Jump to content
45Doll

NIH on Chloroquine with... SARS in 2005?

Recommended Posts

The Virology Journal - the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health - published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading - get ready for this - “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.”

So how come he's left out that little detail in 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been told that Chloroquine works, is generic, and cheap. Dr. Fauci has recently appeared to be pushing Remdesavir, which is expensive, and is also a big proponent of creating a vaccine. I think there is going to be lots of money made out of this pandemic, and it won't be made from treating with Chloroquin!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it

Official names have been announced for the virus responsible for COVID-19 (previously known as “2019 novel coronavirus”)

and the disease it causes.  The official names are:

Disease 

coronavirus disease 
(COVID-19)
 


Virus 

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 
(SARS-CoV-2)

 

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus

(SARS-CoV)

^A gift from China in2002.^

It would appear that Covid 19 is simply SARS Corona Virus #2   The drug, when given at early to mid

stage seems VERY effective.

Waiting until the victim is near death before giving the drug and then reporting it does not work is MURDER!

  If Obama was President today, Chloroquine, would have been used at early to mid

stages and healthcare workers would be taking it to prevent the disease. The Country would have

NEVER closed down!

Donald Trump IS President and MANY innocent people HAVE DIED AND WILL CONTINUE

TO DIE FOR POLITICAL GAINS FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pasu0115 said:

I have been told that Chloroquine works, is generic, and cheap. Dr. Fauci has recently appeared to be pushing Remdesavir, which is expensive, and is also a big proponent of creating a vaccine. I think there is going to be lots of money made out of this pandemic, and it won't be made from treating with Chloroquin!

Already proven not as effective as claims were made and side effects of the higher doses than traditionally used made it too dangerous to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

 

Donald Trump IS President and MANY innocent people HAVE DIED AND WILL CONTINUE

TO DIE FOR POLITICAL GAINS FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY! 

Your formatting is still off.

But I'm glad you think your degree in internets makes you smarter than medical professionals and molecular biologists and virologists who have devoted their lives to dealing with this stuff.

  • FacePalm 1
  • Disagree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Your formatting is still off.

But I'm glad you think your degree in internets makes you smarter than medical professionals and molecular biologists and virologists who have devoted their lives to dealing with this stuff.

Just goes to show...no amount of education can teach someone to admit they are wrong...epic fail kiddo.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 45Doll said:

“Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.”

So how come he's left out that little detail in 2020?

It wasn’t  left out-that early research is why chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine were tested against the new Coronavirus.   There was reason to think they might be useful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 10X said:

It wasn’t  left out-that early research is why chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine were tested against the new Coronavirus.   There was reason to think they might be useful. 

It WAS found to be very useful in EVERY COUNTRY BUT OURS!

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Ummmm  incorrect.....the condition is COVID 19...THE VIRUS IS SARS-CoV-2

Colloquially, SARS refers to the specific strain that was from 2003. COVID 19 is not that strain. So just because they are both severe acute respiratory syndromes doesn't mean they are the same thing and that the same treatment would automatically work.

1 minute ago, matty said:

Proof? Got any Gyorgy?

https://www.wired.com/story/the-info-war-over-chloroquine-has-slowed-covid-19-science/

Sums up the whole thing and how ridiculous the hype was despite there only being anecdotal, unproven evidence being used to tout it as a miracle drug. Sweden had to stop because people were going blind on the drug. In Brazil, they had to stop people people developed dangerous heart conditions. There's a large study with lower doses than what were used in Brazil but still higher than what people take it at for malaria or lupus. But as of yet, there's no legit studies showing that it works on COVID-19. 

1 minute ago, JohnnyB said:

It WAS found to be very useful in EVERY COUNTRY BUT OURS!

Except where it nearly killed people or made them go blind or didn't prove to help or make it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greenday said:

Colloquially, SARS refers to the specific strain that was from 2003. COVID 19 is not that strain. So just because they are both severe acute respiratory syndromes doesn't mean they are the same thing and that the same treatment would automatically work.

:/

 

i guess you better let them smart people know....  they seem to disagree with you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To use your own words.... I'm glad you think your degree in internets makes you smarter than medical professionals and molecular biologists and virologists who have devoted their lives to dealing with this stuff.

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greenday said:

Colloquially, SARS refers to the specific strain that was from 2003. COVID 19 is not that strain. So just because they are both severe acute respiratory syndromes doesn't mean they are the same thing and that the same treatment would automatically work.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-info-war-over-chloroquine-has-slowed-covid-19-science/

Sums up the whole thing and how ridiculous the hype was despite there only being anecdotal, unproven evidence being used to tout it as a miracle drug. Sweden had to stop because people were going blind on the drug. In Brazil, they had to stop people people developed dangerous heart conditions. There's a large study with lower doses than what were used in Brazil but still higher than what people take it at for malaria or lupus. But as of yet, there's no legit studies showing that it works on COVID-19. 

Except where it nearly killed people or made them go blind or didn't prove to help or make it worse.

"Proof" from one of your house organs, Georgie? Methinks not. Lets see some hard data, hm? "Wired". what a joke you and your ilk are. Uneducated and uncouth and unknowing. Begone, you boorish flapdoodle!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

:/

 

i guess you better let them smart people know....  they seem to disagree with you.

 

 

They already know. They also know it'd have to be studied instead of just claiming it works and recklessly dosing it on people.

SARS-COV-1 was the 2003 virus

SARS-COV-2 is today's virus.

They are not the same. What part confuses you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

To use your own words.... I'm glad you think your degree in internets makes you smarter than medical professionals and molecular biologists and virologists who have devoted their lives to dealing with this stuff.

Every time someone responds to Greenday an angel dies.. soo think about it.

i have no idea why he’s allowed to run amuck. My theory is clickbait 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

Every time someone responds to Greenday an angel dies.. soo think about it.

i have no idea why he’s allowed to run amuck. My theory is clickbait 

I have been ignoring the bastard for a very long time but it does me no good since his idiotic posts are quoted by others!

He is allowed to run amuck because nobody here has the the good sense or balls to ban his troll ass! He runs the board, not the mods!:mad:

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Greenday said:

They already know. They also know it'd have to be studied instead of just claiming it works and recklessly dosing it on people.

SARS-COV-1 was the 2003 virus

SARS-COV-2 is today's virus.

They are not the same. What part confuses you?

Lol, I am not confused in the slightest....

The problem however is the person that thinks they are the smartest person in the room - far too often isn't - even though they think and pontificate like they are. 

Find a mirror, go stand in front of it look at your reflection and read the above statement.

 

From a johns hopkins white paper....

SARS-CoV-2 Genetics Updated April 16, 2020 Key Findings for Public Health •

The outbreak was initiated from either a single introduction into humans or very few animal-to-human transmission events. •

SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 use the same cellular receptor, ACE2, which could be used as a starting point for creating therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2. Background Coronaviruses, including the pneumonia-causing novel coronavirus currently known as SARS-CoV-2, are enveloped, nonsegmented, positive-sense RNA viruses. Coronavirus genomes have some of the largest genomes among RNA viruses, with approximately 25-32 kilobases.1 The typical CoV genome includes a 5’-cap, 5’-untranslated region (UTR), open reading frames, a 3’-UTR, and 3’-poly(A) tail. The first two thirds of the genome typically codes for nonstructural proteins from 2 open reading frames that form the replicase complex. The last third of the genome encodes primarily structural proteins.2 There are 4 conserved structural proteins across CoVs: the spike (S) protein, membrane (M) protein, envelope (E) protein, and nucleocapsid (N) protein.1 The S protein is responsible for binding to host cell receptors and viral entry to host cells. The M, E, and N proteins are part of the nucleocapsid of viral particles. SARS-CoV-2 Naming In a paper published early in the pandemic,3 viral sequences collected from the earliest patients were assessed and compared to known viral sequences. Sequence analysis of 11 samples found that SARS-CoV-2 is in the same species as SARS-CoV; the 2 viruses are 94.6% similar in amino acid sequence (80% nucleotide sequence similarity) across the genome.3 However, other studies from early in the outbreak do not consider the viruses to be the same species, as they differ by more than 10% in the replicase genes.4 In February, the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses officially named the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The CSG analyzed viral genomes from several patients and assessed phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships between the new virus and known coronaviruses. The committee found that the genome of viruses isolated from patients was similar enough to SARS genomes to be considered a variant of SARS, not an entirely novel virus. While the clinical presentation, epidemiologic patterns, and host range of SARS-CoV-2 may differ from the original SARS-CoV, it is the genetic similarity between the 2 viruses that is used to conclude they are the same species. For this reason, the CSG has named SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 as variants of the species known as Severe acute respiratory syndrome– related coronaviruses. The name SARS-CoV-2 is distinct from the name of the disease, which the WHO has officially designated COVID-19.

(end)

Given the fact that they are so closely related and share quite a lot, while genetically they are related they are different to a degree.

Given that HC and C, were considered for sars-cov, it is not unreasonable to think you couldn't apply it to sars-cov2.

Additionally, usage of it as a last resort is not the place to use it, some have determined.  It has better results when used earlier...

By then clotting is tje major cause of organ failure, or so has been reported.

 

Stop being intentionally obtuse..... and a dolt.

I work with young folks like you daily, and they far often than not make asses of themselves.  No matter how much paper you hang or letters you place after your name, it cannot give you common sense.

 

Now go find some blocks and play, adults are speaking 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

I have been ignoring the bastard for a very long time but it does me no good since his idiotic posts are quoted by others!

He is allowed to run amuck because nobody here has the the good sense or balls to ban his troll ass! He runs the board, not the mods!:mad:

He doesnt run SHIT!  His posts are typical liberal drivel.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awkward Silence GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

@Greenday  No amount of the size of the 'love me' paper wall, makes up for certain things.  

 

So to re-cap are you smarter than the folks at John Hopkins that wrote the above whitepaper - and/or are they wrong?

So just admit you are wrong and that the statement you made 11 hours ago - was just troll baiting.....go on, it won't hurt - it might even be cathartic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to grasp your point, Greenie. It appears that you are saying the coronavirus is not related to... the coronavirus? Therefore something that worked against the coronavirus will not work against the coronavirus.

That's sort of like saying if you shoot a dalmatian and it dies, there's no reason to expect that if you shoot a poodle it would die, too.

You're a toerag. 

Clown GIFs | Tenor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

 He runs the board, not the mods!:mad:

It's the people who respond to his posts who keep him here. As I've said numerous times if everyone were to stop responding to him he will go away. He just here to troll and he has fooled many members into taking the bait over and over again 

  • Agree 3
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 10X said:

It wasn’t  left out-that early research is why chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine were tested against the new Coronavirus.   There was reason to think they might be useful. 

I'll take your word for it. But I have NOT seen this report or its contents on the use of HC or C with SARS mentioned anywhere at any time by any one in voice or print until yesterday. Either expert or amateur. And I've watched and read a lot more than I would have liked.  Every time that I heard it mentioned it was as an anti-malarial and 'a number of other conditions'. If anyone has an example where this report and/or its facts were brought forward publicly prior to yesterday I'd like to see it.

And more to the point, as soon as TRUMP mentioned HC/C more than half the Democrat media complex went off the deep end to prove it couldn't possibly be of any use. If you watched Ingraham last night coincidentally you saw a glaring example of the contrast in attitudes. 

That was the point of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspirin was researched and synthesized by a scientist at Bayer in 1897.  They had no idea how it worked, but the anecdotal evidence proved it was effective in treating pain, inflammation, reducing fevers and useful as a blood thinner. Aspirin was prescribed and available otc for 73 years before it was discovered how it actually works.  In 1971, a research professor at the University of London finally solved the mystery of how this marvelous drug works.  They already knew it worked, it had been working for a long long time, but now they knew.

Aspirin is directly responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people annually in the US alone.  It is not safe for everyone, but it indisputably alleviates suffering and saves far more lives than it takes.  When prescribed by a physician who is aware of the specific conditions under which aspirin is safe and unsafe, the drug is a net gain.

The moral of the story:  If it works, use it.  Figure out how it works later.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

I'll take your word for it. But I have NOT seen this report or its contents on the use of HC or C with SARS mentioned anywhere at any time by any one in voice or print until yesterday. Either expert or amateur. And I've watched and read a lot more than I would have liked.  Every time that I heard it mentioned it was as an anti-malarial and 'a number of other conditions'. If anyone has an example where this report and/or its facts were brought forward publicly prior to yesterday I'd like to see it.

It may not have been mentioned in voice or print outside the scientific community.  So I'd call the news 'public, for a small group of people, but unknown to most folks'.  The press would have had to dig pretty deep to find the references to HC or C as an antiviral--and I don't see them doing that--but within the virology community it was known.  The publication in The Virology Journal in 2005 wasn't even the first time the antiviral activity was called out.   This publication The Lancet has references citing the antiviral activity going back to at least 1983  Antiviral Activity of Chloroquine  Those are some high-profile publications, and I assume they prompted additional work over the years, though like the press, I'm not bothering to dig more deeply.   :-)

The articles in Virology and elsewhere are why C was one of the first things tested against the new coronavirus.  Pharma companies have libraries of millions to tens of millions of compounds stored away.   Most didn't do a damned thing useful when they were synthesized as part of some drug discovery effort or other--but they are useful to test when you start the next new drug discovery effort.  But where to start?  Even the best high-throughput screening program is going to take a lot of time to churn through 10 million compounds.

So the process worked pretty much like this, at every pharma company on the planet, starting in March, give or take a few weeks:

1) Test everything we have that has shown activity against any coronavirus  (C and HC turned up here)

2) Test everything we have that has shown activity against any virus  (Tamiflu, remdesivir, and a few others turned up here)

3) Test everything we have that was made as part of a program to develop antivirals, even if it didn't work against other viruses

4) Test everything else we have in the library; try to figure out some logical order for it, so you test the most promising molecules first

5) Start synthesizing new molecules for testing, incorporating what was learned from steps 1-4

I think every pharma company on the planet completed 1) within a couple of weeks, and I think all were done with 2) and 3) sometime in April.  So now everyone is working on 4), which has a low likelihood of success, but you gotta try, and 5), which has the most potential to deliver an effective drug, just not anytime soon.

 

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...