a reply to: TheRedneck
Oh, I absolutely agree. Its why I am so adamant that science is a process rather than some divination of Ultimate Truth. The peer review process
should be highly critical, whether we agree with the findings or not. I believe thats how we learn, as we chip away and start to see a bit of the
underlying structure. The next study we do, in any given field, should take that criticism on board. That refinement is, imo, the process that we
should be married to.
A lot has been thrown around regarding HCQ. From my understanding, I look at it mostly as a zinc ionophore. In that respect, I am solely looking at an
antiviral with possible tangential benefits. For other parts of the progression, I believe there are better options. Even as a Zinc ionophore, there
may be better options. I dont believe it is a critical medication for seasonal viruses, but the mechanism at play could be. However, HCQ has the
"social weight" behind it to actually drive medical science in that direction, instead of the current cycle of patents and profits. Thats a serious
consideration for me, personally.
To truly test it in that capacity with the least amount of variables, we would need to test the progression of the virus itself for the first 3-5
days, actually eschewing disease progression. At least every day, ideally constantly and in real-time (not feasible).
The first stumbling block there would be the PCR tests. They identify a relatively short genetic sequence (200-300) that may, or may not, correctly
isolate a virus. Itd be like looking for "squares." Sure, those squares may be part of the virus, but they can be seen elsewhere too. Given the
amplification nature of the tests, this may exacerbate the issue even further. With your EE stuff, Im sure you are well acquainted with how
amplification can affect a signal. Particularly when the shape we are looking for in that signal is ~1% (!! 200-300 vs 20k) of the total shape of the
thing we are actually looking to identify.
I think those are some serious issues before we even look at specific methodology of a study. Even if we were looking for the full genetic sequence of
20k, we would still
have to expect errors, and account for them, when running it through dozens of amplification cycles. I would think that
Mullins (creator of the tests) deeply regretted what he brought into the world.
We run into similar issues with antibody tests; Current data suggests that it is specifically T-Cells that may play the vital role, but testing for
T-Cells is limited at best.
Anyway, this specific study begins to indicate about what I would expect; HCQ may halt or stall replication, which is extraordinarily valuable, but
the virus takes a relatively normal progression beyond that. I also couldnt find doses of the SoC (I probably just missed it), and no serological data
on vitamin levels.
My biggest issue with this study is that it seems to look at one single factor (viral clearance), that I wouldnt expect HCQ to have much impact on
anyway. Then extrapolates that out as a general finding with the very language used to name the study. It does indeed "reduce the fog," technically,
but its not at the crux of the mechanism we need to explore and they dont indicate that at all.
In that respect, I would argue that this study crosses the line from "imperfect" to "deceptive," though probably not intentionally. Most of that comes
from the creative language used in the commentary throughout, as well as the title itself. I like my science dry, tyvm
If I was in charge of things, which I clearly should be (lol), I would test HCQ *explicitly* in terms of viral replication. I would divert a lot of
funding that is currently going to PCR tests into designing a modern
solution that is accurate and actually applicable for diagnostics. I would
also explore the true connection between the disease we call covid and the SARS-CoV-2 virus (we simply assume this to be true, and thats a problem
when we have such significant myopism currently). What if covid is caused by something else entirely, and a novel coronavirus just kicks it into high
gear? Heck, with the issues with the tests.. its possible there is little connection at all.
I would also explore other ionophores as well as other methods to affect cell membrane potential. Could a manufactured EMF have the same effect, or
possibly even a TENS unit type device? In the same vein, explore how we might be able to leverage that beyond just zinc and beyond solely an antiviral
application. Id also put funding towards the detrimental effects of the EMF of all of our technology. Its frustrating that that is dismissed so
readily, in spite of immense amounts of data.
I would also explore cytokine storms in general. I believe corticosteroids are the most effective tool we have, but there might be better. Id also
encourage the study of natural proteases like lumbrokinase in regards to general blood issues, but specifically epithelial health.
Not like what I say is going to have any impact whatsoever, but none of the aspects I feel are critical are being explored or examined at all. As far
as I can tell, the study linked by puzzled is the best we have gotten this year. And, it appears to only examine one of the lesser possible benefits
of HCQ and frames it with creative language as well as assumptions that may not be true in sections like the introduction.
I know these posts are long, but I feel like this stuff is very, very important. Even if what we are talking about never penetrates the segments of
society that it needs to.. we miss 100% of the shots we never take. So, might as well add it into the milieu on the very, very slim chance that it
makes a difference.
Maybe a benevolent AI will take it on board ;P