apnews.com
The idea that (hydro)chloroquine would inhibit SARS-Cov-2 infection was initially based on real science. Lab tests showed it could actually work based on Vero (Green Monkey Kidney) cells. Unfortunately, the virus infects lung cells using a path not inhibited by Chloroquine.
Chloroquine does not inhibit infection of human lung cells with SARS-CoV-2 - Nature
Expression of TMPRSS2—a protease that activates SARS-CoV-2 for entry into cells—renders SARS-CoV-2 insensitive to chloroquine.www.nature.com
Do you have a good handy reference to the differences between the Pfizer and Moderna genetic or protein sequence?
Sure, but that doesn’t make it “very VERY iffy pseudo-science”. That description is a bit overblown. For all we know, chloroquine really does inhibit human kidney cell infection. It’s just that the virus can use a different pathway to infect other cell types including lung cells.
One shot of a two dose regimen is not known to provide the same protection that receiving the second dose of the same vaccine engenders, so you're advocating that two half doses of two different vaccines is somehow better than two doses of the same vaccine.
I think he's been pretty clear that he doesn't have evidence for this, but based on some very preliminary data from various studies and what he knows about the immune system works, that's the way he'd bet. I think I'd agree with him, but I know nothing about this stuff, and for myself I'll just get the same vaccine, and if there's ever a booster then I'll have to research this again (but probably the CDC will just tell me the right thing to do).
I wouldn’t risk it personally, but my guess is they are probably pretty close to right about that. But I understand- these are probably not the people who are going to don an N95 mask and eye protection before they go inside. So it is a bit concerning. We need to actually maintain the super-easy measures until we have at least 35-40% of the population fully vaccinated, with much higher vaccination rates in older and vulnerable populations, probably.
Okay, thanks, I’ll go back and dig them
up. Enjoy your vacation!
Sure, but that doesn’t make it “very VERY iffy pseudo-science”. That description is a bit overblown. For all we know, chloroquine really does inhibit human kidney cell infection. It’s just that the virus can use a different pathway to infect other cell types including lung cells.
That’s not to deny that chloroquine was repeatedly oversold for political reasons by Donald Trump and his minions including well after it became apparent that it didn’t work.
“Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro”
BUT WHAT ABOUT HIGH DOSE VITAMIN C THERAPY AND IVERMECTIN?Thanks, I've been so confined to the house for the past year that I quickly turned a lobster-color even with copious SPF 45.
HEK cells are an "immortalized cell line" and have had so many genetic modifications to them that they do not represent much of anything SPECIFIC in the body anymore. They have been made into a "generic human cell" and I used them for years in the lab. They are GREAT for first pass experiments, but the problem with them is results in them do not always translate to other, more specific cell lines, or more importantly into organisms. HEK cells were appropriate for a "first pass" test to see if HCQ has any effectiveness in a test tube, but the lay public and politicians latched onto this like rabid animals and drew VERY inaccurate conclusions from the results, conclusions which no scientist would ever make. In fact that Nature article specifically points out that those results ONLY were valid in vitro (i.e. test tube - cell lines, etc.), and NOT in organisms, as the researchers should have.
Since that paper, there have been dozens of high-quality, randomized controlled trials in humans with HCQ . . . and low and behold it has panned out EXACTLY how it did when we tested HCQ against the influenza virus and other viruses decades again . . . like *sugar*. It doesn't do anything beneficial against ANY virus.
Remdesivir showed more promise early on, but long-term testing is showing that it is only really mildly effective, and probably best taken early in the course of mild disease if there is going to be any benefit.
There is another drug in testing showing promise (don't remember the name), but it still should be viewed as far inferior to getting vaccinated. The vaccines are in about 100 million people now, and have shown incredibility safe side effect profiles. Honestly, modern miracles in the time-frame they were built, tested, and distributed.
BUT WHAT ABOUT HIGH DOSE VITAMIN C THERAPY AND IVERMECTIN?
Are you thinking of bamlanivimab, the monoclonal antibody that does seem to work in patients not sick enough (at that moment) to be hospitalized? Studies suggest it is effective to reduce the severity of COVID in patients who receive it early.
When the authorized and studied regimen for EACH of these vaccines is two doses, giving one of each is giving two half doses. You dispute that?
As you say the regimen is two doses so a single dose is not a half dose. Also the reports that say a single dose is 80% effective don't say a half a dose.
By that logic, one DOSE of chemo should do the trick; those pesky cyclic therapies are just for show. SMH/
