A Hopkins researcher is examining whether a 100-year-old method to take antibodies from patients who recover from Covid-19, and transferring this immunity through a serum, may prove effective to those at risk of the infection. This method fell out of favor, after being used for measles and polio, because of vaccines and antibiotics. This serum method is not without risk, but could be developed in weeks rather than months for a Covid-19 vaccine.
As noted on this Health Unlocked forum, the use of antimalarials may be an effective use for Covid19, but they are clinically unproven for COVID-19. Other important info is that these drugs are used daily by those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis to prevent severe organ and tissue problems and the drugs may be in short supply for those who now use them for their diseases if diverted to Covid-19. Patients who try to use them for lupus, etc., have to be able to withstand the side effects or not experience side effects. According to a neighbor in health care, that I spoke with yesterday, these drugs can have "really nasty side effects."
Here is a primer on current use of these drugs in autoimmune diseases.
Interestingly, I just read that Bayer and Teva may be donating millions of tabs of anti-malarials to U.S. However, the FDA commissioner is cautioning that we need to have "a large, pragmatic clinical trial" before using these drugs for Covid-19.
Written by
LifeWorks
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Either another populists article or dude is trying to get attention.
This is well known and tried approach is abandoned by the very good reason: it's not scalable. You won't be able to draw enough blood from recovered patients to cover any significant demand. Note, the plasma group should be compatible as well. So, following this logic, we always need to keep some folks infected in order to produce the serum. Any volunteers?
Before responding to this you might want to know what you're talking about. About 12 other hospitals have joined Johns Hopkins in looking at this and the FDA is also examining it and testing it. Here's another piece of advice "look up the definition of populist" before you misuse it again.
Point taken. I'm not a native speaker and usually look up definitions if I feel don't know the meaning well enough. This time I didn't, sorry about that. I'm checking now, and it's not that far off:
"Populist - a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."
In this context either the JHU dude or an article author could be referred as a populist cause he supposedly knows something that others don't and dug out the truth everyone else disregards at the moment. The crowds favor the one, who tells what they want to hear: that there's a cure from the virus. So he is trying to appeal to the public. Am I wrong? If this is not a good word, what be a better one in your opinion?
Other statement still holds true: the approach is not scalable. It's good if they are looking at this specific aspect. But even if it is so, the author had completely failed to mention it, and it makes all the difference. The content is garbage at this point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just being healthy skeptical. I can be blunt, but for a good reason. In fact, I have a deepest respect for researchers and JHU in particular as I worked with the establishment briefly - very smart folks. It's just media, it's just so shallow and stupid.
In normal useage, the term "populist" would in this case apply not to someone doing the work or research mentioned, but to someone taking knowledge of that work and leveraging it with rhetoric for mass popular appeal (for political gain or diversion, blame-shifting, buying votes, juicing poll numbers, getting ratings or praise, etc.).
So it typically is applied to politicians. Hmmm.... none seem to come to mind right now.
"these drugs are used daily by those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis to prevent severe organ and tissue problems and the drugs may be in short supply for those who now use them for their diseases if diverted"
So many people do not seem to realize how vital it is to "flatten the curve" for the sake of THESE patients, the ones who are already in need the drugs, beds, equipment and staff that will be diverted to care for a surge of COVID-19 patients.
This obviously also applies to all those who may become injured or ill in myriad ways in the near future who may be put at greater risk by potential shortages or delays in care. These unseen and indirect victims of pandemic need to be spoken for!
Thank you for invigorating this conversation and for pointing out some of the important points including that those who are already using anti-malarials for severe diseases such as lupus need to have it, first and foremost, in order to prevent severe joint and tissue damage, and even death.
I am very disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that the current adminstration sat on the severity of this new coronavirus for almost two months, apparently for political and economic leverage, and are letting us, the U. S. population, take the coming brunt of this pandemic.
Humility and compassion atvits finest....men conquering their own disease still having the compassion to acknowledge the needs of many. Beautiful xoxo great respect to all
It is healing for all of us to look out for those who are laboring with other illnesses..... and to help safeguard their continued use of medications that could be diverted away from them.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Search for more covid-19 data 
A positive Covid-19 story
COVID-19, and PCA 
