200,000

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 18/09/2020 23:34, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

>From your readings, is this with or without the Zinc, and with or without doxycycline to be taken with Ivermectin, to pump that virus killing zinc into the cells?

The original ivermectin cell culture experiments did not include 
supplemental zinc or doxycycline. I am not aware of any cell culture 
experiments which tested the three drugs together.

> (I ask this because -exactly- the same "problem" was raised re HCQ - the doses required for efficacy were too high, but when combined with Zinc, worked a treat, and you are so far not providing any links.)

I don't know of any believeable reports that say "HCQ [..] combined with 
Zinc, worked a treat". Afaict HCQ therapy doesn't have any effect at all 
on COVID.

I do not know offhand of any reports of COVID cell culture experiments 
with (hydroxy)chloroquine which included supplemental zinc. As of June 
there were none, and I don't know of any since, though there may have 
been some.

(There are plenty of experiments with chloroquine and zinc, but afaik 
all are pre-COVID. There might be some SARS-related CQ/Zn experiments, 
will look if I find time)


There is a protein coded in the ORF1 part of the virus which sequesters 
zinc. We are not certain why, but it is theorised that it is in part to 
reduce the activity of zinc-containing proteins (ZAPs, zinc-finger 
antiviral proteins) naturally in the cells which help protect against 
viruses.


There is good evidence that a lack of zinc lowers protection against 
pretty much all viruses, so... Personally I would include zinc 
supplementation with any COVID treatment regime, as standard.

I also personally take zinc (and vitamin D) supplements.

But there will be (or should be) zinc in normal amounts in standard cell 
cultures, so don't take all this as being too significant.


> Have you checked any of the human-prescribed samples doing the rounds?

Yes, and I referred to them in footnote 1 of my last post. The problem 
is that they are of no use scientifically, except to maybe suggest lines 
of research.

This is harsh, but it is absolutely necessary.

People often think a drug is working when it isn't. Often. Observational 
and retrospective studies get it wrong all the time - and positive 
reports get more screen time.

There are so many examples - remdesivir for instance was thought to work 
in early clinical trials, but randomised double-blind trials have shown 
pretty conclusively that it doesn't.

Which is why you only believe double blind randomised trials. Preferably 
ones which have been repeated by different researchers.



Now as to my opinions, as opposed to accepted science.

I don't think hydroxychloroquine works at all, whether mixed with zinc 
or zinc/azithromycin or by itself, any more than the normal effects of 
zinc and azithromycin (both of which will help survival). We are close 
to saying that is accepted science, but not quite yet, so as of now it 
is only my strong opinion.

However research suggests azithromycin alone gives pretty much the same 
effect as hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0486/v1



I don't think ivermectin alone works more than a little, and probably 
not at all. For ivermectin with zinc and doxycycline, see below.



>> Unfortunately politics has gotten involved, and politicians have invested
>> political capital in the effectiveness of ivermectin. This complicates
>> matters.
> 
> I have seen, in the media, the exact opposite

I don't know what you mean by "the exact opposite".

[...]

> Here's some politics in science:
> 
>     Ivermectin and COVID-19
>     https://www.nps.org.au/news/ivermectin-and-covid-19-for-hps
> 
>        ... The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are currently investigating ‘promotion’ of an ivermectin-based regimen for COVID-19, by gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody. Professor Borody, who developed triple-therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, has recommended that GPs prescribe a triple therapy protocol using ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc. However, some of his comments are being investigated by the TGA as they potentially breach the ban on advertising COVID-19 treatments.18
>        ...
> 
> 
> Yep ... what doctors are even allowed to say, such as "I just ran this regimen on over 1000 people, and the result is 100% elimination of Covid-19", potentially breaches the TGA's politics on what doctors are allowed to say or not - in other words, politics.

I am not responsible for the Australian government's actions, not do I 
condone them - but I will say that I do not believe Professor Borody's 
results. Not saying I disbelieve them, though I am extremely sceptical 
about their significance.

Zinc alone, and doxycycline alone, will both have some positive effect 
on mortality. Zinc because some people will lack zinc and have lowered 
ZAP protection, doxycycline because it will prevent some opportunistic 
bacterial infections (and it also has some antiviral effects).

So far, so good. Giving people  - everybody - zinc (and vitamin D) 
supplements as prophylactics will almost certainly help. Giving 
everybody doxycycline is a bit more problematic, but as soon as COVID is 
detected giving it will help, at least statistically.



The issue then is, does ivermectin have any effect? Alone, or with 
zinc/doxycyline in some synergistic manner?

Well, we don't know. Alone it doesn't seem to have much effect, though 
it may have some, the jury is still out on that.

Professor Borody claims it has a surprising, and hard-to-believe, 
positive synergistic effect with zinc/doxycyline. But let's look a 
little further.

First he claims the triple therapy is most effective against people in 
the early stages of the disease. Well, a lot of them are going to get 
better anyway.  The zinc and doxycycline will help there too.

And while he is planning to introduce the treatment in older people (who 
have a much higher mortality rate), he hasn't done so yet - the 1,000 
patients treated so far have not been older people, so we would not have 
expected more than one or two of them to die.

And if someone does die, well he can always say it was too late for 
them, and exclude them from his 100% results. Convenient.

Or 92% results. Or 48% results.



But perhaps the clincher is this a quote from Professor Borody which 
makes my snake-oil antennae twitch furiously:

http://covexit.com/professor-thomas-borody-interview-part-1/

"If anyone suggests a randomized controlled trial, it tells me they 
don’t know what they’re talking about."

If he wants to save lives, and he believes his therapy works, randomized 
double-blind controlled trials are the only way to get lots of people to 
use his therapy.

He should know that.

Without them he is going to be thought of as a charlatan; with them 
either it works and he gets the Nobel prize and everybody is saved, or ...

So when he says no to proper trials, a big, big red flag goes up.




I guess that is scientific politics - but the randomised double-blind 
test is designed for one purpose, to find the truth and to be sure it is 
the truth.

It may be a bit cruel - but it is the only way we know, and perhaps the 
only way there is. All modern medicine is based on it.


Peter Fairbrother

and no, I am not going to provide a list of references - this is not a 
paper, I don't have to, and it is a lot of work. But here's one:

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/19/taking-hydroxychloroquine-may-19-update