Remdesivir ain't gonna work unfortunately

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: gusamaso

Great work! Read in the context of this potentially bias personnel the Lancet study needs a large pinch of salt.

It's also known that HCQ is zinc ionophore, so zinc can interrupt RNA replication and transcription when present within a cell but it very hard for it to get into and between cells without an ionophore to facilitate the transfer, which in this case is the forementioned HCQ (also quinine).

I’m assuming that RNA replication is what the cell is supposed to be doing, but the virus hijacks that process, tricking the cell into replicating the virus instead. So my question is:

Does Zinc only halt the replication of the virus, or does it halt replication period?

If it halts all replication, then is there a biological price for taking prophylactic zinc with an ionophore for an extended period? If the zinc is stopping all cell replication does this have a detrimental side effect?

Finally, I’ve been taking 10mg Of zinc with 500mg of Quercetin as the ionophore daily for a couple months hoping it has some prophylactic benefit. Are you familiar with quercetin and do you have any thoughts on this?

Cheers

In this post...simply replace the word "virus" with Pleomorphic Bacteria and you will be on track....for there is no such thing as a virus as you have been taught....its a massive lie.Impacts caused by this Pleomorphic Bacteria have ben hi-jacked and attributed to a fictional non-existant idealism called a "virus".....its BS.

a reply to: one4all

Sorry, that is simply untrue. Virus are not pleomorphic bacteria. There is no such thing as an RNA only bacteria.

originally posted by: gortex
...

If Trump is taking the drug , and it is a big IF , ...

I recently found out where that talking point came from:

Ridiculous talking point and distraction from the things that matter the most:

Plus the things I already mentioned concerning HCQ's well-proven and well-established effectiveness in relation to Covid-19, if used in the right manner with the right combinations of substances, i.e. quality care vs "horrible care" (quoting from the end of the video above).

Where's the quality care in your Lancet marketing/sales-pitch report? Why no outpatient statistics? See my other commentary for what I mean with "quality care" and "outpatient".

The nurse in the video is a true heroin. She pretty much threw away her career prospects in health care though; which she may be naive enough for not to even have realized. While most of the rest remains quiet and obediently follows the protocols from the people they admire and trust regarding this subject, thinking these authorative figures (or people with clout) are on the side of humanity on this one, and not corona (for profits and future career advancements, and because of caving to pressure of those already benefitting, which even includes those big corporations hoarding all the corona economic aid, the media, politicians, materialist health care workers that are careerjunkies, scientists and researchers, bureaucrats and bureaucrat scientists, etc. not just Big Pharma).

a reply to: whereislogic

I recently found out where that talking point came from:

The talking point comes from Trump's inability to tell the truth , if he says he's doing something it's right that claim is taken with a pinch of salt due to his history of lying.

Where's the quality care in your Lancet marketing/sales-pitch report? Why no outpatient statistics?

Dunno , guess it's just fake news.

a reply to: gortex
Yes, yes, I'm quite familiar with the 'boy that cried wolf a few too many times'-routine that you seem to have fallen for hook, line and sinker. Spoke about it before in another thread and how it affects the thinking of everyone who is infatuated with the clown-act that Trump puts up to keep your mind busy and distracted from the things that matter most (or more).

For some parties he's the perfect candidate to endorse HCQ and shut down a large portion of the world's population's minds from an unbiased (not cherry-picking, but also not ignoring signs of possible conflict and bias and 'fudging the numbers'- behaviour and taking every so-called scientific publication equally serious, know how to read the fineprint, look at the absolute numbers before so-called "adjusted" numbers, which involve assumptions and complicated formulas to supposedly make better comparisons, but are wide open for manipulation without detailed specification, never mind, getting too complicated now to explain) proper evaluation of what the AAPS appropiately referred to as "clear and convincing evidence of benefit both pre-exposure and post-exposure." "Concerning the use of CQ and HCQ against coronavirus."

It helps if you know a thing or 2 about marketing and propaganda tricks. How to phrase something to give a false impression. How to play opinions as cards of perceived 'scientific' dogma ('oh, we first need a double-blinded randomized clinical trial that is peer-reviewed, otherwise it's no good, or not good enough to come to certain conclusions'; that sort of thing and thinking based on teaching and conditioning according to a system of doing things that gets a bit too much credit and promotion from Big Pharma and those monopolizing the science of medicine, Dr. Raoult says something interesting about it, a clue as to what it is that I'm talking about, which goes a bit deeper than what he says about the development of new treatments vs using old ones "that work"). There is quite a bit more to it, but I'll leave it at that for now.

See what I was referring to concerning Dr. Raoult above in the video below (7:42, but best seen in light of the entire video concerning HCQ, the old, vs Remdesivir, the new; or vaccins, the Japanese HIV drugs, psych drugs that cause QT prolongation, etc., lots of new stuff that doesn't work but gets plenty of marketing, even when it does more harm than good, or more harm than HCQ+Azithromycin or Doxycycline if a switch is needed):

a reply to: gortex

No, not fake news, just a horribly designed study anyone without an agenda would outright dismiss in minutes.

How was it determined which patients in the lancet study got what treatment? Go ready the study and let me know.

a reply to: McGinty

Really solid questions.. And the answer is; we dont really know.

We know that 10mg-15mg of zinc per day is appropriate to help maintain cell signaling, and that it can also be toxic in "high enough" concentrations.

However, how these interact with actual ionophore activity is a bit of a mystery. Particularly with regards to specific organs like the heart. Its funny, because most seem to operate under the assumption that something as basic as "zinc" holds no more mysteries. We have simply moved on to more advanced compounds, I guess.. But there is a frustrating dearth of information with specifics in cell signaling. Zinc deficiency is relatively well studied, particularly with things like the ZENITH study project, and acute zinc toxicity has a decent amount too.. But not much in between.

This is compounded by the pervasive concept of a "universal one-size-fits-all" in modern medicine. That is the end goal of most research, and the basis of many treatments and general perspectives.

That said, while we are learning more about the specifics.. It brings "ye olde worlde knowledge" back into play. Things like "moderation is key," and even treatments themselves. Zinc competes with things like copper for absorption, and the ratio between these things may actually be of much higher significance than the raw numbers themselves. Many ages old treatments and medicines actually end up approaching thus more successfully than pharmaceutical compounds imo.

In this, even the focus on HCQ itself may be a bit of a red herring. Many zinc ionophores act in much the same way. So, something like a quercetin will increase ion action, but it also operates as an immunomodulator. As for the ionophore activity specifically, there hasnt been much work in that regard, but there is this. Like most things like this, it requires some type of special access for the whole deal. Or "alternative measures"

People want drugs though, period, so HCQ is a good option in that regard. Either way, actually measuring things like Zinc in the patient would be.. prudent.

As an interesting tangent: There is a good amount of interplay in signalling between Zinc, Calcium, Sodium, etc. Important to note that when we are talking about things like "ionophores," we are starting to talk about subjects like membrane potential & electrical force.

EMFs are starting to be studied with regards to this, and its my own hypothesis that many everyday EMFs (artificial and natural) interfere with any ion channels in our bodies. Due to how all of these interact, it wouldnt necessarily require all of them to be affected to completely throw things out of balance. Particularly over years of exposure.

Many, if not most, still seem to just laugh or dismiss it in much the same way they disregard Zinc, or even Vit C, as a potent treatment. But, alongside factors such as air pollution and vaccines, I believe they are some of the main determining factors in what areas get hit harder than others by viruses.

As another aside.. The spread of viruses by the jetstream is quite a thing. It seems we are all operating under completely outdated principles in so many ways, yet are also disregarding anything of value that might derive from times past..

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
NO at Hydroxycholorquine, and you can't get a better study:

Um that's a registry analysis, it's actually an extremely weak study method. If you only give hydroxychloroquine to the sickest of patients who are closer to death then you are naturally going to have a much higher mortality rate in that group. It's actually pretty crazy they could put that 'research' out with all the holes and weaknesses. It's complete and utter garbage. This is from different countries, different hospitals, different protocols, the more I read it the more shocked I am they published it.

What's really new anymore? No reason to be shocked. Just more of the same (as the VA marketing report, or the NEJM marketing reports; the one better dressed up than the other).

Ecclesiastes 1:9,10

What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?

It already existed from long ago;

It already existed before our time.

"Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping." (2 Peter 2:3)

originally posted by: one4all
Wow....4,460.00 a pop?....compared to 13.00 a pop?...……..that's sure one Hades of a Gap.....all these things do is kill bugs.

The main reason why Hydroxychloroquine is so cheap is because its been around for 70 years. Because of that it is not effective against older strains that have mutated past it, so in reality it is not really used much anymore except for nuevo viruses that have not developed strains past it effectiveness which can be extremely good and has been over 70 years, also has about the same side effects as aspirin or even less.

originally posted by: gusamaso
Some of these studies are designed to fail. It's been known since february/march that the treatment must be done in the beginning of the onset of symptoms (or as prophylactic). It's also known that HCQ is zinc ionophore, so zinc can interrupt RNA replication and transcription when present within a cell but it very hard for it to get into and between cells without an ionophore to facilitate the transfer, which in this case is the forementioned HCQ (also quinine).

So, most of the studies that don't show promise uses, for instance, imbalanced groups (not randomized), the most ill, more like do die patients to take HCQ, a single drug or 2, and most importantly they always leave the zinc out of the equation. They also don't specificate dose and frequency used in the study group. Not to mention flawed research methodology.

Let's take this study as example:www.medrxiv.org... #disqus_thread

The subjects assigned to the HCQ and HCQ+AZ treatment groups had the most severe disease and were predictably more likely to die. The authors even admit that subjects treated with "....hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease." This represents subject selection bias and introduces a serious confounding effect that essentially renders the study meaningless.

Conveniently, the authors also ignored the fact that despite all the selection bias and over weighted disease burden in the treatment groups, the NO TREATMENT group was TWO TIMES more likely to require mechanical VENTILATION (compared to those that received HCQ + AZ). The risk of ventilation was 6.9% in HQ+AZ group and 14.1% in the no-treatment group.

The research methodology was "retrospective cohort analysis". Basically, the researchers selected cases from data found in the VA medical record system.

Last but not least, some authors have conflict of interest likely to bias their work. Jayakrishna Ambati, is listed as the inventor on a University of Virginia patent application “relating to COVID-19.” One of the study’s co-authors, S. Scott Sutton, has taken research grant money from Gilead Sciences, which is currently developing a Coronavirus drug that is likely to be much more expensive than Hydroxychloroquine (remdesivir).

Here in Brazil the protocol has been used for a couple of months already in the private hospitals, and now it's been used in public as well. Some mayors (even those opposing the president) are coming forward to show they're emptying ICUs using the protocol with patients in the early stage of the disease.

We can never ever underestimate the power of Big Pharma. They transformed a very safe drug into poison overnight.

Tru dat.

"Love is patient and kind. . . . It does not brag, does not get puffed up, . . . , does not look for its own interests, . . . It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth." (1 Corinthians 13:4-6)

Thanks for bringing me great joy (that's the literal definition for "rejoicing", not sarcacm as it may sound in today's world and the way people talk to each other most of the times when they are ridiculing someone else's viewpoint).

Maybe we could all do well by re-watching the movie "The Fugitive", to get some clues how this materialistic system of things works when it comes to the conflict of interest with bureacrats, scientists, researchers (and their publishers), physicians, surgeons, and other influential figures in the health care sector, Big Pharma, regulatory institutions or organizations (like the FDA, CDC, etc.) and politics.

That movie isn't far off from pointing out some crucial things regarding 'how it works'.

In closing, I'd like to end with a phrase from the NYC nurse whose video I used earlier:

"Buck the system!"

Much better on a T-shirt than 'End the Lockdown'.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yes, yes, I'm quite familiar with the 'boy that cried wolf a few too many times'-routine that you seem to have fallen for hook, line and sinker.

Do you deny he has a history of lying ?

a reply to: gortex
No? Uh, lol, wasn't that obvious from the way I said that already? I'm confused, and somewhat amused. I know I can often be quite cryptic, sorry for that. It's an attempt to make complicated matters of the mind sound a bit more simple. A way of giving clues for another to figure out the rest and for themselves (also often when I've elaborated on the subject before, often in another thread, and don't want to explain in detail again, just hoping people will run across it one day if the short description wasn't useful).

It's not an easy thing to come to the realization one has been duped if the scam is very well set up and controlled + influenced by a Master Deceiver with thousands of years of manipulating humanity, refining his art.

Here's where I spoke about 'the boy who cried wolf a few too many times' and the related routine before:

my comment in the HCQ thread with "Trump" in the title.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Two theories on that:

1. It's not the HCQ that does anything to the virus. It's an enabler. What really works against the virus is intracellular zinc. The HCQ enables the body to intake more zinc into the cells where it inhibits viral reproduction. The reduced viral loads let the immune system more effectively fight off the disease.

2. As to reducing the inflammatory response ... well, with a cytokine storm, it's the body's inflammatory response that kills, not the virus. In an outbreak of novel disease, like the coronavirus, the immune system can sometimes go into overdrive and produce a pronounced inflammatory response that can end up killing you. If HCQ acts against this, then it can also improve your chances of survival by inhibiting a runaway inflammatory response.

a reply to: whereislogic

No? Uh, lol, wasn't that obvious from the way I said that already?

Obviously not , the meaning seemed quite straightforward to me.

It's not an easy thing to come to the realization one has been duped if the scam is very well set up and controlled + influenced by a Master Deceiver with thousands of years of manipulating humanity, refining his art.

It's not easy because it's not true it's a matter of religious opinion , the magic has no effect on nonbelievers.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: one4all

Sorry, that is simply untrue. Virus are not pleomorphic bacteria. There is no such thing as an RNA only bacteria.

Viruses are pieces of inert dead cast-off material surrounded by an antibody capsule....you are severly misguided no matter how educated you feel you are or how valid your bastardised evidence happens to be and I say bastardised because you have been misled and are inherently WRONG from step one....the rest is useless debate.I do not blame you nor accuse you I simply pity your inability to think for yourself.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Many thanks for your detailed and articulate reply. There’s a lot for a layman like myself to digest and comprehend, but I’m trying. I’ll read through your link and hope to glean something with my limited knowledge; it’s been a steep learning curve for me since the emergence of corona in January.

For what it’s worth I’m in agreement about old wisdom being naively maligned. Big pharma has convinced us all to laugh at such remedies in favour of their more profitable drug strategies. The current potential Madagascan remedy scandal that’s brewing is a prime example (the WHO trying to bribe the Madagascan president to contaminate the remedy).

I also firmly believe that future generations will look back at our proliferation of wireless tech before proper anecdotal research can be done much the same as we look back in disbelief at the proliferation of asbestos in the 20th century.

However, I’m just as bad with the proliferation of supplements I’m now consuming to try and protect myself from the virus (around 11 different pills p/day) without any real knowledge regarding their dose, effects and relationships with each other. But I need to put up a fight of some kind - to be proactive rather than simply hope for the best.

a reply to: McGinty

Im a layman too, just maybe a bit further down the line

Maybe thats the perspective thats needed though? When working in areas that I do have expertise, I would constantly consult with "layman" and their input was absolutely invaluable. It challenged me to put it in different terms, and their perspective constantly gave insight that I would never have gained myself.

Its kinda easy to start getting every supplement though, eh?

Intuitively, I feel that we should focus on diet first, then supplementation as needed, then more serious compounds, then things like vaccines. We kinda go in reverse..

Stuff like quercetin can be had through broccoli, EGCg through green tea, etc.

Tea preparation can be a whole thing unto itself as well, which starts to bring in more esoteric aspects. Thats a good thing, imo, but maybe not for everyone.

I strongly believe baseline health should be front and center right now, but it isnt. That one aspect alone would probably make more of a difference with The Virus than anything, and would also have much, much more far reaching benefits.

Either way, absolutely not a doctor, but the regimen I put together for when starting to get sick is:
500mg quercetin/ 1xday
~750mg Vit C/ 2xday
50mg Zinc/ 1xday
1,000iu Vit D/ 2xday

Its a 7 day regimen, and I have it ready to go in one of those weeklong pill containers. I will take it the moment I start to get sick, but otherwise just focus on diet. The doses are all relatively low, but I think they are spot on if getting the proper stuff from diet, sunlight, etc. These four things cover a lot of bases from oxidative stress to specifically targeting viral replication (like Remdesivir/HCQ/Avigan/etc), and also interact with each other quite strongly. Again, not a doctor But, there is loads of research out there, both specific to SARS-CoV and more generally.

Things like artemisia annua are potent too, but it seems it can interact negatively with antioxidants like Vit C, so would be best either before or after the 7 day regimen. If necessary at all.

Id love to see some sort of full blood panel that covers all vitamins & minerals, including the obscure ones. Then we could actually design a diet catered specifically to ourselves easily, also taking into account region (cloudy places might need more Vit D). I also feel the more of this food & medicine we can grow ourselves.. the better. Both from a self-sufficiency standpoint and esoterically.

Personally, Ive been in a strange position during all this to try out a lot of different stuff for immune problems. But, Ive also been exceptionally careful to make sure I can tell what is actually working and what is not.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: one4all

Sorry, that is simply untrue. Virus are not pleomorphic bacteria. There is no such thing as an RNA only bacteria.

Viruses are pieces of inert dead cast-off material surrounded by an antibody capsule....you are severly misguided no matter how educated you feel you are or how valid your bastardised evidence happens to be and I say bastardised because you have been misled and are inherently WRONG from step one....the rest is useless debate.I do not blame you nor accuse you I simply pity your inability to think for yourself.

Sorry but no, there is no such thing as an RNA bacteria. Virus are not pleomorphic bacteria.

a reply to: ketsuko

HCQ's function as a zinc ionophore (that which lets zinc into the cell) is a nice bonus in the treatment for Covid-19 but it's not the key function of HCQ.

The key functions of HCQ in relation to Covid-19 are that:

- it increases the Ph level within your cell (effects: a lower acidity in the cell inhibiting viral replication, especially certain steps of viral replication within the cell)

- it changes your cell membrane (effect: inhibiting the corona virus from getting into the cell, keeping healthy cells healthy; this is what gives it its prophylactic function as well)

- it changes the ACE2 receptor (effect: inhibiting the corona virus from binding with the ACE2 receptor, and thus getting into the cell; this is what gives it its prophylactic function as well and together with the cell membrane change, it's true power against Covid-19)

- it functions as a zinc ionophore, allowing zinc into the cell to inhibit viral replication (a nice bonus, but there are other zinc ionophores that are less toxic and available over the counter, inhibiting viral replication is not as effective as preventing the virus from even entering the cell)

- it has anti-inflammatory effects in relation to the cytokine storm (details I forgot, because this information is more important for physicians treating Covid-19 patients that are approaching the cytokine storm; and it's not a key function, it's another nice bonus)

For details see the video further below by Dr. Been who discusses the first 4 functions from 2:15 - 5:41, don't watch any other part of the video (the other things in the video are misleading, especially if you haven't seen Dr. Raoult's response to the VA report that he's talking about, so I'll link that one first, just in case anyone can't resist watching that anyway besides my warning):

So only watch 2:15 - 5:41 below, unless you think you can handle misleading information about the VA report, referred to as "scientific fraud" by Dr. Raoult above (it's not that Dr. Been doesn't admit some flaws to the VA report, but he's not telling the whole story, possibly because he hasn't realized what Dr. Raoult has realized and is explaining above):

Pardon the misleading title as well, that's just copy-pasted from the news articles about the VA marketing/sales-pitch report.