Coronavirus good news thread

Last edited:
Home trial of drugs being rolled out, to see if various drugs can reduce the need for hospitalsation. If you are 50-64 with pre-existing illness, or over 65 and have had symptoms for less than 15 days you can be screened online to see if you can get the drugs.
Would be a game changer if they find an earlier intervention treatment that reduces the number of hospital admissions -

https://pharmafield.co.uk/pharma_ne...l-rolled-out-across-uk-homes-and-communities/
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Home trial of drugs being rolled out, to see if various drugs can reduce the need for hospitalsation. If you are 50-64 with pre-existing illness, or over 65 and have had symptoms for less than 15 days you can be screened online to see if you can get the drugs.
Would be a game changer if they find an earlier intervention treatment that reduces the number of hospital admissions -

https://pharmafield.co.uk/pharma_ne...l-rolled-out-across-uk-homes-and-communities/
Click to expand...
I presume these are not bind trials as it would be very difficult with the disgusting taste of hydroxychloroquinine!

Good to see things like this publicly advertised.
 
Last edited:
bear66 said:
I presume these are not bind trials as it would be very difficult with the disgusting taste of hydroxychloroquinine!

Good to see things like this publicly advertised.
Click to expand...

The trials are initially testing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which unfortunately have had disappointing results announced in the states recently. However, I believe the conducted studies were on patients already admitted to hospital, so maybe the infection was too far progressed for the drugs to have any effect . Presumably this trial is to see if earlier drug intervention can have a positive impact. Fingers crossed 🤞🏻
 
bear66 said:
I presume these are not bind trials as it would be very difficult with the disgusting taste of hydroxychloroquinine!

Good to see things like this publicly advertised.
Click to expand...
I'm a little surprised they're starting new trials of hydroxychloroquine at this stage, especially on older people - in which group its well-known side effects (such as prolonging the QT interval leading to the risk of potentially-fatal heart arrhythmias) are even more dangerous.

I'm even more surprised that they're considering combining it with azithromycin since it is also known to prolong the QT interval, thus exacerbating these dangerous side effects even further.

Medical authorities in several countries (including Sweden, Brazil, USA and France) have advised against using hydroxychloroquine and/or discontinued trials of it before completion because of the adverse effects it was having on the trial participants. No properly-conducted, peer-reviewed study has yet has shown any benefit from hydroxychloroquine, either on its own or in combination with azithromycin. The one French study that did claim beneficial effects has since been roundly condemned as flawed and disowned by the journal that published it.

The French authorities even went so far as to say that the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat CoVid-19:
... would be contrary to medical ethics because the risk (known) is potentially greater than the effectiveness (not established) in an outpatient population which will heal spontaneously in more than 80% of cases.
Click to expand...
 
Liamo said:
I'm a little surprised they're starting new trials of hydroxychloroquine at this stage, especially on older people - in which group its well-known side effects (such as prolonging the QT interval leading to the risk of potentially-fatal heart arrhythmias) are even more dangerous.

I'm even more surprised that they're considering combining it with azithromycin since it is also known to prolong the QT interval, thus exacerbating these dangerous side effects even further.

Medical authorities in several countries (including Sweden, Brazil, USA and France) have advised against using hydroxychloroquine and/or discontinued trials of it before completion because of the adverse effects it was having on the trial participants. No properly-conducted, peer-reviewed study has yet has shown any benefit from hydroxychloroquine, either on its own or in combination with azithromycin. The one French study that did claim beneficial effects has since been roundly condemned as flawed and disowned by the journal that published it.

The French authorities even went so far as to say that the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat CoVid-19:
Click to expand...
I had dreadful side effects with it for malaria and wouldn't touch it. It may have something to do with dosing rates that they think it's safe?
 
bear66 said:
I had dreadful side effects with it for malaria and wouldn't touch it. It may have something to do with dosing rates that they think it's safe?
Click to expand...

My wife takes hydroxychloriquine daily for an autoimmune condition she has and has no side effects, thankfully. Maybe it’s because it’s presumably a low dosage that she’s on. She’s young (32) but will likely be on them for life. It must be considered safe in low dosages for specific roles.
 
hewielewie said:
In the US when Trump announced that Hydroxychloriquine was a lifesaver this happened:

Thank you for your sacrifice
Click to expand...


And yet another trial, done in New York and published just yesterday, found (once again) no benefit from hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin.

It's conclusions were that:
...when using patients receiving neither drug as the reference, mortality did not largely differ for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine alone, or azithromycin alone.

When using logistic models, patients receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, compared to those receiving neither drug, were more likely to suffer cardiac arrest ...
Click to expand...

Hydroxychloroquine does not improve mortality in CoVid-19 patients
 
It remains to be seen whether data is forthcomin next week, but Johan Giesecke stated in a video posted by Alvez yesterday that 98 to 99% of infected people have very mild symptoms. Previously he had estimated 80%. As an advisor to the WHO and former Chief Scientist at the ECDC, he doesn't seem to be someone who would come out with a figure like that unless he has seen data to support it. If it turns out to be correct, it's something of a game changer.
 
borolad259 said:
It remains to be seen whether data is forthcomin next week, but Johan Giesecke stated in a video posted by Alvez yesterday that 98 to 99% of infected people have very mild symptoms. Previously he had estimated 80%. As an advisor to the WHO and former Chief Scientist at the ECDC, he doesn't seem to be someone who would come out with a figure like that unless he has seen data to support it. If it turns out to be correct, it's something of a game changer.
Click to expand...
Would those figures translate to more people being infected and more asymptomatic cases. I know of 1 who is a friend who went for a random test last week because of his line of work and has come back positive. No symptoms at all, not even mild ones.
 
It would mean that the virus is way more prevalent in the population than had been presumed. I'd want to see the figures to be convinced though. It is of course possible that he meant 80 to 90% and that it was a brain fart.
 
borolad259 said:
It would mean that the virus is way more prevalent in the population than had been presumed. I'd want to see the figures to be convinced though. It is of course possible that he meant 80 to 90% and that it was a brain fart.
Click to expand...

Even at 80-90% it would mean many many many millions more have been infected (and recovered) than are aware, which would be absolutely huge. It does go against all present released serology results, however.
 
borolad259 said:
It would mean that the virus is way more prevalent in the population than had been presumed. I'd want to see the figures to be convinced though. It is of course possible that he meant 80 to 90% and that it was a brain fart.
Click to expand...
I definitely think it's been more prevalent in the wider population than they would have us believe. As mentioned on here last night, would scientists be saying it's ok for children to go back to school if they didn't have the evidence to say it was safe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top