I asked my Doctor friend about this. Among other things he studied at John Hopkins. Here is his feedback:
"I can point to about a million studies on HCQ or CQ which suggest both in vitro and in vivo it won't work, in addition to the studies in the clinic showing no benefit in any setting for COVID patients, including as a prophylactic. That substack article is far from rigorous and I wouldn't call what they did "research". They had a conclusion they wanted to reach and wanted to provide an illusion they were unbiased. I've come to learn that people are real bad at both research and critical thinking (including some scientists).
Let's start with this little relevant nugget. VERO cells, which the Virol J 2005 paper relies upon as a model for infection, are not lung epithelial cells - they are kidney-derived. Apparently substack authors neglected this little piece of relevant science - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2575-3
Just from a drug efficacy standpoint, if you don't see in vitro effects at nanomolar concentrations, you're going to be hard-pressed to see any effect in vivo, much less in patients. Notably, even in VERO or other surrogate in vitro models demonstrating anti-entry or anti-viral replication effect upon CQ or HCQ treatment, the effects only appear at micromolar concentrations."
I just can’t help feeling flattened on a daily basis anymore. I don’t even watch cable news anymore. An Xmas gift to myself!! Social Media is like navigating the aftermath of a nuclear bomb drop. Glad someone is attempting to sort through the debris... 😔 Note: There’s a error on the date in paragraph about Milan (July/2021) It’s only May! 😉 Keeping you on your toes!!!
The French microbiologist is not a medical doctor. He had a 91.7% success rate for a disease that some people say has a 99.8% survival rate, do try and get your story straight. In reality it has a 97% survivability, so a 91.7% rate is worse than doing nothing.
Long QT syndrome is a cardiac conduction abnormality not a pulmonary condition.
I asked my Doctor friend about this. Among other things he studied at John Hopkins. Here is his feedback:
"I can point to about a million studies on HCQ or CQ which suggest both in vitro and in vivo it won't work, in addition to the studies in the clinic showing no benefit in any setting for COVID patients, including as a prophylactic. That substack article is far from rigorous and I wouldn't call what they did "research". They had a conclusion they wanted to reach and wanted to provide an illusion they were unbiased. I've come to learn that people are real bad at both research and critical thinking (including some scientists).
Let's start with this little relevant nugget. VERO cells, which the Virol J 2005 paper relies upon as a model for infection, are not lung epithelial cells - they are kidney-derived. Apparently substack authors neglected this little piece of relevant science - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2575-3
Just from a drug efficacy standpoint, if you don't see in vitro effects at nanomolar concentrations, you're going to be hard-pressed to see any effect in vivo, much less in patients. Notably, even in VERO or other surrogate in vitro models demonstrating anti-entry or anti-viral replication effect upon CQ or HCQ treatment, the effects only appear at micromolar concentrations."
Another article that support HCQ as an alternative treatment (with Zn, plus).. https://assets.website-files.com/606d3a50c62e44338008303d/6076fe1361cd5d631ecb0a32_White-Paper-on-HCQ-2020.2.pdf
Dr. Gold explain standard of care & how it was violated during the "pandemic".
I just can’t help feeling flattened on a daily basis anymore. I don’t even watch cable news anymore. An Xmas gift to myself!! Social Media is like navigating the aftermath of a nuclear bomb drop. Glad someone is attempting to sort through the debris... 😔 Note: There’s a error on the date in paragraph about Milan (July/2021) It’s only May! 😉 Keeping you on your toes!!!
The French microbiologist is not a medical doctor. He had a 91.7% success rate for a disease that some people say has a 99.8% survival rate, do try and get your story straight. In reality it has a 97% survivability, so a 91.7% rate is worse than doing nothing.