It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Admits He Takes Hydroxycloroquine

page: 14
36
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2020 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Look for this medication to become a schedule 1 substance in ~20 or so states




posted on May, 28 2020 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Can we not just swap Hydroxychloroquine and bring back Methaqualone?

Problem solved, to some degree at least.



posted on May, 29 2020 @ 11:02 AM
link   

What I'd like to know is whether or not quinine can do function nr.4 of HCQ and CQ explained in the video above, in any reasonably comparable manner given it's increased toxicity over HCQ (in other words, can you still take enough quinine for that effect to be somewhat useful). Of course, HCQ would be preferred, being so much less toxic, invasive, or harmful and therefore being able to be taken in larger quantities, but HCQ is completely blocked from access. Quinine however is freely available in somewhat decent quantities in supplements (200mg if following the recommended daily dose on the label) in my country.

Function nr.4 is the main function for prophylaxis (also referred to as the "third point" at the end of the video).

This video is from April 18, 2020; I wonder if it's also a new product, the quantities of quinine per capsule (recommended usage 3 capsules per day) are much higher than I thought supplements had. I already knew the quantity of quinine in tonic water was severely reduced some years ago and that it became a prescription drug, in the US at least, I figured that was the same in my country. Apparently not (depending on the quantity perhaps, but 200mg is not far of from the 300mg tablets sold by prescription; Plaquenil/HCQ comes in 200mg pills):

Whoever wrote the post below seems to think that quinine does do all the same things as CQ/HCQ (CQ less toxic than quinine, HCQ less toxic than CQ), but if you look at the scientific article referred to as [4], it's actually only associating the mechanism in relation to sialic acid and the ACE-2 receptors with CQ and HCQ, they don't actually spell out that mechanism specifically for quinine, as he describes it below:

I'm not recommending anything, just passing this along from another post that seemed to have some understanding of how quinine (and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine work).
...
Quinine acts against malaria by targeting its purine nucleoside phosphorylase enzyme (PfPNP) [3], but it has other effects in the body which act against coronavirus.

Namely, it targets angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) [4], interfering with sialic acid biosynthesis [4]. SARS, MERS and Covid-19 use sialic acid moieties as receptors, so quinine (and its synthetic counterparts) prevent viral attachment to cell receptors. [whereislogic: the main function for prophylaxis]

Hydroxychloroquine / Chloroquine / quinine can also act on the immune system through cell signalling and regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines. [4]
...
[4] New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19? - ScienceDirect

Source: Information on quinine, etc....FWIW | CRMD Message Board Posts

Now if you'll note, that article [4] only talks about the mechanism of action of CQ and HCQ, not quinine. So can anyone help me figure this out? Is the person who said the above (remember it's copy-pasted from elsewhere, so it's actually 2 persons running with it there) right or wrong about quinine? Plus the other questions I already asked that I'm wondering about. Any help woud be appreciated (please spare me the media or Big Pharma talking points and arguments if you feel the urge).

It's a bit ridiculous that the health care system, the bureaucracy, politicians, the government, Big Pharma and the media backing their play, are forcing me to go with the more toxic and less effective version of this substance. Still sounds a lot better than doing nothing and waiting until it's my turn to get my free prize of permanent lung damage, courtesy of the system of things (and people not taking this seriously enough by means of media conditioning, being unnecessarily careless and unwilling to make even the most minor of adjustments to mitigate the risk of spread. By design again).
edit on 29-5-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2020 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
What a surprise, another negative marketing/sales-pitch report. More to follow, as predicted.

All produced by scientists who were quiet about the blatant bias and scientific fraud concerning the VA study, providing evidence that none of their publications can be trusted in the future.
...
And as also predicted before, the newer reports will be much better at giving the appearance of being legit and having no conflict of interest compared to the VA study (which almost looks intentional, the VA study was so blatantly corrupt and deceitful, that any negative report about HCQ thereafter looks like a scientific gem of integrity in comparison, even though it's just more of the same, but dressed better), where almost halve the scientists on that study are known to have received funding from Gilead or otherwise have significant financial ties with Gilead (Remdesivir).

Here's the last time I responded to another one of these attempts to present these marketing/sales-pitch reports under the marketinglabel "Science":


originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Grimpachi
...
The New England Journal of Medicine (your source of publication) has lost all credibility. Anyone who thinks they've got something worth your while to publish, check out the 2nd video of Dr. Raoult for a response to the NEJM and their behaviour in terms of scientific integrity and honesty vs a conflict of interest with Big Pharma pulling the strings.

From the piece you quoted yourself, as if you don't even get how such a negative marketing/sales-pitch report works:


Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine...


Basically the same trick as the VA study. ...


originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Phage

Here's my prediction [edit: expectation] regarding the ongoing (mostly) government-funded clinical trials ...:

Each and every one will paint a negative picture on HCQ's already well-established and proven effectiveness both as a prohylaxis and treatment of Covid-19 (more so when optimized with ...).

... How can I know ahead of time that none will send out the message that HCQ has clear benefits (that outweigh any minimal risks concerning QT prolongation, i.e, ventricular arrhythmia*)? Even though frontline experience and honest statistics have already shown clear benefits in spite of all the denial that we already have sufficient data and don't need manipulated so-called "randomized clinical trials" that are really better described as marketing/sales-pitch reports once they are published (again by publishers who said nothing about the VA study akin to what Dr. Raoult had to say about it)? Why is NEJM still in business publishing so-called "scientific articles"? NEJM = The New England Journal of Medicine (who published something about Remdesivir, as discussed by Dr. Raoult in the video of my longer comment on the previous page, and was also the publisher of the article about HCQ that Grimpachi brought up in another thread, another favorite publication of the mainstream media, in particular on the left).

*: something easily fixed in those extremely rare cases where it does occur, by switching from Azithromycin to Doxycycline, showing that it's not HCQ that is the problem here; not to mention all the other drugs that are prescribed for minor issues that also can cause QT prolongation, psych drugs that often do more harm than good for actual unproven benefits. Used all the time with no one complaining about how dangerous they are.

The NEJM is at it again...now they're arguing that HCQ has no prophylactic value. And of course, the media is quick to jump on board. Not a word about the South Korean prophylactic study with 211 cases that I either mentioned in this thread or another.

My expectation seemed to have been correct.

But I'm wondering, is there any reason someone can think of why anyone should trust any sort of statistics or publication by the NEJM on this subject after the crap they've already pulled, or why anyone should trust the type of scientists, hospitals or doctors whose statistics they are claiming to have published?

Or in other words: Why is the NEJM still in business publishing so-called, so-perceived or so-marketed "scientific articles"? Why do people still take them as a serious scientific source and not a marketing company which they've clearly already proven to be?

Dr. Raoult's response to the NEJM (regarding another article that was published but it's just more of the same, slightly better dressed up, plus more importantly, they haven't been honest about what marketing techniques were used in the article responded to below, showing their dishonesty and lack of scientific integrity, or any integrity for that matter):

General tip: never ever trust anything being published by the NEJM or the Lancet ever again. There is no good reason to as long as they're quiet about the article responded to above and their true motivation for publishing it.
edit on 3-6-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
36
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join