COVID-19: The Scientific Progress Thread

[TCB]

19 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I just heard a doc talking on NPR who was frustrated by this as well. It's been interesting listening to their reporting, touting the dangers and ineffectiveness vis a vis the president taking it prophylacticly (yesterday), and then today there was a story about people are pulling out of clinical trials because of that. And the doctor on today was saying, look, every drug has risks but we need to do the studies.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying so my reply may not make sense. If a drug is studied in a good clinical study the risks to the population as a whole are lessened because it can be more quickly evaluated for effectiveness, and usually risk, so less people are exposed to it before this knowledge is gained.

[Pen]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:28 AM, Halftime Hope said:

I've been listening to the JAMA channel, and what's going on there is so discouraging.  This morning's gem was, "physicians should be encouraged NOT to TREAT with HCQ unless the patient is enrolled in a study."  The bureaucrats are all over this here in TX, with overreach by state pharmacy boards, making it very intimidating to any physician wants to prescribe this for outpatient care.  Literally, you are on your own, until it's too late and you're so sick you are able to be admitted to the hospital.  

By contrast, HCQ is being widely used in India and other countries for prophylactic care of family members when one has been diagnosed with COVID.  And I believe Japan just donated 60,000 doses of it to Kazakhstan for their use.  

Some of their other stuff, immunity passports and frameworks for rationing care and resources, is equally concerning. 

 

 

Yes. I know. ☹️

People I know irl who were able to get HCL early when feeling deathly ill, but not actually yet needing intubation said they had a turn around soon after getting HCL.

 

It feels like other things I have dealt with—Lyme disease denial, for example. Thyroid care issues where doctors being helpful in reality get hounded out of practice if what they do doesn’t fit the media bias . 😢

[Pen]

11 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Covid and supplements. 

https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/vitamin-supplements-covid

This is the bio of the writer: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/Schools/life-course-sciences/departments/twin-research-and-genetic-epidemiology/about/people/spector

FWIW, we high but not ultra-high Vitamin D anyway, as recommended by the Scottish government, because we are very far north.  The general scientific paper about Vitamin D overdose is interesting in that it touches on poor quality control in vitamin supplements leading to the risk of overdose: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980613/

'Similarly, a US study 25 demonstrated that, of the 15 vitamin D3 preparations analysed, there was substantial variation compared with the stated dose, both in pills from the same bottle (52–136% of expected dose) and between separate preparations (9–140% of stated dose). Only one‐third of the pills analysed were within 10% of the stated dose. Of these, the licensed products revealed the greatest accuracy and least variation with the stated dose. Similarly, an Indian study revealed that, of 14 commonly used preparations, only four were found to be within the accepted 90–125% of stated dose, defined by the Indian Pharmacopeia 26. Furthermore, US studies on the fortification of foods with vitamin D have also revealed wide variations from the stated dose as nutritional products are not as well regulated as medicines.

While the problematic manufacture of vitamin D products may at first appear trivial, such inaccuracies appear to be responsible for the majority of cases of vitamin D toxicity reported in the literature (Table 2).'

 

 

 

The table 2 report is certainly disturbing. Some of those dosages were way off.

It is especially disturbing to see indications that a supposed dose of “400 IU” might actually deliver 188,000 IU, apparently!     I wish they would reveal actual brands that caused trouble and brands that were found to be within tolerably close range of stated amount!

Since the one involving the way off 400 IU dose looks like it was in 2007 when Internet was already functioning, I may try to track that down.  

A problem I see personally,  is that similar to probably in Scotland, where I live is too too high latitude, too dark, and often too foggy, to get adequate Vitamin D most of the year.  And 400IU is not even at the current US daily level.

So what to do?  Take a risk on chance of getting a really bad pill that is like over 400 times too high and clearly into toxic levels? Or don’t supplement and stay in a situation that is clearly inadequate for D level? 

 

This isn’t an uncommon situation really.  Lots of people face issues every day like breathe air that is almost certainly polluted versus don’t breathe. Food is often less than perfect, even aside from what the article points out about over fortified foods (errors in fortifications levels).  In my region there is a frequent issue of Take a chance on water that may have high arsenic levels or ... ? Drink bottled which has its own problems? (We have a filter and also fortunately our own well has never tested high arsenic, but it is a local issue.) 

 

I am using brands that I believe to be reputable and hope to be getting my D level results back soon. 

 

 

The links you gave make me want to do yet more brand reliability research. 

 

 

[Pen]

@Laura Corin I started to try to look up brands of D3 evaluations and found that some evaluations such as Consumer Reports are looking at having stated amount D3 “or more.” 

This could possibly lead to companies going overboard in making sure they have lots more instead of trying to get close to actual figure. 

 

[Pen]

@Laura Corin Several verifiers exist.  USP, NSF, and Consumer Lab, all I think in USA.  Of these, Consumer Lab looks like it probably has more information and more tested brands—but requires a paid membership to get results.

https://www.consumerlab.com/m/reviews/vitamin_D_supplements_review/Vitamin_D/

 

In UK, vitamin D society website seems to have useful information (much like vitamindwiki in USA) — though no indication I see of reliable brands, but does have link to same home testing I just recently did and am waiting for results from—As possibly the best way to know level is not too high or too low is to test, and also to try for a reliable company that is not likely to have a capsule with a toxic dose in the bottle. 

https://www.vitamindsociety.org/

 

For vitamin D3, I am currently using the vitamindwiki recommendations (same one as the site founder has used for years and years), I have previously gone with brand recommendations from a Natural Foods and supplements shop in my area that has been in business many years and I find reliable.

I was glad to see on a Livestrong article that that several of my favorite brands like Thorne and Life Extension have NSF certifications, and CGMP compliance and or apparently Consumer Lab approvals.  https://www.livestrong.com/article/30775-list-top-vitamin-brands/

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Pen

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, TCB said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying so my reply may not make sense. If a drug is studied in a good clinical study the risks to the population as a whole are lessened because it can be more quickly evaluated for effectiveness, and usually risk, so less people are exposed to it before this knowledge is gained.

I'm saying the doctor was saying he had a ton of volunteers for a hydroxy trial and after the reporting on it saying it was dangerous people decided not to volunteer. The doctor said that it's got a relatively known safety/risk profile but there was a lot of news out after the president said he was taking it that made it sound dangerous and risky. I'll try to find a link, but it was just a blurb on the news.

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, TCB said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying so my reply may not make sense. If a drug is studied in a good clinical study the risks to the population as a whole are lessened because it can be more quickly evaluated for effectiveness, and usually risk, so less people are exposed to it before this knowledge is gained.

This is the news segment:

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/859261838/hydroxychloroquine-debate-interferes-with-recruiting-research-volunteers

[TCB]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

I'm saying the doctor was saying he had a ton of volunteers for a hydroxy trial and after the reporting on it saying it was dangerous people decided not to volunteer. The doctor said that it's got a relatively known safety/risk profile but there was a lot of news out after the president said he was taking it that made it sound dangerous and risky. I'll try to find a link, but it was just a blurb on the news.

The whole feud thing between the media and President Trump is ridiculous and pretty unhelpful all around in my opinion.

[Laura Corin]

9 hours ago, Pen said:

@Laura Corin Several verifiers exist.  USP, NSF, and Consumer Lab, all I think in USA.  Of these, Consumer Lab looks like it probably has more information and more tested brands—but requires a paid membership to get results.

 

Thanks, Pen.  We are currently taking 4,000 IU, which should give leeway for safety even if the actual D is double that.  However, they have a GMP stamp, which should mean that the products are what they say they are, within normal manufacturing tolerances. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/good-manufacturing-practice-and-good-distribution-practice

[Halftime Hope]

On 5/20/2020 at 4:11 PM, Pen said:

 

Yes. I know. ☹️

People I know irl who were able to get HCL early when feeling deathly ill, but not actually yet needing intubation said they had a turn around soon after getting HCL.

 

It feels like other things I have dealt with—Lyme disease denial, for example. Thyroid care issues where doctors being helpful in reality get hounded out of practice if what they do doesn’t fit the media bias . 😢

 

Funny, this thought crossed my mind the other day.  My dh's doc is retirement age, could practice for another 20 years if he wanted to because he's very active and "young" but I wondered if he would treat people the way he wants to, and then just choose to hang up his spurs.   He's already out of the norm on a couple of chronic disease treatment things, so it will be interesting to see what he does.  Somehow, I need to talk with him proactively and do some if-thens so that should hubby get sick, we won't be wasting time.  

 

 

[EmseB]

Has this been posted? It is fascinating. Talks about how the virus actually affects our cells and why the cytokine issues without recovery. I don't know enough to know how legit it is if someone wants to comment on that.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/21/coronavirus-hijacks-cells-in-unique-ways/?utm_source=STAT+Newsletters&utm_campaign=bee97f4883-Daily_Recap&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8cab1d7961-bee97f4883-152331786

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

Funny, this thought crossed my mind the other day.  My dh's doc is retirement age, could practice for another 20 years if he wanted to because he's very active and "young" but I wondered if he would treat people the way he wants to, and then just choose to hang up his spurs.   He's already out of the norm on a couple of chronic disease treatment things, so it will be interesting to see what he does.  Somehow, I need to talk with him proactively and do some if-thens so that should hubby get sick, we won't be wasting time.  

 

 

 

Who runs youtube and took down the Medcram on HCL? Even if there are bots doing it, someone programmed the bots.  

 

[ktgrok]

25 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Has this been posted? It is fascinating. Talks about how the virus actually affects our cells and why the cytokine issues without recovery. I don't know enough to know how legit it is if someone wants to comment on that.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/21/coronavirus-hijacks-cells-in-unique-ways/?utm_source=STAT+Newsletters&utm_campaign=bee97f4883-Daily_Recap&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8cab1d7961-bee97f4883-152331786

That is interesting, if true! It certainly would explain a lot. I wouldn't want us all taking interferon preventatively, long term, as it really does have some real side effects, but even if used for early infections or high risk people, etc it would be helpful, if it works. 

Things like this are why i'm in the slow this thing down as much as possible camp, because the more we study and learn about it, the better our treatment options will be. If I have to get this now, or a year from now when we know so much more, I'd WAY rather it been a year from now. There really is a benefit of trying to keep infection low until we get a chance to figure out the spread, the treatments, etc. I mean, we are just realizing that it seems to likley spread the very OPPOSITE of what we thought! For months we heard that it was spread by touching things, and to not wear masks but do wash your hands/sanitize, and it would be fine. Now we are learning that no....it likely doesn't spread via surfaces much at all, so washing hands isn't going to help much, it spreads via the air mostly. So yes, please wear a mask. Oops. 

So yeah, keep those discoveries coming, science people!

[Halftime Hope]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

That is interesting, if true! It certainly would explain a lot. I wouldn't want us all taking interferon preventatively, long term, as it really does have some real side effects, but even if used for early infections or high risk people, etc it would be helpful, if it works. 

Which begs the question, if we are interested in catching infection early on in those with the most exposure, such as healthcare workers and family members of someone with a confirmed positive illness, why in the world **** aren't we treating *most* people with the HCQ cocktail?!?  We know that it really dampens viral replication.  We know it is a drug with a low risk profile.  It's inexpensive and relatively well tolerated by the vast majority of people.  Why, why why, why, why?!?!?!?!  

Or how about this?  HCQ as the choice for most people, but under their doc's guidance, provide interferon as an alternative?  

Argh.  (I'm not expecting you to answer this, Ktgrok.)

[ElizabethB]

10 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Which begs the question, if we are interested in catching infection early on in those with the most exposure, such as healthcare workers and family members of someone with a confirmed positive illness, why in the world **** aren't we treating *most* people with the HCQ cocktail?!?  We know that it really dampens viral replication.  We know it is a drug with a low risk profile.  It's inexpensive and relatively well tolerated by the vast majority of people.  Why, why why, why, why?!?!?!?!  

Or how about this?  HCQ as the choice for most people, but under their doc's guidance, provide interferon as an alternative?  

Argh.  (I'm not expecting you to answer this, Ktgrok.)

Interferon is a lot more nasty than HCQ.  I know several people that took interferon, they fared horribly (but it worked for what they were using it for, but all kinds of horrible side effects.) I have known probably 100+ people taking HCQ for a few weeks to a month (Air Force deployments).  No one ever had any major problems, a few of those 100+ had mild stomach/bathroom issues.  

Edited May 22, 2020 by ElizabethB

[Halftime Hope]

22 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

Interferon is a lot more nasty than HCQ.  I know several people that took interferon, they fared horribly (but it worked for what they were using it for, but all kinds of horrible side effects.) I have known probably 100+ people taking HCQ for a few weeks to a month (Air Force deployments).  No one ever had any major problems, a few of those 100+ had mild stomach/bathroom issues.  

That was my point exactly.  

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

Which begs the question, if we are interested in catching infection early on in those with the most exposure, such as healthcare workers and family members of someone with a confirmed positive illness, why in the world **** aren't we treating *most* people with the HCQ cocktail?!?  We know that it really dampens viral replication.  We know it is a drug with a low risk profile.  It's inexpensive and relatively well tolerated by the vast majority of people.  Why, why why, why, why?!?!?!?!  

Or how about this?  HCQ as the choice for most people, but under their doc's guidance, provide interferon as an alternative?  

Argh.  (I'm not expecting you to answer this, Ktgrok.)

 

Putting politics first could be a part, but also maybe a sense that as it is in short supply maybe the journalists want to see people who chronically need it get it first? Or more jaded explanation want to have there be plenty for themselves if they get sick?  Or even more cynical a sort of hankering after genocide thing? 

[Halftime Hope]

9 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Putting politics first could be a part, but also maybe a sense that as it is in short supply maybe the journalists want to see people who chronically need it get it first? Or more jaded explanation want to have there be plenty for themselves if they get sick?  Or even more cynical a sort of hankering after genocide thing? 

I really have to think it's a follow the money thing.  And more than just a little Trump-reactionary knee-jerk. 

I'm immensely grateful for the two-edged swords in our lives:  our national passion for individual liberty  and for social media/alternative information sources.  (I can't abide newscasts, but the medical channels on YT have been marvelous.)  :-) 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Halftime Hope

[Ausmumof3]

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/mcmaster-researchers-to-identify-who-gets-sick-with-covid-19/
 

it will be interesting to see if this study turns up anything interesting.

looking into whether Microbiome of the airways impacts severity of covid infection 

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext?utm_campaign=tlcoronavirus20&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
 

the latest hydroxychloroquine study.  A multi registry analysis 

still not a randomised trial but they did control for more severe illness bias to some extent.

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

Interferon is a lot more nasty than HCQ.  I know several people that took interferon, they fared horribly (but it worked for what they were using it for, but all kinds of horrible side effects.) I have known probably 100+ people taking HCQ for a few weeks to a month (Air Force deployments).  No one ever had any major problems, a few of those 100+ had mild stomach/bathroom issues.  

My husband took it for a trip to India...it really messed him up. Dizzyness, lightheaded, stomach pain, diarrhea, nausea, etc. 

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Which begs the question, if we are interested in catching infection early on in those with the most exposure, such as healthcare workers and family members of someone with a confirmed positive illness, why in the world **** aren't we treating *most* people with the HCQ cocktail?!?  We know that it really dampens viral replication.  We know it is a drug with a low risk profile.  It's inexpensive and relatively well tolerated by the vast majority of people.  Why, why why, why, why?!?!?!?!  

Or how about this?  HCQ as the choice for most people, but under their doc's guidance, provide interferon as an alternative?  

Argh.  (I'm not expecting you to answer this, Ktgrok.)

The study quoted above has this, which seems a good reason to go slowly with this (and they did control for baseline disease severity, and excluded anyone given the medication more than 48 hours after diagnosis, or anyone on a ventilator when given the medication)

After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223–1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368–1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218–1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273–1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. 

[TCB]

14 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Which begs the question, if we are interested in catching infection early on in those with the most exposure, such as healthcare workers and family members of someone with a confirmed positive illness, why in the world **** aren't we treating *most* people with the HCQ cocktail?!?  We know that it really dampens viral replication.  We know it is a drug with a low risk profile.  It's inexpensive and relatively well tolerated by the vast majority of people.  Why, why why, why, why?!?!?!?!  

Or how about this?  HCQ as the choice for most people, but under their doc's guidance, provide interferon as an alternative?  

Argh.  (I'm not expecting you to answer this, Ktgrok.)

I just read a study in another thread and I wondered what your thoughts on it were Halftime Hope since you seem to be up to date on HCQ. I'm going to try and put a link below in case you haven't been on the other thread. I've read so many conflicting things I now feel completely confused!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/

ETA After I posted I saw it had already been posted.

Edited May 22, 2020 by TCB

[cabercro]

Has there been any discussion around this treatment protocol? It popped up on my Facebook page today - curious to know your thoughts.

 

Using an inhaled steroid (Budesonide) to treat COVID symptoms:
https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/local/local-doctor-believes-he-has-found-silver-bullet-for-covid-19/513-8cd065d2-dbb5-4814-9cdd-5bb0dae77703?fbclid=IwAR12_5nHYng0wqmgvnVfs7y_S83oVuFQ7VS41RwAmxq_1zDSmMfyknS_yuQ

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, cabercro said:

Has there been any discussion around this treatment protocol? It popped up on my Facebook page today - curious to know your thoughts.

 

Using an inhaled steroid (Budesonide) to treat COVID symptoms:
https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/local/local-doctor-believes-he-has-found-silver-bullet-for-covid-19/513-8cd065d2-dbb5-4814-9cdd-5bb0dae77703?fbclid=IwAR12_5nHYng0wqmgvnVfs7y_S83oVuFQ7VS41RwAmxq_1zDSmMfyknS_yuQ

I would have thought they were treating people already with inhaled steroids....is this one not usually used or something?

Edit: ok,so this is pulmicort/symbicort....those are very widely used in my understanding, for people with any kind of airway issue. So if it was that great, I'd think we'd see more people saying so? I think even one of the board members here who has/had Covid is using it?

Edited May 22, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Halftime Hope]

3 hours ago, TCB said:

I just read a study in another thread and I wondered what your thoughts on it were Halftime Hope since you seem to be up to date on HCQ. I'm going to try and put a link below in case you haven't been on the other thread. I've read so many conflicting things I now feel completely confused!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/

ETA After I posted I saw it had already been posted.

 

Good question!  First, this is just out, so honestly, I am dependent on hearing what doctors say about it, since I really have no professional qualifications. There are studies that look good, but then peer review happens:  I don't have that expertise.   (I CAN ask good questions, and I have a rudimentary understanding of biochemistry. )

Second, I have no idea why the French added AZ to the HCQ cocktail, and after that, many institutions ran with it.  I am repeating what the toxicologist on the JAMA interview said: that AZ (and I think similar drugs) have a risk on their own of causing heart arrhythmias, so they should be watched closely when given in conjunction.  So, I guess, the finding doesn't surprise me?   Also see this:  https://files-profile.medicine.yale.edu/documents/7801c631-3dcc-48fc-a438-3aa18f3b7130  Yale's protocol, which includes NOT giving AZ in conjunction with HCQ, because (p. 5) "Combination of HCQ and azithromycin and atazanavir can increase the risk for QTc prolongation."

Another question on this:  they included hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, combined, in their analyses.  That's not helpful, lumping the two together.  We know that chloroquine is a much more toxic drug, has a much higher risk profile.  Someone needs to question that logic.  This is a retrospective study, they can absolutely break out the two patient groups.  How did the HQC patients do? And following on the first paragraph, what about JUST HCQ + zinc without AZ?  How did those patients do in the hospital? 

For HCQ to work, it has to be given early, and it doesn't work by itself, it works with zinc, because it seems it's the zinc that inhibits the viral replication, and HQC is the ionophore that transports it.  Zinc also changes the pH, so there are concurrent mechanisms for efficacy.   Did all the studies include zinc, or were some of them only HCQ, or worse, CQ? 

I'm looking forward to the double-blind studies, and I hope someone has been doing a study with an outpatient cohort; that's what I'm most interested in.  What happens when it's given early before people have so much organ damage?  What makes me ask that question is the rather remarkable success of this being used in a nursing home in Texas.  They had one patient (patient zero) die, and of everyone else who tested positive for SARS2, residents and caregivers, 39 were given the cocktail, and it sounds like only one person went to the hospital.  (It's unclear if she was patient zero or someone else.)   The residents are all elderly patients with co-morbidities.  You'd think, statistically, some of them would have had a heart episode.  It makes you wonder:  was the doc also giving everyone Vit D?  (LOL!  Just kidding!)  So many questions!  It's very interesting how this was reported.  Some reports are all over this guy for experimenting on people who couldn't give consent! Some are applauding him for taking swift action, and saving so many lives!  (It's sadly very politicized!)  

For patients who are hospitalized, I'm really, really looking forward to the studies on leronlimab, a CCL5/RANTES blocker.  https://www.cytodyn.com/newsroom/press-releases/detail/426/manuscript-describes-how-cytodyns-leronlimab-disrupts  This has multiple applications, including for triple-negative breast cancer.  OMgoodness, that would be so wonderful to have something that would help those patients!  Apparently, it has a very, very good risk profile.  Sadly, it's new, probably expensive, and will have limited availability.  If you want to hear more about it, there is a good interview on YouTube with Dr. Yo, Dr. Mike Hansen, and Dr. Patterson.  

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Halftime Hope

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, Plum said:

 "It doesn't appear to be inducing negative outcomes in live-born infants, based on our limited data, but it does validate the idea that women with COVID should be monitored more closely."

This increased monitoring might come in the form of non-stress tests, which examine how well the placenta is delivering oxygen, or growth ultrasounds, which measure if the baby is growing at a healthy rate, said co-author Dr. Emily Miller, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Feinberg and a Northwestern Medicine obstetrician.

"Not to paint a scary picture, but these findings worry me," Miller said. "I don't want to draw sweeping conclusions from a small study, but this preliminary glimpse into how COVID-19 might cause changes in the placenta carries some pretty significant implications for the health of a pregnancy. We must discuss whether we should change how we monitor pregnant women right now."

The placentas in these patients had two common abnormalities: insufficient blood flow from the mother to the fetus with abnormal blood vessels called maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) and blood clots in the placenta, called intervillous thrombi.

In normal cases of MVM, the mother's blood pressure is higher than normal. This condition is typically seen in women with preeclampsia or hypertension. Interestingly, only one of the 15 patients in this study had preeclampsia or hypertension.
 

Placentas from COVID-19-positive pregnant women show injury

My daughter is due on Oct 6.  Thank God she is in a lower caseload area than we are here.  Sigh. 

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, Plum said:

 

The placentas in these patients had two common abnormalities: insufficient blood flow from the mother to the fetus with abnormal blood vessels called maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) and blood clots in the placenta, called intervillous thrombi.

In normal cases of MVM, the mother's blood pressure is higher than normal. This condition is typically seen in women with preeclampsia or hypertension. Interestingly, only one of the 15 patients in this study had preeclampsia or hypertension.
 

Placentas from COVID-19-positive pregnant women show injury

This seems consistent with all the other clotting and vascular problems we are seeing in people with this. Another reason why the "if you aren't 70 yr old it isn't a big deal" is so wrong. We don't know what is and isn't a big deal yet. 

[EmseB]

Has someone already posted about this Chinese vaccine trial?

Even if the Chinese get a vaccine first I feel it is going to be a hard sell with the rest of the world given the amount of junk they've been exporting as far as fake PPE, faulty tests, etc. Add on to that the normal anti-vax conspiracy stuff and it would be a mess I think.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31208-3/fulltext?utm_campaign=tlcoronavirus20&utm_content=130016419&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-374651963469

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

Put the words "Oxford vaccine" into your search engine and limit the search to the last 1-2 days.  Choose the news source you trust, and read about the latest Oxford vaccine's probability for success and the reasons behind that probability.

 

 

Are you talking about how the virus is disappearing in the UK or about how it failed in the animal trials?

[Pen]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/coronavirus-vaccine-update-oxford-vaccine-enters-the-advanced-trials-and-icmr-find-hcq-effective-expands-its-use/articleshow/75916631.cms

[The Governess]

Remember a couple months ago there was a study saying that people with blood type O were less likely to have Covid symptoms (or less likely to have severe symptoms)? I was wondering if any more research had been done on that (not really) and came across info that people with A and B blood are around 50% more likely to have blood clotting issues than those with O blood. That’s a big difference! And since they are finding blood clots in the lungs of Covid patients, and with the Covid toe thing possibly being clotting-related also, maybe there is something to it?

[JennyD]

Good summary of various vaccine candidates.

[Pam in CT]

3 hours ago, JennyD said:

Good summary of various vaccine candidates.

Thanks for this.

This quote is summarizing Adrian Hill of the Oxford development effort, but the point applies equally to *all* of the vaccine approaches being pursued.  The most critical reason why vaccines take so freaking long to develop and take through the clinical trial process, compared to other drugs/treatment regimens, is that ordinarily once you get to Phase II and Phase III you can test the drug in people who actually have the disease/condition. If it's a new RA drug, you give it to a control group and a test group who actually have RA.

With a vaccine, you have to just wait as your trial participants wander around, until you can be confident that  a statistically sufficient number of both the control and the test groups have actually been exposed to the disease.  When the disease is newly emergent (as COVID) and its prevalence is massively uneven in places we know not where (as COVID) then it takes a crazy-stupid length of time before developers and regulators can *really* be statistically confident that the trial participants have *really* been exposed.

And SIP measures/ distancing/ cautious behavior based on individual risk assessment slows that always-lengthy process even further:

Quote

Hill's other point was what should be an obvious one, too: you want to do those Phase II trials in a population where the virus is actively spreading, in order to get the best data about whether your therapy actually protects people. In countries where public health measures (lockdowns, masks, social distancing and all the rest of it) have cut down on viral transmission, this gets harder. We may well have to chase the virus from area to area, country to country, to do the best vaccine trials. Then again, if we have opened back up too quickly, as some fear, we might have plenty of places to test in – we’ll just have to wait and see. The problem is that setting up these trials takes some real time and organization, and it will be hard to guess where the best places to run them will be, so far in advance.

 

The only real way to vastly fast-track this process is to design challenge trials -- whereby (presumably well informed and fully consenting based on full understanding of the risks; there are clear ethical issues)  trial participants -- in both the control and trial groups -- intentionally expose themselves to the virus.  If developers *know for sure* that both the trial group and the control have had sustained exposure to the virus, the efficacy of the potential vaccine can be compared in just a few weeks. 

It is extremely rare for researchers even to contemplate this path -- particularly in cases like COVID (or ebola) where there are no good treatments for trial participants who get sick.  But precisely because this global public health crisis will precipitate a global economic crisis as well, researchers and health authorities are considering it here. As a desperate measure to fast-track a process that would otherwise take 18+ months.

 

So if folks really believe the virus is NBD, and really view opening up and getting the economy moving as the top priority.... one way to actually invest that courage productively at scale is to consider participating in a challenge trial.  It is not yet definite that regulators here or in other nations will allow them but it looks like the urgency of the crisis is leading them that way.

[Pen]

@Ausmumof3 posted this study on the long thread.  It seems extremely important to me and I know not all of the people reading this thread read the long one:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.24.111823v1.full.pdf

 

 

 

 

Here’s a related article:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3086177/coronavirus-uses-same-strategy-hiv-dodge-immune-response-chinese

 

“

The novel coronavirus uses the same strategy to evade attack from the human immune system as HIV, according to a new study by Chinese scientists.

Both viruses remove marker molecules on the surface of an infected cell that are used by the immune system to identify invaders, the researchers said in a non-peer reviewed paper posted on preprint website bioRxiv.org on Sunday. They warned that this commonality could mean Sars-CoV-2, the clinical name for the virus, could be around for some time, like HIV.

Virologist Zhang Hui and a team from Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou also said their discovery added weight to clinical observations that the coronavirus was showing “some characteristics of viruses causing chronic infection”.

”

[TCB]

4 hours ago, JennyD said:

Good summary of various vaccine candidates.

This is a really informative overview of the vaccine's in development. The comments below the article were interesting too.

[The Governess]

 

https://elemental.medium.com/coronavirus-may-be-a-blood-vessel-disease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

[Pen]

36 minutes ago, lovelearnandlive said:

 

https://elemental.medium.com/coronavirus-may-be-a-blood-vessel-disease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

 

Mandeep Mehra?  Same guy as is against HCQ? How interesting. 

 

[BeachGal]

Chest CT scans were often negative in a small study of 30 children (10 months to 18) who had Covid infections.

https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/ct-findings-of-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-in-children-often-negative

*******

Oxygen-ozone (O2O3) clinical studies going on in Italy and Spain. The US is going to start one, too, but I can't find the study at the moment. IIRC, I think it's going on at University of Miami and will involve two autohemotherapies per day for three(?) days. I'll try to find it.

You can find some of the interim results that have been written up in Italian and Spanish newspapers. Results have been very good even when used as a last-resort.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04366089 (Italy)

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370223 (Spain)

An article from Italy explaining their rationale for using O2O3:

https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/ozone/article/view/9014/8692

*******

A preprint about possibly using super infection therapy (SIT) to mitigate Covid infections:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202002.0147/v2?mc_cid=c5a20d4b34&mc_eid=55a9ab58e1

*******

A 2017 article about endosomal NOX2 oxidase as an antiviral therapy. Anyone know more about this?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00057-x

Edited May 31, 2020 by BeachGal

[EmseB]

Plum, that paper looks like it was written before the end of March? Am I reading that wrong? Is it just commenting on stats up to that point? And what we knew about the disease up to that point?

Honestly, it seems impossible to make the kind of estimations they are asserting.

Edited June 9, 2020 by EmseB

[almondbutterandjelly]

We have had only 3 deaths in our county in Texas due to Covid, and our Infectious Disease guy has made a video discussing how he treats patients.  It's very interesting.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HjaGJvDA64

It's called Covid 19 Treatment Simplified.  Basically, he uses oxygen support, plasma with antibodies in it from recovered patients, steroids for the inflammation of blood vessel endothel-something, and blood thinners.  It's been very successful here.

[Laura Corin]

BBC News - Coronavirus: Dexamethasone proves first life-saving drug
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061281

 

[ktgrok]

On 6/10/2020 at 8:48 PM, perkybunch said:

We have had only 3 deaths in our county in Texas due to Covid, and our Infectious Disease guy has made a video discussing how he treats patients.  It's very interesting.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HjaGJvDA64

It's called Covid 19 Treatment Simplified.  Basically, he uses oxygen support, plasma with antibodies in it from recovered patients, steroids for the inflammation of blood vessel endothel-something, and blood thinners.  It's been very successful here.

All but the steroids (not sure on that one, maybe?) are pretty standard here from what I'm reading. I am reading that which steroid may matter. 

[ktgrok]

A mutation that may explain the higher rate of infection in some communities than others - the mutation makes it more stable, and possibly 4 times more infective. 

https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/20200612-choe-farzan-coronavirus-spike-mutation.html?fbclid=IwAR1TqHD-vdTehYfCUU6-l_4wT31cGzXAb-r5MS1bZLWfl0zSPB9zHEKACVQ

[BeachGal]

Why some are developing blood clots AND a potentially promising drug already used for gout. The risk for blood clots lasts for awhile in some, possibly because their bodies’ level of the peptide Alpha defensin is remaining elevated. A drug that could lower it would be fantastic.

https://www.israel21c.org/hadassah-researchers-find-source-of-corona-blood-clots/

Quote

 

Hadassah researchers pinpoint source of corona blood clots

Blood samples from Covid-19 patients showed sicker patients had a high concentration of Alpha-defensin, a peptide involved in blood clots formation.

Researchers around the world have been puzzled by a deadly Covid-19 complication: blood clots that can cause swollen legs, rashes and even sudden death.

More than 30 percent of Covid-19 patients suffer from blood clots, which create lethal blockages in the lungs, kidneys, heart and brain.

Dr. Abd Al-Roof Higazi, head of the Division of Laboratories and Department of Clinical Biochemistry at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, has found the mechanism that causes the clots.

Higazi and colleagues published a paper last year in the American Society of Hematology journal Blood about the peptide Alpha-defensin. They discovered that this peptide speeds up the creation of blood clots and prevents their disintegration.

This background helped them understand what was happening to Covid-19 patients because existing anticoagulant drugs don’t impact Alpha-defensin.

“We took blood samples from 80 patients in Hadassah’s Outbreak Department and found a high concentration of Alpha-defensin,” said Higazi. “The sicker the person, the higher the concentration of this peptide.”

Higazi and lab manager Suhair Abdeen are working on a new way to dissolve the blood clots. They are testing colchicine, an oral medication used for gout and familial Mediterranean fever. It has succeeded in reducing Alpha-defensin levels and blood clots in mice.

They are waiting approval to begin human trials.

Higazi said if the drug can dissolve blood clots in Covid-19 patients, it could vastly reduce the numbers of patients needing respirators.

“These patients have numerous blood clots in their lungs, preventing normal blood flow,” he explained. “We can also give it to those with mild symptoms to prevent the development of blood clots.”

 

 

[ktgrok]

That would be HUGE!

[BeachGal]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

That would be HUGE!

 

Yeah! I’m surprised we’re not hearing more about this. Maybe we will soon. Clots are scary stuff especially the freaky kind Covid is causing.

[Laura Corin]

BBC News - 'Do it at home' coronavirus saliva test trialled
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53131237

[Laura Corin]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/23/male-survivors-of-covid-19-asked-to-give-plasma-for-treatment-trials

 

[JennyD]

An Israeli virologist is investigating the claims that the coronavirus is becoming less dangerous.  Her lab is comparing the genomic sequence of the virus in recent infections to those in samples from March.