Corona 2020
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
3-Drug Antiviral Cocktail Significantly Decreases COVID-19
A Phase II clinical trial out of Hong Kong found that a three drug-antiviral cocktail significantly decreased median time to a negative SARS-CoV-2 test compared to controls. In fact, it shortened it from 12 days in the control group to seven days. The control group received only a protease inhibitor, AbbVie’s Kaletra (lopinavir-ritonavir), while the cocktail group received Kaletra, nucleoside analogue ribavirin, and injectable interferon beta-1b (Bayer’s Betaseron; Novartis’s Extavia). The study was published in The Lancet. A total of 127 patients were studied, with 86 receiving the combination and 41 in the control cohort.
In an accompanying editorial by Sarah Shalhoub, of Western University in London, Ontario, she noted that because most of the studies to date have been retrospective or observational, “this prospective, [randomized] controlled design adds notable value to the growing evidence on treatments. This study presents a step towards finding a much-needed therapy for [COVID-19].”
The authors wrote, “The median number of days from symptom onset to start of study treatment was five days. The combination group had a significantly shorter median time from start of study treatment to negative nasopharyngeal swab (7 days…) than the control group (12 days….) Adverse events included self-limited nausea and diarrhea with no difference between the two groups.
https://www.biospace.com/article/-research-roundup-3-drug-cocktail-decreases-covid-19-and-more/
A Phase II clinical trial out of Hong Kong found that a three drug-antiviral cocktail significantly decreased median time to a negative SARS-CoV-2 test compared to controls. In fact, it shortened it from 12 days in the control group to seven days. The control group received only a protease inhibitor, AbbVie’s Kaletra (lopinavir-ritonavir), while the cocktail group received Kaletra, nucleoside analogue ribavirin, and injectable interferon beta-1b (Bayer’s Betaseron; Novartis’s Extavia). The study was published in The Lancet. A total of 127 patients were studied, with 86 receiving the combination and 41 in the control cohort.
In an accompanying editorial by Sarah Shalhoub, of Western University in London, Ontario, she noted that because most of the studies to date have been retrospective or observational, “this prospective, [randomized] controlled design adds notable value to the growing evidence on treatments. This study presents a step towards finding a much-needed therapy for [COVID-19].”
The authors wrote, “The median number of days from symptom onset to start of study treatment was five days. The combination group had a significantly shorter median time from start of study treatment to negative nasopharyngeal swab (7 days…) than the control group (12 days….) Adverse events included self-limited nausea and diarrhea with no difference between the two groups.
https://www.biospace.com/article/-research-roundup-3-drug-cocktail-decreases-covid-19-and-more/
Link below.
University of Washington finally getting around to doing a large-scale, early intervention study of hydroxy and azithro. Although I don't see that they are including the zinc. Why I don't know. One more thing to quibble about I guess.
I will just let the results come in as they come in and take it from there, but in the meantime I will say that in the event that the study show that early use of hydroxy is substantially beneficial - ie. versus when applied to seriously ill patients- then I would imagine that would have implications for resdemsivir as well. Resdemsivir showed moderately positive results but - as with some of the hydroxy studies- it was given to seriously ill patients. I want to see what it looks like when applied earlier. These drugs work allegedly by reducing viral replication so I let's see what it looks like when applied before the virus has replicated to the max. Anyway, my point is that if hydroxy has poopy results late in the game but shows good results upfront when used for early intervention, then one might be hopeful that resdemsivir would work better in early-intervention mode too. Don't know yet.
Not to get too far into the weeds, but I have a bit of an uneasy feeling about resdemsivir. It is designed as and used as an antiviral, yet it did not show any actual reduction in viral load compared to the control group, so they concluded that it was beneficial but the mechanism of action remains unknown. Hmmm. People complain about hydroxy because Trump promoted it and that we need to see more. That's fine. But I say the same about resdemsivir. Fauci is promoting it or the study results but that is because he/the government did the study in house by the NIH according to Fauci's liking. But he has his own agenda he is working too. So I need to see more resdemsivir study to get hyped up about it. And antiviral should be showing a reduction in virus compared to the control group. DUH. You could argue that "what difference does it make" if the patients are still showing shorter recovery times, and I am somewhat game for that argument, as long as it is replicated in a larger study population than the first one.
In God we trust, but all the rest I need to see good study results. That is the message to Trump BUT that is the message to Fauci as well.
Several fairly promising drugs in trials right now though, so overall I think things are looking promising. Probably end out with cocktail mixes as they did with HIV. HIV was almost a death sentence and none of the drugs they use to control it now worked that well, but when they found the right cocktail mix the whole was much greater than the sum of the parts. Much, much greater. With covid you gonna need a drug mix that includes one of the anti-inflammatories in trial to control the cytokine storm thing, along with a couple different antivirals. There is every reason to believe that that can be done fairly soon, by fall or so. That will cut down on the deaths and icu admissions while working on a vaccine.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...ment/281-bd49db99-573c-4e94-b950-2caaa2a5e54a
University of Washington finally getting around to doing a large-scale, early intervention study of hydroxy and azithro. Although I don't see that they are including the zinc. Why I don't know. One more thing to quibble about I guess.
I will just let the results come in as they come in and take it from there, but in the meantime I will say that in the event that the study show that early use of hydroxy is substantially beneficial - ie. versus when applied to seriously ill patients- then I would imagine that would have implications for resdemsivir as well. Resdemsivir showed moderately positive results but - as with some of the hydroxy studies- it was given to seriously ill patients. I want to see what it looks like when applied earlier. These drugs work allegedly by reducing viral replication so I let's see what it looks like when applied before the virus has replicated to the max. Anyway, my point is that if hydroxy has poopy results late in the game but shows good results upfront when used for early intervention, then one might be hopeful that resdemsivir would work better in early-intervention mode too. Don't know yet.
Not to get too far into the weeds, but I have a bit of an uneasy feeling about resdemsivir. It is designed as and used as an antiviral, yet it did not show any actual reduction in viral load compared to the control group, so they concluded that it was beneficial but the mechanism of action remains unknown. Hmmm. People complain about hydroxy because Trump promoted it and that we need to see more. That's fine. But I say the same about resdemsivir. Fauci is promoting it or the study results but that is because he/the government did the study in house by the NIH according to Fauci's liking. But he has his own agenda he is working too. So I need to see more resdemsivir study to get hyped up about it. And antiviral should be showing a reduction in virus compared to the control group. DUH. You could argue that "what difference does it make" if the patients are still showing shorter recovery times, and I am somewhat game for that argument, as long as it is replicated in a larger study population than the first one.
In God we trust, but all the rest I need to see good study results. That is the message to Trump BUT that is the message to Fauci as well.
Several fairly promising drugs in trials right now though, so overall I think things are looking promising. Probably end out with cocktail mixes as they did with HIV. HIV was almost a death sentence and none of the drugs they use to control it now worked that well, but when they found the right cocktail mix the whole was much greater than the sum of the parts. Much, much greater. With covid you gonna need a drug mix that includes one of the anti-inflammatories in trial to control the cytokine storm thing, along with a couple different antivirals. There is every reason to believe that that can be done fairly soon, by fall or so. That will cut down on the deaths and icu admissions while working on a vaccine.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...ment/281-bd49db99-573c-4e94-b950-2caaa2a5e54a
Last edited:
I would expect to see some vigorous discussion of the Moderna vaccine here somewhere in the five or six threads on Covid, but I can't find it just by looking on a hit and run basis. Lots of threads spread out.
Anyone know why should we not be happy about the development with Moderna. I know the tards can always find reasons to tell is that we are all going to die whenever any good news comes along, so let's get the debbie-downer stuff out and on the table so we can examine it.
I say it is good news. Tards, what am I missing? You are our go-to source for depressing news. What's your best shot here?
Oh I see, you have to have the sky falling for political purposes so optimism is not allowed in your world.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/18/moderna-coronavirus-potential-vaccine-study-tests-results/
Anyone know why should we not be happy about the development with Moderna. I know the tards can always find reasons to tell is that we are all going to die whenever any good news comes along, so let's get the debbie-downer stuff out and on the table so we can examine it.
I say it is good news. Tards, what am I missing? You are our go-to source for depressing news. What's your best shot here?
Oh I see, you have to have the sky falling for political purposes so optimism is not allowed in your world.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/18/moderna-coronavirus-potential-vaccine-study-tests-results/
Actually there are multiple threads and posts on Moderna recently... here is one thread...
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/warp-speed.344934/#post-5103016
Yeh. that's the problem separate thread for one post. I would think that it would fall within one of the other ten covid threads.
Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed
A paper published on 30 January in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) about the first four people in Germany infected with a novel coronavirus made many headlines because it seemed to confirm what public health experts feared: that someone who has no symptoms from infection with the virus, named 2019-nCoV, can still transmit it to others. That might make controlling the virus much harder.
Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”
But now, it turns out that information was wrong.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...matic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong#
A paper published on 30 January in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) about the first four people in Germany infected with a novel coronavirus made many headlines because it seemed to confirm what public health experts feared: that someone who has no symptoms from infection with the virus, named 2019-nCoV, can still transmit it to others. That might make controlling the virus much harder.
Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”
But now, it turns out that information was wrong.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...matic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong#
interesting but this paper came out January 30th and also said "The fact that the paper got it wrong doesn’t mean transmission from asymptomatic people doesn’t occur."
The point is symptomatic people are more likely to sneeze and cough and spread the virus.
However someone with no symptoms still can release saliva when they speak or touch their hands to their mouth and shake hands with someone else so this paper is not really reaching any real conclusion here.