It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is postexposure prophylaxis. Says so right there in the study.
That's not prophylaxis.
Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection.
originally posted by: projectvxn
In 2005, a study published in the journal Virology found that Chloroquine exhibited prophylactic and therapeutic effects on SARS-CoV, otherwise known colloquially as SARS. SARS-CoV is a coronavirus very similar to MERS(Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) and COVID19 (SARS-CoV-2). So since at least 2005 the government has known about the effectiveness of Chloroquine and it's milder and better-tolerated version, hydroxychloroquine on SARS-like coronaviruses.
Here's the study:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
For this reason, I believe Fauci is a liar and part of the swamp. His performance before congress was a disgrace and his washy attitude toward the spread of SARS-CoV-2 via protests is illustrative of this.
For context here's the NIH version of the published study:
Dr. Anthony Fauci is the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the National Institute of Health. I find it very hard to believe that this guy didn't know about this. People's lives could have been saved if not for the floundering on hydroxychloroquine that has proven itself against SARS-CoV-2.
The time to fire that god damned weasel is NOW.
Such studies can be useful in the design of controlled studies but they cannot replace them.
In other words, the studiy done 15 years ago testing CHQ on SARS CoV-1 in monkey kidney cels has absolutely no relevance to the effect of CHQ on SARS CoV-2 in human lung cells.
Why would you refer to a drug as a prophylactic if you do not see it as preventative medicine?