Covid-19 / SARS-Cov2 - naučne/medicinske informacije i analize

[ciao]

31 minutes ago, wwww said:

Pa nije bas tako. Jedini u svetu koji je dobio dobre rezultate (ili "rezultate") za malarija lek je taj vas DrRaoult. Nigde niko drugi nije mogao da to ponovi i potvrdi.

 

A ako je ko reklamirao taj lek to su Ameri i Tramp (prakticno na svakoj KZS od sredine marta do sredine aprila, postoje clanci o tome kako su Tramp i ljudi oko njeg ulozili pare u firmu koja proizvodi ovaj lek), toliko da su ga ljudi na svoju ruku pokupovali po apotekama, a neki i poceli da uzimaju preventivno, pa je nekoliko njih i umrlo. Ameri su po hitnom postupku i bili poceli nekoliko studija koje uopste nisu dale dobre rezultate. Lek je davan u nekim bolnicama i imali su mnogo smrtnih slucajeva, pa su obustavili. A studije su radili i drugi po svetu i nigde se niko nije pohvalio pozitivnim rezultatima. U Brazilu su prekinuli studiju jer im je mnogo ljudi umiralo.

 

A rezultati DrRaoult-a u prvoj studiji koju je objavio nisu bili relevantni jer lek nije bio ispitan na ispravnom uzorku. Jednostavno je poredio babe i zabe. Kao sto je ovaj nas profa-maneken tendenciozno napravio studiju u Hejnsbergu, tako se cini da isto radi i taj vas DrRaoult (ne znam iz kojih razloga). Ne znam zasto bi sad nemacki lekari namerno forsirali remdesivir (americki lek, gde zavise od Amera, a ako Tramp uvede embargo nece nam biti dostupan) umesto leka za malariju koji moze da se kupi u apoteci i valjda slobodno proizvede u svakoj farmceutskoj kuci koja ima odgovarajucu tehnologiju (od Bayera do Galenike).

 

To je moglo ranije, ne moze vise jer je bio razgrabljen i koristili su ga i kako treba i kako ne treba.

Rault ne samo da ga ispituje nego ga i primenjuje u Marseju u "svom" klinickom centru, ima pravo jer je to priznat lek sa svim poznatim sekundarnim efentima, i Raoult tamo ima odlicne rezultate - radi on i testove jedini kao sto treba i koliko treba u Francuskoj (jer ih sami i proizvode) rezultat je da u okolini Marseja je covid prakticno iskorenjen, nema ga vise.

Jeste prva studija bila "babe i zabe" otprilike kao i ova sadasnja sa remsedivirom a ustvari je on kao epidemiolog proucavajuci virus i sta su kinezi radili i uradili zakljucio da bi cloroqin trebalo da bude najefikasniji; Posle te prve studije je napravio i drugu cim je imao dovoljan broj pacijenata (preko hiljada) i objavio rad sa svim podacima, ja kacila ovde.

 

Koliko sam shvatila sada Sanofi (francuski) ima neko privilegovano pravo da proizvodi chloroqin i zaradjuje pare na njemu bez obzira ko ga koristi pa mozda to nekima ne odgovara dok se Giliad americki preusmerio na proizvodnju remdesivira.

Dodaj i to da i neki ameri kao i Raoult tvrde da ce epidemija prakticno nestati do jeseni, naravno da se amerima zuri da sad prodaju svoj lek kog su napravili u beskonacnim kolicinama

Follow the monney je uvek bila dobra logika pogotovo kad su ameri u pitanju (njihovo pravo da neko ne misli da sam protiv monney)

Edited April 30, 2020 by ciao

[wwww]

8 minutes ago, handys said:

1. Kako se tretira ona studija u Nemackoj gde nisu nasli reaktivan virus na povrsinama u domovima zarazenih? Mozda si pominjala (@wwww) ali nisam nasao na proslim stranama.

 

2. Inace, ono sto sam video za remsidivir bila je jedna pesimisticna analiza gde covek govori da je lek morao da radi, ali da izgleda da ne radi. To je bio bar njegov utisak na osnovu rezultata studija (postavljao sam link). Drago mi je ako ipak ima obecavajucih rezultata. Studije sa hlorokinom mi deluju sto se kaze all over the place. Te pomaze, te veca smrtnost, ali dobro je da se i to ispituje. Steta je samo sto je sad jako tesko obezbediti pravi uzorak.

1. to je ona studija u Heinsbergu koju je radio profa "maneken" iz Bona (strucnjak za HIV). Ja s vremena na vreme bacim pogled da vidim ima li negde neke nove informacije o konacno napisanom izvestaju, ali do sada nisam nasla. Verujem da su zaista nasli mrtav genetski materijal na kvakama i ostalim predmetima u domacinstvima koja su ispitivali (tako nesto ne bi lazirali). Ali na osnovu komentara nekoliko drugih virologa/epidemiologa mislim da nije dobro obradio rezultate koje je dobio (to su mu zamerili, a on se onda pravdao kako su to preliminarni rezultati, kako tek treba da obrade sve rezultte itd.). Jednostvno je covek testirao npr. svih 5 clanova porodice i svakog racunao u ukupnom proracunu za % zarazenih (bez korektivnog faktora), a to se u  slucaju ovakvog virusa ne radi tako jer je infektivnost u porodici totalno drugacija (znacajno veca) nego u generalnoj populaciji (kod HIV-a je to sigurno drugacije i e moze see preneti na slucaj covid-19). Druga zamerka/komentar/pitanje je bilo da li je dodatno u laboratoriji proverio da su svi pozitivni testovi na antitela koje je dobio brzim testom zaista i takvi kad ih odrade kako treba u laboratoriji. Posto se pokazalo da brzi testovi imaju vecu nepreciznost, a pored toga je moglo da dodje do laznog pozitivnog rezultata i ako je neko prelezao corona grip u poslednjih mesec-dva.

 

2. valjda je to bio komentar nekog novinara/blogera koji je po struci farmaceut ili slicno pa se razume u temu. Ne znam zasto je kineska studija o kojoj je tu pricao bila neutralna, tj. neobecavajuca. Mozda premali uzorak, mozda nesto drugo. Znam da su u Nemackoj jos pre mesec +- dana zapoceli studije i o upotrebi malarija leka, i ebola leka, i HIV leka, i da  do danas nije bilo pozitivnih vesti o malarija leku, za HIV lek mislim da sam negde procitala da studija nije dala dobre rezultate, a jedino su sada kod ebola leka dobili pozitivan rezultat i izneli ga u javnost.

 

Danas bi prof Drosten ponovo trebalo da ima podcast, provericu da li je govorio nesto o ovome.

U prosloj epizodi (od utorka, sad ih radi svaki drugi dan) je govorio o nekim dobrim laboratorijskim rezultatima za neki lek koji su istrazivali u njegovoj laboratoriji, a za koji sad cekaju dozvolu da pocnu klinicka ispitivanja. Kaze, nije hteo ranije da to pominje upravo da bi izbegao da narod krene masovno da nabavlja tu supstancu i da se samo-leci. I upozorio je da se to ne radi jer narod nema pojma kako treba da upotrebi koji god lek naucnici sada ispituju kao moguci lek za covid-19.

[handys]

Hvala, video sam i ja da doticni nije bas ekspert virologije (pise da ima iskustva u biohemiji i farmakologiji, kao sto kazes), tako da cu pratiti i ovde i tamo gde to obicno gledam sta se jos pojavljuje od opcija. 
Sve vreme pokusavam da nadjem vise informacija o infektivnosti preko povrsina jer vidim sve vise licnih prica gde ljudi kazu da nisu nigde isli po mesec dana a ipak su se razboleli.

[Sunshine State]

@wwww

Moguce da je u pitanju famotidine, lek koji je moguce kupiti, jer da je bilo sta sto ide na recept, ljudi ne bi mogli da se toga lako dokopaju.

 

[wwww]

18 minutes ago, ciao said:

 

To je moglo ranije, ne moze vise jer je bio razgrabljen i koristili su ga i kako treba i kako ne treba.

Rault ne samo da ga ispituje nego ga i primenjuje u Marseju u "svom" klinickom centru, ima pravo jer je to priznat lek sa svim poznatim sekundarnim efentima, i Raoult tamo ima odlicne rezultate - radi on i testove jedini kao sto treba i koliko treba u Francuskoj (jer ih sami i proizvode) rezultat je da u okolini Marseja je covid prakticno iskorenjen, nema ga vise.

Jeste prva studija bila "babe i zabe" otprilike kao i ova sadasnja sa remsedivirom a ustvari je on kao epidemiolog proucavajuci virus i sta su kinezi radili i uradili zakljucio da bi cloroqin trebalo da bude najefikasniji; Posle te prve studije je napravio i drugu cim je imao dovoljan broj pacijenata (preko hiljada) i objavio rad sa svim podacima, ja kacila ovde.

 

Koliko sam shvatila sada Sanofi (francuski) ima neko privilegovano pravo da proizvodi chloroqin i zaradjuje pare na njemu bez obzira ko ga koristi pa mozda to nekima ne odgovara dok se Giliad americki preusmerio na proizvodnju remdesivira.

Dodaj i to da i neki ameri kao i Raoult tvrde da ce epidemija prakticno nestati do jeseni, naravno da se amerima zuri da sad prodaju svoj lek kog su napravili u beskonacnim kolicinama

Follow the monney je uvek bila dobra logika pogotovo kad su ameri u pitanju (njihovo pravo da neko ne misli da sam protiv monney)

Pa kako onda niko drugi u svetu ne uspeva da ponovi njegove rezutlte? A ako bi ko imao interesa da dobije pozitivne rezultate za malarija lek to je Tramp i njegov tim jer je ovaj toliko hvalio i propagirao taj lek da je to nenormalno. A sam sef njegovog tima Dr Fauci je covek sve vreme upozoravao da nemaju dokaza da ovo funkcionise. Zasto bi on krio podatke od Trampa i namerno mu se suprotstavljao, rizikujuci da ga ovaj otpusti (sto je Tramp vec uradio mnogima: otpustio je i tipa koji je na celu agencije koja razvija vakcinu!)?

 

Razlog za nepostojanje inficiranih u Marseju i okolini ne moze da bude lek koji se koristi tek kad se neko zarazi a da bi se ubrzalo ozdravljenje. Taj lek se ne koristi profilakticki: ne mogu da ga piju ljudi preventivno i sprece inficiranje (koliko je meni poznato). Jedini razlog za nemanje inficiranih moze da bude da su prekinuli puteve prenosa virusa, verovatno intenzivnim testiranjem i pracenjem inficiranih i onda stavljanjem u karantin. I mi imamo odlicne rezultate u istocnoj Nemckoj, osim u par regiona gotovo da nemaju novih slucajeva u poslednjih 7 dana. A ne koriste lek za malariju, vec je sve zatvoreno i spreceno je prenosenje virusa. Sad samo treba da povedu racuna da ne "uvezu" virus iz ostalih delova Nemacke ili inostranstva, inace mogu da nastave normalan zivot i rad (po mom misljenju). (druga je situacija u Bavarkoj, NRW i Baden-Württembergu)

 

Ne znam zasto smatras da je ova sadasnja studija o remdesiviru poredjenje baba i zaba. Kazu da su imali ljude koji su primili placebo (pri cemu lekari u klinikama nisu znali koji su to pacijenti) i da ce imati reviziju nezavisnih strucnjaka. Imali su preko 1000 pacijenata u jednoj studiji koja je vec objavljena (pa je neko postavio link juce), gde su 2 pacijenta s Uni klinike u Dizeldorfu ucestvovala (kao jedini iz Nemacke). Ova studija koju pominje profa iz Kelna je neka druga jer se pominju pacijenti iz Frankfurta, Bona i Kelna (pored ostalih iz drugih zemalja sveta), i takodje ima nekih 1000 pacijenata, nije finansirana od strane americkog proizvodjaca i bice podvrgnuta analizi drugih, nezavisnih strucnjaka. Brzi eksperiment u Chikagu nije bila prava studija jer nisu imali kontrolnu grupu, nego su pokusavali da pomognu ljudima u nevolji (to je uporedivo s tom prvom studijom u Marseju).

 

Nije mi jasno kako sad neka firma moze da dobije privilegovano prvo na proizvodnju leka ako je taj lek vec odavno u upotrebi i patent (ako je i postojao) je odavno istekao (pored toga sto patent moras da zastitis i u drugim drzavama da bi sprecio nekog npr. u Kini da proizvodi to sto stitis). Ne znam sta vam serviraju, ali ne moze sad jedna firma u Francuskoj tek tako da odluci da sad oni jedini imaju pravo da prave lek na koji nemaju patent.

 

A pandemija se nece zavrsiti letos, prosto jer virus nije nestao s lica zemlje i previse se prosirio, nema nikakvih indikacija da je sad mutirao tako da je postao bezopasan, niti manje zarazan. Sars pandemija je nestala jer su uspeli da ujure sve inficirane i sprece dalje inficiranje, pa je i virus nestao (za sada, osim ako ponovo ne predje s zivotinje na coveka). Ne znam ko jos u Ammmerici osim Trampa tvrdi da ce virus magicno nestati i nece biti drugog talasa. Njegov sef tima Dr Fauci tvrdi da ce biti drugog talasa na jesen i da ce biti gori od ovog prvog. Ali Tramp je i do sada imao svakojake glupe tvrdnje, tvrdio je i da ce virus magicno nestati u aprilu (pa nije), pa da ce u Americi maksimalno 60000 mrtvih biti (i to je kraj), a evo vec danas su uveliko presli ovu brojku, a kraj se ne nazire. Pa je predlagao da se piju sredstva za dezinfekciju ili da se ugrizgavaju u telo ili pluca direktno, pa da se ljudi ozrace nekom jakom svetloscu ili UV svetloscu. Svakakve je on glupe ideje imao (a koje je dobijao s Fox-a i od drugih nadrilekara). Tako da se na cudotvorno nestajanje virusa letos ne moze i ne sme racunati.

[ciao]

1 hour ago, wwww said:

 Jedini u svetu koji je dobio dobre rezultate (ili "rezultate") za malarija lek je taj vas DrRaoult. Nigde niko drugi nije mogao da to ponovi i potvrdi.

 

 

Nije bas jedini,  evo primer - lekar iz NY koji je svoje pacijente lecio klorokinom kao sto treba (plus azitromicin...) imao je 500 rizicnih pacijenata, i sve ih izlecio, nula umrlih, nula respirator

 

https://www.caducee.net/actualite-medicale/14826/covid19-un-medecin-americain-aurait-traite-avec-succes-plus-de-500-patients-avec-l-hydroxychloroquine.html

 

U principu nije lako raditi te eksperimente pogotovo ne sa placebom- to je jasno, ne mozes da kazes evo sad cu zbog nauke da testiram neke sa lekom a neke bez leka, a to su ljudi nisu misevi ili majmuni, nego ih lecis onako kako mislis da je najbolje, cinjenica je da je najvise njih davalo klorokin jer je jedini koji je bio i malo testiran, ovo je jedna statistika, mozda bi tu ljudi preziveli i bez klorokina ali to nikad necemo znati

 

 

 

[wwww]

18 minutes ago, Sunshine State said:

@wwww

Moguce da je u pitanju famotidine, lek koji je moguce kupiti, jer da je bilo sta sto ide na recept, ljudi ne bi mogli da se toga lako dokopaju.

 

Evo ga google prevod tog dela

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/36-Die-Rolle-von-Kindern-ist-nicht-geklaert,podcastcoronavirus200.html#Autophagie

 

Spoiler

Korinna Hennig: Mr. Drosten, you and your team at the Charité have examined the mechanism of so-called autophagy in connection with coronavirus infections. It is about the ability of cells to break down their own components, including foreign proteins, including bacteria or viruses. This process is disrupted by a coronavirus infection. What exactly is happening there?

Christian Drosten: Yes, exactly, autophagy is a very complex topic. We cannot discuss this in detail here now. However, we did a basic study that showed an interesting result. And maybe this is how we start: Autophagy is a process of the cell in which macromolecules are broken down, i.e. all sorts of molecules that the cell needs. At some point they have to be metabolized again because they are no longer good. And this leads to the formation of autophagosomes. These are certain degradation compartments in the cell, you have to imagine that like a small bubble in the cell with a membrane around it. There is another type of vesicle called lysosomes. These are digestive vesicles, which the cell also uses to absorb and metabolize certain food products, i.e. to dissolve them. And when such a lysosome digests something that is inherent in the body, the cell's own, and fuses with an autophagosome, another compartment is created, which is called an autophagolysosome. And this whole chain of compartments in the cell of small bubbles, where substances are in, is basically autophagy. It is a kind of self-digestive system for the cell and it is regulated.

There are the finest set screws that can be turned to speed up the autophagy or slow it down a bit. And there is a molecule that is at the beginning of this autophagy chain. This is called Beclin-1, it starts autophagy. Now you can identify other substances in the cell that break down Beclin-1. There is a whole chain of command again. And the SARS virus apparently interferes with this chain of commands. We have seen this before in a study that has been published - here in the institute the working group of Marcel Müller, who works with the working group of Nils Gassen in the University Hospital Bonn - there in molecular psychiatry. So this is metabolic research of the cell that is done in a psychiatric clinic. It doesn't matter what kind of patient you have in mind, it is geared towards pharmaceutical effects, this type of basic research. These groups have previously recognized that there is an effect of how MERS coronavirus (the camel virus in the Arab world) interferes with autophagy, giving it an advantage in the cell that is extremely lethal. And we now have the finding in this study that the SARS virus does the same in the same way. This also disrupts this complex process of autophagy in the cell and brings a little more balance to his side to give himself an advantage.

There is something interesting about it now, that is that there are certain pharmaceuticals that also interfere with autophagy. There is a substance called niclosamide, which is a well-known tapeworm agent, and that blocks a molecule called Skib-2. This Skip-2 is a member of the bucket chain above Beclin-1. The niclosamide ultimately stabilizes Beclin-1 and thus starts autophagy, which pulls in the other direction. So the virus moves in the direction of autophagy and the niclosamide again pulls this chain of command in the direction of autophagy.

Korinna Hennig: Get the garbage collection going.

Christian Drosten: Right, exactly. It does what the virus actually doesn't want. Then there are other substances. One substance is called MK-2206, which is an Akt-1 inhibitor. Akt-1 is also a signal transduction cascade element. It is used as a candidate drug for breast cancer, it comes from cancer research. And then there is another substance that is more of a cell's own metabolic step, spermidine, a small molecule that also induces autophagy, but probably in a concentration that we cannot reach pharmaceutically.

We focused more on niclosamide in this study because it is an available drug. You can buy that in the pharmacy. It is no longer on the market in Germany because there are better and more modern tapeworm remedies - I don't think I know what the real reason is. But in many countries there is. And there are long therapeutic experiences with it.

And of course, such findings are sometimes a glimmer of hope when you have an already approved drug, when you can say that you should try it out on patients because it is an approved drug, so that's relatively certain. You know there are no bad side effects. We are now seriously considering doing this. Especially since we saw that the active concentration is within the reachable range. What do I want to say? When we try out certain candidate substances in the laboratory against such a virus, we can also visualize exactly the concentration in which it works. Then we can ask: Can we attain this concentration in the first approximation in the blood of a patient after oral or intravenous administration? In addition, there is always data for approved drugs, where you can look it up in studies in tables whether such a concentration can also be achieved. That's the case with niclosamide. So we looked at that and we come to the conclusion that the concentration that can actually be taken as a tablet leads to a concentration in the blood that in our laboratory tests significantly inhibits the virus from multiplying. That's why it makes us feel good. We are writing clinical study protocols and are requesting approval to be able to treat patients with them in the near future.

 

Korinna Hennig: What stage of the infection or illness would it be about? We have heard many other medications, the problem is that you should give it early, shortly after infection, when many have no bad symptoms at all. How about this

Christian Drosten: It's the same here again. This is also a drug that we know from the laboratory that there is an influence on the multiplication of the virus, the point of attack is not directly in the virus, but is in the cell. This is all the better for us because the virus does not make resistance mutations so quickly against these cell-directed antivirus substances. However, even if we have a cell-directed substance that affects replication, we want to give it as early as possible - in other words, in a phase in which the virus phase of the infection applies when the virus drives the action, so in the first week. And not in the phase when the immune system and the subsequent inflammation drive the action and the virus is already in check, i.e. second, third week.

But it's also a clinical compromise. The seriously ill patients are only in the later phase and they also want to help them by experimentally administering such drugs. While the patient's view is seen in the early phase, I'm actually fine. So the patient is not seriously ill. Either he is asymptomatic and doesn't know about it, or he has relatively mild symptoms because he is still in the first week, and for a study it takes a good look, so that you can see who was diagnosed here? If this is a patient, for example, he is mildly ill, but he has the opportunity to go to a daily check-up so that you can precisely monitor the virus concentration over time in this patient. And not looking at the patient's clinical improvement at all, but looking directly at the virus. Sometimes there are completely different characteristics of a patient, not the characteristic: the patient is seriously ill and needs to be helped very quickly - no matter what we have available. But it is another criterion: this is a patient, who understands that, who is interested in it. We believe that he will join in, even if he may feel sick from the medication over the course of the week. He continues because he believes in it. And he is mobile, he can come every day to give a sample of lung secretion, where we will measure the virus concentration with the PCR. He is ready to give a blood sample every day and so on. Such external criteria, which are not medical, but are intended from the study side.

 

Spoiler

Korinna Hennig: Finally, I would like to take a quick look behind the scenes. Before we start the recording, we usually talk briefly about the issues at hand, what the study situation is, and discuss what we want to discuss today. When I asked you about this research from your team, you were reluctant, even though it was released as a pre-release. Can you explain why?

Christian Drosten: It is a bit like that I know that this podcast is already relatively widespread and I don't really want to influence the reviewers at the moment when this article is being reviewed by the fact that it is already in public is discussed. That is one reason why I reacted a bit sparingly at the beginning. So this article has been publicly available since last week.

The other reason is that sometimes false hopes are raised when we discuss this. I can already see that I'm getting hundreds of emails from people who say I want this substance right away. That is a fallacy. You really have to be careful. It is not said at all that this substance brings anything. We first have to test this on a small volunteer group. We don't have permission to do that at the moment. We have to inform ethics and supervisory authorities and get permission. We do not have this permission yet. For this reason alone, I cannot give this substance to anyone.

Then it is, this substance, there are stocks. We have to be careful that studies can use these stocks and that no one orders the drug from the pharmacy, goes to bedside tables and never uses it. And the patients with whom you could do a study can no longer get it because the warehouse is empty. This is a bad effect that can happen. And another effect: if a patient receives or takes a study drug, then he cannot be included in another study. And maybe there is another study drug somewhere that is much better. But then a patient comes and says: I've already received niclosamide. Then the study doctor says: Excuse me, but then we cannot include you, it falsifies the results. That's how it is in clinical studies.

Perhaps I can already say this here: Do not send me an email asking if you can get niclosamid from me. And don't go to the pharmacy or your family doctor and ask about niclosamide. You can only do that if there is data on it. You can't do that before.

 

radi se o Niclosamide-u, leku protiv pantljicare (ako sam dobro prevela), a pominjao je i lek protiv raka dojke MK-2206, kao i Spermidin.

Evo ga link za rad:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.997254v1.full.pdf

 

[wwww]

59 minutes ago, ciao said:

Nije bas jedini,  evo primer - lekar iz NY koji je svoje pacijente lecio klorokinom kao sto treba (plus azitromicin...) imao je 500 rizicnih pacijenata, i sve ih izlecio, nula umrlih, nula respirator

 

https://www.caducee.net/actualite-medicale/14826/covid19-un-medecin-americain-aurait-traite-avec-succes-plus-de-500-patients-avec-l-hydroxychloroquine.html

 

U principu nije lako raditi te eksperimente pogotovo ne sa placebom- to je jasno, ne mozes da kazes evo sad cu zbog nauke da testiram neke sa lekom a neke bez leka, a to su ljudi nisu misevi ili majmuni, nego ih lecis onako kako mislis da je najbolje, cinjenica je da je najvise njih davalo klorokin jer je jedini koji je bio i malo testiran, ovo je jedna statistika, mozda bi tu ljudi preziveli i bez klorokina ali to nikad necemo znati

Ne znam sta da ti kazem. Jedini "dokaz" je to pismo koje je poslao (ne tvrdim da laze da je izlecio 350+150 ljudi). Da li je on objavio neki izvestaj/rad u kome je detaljno opisao svoje pacijente, kao sto su ovi drugi naucnici/lekari radili, pa da svaki strucnjak moze nezavisno da se uveri da je ovo sto tvrdi i istinito? A problem je sto ne znamo da li bi se ti ljudi izlecili i bez leka koji im je dao (jer se veliki broj ljudi i sam izleci bez ikakve lekarske intervencije, no oni i nisu problem) ili da im je davao samo aspirin.

 

Nama kao nemedicinskom osoblju izgleda surovo da nekoj osobi koja moze da umre dajes placebo umesto pravog leka, ali to je priroda klinickih studija. Da bi pomogli mnogo vecem broju buducih pacijenta moraju da "zrtvuju" neke dobrovoljce u fazi klinickog ispitivanja. Surovo, ali je tako. Ja znam da je meni bilo grozno slusati neke farmaceute na nekom simpozijumu kako "decapitate" neke zabe i miseve, sta tek reci za ljude koji primaju placebo i stoga umiru, a mogli su mozda da budu izleceni da su primili eksperimentalni lek. Surovo, ali je tako. Surovo je i sto su davali lek rezus majmunima, pa im onda ubrizgali velike kolicine virusa, pa kad ovi ni posle 4 sedmice nisu pokazali znake bolesti, onda ih lepo ubili i secirali im organe da vide sta je bilo s njima. Surovo.

Edited April 30, 2020 by wwww

[ciao]

39 minutes ago, wwww said:

 Tako da se na cudotvorno nestajanje virusa letos ne moze i ne sme racunati.

 

Ako moze jedan od najpoznatijih svetskih epidemiologa da veruje, mogu i ja

 

 

https://www.lindependant.fr/2020/04/29/professeur-didier-raoult-99-des-cas-de-coronavirus-en-france-auront-eu-lieu-avant-le-19-mai,8867698.php

 

To cemo lako da proverimo uostalom samo malo strpljenja

 

6 minutes ago, wwww said:

Ne znam sta da ti kazem. Jedini "dokaz" je to pismo koje je poslao (ne tvrdim da laze da je izlecio 350+150 ljudi). Da li je on objavio neki izvestaj/rad u kome je detaljno opisao svoje pacijente, kao sto su ovi drugi naucnici/lekari radili, pa da svaki strucnjak moze nezavisno da se uveri da je ovo sto tvrdi i istinito?

 

jedini koji je napisao naucni rad na tu temu je Raoult

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7064018/

 

ali i hrvati koriste cloroqin naprimer, citacemo jednog dana sta misle, koliko vidim ne zale se

Edited April 30, 2020 by ciao

[wwww]

8 minutes ago, ciao said:

 

Ako moze jedan od najpoznatijih svetskih epidemiologa da veruje, mogu i ja

 

https://www.lindependant.fr/2020/04/29/professeur-didier-raoult-99-des-cas-de-coronavirus-en-france-auront-eu-lieu-avant-le-19-mai,8867698.php

 

To cemo lako da proverimo uostalom samo malo strpljenja

 

 

s wikipedije (sto naravno ne mora da bude 100% tacno):

 

Spoiler

Citations

He was "classified among the ten leading French researchers by the journal Nature, for the number of his publications (a credit of more than two thousand) and for his citations number", in 2008, as reported by a daily economic newspaper covering his work.^[16]

According to the Thomson Reuters source "Highly Cited Researchers List", Raoult is among the most influential researchers in his field and his publications are among the 1% most consulted in academic journals. He is one of the 99 most cited microbiologists in the world and one of the 73 most highly cited French scientists.^[17] He is a world reference for Q fever and Whipple's disease.^[18] In April 2017, on Google Scholar citations,^[19] he cumulated over 104,000 citations and an h index of 148. He is also on the list of the 400 most cited authors in the biomedical world.^[20]

According to the analysis of the publications from 2007 to 2013, by Kathleen Gransalke, for Labtimes (2017/02), Raoult appears at the top of the European classification (including Israel) with 18,128 citations.^[21]

He totalizes more than 2,300 indexed publications including 8 in Science, and 3 in Nature, the two most visible scientific journals according to the N&S index of Shanghai's ranking.^[22]

 

Spoiler

Research topics

Giant viruses

Raoult and his team were the first to correctly identify a giant virus originally reported as an intra-amoebic gram-positive bacteria in a 1992 paper. They classified the new virus as a mimivirus because it mimicked microbes. ^[23]

In 2016, this team found in mimivirus a defense mechanism preventing the implantation of virophages in the virus plant (MIMIVIRE).^[24] Finally, it has been shown that this virophage could be integrated into the cells in the form of a pro-virophage and that it could be associated with transposon-like structures called transpovirons.^[25]

They also discovered Marseilleviruses^[26] and Faustoviruses.^[27]

The discovery of giant viruses challenges the classification of viruses. Raoult has several times stated that giant viruses are of a different nature than other viruses and that they constitute a fourth branch of microbes known as TRUC for "Things Resisting Uncompleted Classifications".^[28][29]

New bacteria

Since the 1990s, Raoult and his team have identified and described approximately 96 new pathogenic bacteria^[16] and showed their implication in human pathologies. The eponymous bacteria genus Raoultella and the species Rickettsia raoultii have been named after him.^[30]

Rickettsia, Bartonella, Q fever

Raoult developed the field of culture of intracellular bacteria, then initiated the field of emerging rickettsioses and with his team identified 10 new species of human pathogenic Rickettsiae. The laboratory has rapidly become the National Reference Center (partnership with InVS France) and a WHO Collaborating Center. As a result, the samples for diagnosis are coming from many hospitals all around the world.

He has designed and co-authored two reviews used as references in the world,^[31][32] and has shown that Rickettsiae are transmitted by lice, fleas and ticks but also likely to be transmitted by mosquitoes, which is the case of Rickettsia felis, the most common species of Rickettsiae in the tropics.^[33]

For Q fever, a disease transmitted by the bacterial agent Coxiella burnetii, Raoult found it necessary to redefine the criteria for diagnosis, to describe all aspects of the disease and to demonstrate the role of the bacterium in the genesis of Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.^[34]

He highlighted, with his team, the role of anti-phospholipid antibodies in endocarditis and thromboses due to Coxiella burnetii.^[35] He recently described acute endocarditis^[36] and redefined persistent endocarditis. He has developed the therapeutic strategies currently used by the medical world (doxycycline and Plaquenil), using for the first time Plaquenil to alkalize the acidic vacuole in which the bacteria live, in order to allow the activity of the antibiotics inhibited by this acidity.^[37]

A book testifies to this whole work.^[38]

Clinical microbiology

Raoult has invested in various aspects of clinical microbiology.^[39][40]

His team used an automatic sequencer in a laboratory of clinical microbiology to obtain the sequences of 16S in order to identify the bacteria.^[41] Then, his laboratory was the first to systematically use the MALDI-TOF for the identification of bacteria in routine analysis.^[42] Raoult was also the first to set up a Point-of-Care laboratory in a hospital, his work has become an international reference.^[43][44]

Regarding endocarditis, Raoult's team reported the highest number of cases of endocarditis with negative blood cultures and determined the etiologies of bacteria that were fastidious or destroyed by antibiotics.^[45] The team of Raoult has proposed a specific treatment for blood cultures negative endocarditis^[46] and a new reference in the management of endocarditis which differs from the usual guidelines.^[47]

While studying pericarditis, Raoult's team reported the largest global series of pericarditis allowing, on the one hand, the etiological diagnosis of these infections and on the other hand, the discovery of viruses unknown in this situation.^[48]

This team has been working on tick-borne diseases since 1984 and has produced publications on rickettsial diseases, borreliosis, and bartonellosis.^[49] Two bartonellosis received his name: Raoultella planticola and Rickettsia raoultii.^[50]

Whipple's disease

Tropheryma whipplei, the causative agent of Whipple's disease, described in 1907 by Dr. Georges Hoyt Whipple, was isolated for the first time in the laboratory of Raoult.^[51] His team is one of the two teams in the world who sequenced the genome of the bacteria.^[52] The discovery of Tropheryma whipplei has completely changed the profile of the disease and it is now accepted that the bacteria is relatively common in the environment or on the mucous membranes of the patients without necessarily being associated with the pathology.^[53]

He introduced a treatment for Whipple's disease that became the reference treatment by doxycycline and Plaquenil^[54] and describes the acute forms of the disease which include pneumopathies.^[55]

Paleomicrobiology

Mediterranea Harbour, Marseille was a city exposed to many epidemics. Thanks to a collaboration with anthropologists and odontologists teams, Raoult, Michel Drancourt and Gérard Aboudharam inaugurated the field of paleomicrobiology. They developed an original technique for extracting DNA from the dental pulp and established the first retrospective diagnosis of the Black Death resurgence which took place in Marseille in the early 18th century^[56] then confirmed on plague samples from the 14th century that Yersinia pestis was the causal agent of the Black Death.^[57] This work was challenged by MT. Gilbert who for a long time maintained a polemic about the nature of the agent responsible for the Black Death.^[58]

Raoult's team also showed that the Justinian plague was due to Yersinia pestis and postulated that the extremely rapid transmission of this bacterium was due to the infection of the louse which probably played the role of a relay in this epidemic.^[59] These techniques also led to the discovery of the cause of the death of a part of the soldiers of Napoleon's army, during the retreat in Russia from a mass grave discovered in Vilnius.^[60]

Microbiogenomic

In 1999, Raoult decided to start a new program of genomics and to apply this to clinical microbiology. The team started with Rickettsia conorii and since then, 24 bacterial genomes have been sequenced, as well as those of 7 giant viruses (14 of these 31 sequenced genomes having been published).^[61]

Microbial culturomics

Microbial culturomics is a field that was created by Raoult's team in 2008 to characterize the multiplication of culture techniques, identification by MALDI-TOF and confirmation by sequencing of the 16S RNA. This culture technique allowed to collect twice as many microbial species as the rest of the laboratories of the world together.^[62]

This new approach to biodiversity is applied to the human microbiota. Thus, in the study described in the journal Nature Microbiology in 2016,^[63] nearly 1,000 samples from the human digestive tract (stool, stomach, small intestine, and colon) were analyzed, 1 170 different bacteria present in the digestive tract could be grown, including 247 completely new bacterial species. In addition, 269 bacteria that were known only in the environment were isolated for the first time in humans, and 250 bacteria that had already been isolated in humans but never in the digestive tract. All these new bacteria species are available in international collections of strains (Collection de Souches de l'Unité des Rickettsies, and Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen).

In a work carried out by the laboratory and published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection in September 2012,^[64] this technique allows to achieve five world records:

1. The largest number of bacterial species isolated from human stools,
2. The largest virus isolated in humans to date,
3. The largest bacteria isolated in humans to date,
4. The largest number of entirely new bacterial species found in a single work (31 species),
5. [missing]

More than 30% of the cultured intestinal microorganisms have been identified by the team according to a recent review.^[62] In fact, this approach of the digestive microbiota has led to a rethinking of the role of the microbiota in malnutrition.^[65]

This high-throughput production of new species has made it compulsory to create a new approach to describing species called Taxonogenomics.^[66][67]

Probiotics

The last field of research developed by Raoult represents for him a major question of public health. It relates to the effects of probiotics and antibiotics on the gut flora of human beings and their possible effects on weight gain and weight loss.^[68][69] This is of particular relevance in terms of investigating possible causes of obesity.^[70]

In the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology of September 2009, Raoult indicated: "humans, particularly children, have been taking these same probiotics for many years, especially in fermented dairy products" and they would have their share of responsibility in the human obesity epidemic.^[71]

In 2012, he and his co-workers reported on host-specific effects of Lactobacillus species on weight change.^[72] His view that Lactobacillus may contribute to weight gain in some humans^[73] is controversial.^[74] According to Raoult, recent research results "suggest that manipulating the composition of the gut microbiota may prevent weight gain or facilitate weight loss in humans".^[70]

HIV en route to endogenization

A work led by Raoult and published in 2014 made an analogy between the evolution of the koala retroviruses that currently experience on-going endogenization and apparent spontaneous cure of HIV infection in 2 patients never treated with antiretrovirals and with no HIV-related clinical symptoms and no HIV RNA or DNA detected in the blood by standard diagnostic tests. HIV sequences obtained from these two patients using modern sequencing technologies showed that HIV genes were inactivated by replacement of tryptophan codons by stop codons, which is probably due to the action of a cellular enzyme, APOBEC. This work is a paradigm shift in HIV research that considered eradication of any HIV DNA from patients cells as a necessary step towards a possible cure. It provides opportunities for assessment of the chances for patients of a spontaneously favorable course of HIV infection, and for treatment through the use of APOBEC.^[75]

 

Spoiler

Controversies

Ban from publishing in the American Society for Microbiology journals

In 2006, Raoult and four co-authors were banned for one year from publishing in the journals of the American Society for Microbiology, after a reviewer for Infection and Immunity discovered that two images in a figure from the revised manuscript of a paper about mouse modelling for typhus were identical to figures from the originally submitted manuscript, even though they were supposed to represent a different experiment. In response "he resigned from the editorial board of two other ASM journals, canceled his membership in the American Academy of Microbiology, ASM’s honorific leadership group, and banned his lab from submitting to ASM journals"^[76]

In response to Science covering the story in 2012, he stated that "I did not manage the paper and did not even check the last version". He further stated that he found it "interesting" that the article's author worked for Danone, as he had recently published papers on the role of probiotics on obesity, and that this had "led to bad press for Danone and forced them to review their marketing strategy". The author subsequently clarified that they had worked for Danone nine years earlier and had no contact since.^[77] The paper was subsequently published in a different journal.^[78]

Climate change

In October 2013, Raoult published an article in the French magazine Le Point in which he expressed his scepticism about mathematical models for climate prediction.^[79] He said in particular that mathematical models are the modern version of divination. In an article dated 1 November 2014,^[80] he ironically notes, in reference to the "pause" in global warming since the late 1990s, that "nature has forgotten to obey predictions". In the same publication, in reference to an article published shortly before in the journal Nature, according to which the Earth's global temperature is no longer a good indicator of global warming, he commented: "It's better to break the thermometer that contradicts you!"

In Le Point, in June 2014, he estimates that "after a significant thermal surge in the 1990s, the Earth has generally stopped warming since 1998". He concludes that "global warming is uncertain and human responsibility is questionable".^{[citation needed]}

COVID-19

See also: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in France

On 17 March 2020, Raoult announced in an online video that a trial involving 36 patients from the south east of France supported the claim that Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin were effective in treating for COVID-19.^[81][82][83] On 20 March he published a preliminary report of his non-blinded, non-randomized study onlne in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.^[84] The French Health Minister, Olivier Véran, was reported as announcing that "new tests will now go ahead in order to evaluate the results by Professor Raoult, in an attempt to independently replicate the trials and ensure the findings are scientifically robust enough, before any possible decision might be made to roll any treatment out to the wider public".^[85] In direct reference to the study conducted by Raoult and the possible health ramifications, Véran went on to state: "Dr. Raoult’s study involves 24 people. What kind of health minister would I be if, on the basis of a single study conducted on 24 people, I told French people to take a medicine that could lead to cardiac complications in some people?"^[86] The French media also reported that the French pharmaceutical company Sanofi had offered French authorities millions of doses of the drug for use against COVID-19.^[87][88][85] On 3 April the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, which publishes the journal, issued a statement that the report "does not meet the Society’s expected standard, especially relating to the lack of better explanations of the inclusion criteria and the triage of patients to ensure patient safety."^[89]

 

Sta znam, moze on da bude ekspert u svem ostalom, a da to nije sto se tice respiratorne pandemije. Ako mogu da sumnjam u iskaze profe-manekena iz Bona (strucnjaka za HIV), valjda mogu i da vise verujem ljudima koji su do sada radili i imali rezultate u oblasti pandemija/epidemija i radili s SARS-om, MERS-om itd. nego prof Raoult-u.

[ciao]

Naravno da imas pravo da ne verujes kao sto ja imam pravo da verujem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wwww]

 

 

 

[Tomiprunet]

Zasto vise verujes dr. Drostenu?

Sent from my MI 9T Pro using Tapatalk

[Angelia]

3 hours ago, wwww said:

Pa kako onda niko drugi u svetu ne uspeva da ponovi njegove rezutlte? A ako bi ko imao interesa da dobije pozitivne rezultate za malarija lek to je Tramp i njegov tim jer je ovaj toliko hvalio i propagirao taj lek da je to nenormalno. A sam sef njegovog tima Dr Fauci je covek sve vreme upozoravao da nemaju dokaza da ovo funkcionise. Zasto bi on krio podatke od Trampa i namerno mu se suprotstavljao, rizikujuci da ga ovaj otpusti (sto je Tramp vec uradio mnogima: otpustio je i tipa koji je na celu agencije koja razvija vakcinu!)?

 

 

Cinjenica je da nijedna studija za sada nije objavljena ni uradjena kako treba, po PSu, pa da onda raspravljamo sta je tacno a sta nije.

Za svaki lek imas kontradiktornih podataka, jedni kazu radi, drugi ne radi.....A imas paralelno pokusaja na razlicite kombinacije.

Dok nesto stvarno nije potkrepljeno naucno (sto tesko da ce biti u ovoj situaciji) raspravljamo cisto ko kome veruje. ustvari oni su napravili medjunarodnu saradnju u kojoj se pokusavaju razne kombinacije zavisno o kojoj bolnici se radi i koji lekovi su dostupni.

A Tramp je podrzao klorokin na osnovu francuske studije. I inace istrazivan je Trampov finansijski interes u toj firmi, i sve se svelo na $1500 investicije, znaci kikiriki.

[zakkturbo]

https://www.ifcc.org/ifcc-news/2020-03-26-ifcc-information-guide-on-covid-19/

 

Sajt Međunarodne federacije kliničke hemije i laboratorijske medicine, lab dijagnostika covid-19 - kada se dobijaju lažno negativni rezultati, o detektabilnosti virusa u različitim kliničkim uzorcima, praćenju određenih biohemijskih parametara kod covid-19 pacijenata.   

[Eddard]

8 hours ago, ciao said:

(u medjuvremenu se pokazao bitno efikasnijim nego remsidivir),

Ovo nije tačno. Chloroquine nije lek u koji treba polagati nade. Ako jedan experiment ne može da se reprodukuje, tj. njegov rezultat, onda mi taj rezultat nije validan. Fundamentals of science.

 

6 hours ago, ciao said:

ali i hrvati koriste cloroqin naprimer, citacemo jednog dana sta misle, koliko vidim ne zale se

Koristili su ga u početku i kod mene u bolnici, ali samo zbog toga što se ništa o virusu nije znalo, a chloroquine je prvi koji se pojavio a da je imao neke rezultate, pa je bilo daj da pokušamo bilo šta. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Eddard

[ciao]

1 hour ago, Eddard said:

1 hour ago, Eddard said:

Ovo nije tačno. Chloroquine nije lek u koji treba polagati nade. Ako jedan experiment ne može da se reprodukuje, tj. njegov rezultat, onda mi taj rezultat nije validan. Fundamentals of science.

 

Koristili su ga u početku i kod mene u bolnici, ali samo zbog toga što se ništa o virusu nije znalo, a chloroquine je prvi koji se pojavio a da je imao neke rezultate, pa je bilo daj da pokušamo bilo šta. 

 

 

Na osnovu cega tvrdis da Chloroquin ( preciznije pretpostavljam da pricamo o istom a to je kombinacija hydroxychloroquine+azithromycine ) nije lek u koji polagati nade?

Njegov rezultat  ce se tek pokazati (mozda), mozda se ispostavi kao sasvim dobar mozda kao najbolji koji moze da se ima do daljnjeg, po meni on je jedini koliko toliko ispitan do sada a vise od tog ispitavanja u ovom momentu ne mozemo da ocekujemo. Da se Raoult-ovi rezultati reprodukuju, ne znam da li ce moci, ako covid opstane jos duze vremena (nadam se da nece) mozda ce se reprodukovati  (inace novija kompletnija istrazivanja i rezultati koje je dobio treba uskoro da budu publikovani) ali naravno da nije lako reprodukovati od strane nekog drugog u sred epidemije, u pitanju je virus koji se i dalje vrlo malo poznaje.

 

Znam sta je Fondamentals of science veruj mi, to je posao kojim se bavim - ne bavim se virusima mnogo sam bliza onome cime se bavila vasa kancelarka dok nije pocela da se bavi politikom, ali znam vrlo dobro sta znaci uraditi eksperiment i dobiti rezultate i analizirati rezultate i publikovati razultate.

 

Po meni taj lek (biterapija kako on kaze jer su dva leka oba dobro poznata) nije idealan niti je lek koji leci niti Raoult to prentenduje, ali pomaze ako se koristi u dobrim dozama i u pravom momentu, ali bolji od toga tj efikasniji jos uvek ne postoji koliko vidim. Bilo bi lepo da ga nadju naravno da navijam,   uvek navijam za nauku, ali za sada ga svi koriste kao sto ti kazes - "prvi se pojavio, imao neke rezultate, pa daj da pokusamo bilo sta" - logicno i jedino ispravno po meni u ovom momentu.

 

Kazes da ste ga vi koristili u pocetku, sta sad koristite bas me interesuje ? (ako nije neka profesionalna tajna)

 

 

 

 

[Drug Crni]

13 hours ago, Eddard said:

Ovo nije tačno. Chloroquine nije lek u koji treba polagati nade.

Jutros bas gledam/slusam vest kako ga je Galenika proizvela i da ce najpre biti distribuiran bolnicama. 

[McLeod]

Kačeno je i ovde da mu je učinak slab do nikakav. I čisto nešto da dodam... Možemo sa sigurnošću reći da lek za koronu nikada neće postojati jer je to virus, i za ostale viruse imamo vakcine (prevencija) u najboljem slučaju. Hlorokin i drugi lekovi koji se pominju služe za tretiranje stanja u koji organizam zapadne pod uticajem infekcije. Sa virusom na koncu mora da se izbori sam imuni sistem.

[ciao]

11 minutes ago, Crni Bombarder said:

Jutros bas gledam/slusam vest kako ga je Galenika proizvela i da ce najpre biti distribuiran bolnicama. 

Secam se da je bila prica da su francuzi dali nasima neku supstancu  koja im je trebala da bi mogli da proizvode u Galenici, znaci poceli su vec sa proizvodnjom; Nadam se da ce i ostati samo za upotrebu u bolnicama kao sto je sada ovde u Fra jer treba paziti i znati kako ga upotrebljavati i koliko, i obavezno uz antibiotik po moguctvu azitromycin (taj se kod nas u kutiji zove Zythromax); Takodje se insistira da s elek ne upotrebljava preventivno i cak ne ni u pocetnoj fazi korone kada su blagi simptomi i virus samo u grlu, nego poceti da se upotrebljava kada (ako) virus ode na pluca tj kada pocnu problemi sa disanjem.

 

Njegov kvalitet da kazem nije da ce da izleci nego ce da ubrza lecenje u smislu kod onih koji bi se i sami izlecili on ce da "savlada" virus mislim za 4 dana umesto za desetak koliko bi ga organizam sam pobedio

Edited May 1, 2020 by ciao

[ciao]

41 minutes ago, McLeod said:

Kačeno je i ovde da mu je učinak slab do nikakav. I čisto nešto da dodam... Možemo sa sigurnošću reći da lek za koronu nikada neće postojati jer je to virus, i za ostale viruse imamo vakcine (prevencija) u najboljem slučaju. Hlorokin i drugi lekovi koji se pominju služe za tretiranje stanja u koji organizam zapadne pod uticajem infekcije. Sa virusom na koncu mora da se izbori sam imuni sistem.

 

Potpuno se slazem sa drugim delom - ucinak slab do nikakav - jeste ako kazes da bi se osoba koja se izleci sa clorokinom izlecila i bez chlorokina ali ipak je ucinak da u bolnici zauzme krevet pet dana umesto 14 a i manje se iscrpi organizam boreci se.

 

Za lek i vakcinu se potpuno slazem - vakcina je jos relativno daleko jer tek sada pocinje da se utvrdjuje koliko je za ovaj virus moguce napraviti vakcinu tj koliko je moguce stvoriti imunitet u organizmu na virus korone, tek sada pocinju rezultati o tome da li su i koliko imuni oni koji su prelezali koronu. Ako se antitela ne stvaraju tj ne stite posle prelezanog virusa nema svrhe praviti vakcinu. Sada je takoreci dokazano da se stvara imunitet koji traje 2-3 meseca, pretpostavlja se da bi trebalo da bude 45 nedelja, znaci vakcinanje bi trebalo svake godine kao i za obican grip ali i tu je problem kao i sa "obicnim" gripom, nije uvek isti virus, virus i mutira manje ili vise, i zbog toga ljudi umiru od gripa-influenze i dalje jako mnogo. Koliko znam ona "zimska" vakcina je uvek za 2-3 virusa koja se ocekuju te zime, nekad ne budu ti virusi nego neki skroz drugi i onda kazu da su te godine omasili sa vakcinom, a kazu i da je ustvari dobro i korisno redovno se vakcinisati, svake godine, pogotovo stariji ljudi jer vakcina za grip najcesce stiti godinu-dve-tri protiv datih virusa, menja se svake godine tako da onaj ko se redovno vakcinise akumulira neki imunitet na razne moguce viruse.

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by ciao

[A sad]

Dakle zakljucak je da vodeci francuski epidemiolog isto kao i svedski nemaju pojma, da lazu i krivotvore podatke, sve zato sto se ne uklapaju u preovladjujuci narativ na ovom forumu.

[handys]

20 hours ago, ciao said:

Naravno da imas pravo da ne verujes kao sto ja imam pravo da verujem.

 

 

Imas pravo ali nemas racionalan razlog. Ako se bavis eksperimentalnom naukom, onda znas i sta je kriza replikabilnosti, i da je u medicini dosta ozbiljna. Ako studije koje su mnogo bolje od ove francuske posle nekog vremena vise ne mogu da ponove rezultate, onda kakav razlog imamo da verujemo u hlorokin na osnovu ove, dosta losije i provizornije. Razumem psiholosku potrebu da jeftin i lako dostupan lek bude carobno resenje za opasan virus, ali stvari nazalost ne funkcionisu tako. Mozda jos gore od nemogucnosti da se ovi rezultati lako ponove jeste cinjenica da ima i oprecnih rezultata, da hlorokin, pa i hlorokin plus acitromicin povecava smrtnost. 

Napokon, zasto verovati istrazivacu koji kao merodavne rezultate objavljuje ono sto je nastalo na osnovu losih studija. Ako si iz eksperimentalne branse, to bi posebno trebalo da bude crveni karton, nezavisno od nasih lepih zelja. A on ne bi bio ni prvi ni poslednji poznati i uvazeni i citirani naucnik koji je  podvaljivao, osljario, napravio slucajne ili namerne greske ili dizao sebi na popularnosti parcijalnim, neproverenim rezultatima. Ako ima i malo sanse da on gresi, i da je ta kombinacija lekova opasna, zar naucnik u tebi ne treba da bude oprezan, umesto da veruje, i zar ne treba da saceka umesto da se opredeli. Verovanja su za drugi profil ljudi, a naucnici valjda traze tvrdo svedocanstvo, a ne prvu slamku spasa.

[McLeod]

1 hour ago, ciao said:

 

Potpuno se slazem sa drugim delom - ucinak slab do nikakav - jeste ako kazes da bi se osoba koja se izleci sa clorokinom izlecila i bez chlorokina ali ipak je ucinak da u bolnici zauzme krevet pet dana umesto 14 a i manje se iscrpi organizam boreci se.

 

Za lek i vakcinu se potpuno slazem - vakcina je jos relativno daleko jer tek sada pocinje da se utvrdjuje koliko je za ovaj virus moguce napraviti vakcinu tj koliko je moguce stvoriti imunitet u organizmu na virus korone, tek sada pocinju rezultati o tome da li su i koliko imuni oni koji su prelezali koronu. Ako se antitela ne stvaraju tj ne stite posle prelezanog virusa nema svrhe praviti vakcinu. Sada je takoreci dokazano da se stvara imunitet koji traje 2-3 meseca, pretpostavlja se da bi trebalo da bude 45 nedelja, znaci vakcinanje bi trebalo svake godine kao i za obican grip ali i tu je problem kao i sa "obicnim" gripom, nije uvek isti virus, virus i mutira manje ili vise, i zbog toga ljudi umiru od gripa-influenze i dalje jako mnogo. Koliko znam ona "zimska" vakcina je uvek za 2-3 virusa koja se ocekuju te zime, nekad ne budu ti virusi nego neki skroz drugi i onda kazu da su te godine omasili sa vakcinom, a kazu i da je ustvari dobro i korisno redovno se vakcinisati, svake godine, pogotovo stariji ljudi jer vakcina za grip najcesce stiti godinu-dve-tri protiv datih virusa, menja se svake godine tako da onaj ko se redovno vakcinise akumulira neki imunitet na razne moguce viruse.

 

 

 

 

Kao sto su i neki drugi rekli, postoje oprecni rezultati. Kada postoje oprecni rezultati, u 99% slucajeva oni koji pokazuju da je efekat manji ili nikakav, ako ne i stetan, su tacniji.

 

Drugo, i da je doticni francuski epidemiolog u pravu u vezi hlorokina, vec za par meseci cemo proizvoditi efikasnije lekove za stanja u koje organizam dolazi pod kovid infekcijom, pa se on svakako nece zadrzati.

 

On je sada tu kao sredstvo koje ima kakav takav efekat.

 

To je kao kad te napadne recimo vuk, a ti u ruci imas makaze. Bolje nego da nemas nista, ali imati i noz je bolje, da ne pricamo o pistolju ili puski koja se koristi za lov na vukove.

[ciao]

46 minutes ago, handys said:

 

Imas pravo ali nemas racionalan razlog. Ako se bavis eksperimentalnom naukom, onda znas i sta je kriza replikabilnosti, i da je u medicini dosta ozbiljna. Ako studije koje su mnogo bolje od ove francuske posle nekog vremena vise ne mogu da ponove rezultate, onda kakav razlog imamo da verujemo u hlorokin na osnovu ove, dosta losije i provizornije. Razumem psiholosku potrebu da jeftin i lako dostupan lek bude carobno resenje za opasan virus, ali stvari nazalost ne funkcionisu tako. Mozda jos gore od nemogucnosti da se ovi rezultati lako ponove jeste cinjenica da ima i oprecnih rezultata, da hlorokin, pa i hlorokin plus acitromicin povecava smrtnost. 

Napokon, zasto verovati istrazivacu koji kao merodavne rezultate objavljuje ono sto je nastalo na osnovu losih studija. Ako si iz eksperimentalne branse, to bi posebno trebalo da bude crveni karton, nezavisno od nasih lepih zelja. A on ne bi bio ni prvi ni poslednji poznati i uvazeni i citirani naucnik koji je  podvaljivao, osljario, napravio slucajne ili namerne greske ili dizao sebi na popularnosti parcijalnim, neproverenim rezultatima. Ako ima i malo sanse da on gresi, i da je ta kombinacija lekova opasna, zar naucnik u tebi ne treba da bude oprezan, umesto da veruje, i zar ne treba da saceka umesto da se opredeli. Verovanja su za drugi profil ljudi, a naucnici valjda traze tvrdo svedocanstvo, a ne prvu slamku spasa.

 

Nije bas lako odgovoriti : ja jesam eksperimentalac i bavim se egzaktnom naukom, ja moje eksperimente uvek moram da napravim vise puta i moram da imam isti rezultat inace neki problem postoji, ako nemam reproducibilnost ili nesto nije isto ili moje pretpostavke nisu dobre, ja i dalje mogu da publikujem rezultate - mogu da napisem i obrazlozim da pod tim i tim uslovima dobijem ovo a  ako se taj i taj parametar promeni onda imam drugacije rezultate; I u principu neko drugi ako ima istu da kazem opremu i mogucnost treba da moze da potvrdi moje rezultate. Ako uradi bas isto kao ja i dobije isto kao ja publikuje nesto malo ali i ne publikuje, publikuje ako je uradio nesto dodatno i dobio neke dodatne podatke informacije a pogotovo publikuje ako se njegovi rezultati ne slazu sa mojim. To se ponekad desava - onda pokusavamo na nadjemo razlog kako i zasto, sta je razlicito. U principu se medjusobno postujemo, iz uze oblasti se znamo manje vise.

 

Po meni ovo nije egzaktna nauka - ovde su u pitanju zivi ljudi, i virus koji je nepoznat i opasan. Pokusava se u hodu sta se moze; Konkretno Dr Raoult je vrlo brzo imao ideju (na bazi njegovog licnog iskustva kao vrhunskog epidemiologa i strucnjaka i objavljenih rezultata kineskih strucnjaka) da bi chloroqin trebao da bude jedno resenje - pomoc i poceo je da ga primenjuje. Uradio je testove i prva lecenja i objavio da biterapija pomaze, izmerio je da se virus povlaci brze iz organizma ako je pacijent tretiran sa chloroqinom+ antibiotikom. - ja nemam razlog da mislim da on laze. On je ozbiljan naucnik, moze neki drugi da objavi neke detaljnije analize i da pobije. Ja takva istrazivanja nisam videla, znaci ja verujem u ovo sto je objavljeno a to je da njegova terapija pomaze.

Koji je to rad koji je objavljen koji pobija to sto on kaze? Za sada je to jedino koliko toliko argumentano istrazivanje.

Ja ne kazem kao sto ni on ne kaze da je to cudo i da ce svako ko primi taj lek da ozdravi, ali verujem da on pomaze i ako me virus bude zakacio trazicu od mog lekara da mi da terapiju njegovu ako mi se virus spusti na pluca, i trazicu da ne idem na respirator;

Toliko od mene, ti odluci sta ti hoces

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by ciao