findings with the same dosage.

I would also like to see a good RCT that focuses on zinc plus ionophores (including HCQ, quercitin, and possibly others) but the assumption that one doctor's protocol should form the basis of all HCQ studies going forward and that any study that differs from it is "garbage" is really unwarranted. 

 

 

 

It makes it a bad study for me if what it is “discrediting” is not tested.

If it is it’s own thing, that is fine.

and “bad study” “garbage in garbage out”  as relates to Surgisphere and the Veterans study where patients were given way too high amounts? Absolutely.  I stand by “bad”.

I don’t believe if you look into them that you would find them good studies either. 

But If you do find either of them “good”— please explain on what basis! 

Truly, I want to

unde stand how you perceive them as “good” studies- this is not meant as rhetorical. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

52 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The fact that the studies done so far have not replicated Zelenko's specific protocol does not make them "bad studies." The French study that led Trump to call HCQ one of the biggest game changers in medical history used 600 mg doses, so it's not absurd for other studies to try to replicate those findings with the same dosage.

 

I am wary of going into any politics in this thread.  (ETA: please note that you brought in Trump to the discussion here, I did not . And if you have a moderator shield I guess that means it is okay?) 

afaik the doctor who contacted Trump about positive findings with HCQ and zinc was Zelenko and the dosage that Zelenko has used for prophylaxis is published by Zelenko . It is not 600mg day after day. 

 

(Afaik the French study was tiny, whereas it is Zelenko who has had large numbers of patients and even tested his protocol on himself as a super high risk person .   Iirc, the French study was not about prophylaxis use, thus I am not clear why a dosage used in it would be considered the right dosage to use in the Australian study at this time?  If prophylaxis is what is being tested —which is apparently the case—shouldn’t they be using what has seemed observationally in clinical practice to possibly be a useful prophylaxis regimen?  Or is there some other larger observational prophylaxis experience maybe from India that 600mg is being based on?  Not rhetorical again.

Seriously as a matter of medical care, not politics and what Trump did or didn’t do, or what Trump did or did not say, I am unaware of a current good reason to do a huge study on HCQ without zinc and at a 600mg/day dosage (and also of note without bring D levels to optimal, which is not officially in Zelenko protocols, but he said he has been making sure D levels are good for years so that for him that is apparently a given already.) 

Edited by Pen
Wrong thing quoted and ETA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

I am wary of going into any politics in this thread.  (ETA: please note that you brought in Trump to the discussion here, I did not . And if you have a moderator shield I guess that means it is okay?) 

afaik the doctor who contacted Trump about positive findings with HCQ and zinc was Zelenko and the dosage that Zelenko has used for prophylaxis is published by Zelenko . It is not 600mg day after day. 

 

(Afaik the French study was tiny, whereas it is Zelenko who has had large numbers of patients and even tested his protocol on himself as a super high risk person .   Iirc, the French study was not about prophylaxis use, thus I am not clear why a dosage used in it would be considered the right dosage to use in the Australian study at this time?  If prophylaxis is what is being tested —which is apparently the case—shouldn’t they be using what has seemed observationally in clinical practice to possibly be a useful prophylaxis regimen?  Or is there some other larger observational prophylaxis experience maybe from India that 600mg is being based on?  Not rhetorical again.

Seriously as a matter of medical care, not politics and what Trump did or didn’t do, or what Trump did or did not say, I am unaware of a current good reason to do a huge study on HCQ without zinc and at a 600mg/day dosage (and also of note without bring D levels to optimal, which is not officially in Zelenko protocols, but he said he has been making sure D levels are good for years so that for him that is apparently a given already.) 

 

Maybe part of the problem is that reliance on vaccines to deal with contagious illnesses has tended to make us think in terms of a single “magic bullet”?

 

And goal in “studies” to deal with just one variable at a time may not always fit with the synergistic aspect of how complex bodily systems including immune system work? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

afaik the doctor who contacted Trump about positive findings with HCQ and zinc was Zelenko and the dosage that Zelenko has used for prophylaxis is published by Zelenko . It is not 600mg day after day. 

He specifically referenced the French study, which was published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, when he made the statement that I quoted. My point was that the French study was the one that basically kicked off the HCQ mania, and 600 mg is what they used. Since that study (which did not include zinc) claimed to show significant benefits, it's not crazy or unreasonable to use that dosage in other studies on HCQ.

I agree that it would be great to see some solid RCT studies on zinc + an ionophore, but "Does zinc plus an ionophore provide treatment and/or prophylactic benefits against Covid?" is actually a very different research question from "Does HCQ provide treatment and/or prophylactic benefits against Covid?"  And I think it's unreasonable to criticize scientists who are asking the second question for not using a dosage and protocol that is designed to answer the first question.

Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 12.13.59 PM.png

Edited by Corraleno
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

He specifically referenced the French study, which was published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, when he made the statement that I quoted. My point was that the French study was the one that basically kicked off the HCQ mania, and 600 mg is what they used. Since that study (which did not include zinc) claimed to show significant benefits, it's not crazy or unreasonable to use that dosage in other studies on HCQ.

I agree that it would be great to see some solid RCT studies on zinc + an ionophore, but "Does zinc plus an ionophore provide treatment and/or prophylactic benefits against Covid?" is actually a very different research question from "Does HCQ provide treatment and/or prophylactic benefits against Covid?"  And I think it's unreasonable to criticize scientists who are asking the second question for not using a dosage and protocol that is designed to answer the first question.

 

Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 12.13.59 PM.png

 

 

 

Okay. 

I guess in my own mind and with what I know about HCQ in regard to CV19 and as a general matter over many years I already “answered” that , not at all as a science study but just as my own very personal sense of things, as that HCQ alone is probably not a majorly significant help as prophylaxis.

ETA which I still think is not what the French study was, — I think it was an early treatment study not a prophylaxis study — so if that’s still an issue I think a large scale early treatment study with zinc and Azithromycin , would be relevant to the tweet (and as early treatment 600mg might be more suitable - not a prophylaxis study.

 I think  an already sick early in hospital treatment study compared to a prophylaxis study is still apples to oranges - quoted tweet from DJT or no tweet.   (Malaria prophylaxis dosage and malaria treatment dosage were not the same.) 

And to me taking dosage from an early in hospital treatment for people already sick enough to be in hospital where HCQ  was apparently combined with AZ, and applying the dosage from the one over to a prophylaxis study for use day after day long term does not make sense.  ( And your explanation of why it makes sense as quoting a tweet from DJT, itself sounds like political rationale more than medical sense.) 

 But anyway, Australia will do whatever they do. Obviously. I can be sad about the choice, but it is certainly not my business . 

 

 

HCQ is not just any ionophore so your initial phrasing for question 1 would not be mine.

I would greatly like to see a study set up with a different potential zinc  ionophore (or two - readily available otc) and zinc as comparator study arms for both HCQ and zinc and for an inert placebo being other study arms, and on top of Vitamin D status already being good. 

 

However, as long as the scientists  and the media don’t conflate a discovery (that it isn’t especially helpful) as an answer to second question with being an answer to the first question I am okay with a study that tries to work on the second question.   

 

What I see over and over though is that the different issues **are** conflated and even that a totally fraudulent study like the Surgisphere one ends up having huge public perception impact.  

Edited by Pen
Site and posting troubles/ trying for better clarity
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see people are still debating HCG, so here's my bit of anecdata; my sister was just prescribed HCG for lupus. Within 2 weeks, she lost 50% of her hearing. It's a known side-effect. 

She's off it now, they're looking for another medication, but the reality is we already know from people using HCG for lupus and other conditions that it has a wide range of side-effects. Handing it out willy-nilly would be criminal. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

He specifically referenced the French study, which was published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, when he made the statement that I quoted. My point was that the French study was the one that basically kicked off the HCQ mania, and 600 mg is what they used. Since that study (which did not include zinc) claimed to show significant benefits, it's not crazy or unreasonable to use that dosage in other studies on HCQ.

I agree that it would be great to see some solid RCT studies on zinc + an ionophore, but "Does zinc plus an ionophore provide treatment and/or prophylactic benefits against Covid?" is actually a very different research question from "Does HCQ provide treatment and/or prophylactic benefits against Covid?"  And I think it's unreasonable to criticize scientists who are asking the second question for not using a dosage and protocol that is designed to answer the first question.

 

Screen Shot 2020-10-01 at 12.13.59 PM.png

 

 

Trying a different way -

do I understand you correctly: 

Donald Trump tweeted about a small study done on already infected patients sick enough to be hospitalized and using 600mg HCQ along with AZ. Therefore you think that the dosage used for short term administration in and acute care situation in the French study is the correct dosage to use for a prophylaxis study?

Why would you go to an acute care short term higher dosage for long term prophylaxis?   Other than perhaps some political reason to try to make DTJ look bad? 

Malaria prophylaxis:

For oral dosage form (tablets): 

  • For prevention of malaria: 
    • Adults—
      • Standard dosing: 400 mg once a week on the same day of each week starting 2 weeks before traveling to an area where malaria occurs, and continued for 4 weeks after leaving the area.”

 

There is a significant difference between 400mg once per week  (or 200mg as I think Zelenko used) and 600 mg per day!!!

 

It will be No big surprise to me if negatives manifest at  600mg times 7 days in week equals 4200mg versus 400mg (malaria dose) or 200mg per week (Zelenko dose iirc) !!!!!  

 

It is many times greater than accepted malaria prophylaxis/ and even more times Zelenko prophylaxis dosage!!!   

 

 

Quite the opposite — unless I understood wrong and I acknowledge that is quite possible — it seems like the study has been set up to use an  excessive dose for a prophylaxis setting. If the proposed study goes well I will be quite amazed!!!

 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pen

http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379797&isReview=true

 

I have no idea whether this one is going ahead but it might be one to watch.

I think one issue also is dr Zelenko himself has changed his protocol somewhat.  Which is ok, I understand the need to refine things but it takes times to get studies set up, registered and funded and by the time you’ve done all that maybe the idea you started when is no longer the current one.  I also will say for me personally from looking through some of his feeds he doesn’t seem like a completely credible person.  That doesn’t mean he’s not right but it does give me pause.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

@Pen

http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379797&isReview=true

 

I have no idea whether this one is going ahead but it might be one to watch.

I think one issue also is dr Zelenko himself has changed his protocol somewhat.  Which is ok, I understand the need to refine things but it takes times to get studies set up, registered and funded and by the time you’ve done all that maybe the idea you started when is no longer the current one.  I also will say for me personally from looking through some of his feeds he doesn’t seem like a completely credible person.  That doesn’t mean he’s not right but it does give me pause.

 

In fairness, I came to HCQ re CV19 1st via a person I knew irl who said she credited personal recovery to it, then  doctors I know irl,  and then my own search of the literature (mostly older related to SARS1 and other infectious illnesses), and then somewhat after that, also Dr Been on videos.

This probably had a different effect on me than if I had come to it initially via Twitter feeds or mainstream media brouhaha or interviews with Zelenko. 

 

I have no reason to think any of these people is lying. Though I cannot know for certain. 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

In fairness, I came to HCQ re CV19 1st via a person I knew irl who said she credited personal recovery to it, then  doctors I know irl,  and then my own search of the literature (mostly older related to SARS1 and other infectious illnesses), and then somewhat after that, also Dr Been on videos.

This probably had a different effect on me than if I had come to it initially via Twitter feeds or mainstream media brouhaha or interviews with Zelenko. 

 

I have no reason to think any of these people is lying. Though I cannot know for certain. 

 

Whereas I have only come from the social media viewpoint and literally everyone pushing HCQ seems to also be pushing anti masking anti social distancing and conspiracy theories.  I’m sure that does have an impact on our own different viewpoints.  I’d like to see actual studies on the zinc HCQ theory that are well done, but I don’t feel overly hopeful tbh about the likely result. 
 

two of the things that seem a bit odd with Dr Zev is one that he has a PayPal link right there on his main page, and also that he’s claiming that cases are spiking in his area but his patients aren’t being hospitalised.  However hospitalisation increase usually is around four weeks after the spike and he would know that being a doctor. With him being an Orthodox Jew I’m concerned about the impact of minimising this virus as there are already issues it seems with some parts of the orthodox Jewish community not taking things seriously.

 

(Edited for clarity)

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

In fairness, I came to HCQ re CV19 1st via a person I knew irl who said she credited personal recovery to it, then  doctors I know irl,  and then my own search of the literature (mostly older related to SARS1 and other infectious illnesses), and then somewhat after that, also Dr Been on videos.

This probably had a different effect on me than if I had come to it initially via Twitter feeds or mainstream media brouhaha or interviews with Zelenko. 

 

I have no reason to think any of these people is lying. Though I cannot know for certain. 

 

I don't think a person has to be lying to be wrong. Many people that would have gotten better without any drugs  will take a drug and then claim IT made them better. Between the placebo effect and the just really wanting to be right about something working, they can really convince themselves that it was the magic bullet.

 

They may be right but they may also be wrong. I don't think that means they are lying. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Whereas I have only come from the social media viewpoint and literally everyone pushing HCQ seems to also be pushing anti masking anti social distancing and conspiracy theories.  

 

Not literally everyone. I am a social media contact and am strongly in favor of masks and of social distancing and also want HCQ to be more easily available! 

 

 

Quote

I’m sure that does have an impact on our own different viewpoints.  I’d like to see actual studies on the zinc HCQ theory that are well done, but I don’t feel overly hopeful tbh about the likely result. 
 

two of the things that seem a bit odd with Dr Zev is one that he has a PayPal link right there on his main page, and also that he’s claiming that cases are spiking in his area but his patients aren’t being hospitalised.  However hospitalisation increase usually is around four weeks after the spike and he would know that being a doctor. With him being an Orthodox Jew I’m concerned about the impact of minimising this virus as there are already issues it seems with some parts of the orthodox Jewish community not taking things seriously.

 

(Edited for clarity)

 

Do you mean Twitter Page?  Tbh I am not on Twitter or FB and don’t know that much about them.  Sometimes I access something that is available to the public. 

If you mean Twitter I can take a look at what is current there.

 

I would doubt that he is driving activity throughout multiple Orthodox communities in NY (I think Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur etc could do that without him ) and I agree that it may be 2-4 weeks till seeing results of hospital rates.  

Maybe someone on here more familiar with those communities knows if they were tending to distance, wear masks, avoid weddings but for Zelenko influence. My sense from what I read is that he **responded** to high case numbers in his community during last wave — that he did not **cause** it.   

 

But if it turns out that his patients **are** having lower hospitalization rate than others in other NY Orthodox communities, that is kind of interesting isn’t it?     It may even represent otherwise somewhat similar comparative cohorts, even to perhaps similar foods eaten (presumably no oysters for high food zinc  for example) , similar fasting days, ...

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frogger said:

I don't think a person has to be lying to be wrong. Many people that would have gotten better without any drugs  will take a drug and then claim IT made them better. Between the placebo effect and the just really wanting to be right about something working, they can really convince themselves that it was the magic bullet.

 

They may be right but they may also be wrong. I don't think that means they are lying. 

 

I totally agree!!! 

 

The opposite is also true. People who were against it would not want to have it turn out that maybe fewer people would have died had they had early access and it might be important to not have that on ones conscience.  

Plus for people getting treatments or in trials there can be negative placebo effect too.  Nocebos.  

 

Speaking of positive placebo effect, I am in favor. If I have a serious illness and a placebo can make me better I would be happy with a placebo cure.  I would rather have a placebo cure than an active treatment death. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Not literally everyone. I am a social media contact and am strongly in favor of masks and of social distancing and also want HCQ to be more easily available! 

 

 

 

Do you mean Twitter Page?  Tbh I am not on Twitter or FB and don’t know that much about them.  Sometimes I access something that is available to the public. 

If you mean Twitter I can take a look at what is current there.

 

I would doubt that he is driving activity throughout multiple Orthodox communities in NY (I think Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur etc could do that without him ) and I agree that it may be 2-4 weeks till seeing results of hospital rates.  

Maybe someone on here more familiar with those communities knows if they were tending to distance, wear masks, avoid weddings but for Zelenko influence. My sense from what I read is that he **responded** to high case numbers in his community during last wave — that he did not **cause** it.   

 

But if it turns out that his patients **are** having lower hospitalization rate than others in other NY Orthodox communities, that is kind of interesting isn’t it?     It may even represent otherwise somewhat similar comparative cohorts, even to perhaps similar foods eaten (presumably no oysters for high food zinc  for example) , similar fasting days, ...

 

 

 

lol yes true!  You are one of the few with a more nuanced position ... I kind of never think of this as social media 

 

here is one of his links.  You can click to the home page from there.  Some of his shares that seem more worrying to me are the letter to Donald trump including the claim that only 6pc of deaths are of Covid alone among other things (which we discussed here earlier and is related to the way death certificates are completed).  And a video of himself urging the Israeli government to stop lockdowns and social distancing measures as they are unnecessary.  Anyway... again that doesn’t necessarily mean his protocol is bad or his results are wrong but they do make me question his general credibility a bit.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

lol yes true!  You are one of the few with a more nuanced position ... I kind of never think of this as social media 

 

here is one of his links.  You can click to the home page from there.  Some of his shares that seem more worrying to me are the letter to Donald trump including the claim that only 6pc of deaths are of Covid alone among other things (which we discussed here earlier and is related to the way death certificates are completed).  And a video of himself urging the Israeli government to stop lockdowns and social distancing measures as they are unnecessary.  Anyway... again that doesn’t necessarily mean his protocol is bad or his results are wrong but they do make me question his general credibility a bit.  

 

I ended up linking up to the story that the picture seems to be part of. I copied it all, with author name to start. I am going to try to leave some and remove parts both to shorten it and to not be beyond Fair Use

 

I think that some of the points in the article seem extremely pertinent to how various of us may respond differently to even this very article itself, and to issues of credibility. 

https://torontocaribbean.com/drzev/

 

I don’t know if the claim of 84% lives saved is true. 

From what I have heard at least a reduction in hospitalizations does seem to be true.  But of course we are both colored in what we believe! 

I know in my own case the alternative options Ivermectin which also is a political hot potato and which I myself probably cannot tolerate even though for many people it may be safer and even more effective or, basically nothing, wait for possibly being sick enough to need extremely expensive hospital care (lack of national health care may also lead me to favor a possible home used medicine over hospital intervention while, idk but surmise that perhaps for people with great medical insurance coverage or a National plan maybe that’s weighed differently) with breathing support, expensive antivirals like Remdesivir which itself has fairly low efficacy especially cf cost, or a wait to be in Severely sick in hospital category at which point Dexamethasone has a good reduction in mortality figure—but do even people with great national health care or great medical coverage want to aim for waiting for the Dexamethasone stage of this illness before a treatment where, I think, for Dexamethasone we are mostly agreed on good figures from an RCT, would come into use?  Answering for myself, my answer is no. I would rather take HCQ (at a reasonable dosage!) and zinc risk early even without RCT than wait to be severely ill in hospital and eligible for Dexamethasone, which has good reduced mortality data... 

but how are those patients who were severely ill actually doing? All Back to normal great? Or some alive but still impaired? Would not an intervention that might reduce severe illnesses be beneficial rather than just one to reduce death?   Can we allow more than one option? Try masks—try social distance— but also try HCQ-zinc and if necessary if it does progress to Severe, try Dexamethasone....???? 

 

 

 

Article excerpts: 

 

BY SIMONE J. SMITH

 

... 

 

WE as media consumers have to really start being conscious of the information we ingest.

... 

I was reading an article in Psychology Today called “Media, Fear, and the Coronavirus Outbreak,” (written by David A. Clark Ph.D.), and he brought up some very interesting points that I want to present to you today.

 

He mentions the fact that if we want to find threatening information about COVID-19, we never have to look very far. What we may not know is that [bold added]  how we react to this mixed health information depends on our preconceived beliefs about diseases and how susceptible we are to catching it.  

 

He highlights a point that I have reiterated in most of my coverage of the pandemic; fear influences how we react to media coverage of health hazards.

...

one of our goals at the Toronto Caribbean Newspaper is to assist with that fear. How are we going to do that? By presenting you with stories of hope. This is what led to my interview with Dr. Zelenko.

...

Dr. Zelenko was one of the first frontline doctors in America that began early in the pandemic treating his patients with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and zinc. News of his accomplishments spread far and wide, and he began working with government and health officials in: Brazil, Honduras, the Ukraine, and Russia. He was highly recognized and had correspondence with President Trump, 

...

Like everyone else who has provided an alternative, and preventative treatment to the coronavirus, Dr. Zelenko was slammed in the media, and cast as a right-wing shrill despite the fact that he had documented proof showing significantly fewer hospitalizations and five times less all-cause deaths.

“We could have prevented 84% of the deaths.”

Dr. Zelenko is not stand-alone when it comes to advocating for HCQ. In the last edition, I spoke with Dr. Stella Immanuel who also reported similar results in her patients. There have been international doctors who are also advocating for the use of HCQ and zinc. An extremely important point that has been raised by Dr. Zelenko, as well as other doctors is that treatment has to begin early.

“It is important that we treat clinical suspicion,” Dr. Zelenko explained to me.

“Within the first five days when symptoms start, the viral load or the amount of virus is relatively stable or constant. But around day six, it explodes like a wildfire.

Now most patients don’t come to the doctor right away. They come around day four or five…you wait until the results of the test, which takes three days, you get into day eight. And what happens by then is the patient is really sick, the fires out of control. So, the key is to treat based on clinical suspicion.”

Dr. Marcus Zervos (Division Head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System) echoed this at a news conference.

“What we think was important in our studies, is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with Covid.”

Dr. Steven Kalkanis (CEO of the Henry Ford Medical Group) reiterated Dr. Zervos point when he stated, “It’s important to note that in the right settings, this potentially could be a lifesaver for patients.”

....

“How much is human life worth?”

In our interview, Dr. Zelenko detailed his Three Drug Approach, and according to him, he has seen only positive results:

  1. Any patient with shortness of breath regardless of age is treated.
  2. Any patient in the high-risk category even with just mild symptoms is treated.
  3. Young, healthy and low risk patients even with symptoms are not treated (unless their circumstances change and they fall into category 1 or 2).

My (Dr. Zelenko) outpatient treatment regimen is as follows:

  1. Hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
  2. Azithromycin 500mg once a day for 5 days
  3. Zinc sulphate 220mg once a day for 5 days
  4. The Zelenko Protocol: https://thezelenkoprotocol.com

What Dr. Zelenko did is combine the data available from China and South Korea with recent studies published in France. “We know that hydroxychloroquine helps Zinc enter the cell,” he begins to explain to me. “We know that Zinc slows viral replication within the cell. Zinc kills the virus. Zinc needs help to get inside the cell. HCQ opens the door and lets zinc in.

Regarding the use of azithromycin, I hypothesize that it prevents secondary bacterial infections. These three drugs are well known and usually well tolerated; hence the risk to the patient is low.”

Dr. Zelenko’s recommendation is to initiate treatment in the outpatient setting as soon as possible in accordance with the above. Based on his direct experience: it prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prevents the need for hospitalization and saves lives.

What I learned about Dr. Zelenko during our interview is he is also dealing with his own health issues. He has cancer, is living with one lung, and has heart issues that required surgery.

...

 

 

Note—Reading this it interests me that the Australia prophylaxis study we were talking about earlier  seems set to use not only an HCQ dose a magnitude higher than a usual malaria prophylaxis dosage, and some 20 times higher than the HCQ prophylaxis dosage in Zelenko protocol had been, but also a higher ongoing HCQ dose than even the short term acute treatment dosage listed above.    

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Corraleno says I am not allowed to criticize scientists setting up a long term term prophylaxis study using 600mg per day — but:

“Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Indicated for treatment of chronic discoid lupus erythematosus and systemic lupus erythematosus

200-400 mg/day (155-310 mg base/day) PO as a single daily dose or in two divided doses

Doses >400 mg/day are not recommended

Incidence of retinopathy has been reported to be higher when this maintenance dose is exceeded  “

 

 

hope the dosage to be used by study can be compared to the dosing and danger statement quoted. And I will keep my forbidden criticisms to myself. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pen said:

I know Corraleno says I am not allowed to criticize scientists setting up a long term term prophylaxis study using 600mg per day — but:

“Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Indicated for treatment of chronic discoid lupus erythematosus and systemic lupus erythematosus

200-400 mg/day (155-310 mg base/day) PO as a single daily dose or in two divided doses

Doses >400 mg/day are not recommended

Incidence of retinopathy has been reported to be higher when this maintenance dose is exceeded  “

 

 

hope the dosage to be used by study can be compared to the dosing and danger statement quoted. And I will keep my forbidden criticisms to myself. 

 

 

If you click through to his profile you can see all the other info etc I mentioned above.  
 

also Simone Smith who wrote the article seems to have written several anti vaccination articles for the same paper/site.  Again that in itself doesn’t make the medication she’s talking about ineffective but for me personally it does make me view everything as less credible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my thing is, if dr Zev wants to prescribe an as yet unproven drug as a prophylactic that’s fine and if people want to use it with their own health and money that’s fine.  What I really object to is encouraging people not to socially distance, not to do lockdowns because we have a “proven treatment/cure” when it’s far from being that.  There will always be people willing to try new and different things.  That’s fine.  But anyone who encourages a full open up on the basis that we can all just be treated with this protocol needs to have some absolutely solid proof that the protocol actually works because opening up is going to lead to a lot more cases and deaths if it doesn’t.  Other than you I literally haven’t heard a single person talking about hydroxychloroquine without also saying we should be opening up, we shouldn’t close borders we should get the economy going.  That is why I have such a negative reaction to it.

 

i also think there’s maybe a bit of difference between say Australia where we realistically can keep cases relatively low with contact tracing etc versus US where it seems unlikely at this point that that is going to happen.  In that case it makes sense to have a solid plan for something you will at least try.  Whereas for me here the biggest danger is people relaxing too much too soon and things are moving very quickly now.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pen said:

I know Corraleno says I am not allowed to criticize scientists setting up a long term term prophylaxis study using 600mg per day — but:

“Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Indicated for treatment of chronic discoid lupus erythematosus and systemic lupus erythematosus

200-400 mg/day (155-310 mg base/day) PO as a single daily dose or in two divided doses

Doses >400 mg/day are not recommended

Incidence of retinopathy has been reported to be higher when this maintenance dose is exceeded  “

 

 

hope the dosage to be used by study can be compared to the dosing and danger statement quoted. And I will keep my forbidden criticisms to myself. 

 

 

I couldn’t find info on the dosing for the Covid shield trial.  Where did you find it?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Pen said:

I know Corraleno says I am not allowed to criticize scientists setting up a long term term prophylaxis study using 600mg per day — but:

....

I hope the dosage to be used by study can be compared to the dosing and danger statement quoted. And I will keep my forbidden criticisms to myself. 

Oh please, you're more than welcome to criticize any study you want. 🙄

(1) The University of Minnesota's RCT used a loading dose of 800 mg followed by another 600 mg 6-8 hrs later, and then 600 mg/day. This was a prophylactic study.

(2) The U Penn RCT that was just published also used a dose of 600 mg/day. Also a prophylactic study.

(3) The UK RECOVERY RCT used a 1600 mg loading dose followed by 800mg/day.

(4) The French study, one of the few to actually show benefit, used a dose of 600 mg/day.

 You're free to believe that all of those researchers, as well as the ones who designed the Australian study, are idiots who have no idea what they're doing and who used completely the wrong dose for no logical reason other than possibly trying to "make Trump look bad." Feel free to write them all letters explaining their errors and suggesting that they redo their studies using Zelenko's protocol.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A large study in India highlights the role of "super spreaders." The study tracked and tested 575,000 contacts of 85,000 confirmed cases and found that 70% of people never infected anyone else, while 8% were responsible for 60% of all infections. They also found that significant numbers of children were infected, despite schools being closed.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/health/contact-tracing-children-superspreaders/index.html

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think my thing is, if dr Zev wants to prescribe an as yet unproven drug as a prophylactic that’s fine and if people want to use it with their own health and money that’s fine.  What I really object to is encouraging people not to socially distance, not to do lockdowns because we have a “proven treatment/cure” when it’s far from being that.  There will always be people willing to try new and different things.  That’s fine.  But anyone who encourages a full open up on the basis that we can all just be treated with this protocol needs to have some absolutely solid proof that the protocol actually works because opening up is going to lead to a lot more cases and deaths if it doesn’t.  Other than you I literally haven’t heard a single person talking about hydroxychloroquine without also saying we should be opening up, we shouldn’t close borders we should get the economy going.  That is why I have such a negative reaction to it.

 

i also think there’s maybe a bit of difference between say Australia where we realistically can keep cases relatively low with contact tracing etc versus US where it seems unlikely at this point that that is going to happen.  In that case it makes sense to have a solid plan for something you will at least try.  Whereas for me here the biggest danger is people relaxing too much too soon and things are moving very quickly now.

 

I know quite a few other people irl who are in favor of HCQ being easily allowed, without major expense and almost impossible hoops— and also cautious on opening up.  

In media, I think DrBeen has been outspoken that he has seen patients helped by HCQ, and also has been vocal in favor of masks, and vocal against schools opening up...   Dr Yo is another afaik, but I don’t really follow Yo—too many ads, and not enough time, and I get more out of DrBeen videos. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew about this (not from this article, but from an interview with him on a podcast, which was more in-depth): https://alphanewsmn.com/minnesota-board-of-medical-practice-dismisses-complaints-against-sen-scott-jensen/

"He said the Board of Medical Practice was investigating two allegations against him, including the spread of misinformation and providing Minnesotans with reckless advice by comparing COVID-19 to the flu.

The Board, however, completed its investigation Monday and dismissed the allegations."
 

But now this? https://alphanewsmn.com/sen-jensens-medical-license-threatened-once-again-for-being-a-danger-to-public-health/


"Anonymous complaints filed with the Board of Medical Practice allege that Jensen continues to “mislead” and “lie” to the public about COVID-19, according to a letter he received last week."

and 

"I’ve said this before: if it can happen to me, could it happen to you also?” said Jensen. “This is a danger and I think we need to talk about it. Let’s not kid ourselves. The cancel culture, the muzzling of a perspective that you don’t like – this is happening." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pen said:

Nope.  Dh got a nasty cold earlier in the year from someone who went to work really sick right in the middle of it.  I was so annoyed.  One thing we do have is police checks on people who actually have a diagnosis to make sure they’re self isolating.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/02/what-we-know-about-regeneron-antibody-drug-trump-took-to-combat-coronavirus.html?__twitter_impression=true
 

@Pen

Ignore the political discussion etc - looks like the president is taking Vit d and zinc amongst other things.

 

 

Yes. Apparently not HCQ nor any other zinc ionophore, but otherwise it looked like he was taking all or most of the the MATH+ “Mild illness at home” protocol items, plus the antibody cocktail plus apparently now also Remdesivir. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

 

Yes. Apparently not HCQ nor any other zinc ionophore, but otherwise it looked like he was taking all or most of the the MATH+ “Mild illness at home” protocol items, plus the antibody cocktail plus apparently now also Remdesivir. 

Wasn’t he already taking HCQ?  I don’t know anything about the famotadine.  Wiki seemed to suggest it was normally for stomach ulcers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...