Promising results from Oxford /AstraZeneca vaccine – decent sized amount of people – no major side effects – https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext
“Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled into the study and assigned to vaccination with either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534; appendix p 3); ten of these participants were enrolled in group 3, the prime-boost group, and thus were not randomly assigned. 88 participants were included in group 1, 412 in group 2, and 567 in group 4 (appendix p 3). All randomised participants were vaccinated; one participant in the MenACWY group received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (appendix p 3).”
“In conclusion, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was safe, tolerated, and immunogenic, while reactogenicity was reduced with paracetamol. A single dose elicited both humoral and cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2, with a booster immunisation augmenting neutralising antibody titres. The preliminary results of this first-in-human clinical trial supported clinical development progression into ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials. Older age groups with comorbidities, health-care workers, and those with higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure are being recruited and assessed for efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 given as a single-dose or two-dose administration regimen in further trials conducted in the UK and overseas. We will also evaluate the vaccine in children, once sufficient safety data have been accumulated in adult studies. Phase 3 trials are now underway in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK and will evaluate vaccine efficacy in diverse populations.”
Some more promising existing drug options being used for covid – relatively small sample – https://theconversation.com/multiple-sclerosis-drug-may-help-treat-covid-19-and-lead-to-faster-recovery-143090
“In total, 101 patients in a hospital setting were enrolled in the SNG001 trial and were given the drug daily for 14 days. Compared with a placebo, those given SNG001 had a 79% lower risk of developing severe disease.
Patients given the drug were also twice as likely to recover from their infection and were discharged earlier from hospital than those given the placebo.”
“One of the most important side effects of the drugs is that it can induce depression.
As a result, interferon is used with caution in patients with pre-existing depression or who have suicidal thoughts. These conditions may already be heightened by the pandemic if a potential patient for the drug has lost their job or they are not dealing well with the isolation of social distancing.”
Interesting paper from one of the champions of HCQ – James Todaro MD – he has spent quite a bit of time on this matter and I see no monetary value for him to do so other than additional fame from supporters on social media and growing list of haters? Some interesting points in the paper.
“Chloroquine was first shown to have strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection in primate cells back in the 2005 publication Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection.” Vincent, MJ; Bergeron, E; Benjannet, S et al. (22 Aug 2005). "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread". Virology Journal. Retrieved 21 July 2020.
“Hydroxychloroquine was available without prescription in France for years. This came to an end on January 13, 2020, when hydroxychloroquine was classified “in all its forms” as a “list II poisonous substance.” After decades of widespread use, hydroxychloroquine quickly became a restricted substance in France in the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just several weeks later, Dr. Didier Raoult in the South of France would report his landmark clinical trial demonstrating hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy against COVID-19”
“US pharmaceutical industry increased total spending on marketing from $17.7 billion in 1997 to nearly $30 billion in 2016. The strategy was successful with US spending on prescription drugs ballooning from $117 billion to $329 billion during this time. [11] Advertising and sponsorships are a substantial source of revenue for most medical journals comprising up to 80% of publishing revenue for some journals.”
“The Lancet may have chosen satisfying Gilead over scientific truths when it published a fraudulent study showing that hydroxychloroquine increased mortality and lethal arrythmias in COVID-19 patients.
On May 22, 2020, The Lancet published a peer-reviewed, observational study comparing hydroxychloroquine to standard therapy in 96,032 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. [14] Almost immediately afterwards, the WHO suspended all clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine because of safety concerns. [15] Dr. Fauci also commented on the dangers of hydroxychloroquine, telling CNN’s Jim Sciutto that it likely causes "adverse events with regard to cardiovascular."
“The connection between Gilead and the study authors is tenuous. What is known is that both Dr. Mehra and Dr. Sapan Desai (founder of Surgisphere) have openly praised remdesivir in various interviews and tweets. Of note though, Dr. Mehra was one of just a few experts selected to speak at a Gilead sponsored COVID-19 conference live-streamed by thousands of experts worldwide in early April. [21] Without a formal investigation into this affair, it is likely the motivation—be it attention seeking or the meddling of big pharma—will never be fully revealed.
The authors and Lancet were not the only involved parties though. The WHO suspended worldwide clinical trials on hydroxychloroquine based on this study.”
“Gilead helps fund the WHO. Gilead Sciences provided 0.12% of the WHO’s funding for the biennium of 2018-19—more than doubling its contribution from the prior biennium. [22] This may seem like an insignificant percentage, but it’s important to note that China contributed just 0.21%, Italy 0.48% and Spain 0.06% of the WHO’s funding. With the exception of Sanofi, Gilead gave more to the WHO than any other pharmaceutical company. With remdesivir approved as a standard therapy for COVID-19, I suspect Gilead will further increase its contributions to become the largest pharmaceutical donor in the 2020-2021 biennium. While Gilead may appear philanthropic, one must wonder how ethical it is for organizations making global recommendations on therapeutics to receive substantial funding from big pharma.”
“The pharmaceuticals and health products spent $295 million in lobbying efforts in the United States which places it in 1st place in money spent on lobbying. For comparison, the insurance industry and automotive industry only spent $155 million and $69 million in 2019, respectively. [27] In 2019, Gilead spent nearly $6 million in political lobbying efforts. This number is on track to reach record highs in 2020 as Gilead has spent already nearly $2.5 million on lobbying in just Q1 of 2020. [28] The money appears to be well spent. The exclusive NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel that informs US clinicians how to care for patients is occupied by 8-9 experts who have received financial support from Gilead.”
“it is peculiar that some of the most vehement critics of hydroxychloroquine have conflicts of interest with Gilead. Just for example, in the New York Times feature He Was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19, [30] all three scientists (Karine Lacombe, Christine Rouzioux, and Jean-Michel Molina) criticizing Dr. Raoult and his study are either on Gilead’s advisory board and/or received funding from Gilead. [31] [32] [33] Notably, the New York Times article fails to mention these conflicts of interest.”
“Eric Topol, editor-in-chief of Medscape and prominent critic of hydroxychloroquine was formerly on the Scientific Advisory Board for Gilead; George P. Shultz, Stanford University was formerly on the Board of Directors for Gilead (notably also a prominent figure in the scandal of the biotech firm Theranos, continuing to support it as a board member even in the face mounting evidence of fraud.)”
This is has always been a big concern for me – the lasting impact of Covid for the children raised in this time. Lets hope it can be a positive outcome (healthy lifestyle) vs. a future of fear – we need covid/work/life balance – we need to push for healthier lifestyle along with mechanical engineering solutions to reduce viral load so we can get back to our lives…. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/beware-biological-effects-coronavirus-policy-children-165387
“We are concerned because some of the unintended consequences of the public health response to the pandemic are increased stressors for children and adolescents.
These stressors — reduced family income, food insecurity, parental stress and child abuse — can become biologically embedded and negatively impact children’s developing brains, immune systems and ability to thrive. While some effects will be immediate, many will surface decades from now.”
“For adolescents, who need peer interaction to support development, social deprivation and reduced opportunities for social learning are likely to have far-reaching consequences on their development and mental health.”
“Creative and safe plans are required for reopening schools and allowing safe social interactions. These measures will benefit all young people, but a specific focus is needed to support young people most affected by the amplification of social inequalities. In particular, as we emerge from this crisis, more support is required for those who may have experienced child abuse and domestic violence.”
Much like the mask argument – I cant fathom how one can argue not opening up schools – one can argue how to open schools – but to not push for opening up schools is giving up and not using our intellect and it will have significant social impact beyond the education piece. IF we can agree to open school then we can focus on how to open schools in an effective way. Open windows, change schedule to align with outdoor temp, rotation of school population, fans to push fresh air, wear mask, hire and promote healthy staff, assist staff to get healthy, retrain older vulnerable staff to other duties, tune the ventilation to pull more fresh air, install UV filtration system, temperature stations at entrances, so many practical options that do not cost astronomical figures. Ask our inventors and our technology team for their suggestions and help to build devices to reduce viral load….I am so confident Elon Musk, Dyson, Apple engineers, engineering schools etc…can easily tackle this issue – its not rocket science to reduce viral load.
Last few reports we clearly showed NY/NYC was a complete outlier in the US. Below they do get some company(UK, France, Italy, Spain) when comparing to some countries but still an outlier in death per capita. Also lets put it in context that NY declared stay at home orders March 20th – whereas Sweden never did. The first time NY went above 75 deaths as the criteria of the chart below was 3/27/20 – it would seem quarantine did not help NY.
Got a new leader for daily death today – PERU – looks to be a catch up 3887! – how will this data be any helpful in terms of timing with so many just entering block adjustments
US leader in death TX at 183 – FL leads in confirmation at 10.2K
Hidalgo county continues to lead TX in death at 33. The same counties leading the confirmation. A new player is Clark County Nevada at 1152.
The list of 500+ deaths are growing….
