Taking my blood for a spin

Tomorrow morning, I’ll be returning to the City of Hope. I’ll be spending my mornings hooked up to an apheresis machine, getting stem cells extracted from my blood. I’m scheduled to do this all week.

When I signed up to donate platelets back in the early 1990s, I was registered in the bone marrow donor database. So I’ve always had the notion in the back of my head that I might someday be a bone marrow donor. It never occurred to me that I’d also be the recipient.

The stem cells being extracted will be put back in after I’ve had a massive dose of chemo to kill off my bone marrow, and the cancer that is residing in it. Once it’s been thoroughly poisoned, the stem cells will be dribbled in, and will replace my bone marrow. This treatment is generally considered a way of buying time, but my transplant doctor thinks he’s cured at least a couple of patients with this technique.

I won’t mind being number three. Or even number four.

Maybe hydroxychloroquine isn’t a death serum after all?

From the very beginning of the pandemic:

[P]hysicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Besides the “hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals” with HCQ,  there are also “at least 10 studies demonstrating” its effectiveness.

The three MDs go on to cite an article by esteemed Yale epidemiologist, Dr. Harvey Risch in the American Journal of Epidemiology that urged in its very title – sadly to no avail – that prescribing HCQ should be “…Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.”

That’s just a small sample of Drs. Fareed, Jacobs, and Pompan’s rebuke to Fauci. Their letter contains a list of 121 very pointed questions that every member of Congress ought to be studying for when Fauci makes his next inevitable appearance required to ensure the mindless state of fear he’s so intent on keeping every man, woman, and child in America oppressed by 24/7 is sustained.

Many Americans will likely find all the facts about HCQ hard to believe given that Fauci has repeatedly insisted that “the overwhelming evidence of properly conducted randomized clinical trials indicate no therapeutic efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.”

Dr. Risch and the thousands of physicians worldwide who’ve had such great success using HCQ, however, recommend it only for high-risk patients within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms.

It also has to be administered in a “cocktail” along with zinc and another medication.

No one has ever claimed that HCQ is effective when taken by itself or more than a week after symptoms first appear.

Yet, as Drs. Fareed, Jacobs, and Pompan directly rebuke Fauci’s shameless deception, “NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms.”

Nor did any use the full cocktail consisting of hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin.

The studies Fauci’s touting to suppress HCQ might as well be about some other drug entirely for all the relevance they have to the actual course of treatment those who’ve been saving lives with it since the pandemic began are recommending.

Fauci is also deceiving the public about the safety of HCQ.

Despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, [HCQ] has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections.

Yale epidemiologist, Dr. Risch has rejected Fauci’s attempts to stifle HCQ by branding it unsafe as well, insisting that after 65 years on the market, there’s simply no evidence that hydroxychloroquine is any more dangerous to prescribe for COVID-19 than for malaria or any of the other ailments it’s been safely used to treat for decades.

Source

Hydroxychloroquine begins to claw its way back?

I wonder how many of the rabid opponents of hydroxychloroquine have ever voiced support for “right to try” laws.

Quietly, quietly : This past week Minnesota became the second state to reject regulations that effectively ban the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine for use by COVID-19 patients. The decision, which comes two weeks after the Ohio Board of Pharmacy reversed an effective ban of its own, was rightfully praised by local health care advocates. “We are pleased that Governor [Tim] Walz lifted his March 27 Executive Order 20-23 restrictions on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine,” said Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom.

Source: Hydroxychloroquine begins to claw its way back?

Panic Is Imprudent

(Don Boudreaux) Tweet Here’s a letter to a Café Hayek commenter: Ms. Fernandes: Regarding your comment on this blog-post of mine: You write as though covid kills all, or nearly everyone, who it infects. But it does not come remotely close to being so lethal .

….

I don’t deny that covid is unusually harmful. What I do deny is that the response of nearly every government worldwide has been proportional to the harm posed by covid. Governments’ responses have been, and continue to be, colossally excessive. Such excess is the result of panic all out of proportion to the underlying danger. To steal a point made yesterday by my colleague Bryan Caplan, if covid is ten times more dangerous than a ‘normal’ flu, then a response ten times stronger might be appropriate; what we’ve gotten instead is a response that is closer to 1,000 times stronger – one totally disconnected from reality.

Source: Panic Is Imprudent

False Alarm: Bjorn Lomborg’s $69,000 Reveal Book

Buy this book, read it and pass it on to your friends (and enemies, too, if you think they will listen to you).  Bjorn Lomborg’s False Alarm is not perfect, but it is great.  If for nothing else (and there are lots of other good reasons to read the book) the price of the book is worth it for this one number: $69,000.

That is how much better off will be the average person in 2100 under a fossil-fuel developed world than under a sustainably developed world.  Lomborg did not make that number up.  He got it from a 2017 report by the IPCC.  That’s right.  A UN climate panel report shows that per capita GDP will be $69,000 higher if we follow a fossil-fuel-development path than with a ‘sustainable-development’ path.  Again, the average person will be $69,000 better off with fossil-fuels even after subtracting damages from global warming.

Natural Gas Now .org

He gives the example of a journalist’s story on damages from flooding caused by rising sea-levels.  The number that got traction was 350 million people would be subject to flooding by 2100.  The journalist got great coverage with that number.  However, the study on which he based his article noted large exposure to flooding would only occur without any adaptation.  The scientists said that adaptation was very likely and would lead to fewer people being subject to flooding in 2100 than are subject to it now.  So, the likely future from the study was that fewer people would be subject to flooding at the end of the century, but the story spread by the media was the opposite. And so it goes. 

The polar bear population was supposedly a canary in the climate coal mine until the data showed that polar-bear populations are much healthier today than they were fifty years ago.  It turns out that hunting was a much greater threat to bears than shifting ice patterns.  So, it is not a story anybody is covering anymore.

ibid