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.

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci Must Be Fired (2005 Chloroquine Study) ....updated

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   
What I am getting from this thread is that the OP thought vitro was the same as vivo and is saying that people should take the drug before they are infected.




posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Why would that be what you got from this thread?



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


That's not prophylaxis.
It is postexposure prophylaxis. Says so right there in the study.
en.wikipedia.org...

But according to the in vitro results, it shouldn't matter.

Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection.


edit on 8/1/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You keep going on about it being taken as a prophylactic. That is something you take to prevent a disease. So obviously you are talking about taking the drug before a person is infected. The vito vivo thing I infer because you went back and changed your post and it looks like you caught your mistake and didn't want to be emabarrased. The second part is my intuition the first is entirely based on your posts and word choice.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I changed grammar and spelling. I made no such edits as you suggest.

You're just making asinine accusations in what is up to now a rational debate.

edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: Edited out an "a" don't wanna be accused of anything by another jackass



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Fauci is nothing less than a traitor. He should expect consequences.




posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again, I'm not saying I know better. I'm saying there are flaws with that study that could significantly change the results.

The prophylactic attributes of Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are well documented and other studies have shown significant results when combined with zinc and azythromycin in hospital outcomes. Remdezivir seems to be promising as well.

EDIT TO ADD:

It also appears that there's been a lot of politically-motivated suppression as it pertains to this drug. Combined with Dr. Fauci's behavior I find the whole fiasco duplicitous and suspect a profit motive behind the politicization of hydroxychloroquine.

edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Controlled and blinded studies are the only way to determine if a treatment is effective. The documentation of which you speak is highly lacking in such studies. It consists mostly of retrospective studies or meta-studies of retrospective studies.

Such studies can be useful in the design of controlled studies but they cannot replace them. Nor can in vitro studies be used to claim that a treatment is effective.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


But, but, SARS-COV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19...the disease. SARS-COV-2 has only been assessed after 2005, although it may well have been around a decade later and perhaps assessed before 2020, proof of that will be hard to come by.

So the SARS-COV in the 2005 tests with Chloroquine, is not the same virus, this extract from a different source, 'Cell Entry Mechanisms' tells you that,

'These clinical features indicate that SARS-CoV-2 evades the human immune surveillance more effectively than SARS-CoV does.' in other words, SAR-COV-2 doesn't hang around in getting into the cells, and spreading itself.

So you can take it from there, and see what you can find vis-à-vis SARS-COV2 and Chloroquine.

www.pnas.org...
edit on 1-8-2020 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:52 PM
link   

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:
Virology Journal



Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results
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.

Conclusion
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:

NIH 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.


More to the point, here is a discussion of a recent study (reported a few days ago) that explains why the study that was done in 2005 on the SARS CoV-1 virus is irrelevant to the question of the effect of CHQ on SARS CoV-2, today:

www.dw.com...

In brief, the in vitro study that was done in 2005 used a particular cell line called "Vero" which derives from kidney cells from Green Monkeys. SARS CoV-2 enters humans primarily through the lungs. The Vero cell line does not contain the particular enzyme that would allow the current SARS CoV-2 virus to enter lung cells. In the words of one of the researchers, "Although monkey Vero cells are useful for many cell culture experiments, they are unsuitable for in vitro experiments with the new coronavirus, says Markus Hoffmann, an infection biologist who also worked on the study."

The article goes on to say, "...researchers decided to conduct their experiments on a human lung cell line called Calu-3 to find out whether chloroquine has the same inhibitory effect here [on SARS CoV-2 virus]. After all, the novel coronavirus mainly finds its way into the human body via the lungs.
"The virus docks on the cell in the lung, is then activated by the protease TMPRSS2 and can thus enter the cell," explains Hoffmann. While chloroquine shows an inhibitory effect in the monkey cell model, it has no effect on the protease in human lung cells. "Here, it was shown that chloroquine does not prevent the virus from entering the cells," said Pöhlmann."

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.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Fair enough.

I suppose if I complain about a flaw in one argument I should accept the ones in mine.

However, I would say that hospital outcomes analysis might point to success of at least the cocktail of the drugs mentioned if not just simple HCQ on its own.




Such studies can be useful in the design of controlled studies but they cannot replace them.


With regard to controls, some of that seems to be an issue with the study you mentioned as well. It's not just the fact that 30% of the incubation period was allowed to occur before administering HCQ, it is also the age groups involved and other risk factors brought up in the NIH analysis of the study.

That said, I can't say on my behalf, that meta-analysis of hospital outcomes, no matter how close they get to the patient, is the same as a double-blind study. So with that, I will await further results.

On Politics:
I still maintain that Anthony Fauci has been significantly less than forthcoming with regard to therapies, how the virus spreads, or what we should do in the interim. I still maintain he should be fired and view him as nothing more than a political operative in a position that requires empathy and compassion.
edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

What is the point then of you talking about the drug as a prophylactic. If you didn't mean it as being preventative medicine then why use that word?



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: 1947boomer




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.


Thanks I just read the article.

Seems the data of the new study on which cells it enters points to chloroquine having no effect in the lungs. So the data is essentially useless and this whole debate was pretty much for nothing.

Oh well. I learned something today.

Thanks for the post.
edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I'm done with you.

This is my last reply to you. Go away now, your purpose here is now moot.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

When you asked me why I thought something I answered honestly and straight forward. I asked you a simple question and you refuse to explain.

Why would you refer to a drug as a prophylactic if you do not see it as preventative medicine?



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I have requested that this thread be moved to the HOAX bin or another more appropriate forum.

The data provided by 1947boomer pretty much rendered this whole thread moot.


edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




Why would you refer to a drug as a prophylactic if you do not see it as preventative medicine?


You're lacking reading comprehension. That is not my position at all.


Edit:

Or at least, WAS NOT until new data emerged.

My problem with you is your need to be accusatory. I had no idea you were going to accuse me of some bull# for no reason other than your asinine "inference".

Go away now.

edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 8 1 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I see. I upset yur sensabilities. I will be more gentle to spare your ego next time.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You made baseless accusations.

That makes you an asshole. I don't deal with assholes.



posted on Aug, 1 2020 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

If you look in the mirror you will find a grade A asshole and a snowflake.




top topics



 
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join