Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Yeah. I really don't think we should be making HCQ available over the counter. We'll have people with bad side effects, almost certainly. Whatever you think of the studies, practically all the studies agree that there can be side effects with incorrect dosage. 

Well, I didn't say anything about OTC. Just that I would love to see the results of a well done study that involved the actual thing being promoted not pieces and parts of it.

And I understand wanting things to work. 

Edited by frogger
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3241

  • Pen

    2468

  • Arcadia

    1337

  • prairiewindmomma

    305

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

That's not a blanket right.  If my religion required human sacrifice, I can't practice it.  If my religion required sexual assault, I can't practice it. Freedom of religion isn't a blanket right

Posted Images

1 hour ago, frogger said:

But I wonder why no one chooses to add the zinc component when that is what the uproar is about? 

 

I really don't know. I'm just curious.

Well, I think most of the uproar isn't because of promising theories about HCQ acting in tandem with zinc.  I think most of the enthusiasm for the drug is because the president touted it.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken HCQ as a malaria prophylactic myself, and despite experiencing severe nausea, I wouldn't hesitate to take it for Covid if there were good solid randomized clinical trials showing that it is effective. But so far, no one has been able to link even one. IMO, the fact that a few other countries may be using it despite the lack of evidence does not constitute evidence in its favor.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Well, I think most of the uproar isn't because of promising theories about HCQ acting in tandem with zinc.  I think most of the enthusiasm for the drug is because the president touted it.  

 

I thought so too at first but it seems pointless to keep doing studies with HCQ and no Zinc and that seems to have been replicated already and was a no go.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Do people actually think Zinc is how it's supposed to work? Because I assume people running these studies aren't stupid. 

 

Have we not been reading the same thread?

And your definition of stupid is? Doctors and researchers do all sorts of stuff and that includes call each other stupid when the disagreeing parties probably have at least above average IQ.  LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whitehawk said:

We don't have to be as stupid to do more harm, simply because there are twelve times as many of us.

 

Lol!

 

1 hour ago, whitehawk said:

I found my pulmonologist visit less than helpful. Now taking more medicines to less effect. *sigh*

Bummer ☹️

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I may have found one for you. It says peer reviewed but an article about it not the actual paper I think.

 

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

 

ETA Ok it’s kind of old- July 2, also it looked like it said 18% reduction in mortality which I don’t think is as much reduction as Dexamethasone

 

ETA 2 - Just saw a comment that it may not have been well controlled, was observational and many were also given steroids

Edited by TCB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Do people actually think Zinc is how it's supposed to work? Because I assume people running these studies aren't stupid. 

 

18 minutes ago, frogger said:

 

Have we not been reading the same thread?

And your definition of stupid is? Doctors and researchers do all sorts of stuff and that includes call each other stupid when the disagreeing parties probably have at least above average IQ.  LOL

Actually, it started because it was effective against SARS, they started looking at things that worked with other similar diseases.

Some people think it may work as a zinc ionophore, but there are other theories about its main mechanism, and it may be doing several things.  People don't always know exactly why a drug works.

Yes, high IQ people can do stupid things, LOL.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TCB said:

Well I may have found one for you. It says peer reviewed but an article about it not the actual paper I think.

 

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

 

ETA Ok it’s kind of old- July 2, also it looked like it said 18% reduction in mortality which I don’t think is as much reduction as Dexamethasone

 

They aren’t an either this or that.  

Dexamethasone is more useful later in disease course probably not a good idea prophylactic or early.  

HCQ + zinc the opposite.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TCB said:

Well I may have found one for you. It says peer reviewed but an article about it not the actual paper I think.

 

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

 

ETA Ok it’s kind of old- July 2, also it looked like it said 18% reduction in mortality which I don’t think is as much reduction as Dexamethasone

 

ETA 2 - Just saw a comment that it may not have been well controlled, was observational and many were also given steroids

The “nonHCQ group” also had a significantly higher median age and were significantly sicker than the HCQ treatment group 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

They aren’t an either this or that.  

Dexamethasone is more useful later in disease course probably not a good idea prophylactic or early.  

HCQ + zinc the opposite.  

I realize that, it was just an observation about the reduction in mortality. We use dexamethasone for those needing oxygen therapy as well as those needing ventilation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

I posted in the other thread, but I can’t find any of my links right now - they’re too far back in my history. When I next come across them I’ll repost, but there were six or seven good studies I’ve seen compiled in the last two months, mostly from outside the US.  I need to start bookmarking these, sigh.

I haven't seen those studies either, but my uncle (who spent the majority of his career as a doctor in Africa) believes this is a helpful mix.  Don't know what it's based on, and I'm curious what studies are out there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a friend who is a nurse in a hospital that sees a lot of Covid-19 patients. He says that they can see a difference with HCQ early and plasma late, and is mad that the news media is not reporting about either. They're not doing studies, they're just using what they see works with all patients that come in. (He's mad at all news, it's not political! He also says he doesn't know why plasma would be political because no one has said anything about it.)

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one part of the reason we don’t have good HCQ studies is because after the lancet study that has been called into question claiming it was a safety risk lots and lots of studies were stopped or put on hold.  Some have recommenced but I suspect that delay is why we haven’t had much recent info.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Israeli data showing breakdown of where of infections were acquired in the past week 

https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/.premium-data-shows-where-israelis-contract-the-coronavirus-1.9005504?__twitter_impression=true
 

education institutions, events and places of  Worship came in top.  Beaches and Pools, salons and social gatherings at the bottom.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElizabethB said:

We have a friend who is a nurse in a hospital that sees a lot of Covid-19 patients. He says that they can see a difference with HCQ early and plasma late, and is mad that the news media is not reporting about either. They're not doing studies, they're just using what they see works with all patients that come in. (He's mad at all news, it's not political! He also says he doesn't know why plasma would be political because no one has said anything about it.)

But how can they "see a difference" if there's no control group — a "difference" ... compared to what? If everyone gets the drug, there is no control group. If they are selecting the healthiest patients to get it, they have no way of knowing whether all those people would have done just as well without it. If they're giving it in conjunction with other treatments, they have no way of knowing which component is significant, and by how much. This is why pharmaceutical trials must be randomized, blind, and placebo-controlled.

The University of Minnesota's large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed no benefit from HCQ. The large, randomized RECOVERY study in UK showed no benefit. Anecdotal accounts from random healthcare workers who want to believe that it helps their patients do not outweigh the evidence of "gold standard" clinical trials.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going to have a pretty hard border closure with VIC.  South Australians have until Tuesday to get home then they’ll be banned for returning.  I haven’t seen the finer details yet as there always seem to be some exceptions.  We’re also back to limits of 50 in homes and 100 for funerals and weddings.  (25,000 is apparently fine for the football though)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

But how can they "see a difference" if there's no control group — a "difference" ... compared to what? If everyone gets the drug, there is no control group. If they are selecting the healthiest patients to get it, they have no way of knowing whether all those people would have done just as well without it. If they're giving it in conjunction with other treatments, they have no way of knowing which component is significant, and by how much. This is why pharmaceutical trials must be randomized, blind, and placebo-controlled.

The University of Minnesota's large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed no benefit from HCQ. The large, randomized RECOVERY study in UK showed no benefit. Anecdotal accounts from random healthcare workers who want to believe that it helps their patients do not outweigh the evidence of "gold standard" clinical trials.

Difference because they saw a lot of patients when the whole Covid thing started, before there were any treatments, a certain percentage of them died.

Now, he said they only patients they have die are those the are 80+ or a few who are over 60 and have multiple conditions.  So, seeing a lot of patients still but a lot fewer deaths. 

Yes, there should be randomized trials, but if the effect is big enough, doctors and nurses notice.

I haven't seen an early randomized trial of HCQ with zinc.  He says HCQ only helps early, and plasma may help early but it helps late, so they save it for late, they have limited amounts, they try HCQ first.

He feels that it is wrong to withhold treatment with minimal risk waiting for a trial that may never happen. They are not a research hospital, they only see patients.

Edited by ElizabethB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the U of MN study also looked at HCQ + zinc and found no additional benefit. This comment was in an article reporting the results of the U of MN study:

"Boulware said there was hope that zinc would boost the effectiveness of the drug, but neither of the U’s first two studies showed any improved benefit for patients who took that supplement."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

Difference because they saw a lot of patients when the whole Covid thing started, before there were any treatments, a certain percentage of them died.

Now, he said they only patients they have die are those the are 80+ or a few who are over 60 and have multiple conditions.  So, seeing a lot of patients still but a lot fewer deaths. 

Yes, there should be randomized trials, but if the effect is big enough, doctors and nurses notice.

I haven't seen an early randomized trial of HCQ with zinc.  He says HCQ only helps early, and plasma may help early but it helps late, so they save it for late, they have limited amounts, they try HCQ first.

He feels that it is wrong to withhold treatment with minimal risk waiting for a trial that may never happen. They are not a research hospital, they only see patients.

Dh (RN who does deal with COVID19 patients but not in the ICU) says that a big reason why there are fewer deaths is the move away from putting patients on ventilators.  So it's not necessarily simply what meds are being used. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Dh (RN who does deal with COVID19 patients but not in the ICU) says that a big reason why there are fewer deaths is the move away from putting patients on ventilators.  So it's not necessarily simply what meds are being used. 

That's possible, too, I'm not sure when they stopped using vents vs. when they started with HCQ, but they only started plasma recently and he said he's seen an additional drop in deaths from late patients with the addition of plasma.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ElizabethB said:

Difference because they saw a lot of patients when the whole Covid thing started, before there were any treatments, a certain percentage of them died.

Now, he said they only patients they have die are those the are 80+ or a few who are over 60 and have multiple conditions.  So, seeing a lot of patients still but a lot fewer deaths. 

But that is generally true everywhere, whether patients are treated with HCQ or not. Doctors have a much better understanding now of how to manage ARDS (e.g. proning and high-flo nasal cannula instead of ventilators), we now understand that Covid can present in many ways, not just fever and cough, and testing is far more widely available, which means people are getting tested, diagnosed, and treated sooner. It's not valid to compare the survival rates of patients in July to survival rates in March and conclude that HCQ is the one thing that is making the difference when so many other things have changed. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElizabethB said:

We have a friend who is a nurse in a hospital that sees a lot of Covid-19 patients. He says that they can see a difference with HCQ early and plasma late, and is mad that the news media is not reporting about either. They're not doing studies, they're just using what they see works with all patients that come in. (He's mad at all news, it's not political! He also says he doesn't know why plasma would be political because no one has said anything about it.)

I've seen tons in the media about plasma treatments. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I've seen tons in the media about plasma treatments. 

 

Maybe he quit too soon, I'll let him know! 

It might be more restful for him to not watch, though, he does have a lot going on at work, news is not really restful viewing right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=AAWEB_MRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adelaidenow.com.au%2Flifestyle%2Fsa-weekend%2Fsa-weekend-australian-soldiers-call-for-royal-commission-into-malaria-drugs-scandal%2Fnews-story%2F2806e894e466ee6850ed5e104b5e26b8&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium
 

does anyone know more about this?  I don’t have a tonne of trust in the reliability of this news source so I’m wondering if this is a credible link.  Australia East Timor veterans who were given antimalarial drugs including HCQ claim it causes depression and anxiety etc.  That was only one of the named drugs so I think it’s just being raised due to the Covid thing.  But are there any concerns over psychiatric effects with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pen said:

I certainly don’t think it should be mandatory — so that anyone who feels uncomfortable with it would not take it.

If supplies are limited maybe it should first be offered to HCW, LEO, teachers etc.    especially people who would be at risk from CV19, but not particularly at risk from HCQ.  But I think if it can be an over the counter medicine in Venezuela, it can be in USA too.  I don’t think Americans are hugely more stupid than Venezuelans.   Idk.  Maybe Americans are.

 

 

 

Almost all meds are OTC in Venezuela. The only things that need a prescription are controlled substances (opioids, stimulants, etc.)

Also, malaria has made quite the comeback, so HCQ is needed for its original purpose.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

We are going to have a pretty hard border closure with VIC.  South Australians have until Tuesday to get home then they’ll be banned for returning.  I haven’t seen the finer details yet as there always seem to be some exceptions.  We’re also back to limits of 50 in homes and 100 for funerals and weddings.  (25,000 is apparently fine for the football though)

I really feel for all those tiny border towns that are now struggling. right along the Vic /NSW border and now the Vic /SA border

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm?s_cid=mm6930e1_w

In a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. Among persons aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical conditions, one in five had not returned to their usual state of health.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That actually fewer than I would have thought, given our personal sample, but maybe that sample leans older.

2-3 weeks is also not super long. I’ve had colds last that long. I’d be much more curious about what happens after a few months.

 

I probably should have linked this, but it doesn't share a lot more, other than a reference to a woman who has had symptoms since March, and a "long timers club." My friend's mom is in this "club"--she has been sick since February.  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/monumental-acknowledgment-cdc-reports-long-term-covid-19-patients-n1234814?fbclid=IwAR0y-iAliTdLS-gYe-b5WIf4kMwtv-8kYNfMoO5qjkqIILeclvEbU2aV_Gs

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, cintinative said:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm?s_cid=mm6930e1_w

In a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. Among persons aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical conditions, one in five had not returned to their usual state of health.

 

These are far better numbers than I have seen elsewhere. Usually they are following up on hospitalized cases, so I knew the number of long timers was skewed high. I just haven't known how high. So 65% of symptomatic cases had fully recovered in 2-3 weeks, that's so much better than I have been thinking. It does happen to fit my personal sample, but I haven't wanted to give that too much weight.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

Yeah, it's still higher than I would like it, but it's actually kind of encouraging. Not that I want to test those percentages in my family... 

Totally agree. I don't ever want to make light of covid, but I have had some pretty bad worst case scenarios in my head over the last 6 mos. I do find this encouraging.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

My personal guess is that there are fewer deaths only because the hospitalized population is very different from the early days of the pandemic -- more spread out, so they take less sick cases. 

Possibly, but I've actually heard the opposite. I heard a NYC doc saying that at the beginning they hospitalized many people who didn't need hospitalization. Basically they didn't know what to do, so if someone had tested positive and felt sick enough to be seen, they were automatically hospitalized. He said they are much better now at targeting the sickest patients. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, square_25 said:

I mean, maybe at the very beginning? There were SO MANY cases in NY, I doubt they managed to hospitalize a significant fraction. I know that mid-pandemic, people were reporting being told not to come in unless they were sure they weren't OK. 

Yeah, I don't know how that all balances out. I assumed that was part of his point tho. That if they thought they were sick enough to come in, that was enough to get them hospitalized. They now would be better able to determine who actually needs to be hospitalized.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I would guess this is all really hard to disentangle. That's why I'm sticking to my simple model and watching it, lol. It's so surprisingly predictive that if it keeps working, it really cuts through the noise. 

Heading out for now, but can you explain why the possibility of better outcomes would make a difference to your model? I hope it's not a totally dense question, but I don't see how they're connected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoe asked us about treatment only after a hospital visit. I entered what the hospital prescribed which we haven’t used either the Tylenol or the cough medicine and that’s it. It didn’t ask about supplements. 
 

Day 8 and dh’s only symptom is anosmia. The hospital won’t clear him to go back to work until his senses return. 
 

“Our findings indicate that the novel coronavirus changes the sense of smell in patients not by directly infecting neurons but by affecting the function of supporting cells,” said senior study author Sandeep Robert Datta, associate professor of neurobiology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS.

This implies that in most cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection is unlikely to permanently damage olfactory neural circuits and lead to persistent anosmia, Datta added, a condition that is associated with a variety of mental and social health issues, particularly depression and anxiety.

“I think it’s good news, because once the infection clears, olfactory neurons don’t appear to need to be replaced or rebuilt from scratch,” he said. “But we need more data and a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms to confirm this conclusion.”

A majority of COVID-19 patients experience some level of anosmia, most often temporary. Analyses of electronic health records indicate that COVID-19 patients are 27 times more likely to have smell loss but are only around 2.2 to 2.6 times more likely to have fever, cough or respiratory difficulty, compared to patients without COVID-19.

Some studies have hinted that anosmia in COVID-19 differs from anosmia caused by other viral infections, including by other coronaviruses.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/how-covid-19-might-be-causing-smell-loss-337872

Edited by Plum
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I would guess this is all really hard to disentangle. That's why I'm sticking to my simple model and watching it, lol. It's so surprisingly predictive that if it keeps working, it really cuts through the noise. 

 

Did you run calculations for earlier (a few months ago) in NY ? 

 

As I have been following since February or whenever (but not specifically NY) case fatality rate has seemed to be decreasing. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plum said:

Zoe only asked us about treatment only after a hospital visit. I entered what the hospital prescribed which we haven’t used either the Tylenol or the cough medicine and that’s it. It didn’t ask about supplements. 
 

 

Having prescribed medication versus actually taken seems like a problem for meaningful statistics if that’s common. 

 

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Day 8 and dh’s only symptom is anosmia. The hospital won’t clear him to go back to work until his senses return. 
 

“Our findings indicate that the novel coronavirus changes the sense of smell in patients not by directly infecting neurons but by affecting the function of supporting cells,” said senior study author Sandeep Robert Datta, associate professor of neurobiology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS.

This implies that in most cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection is unlikely to permanently damage olfactory neural circuits and lead to persistent anosmia, Datta added, a condition that is associated with a variety of mental and social health issues, particularly depression and anxiety.

“I think it’s good news, because once the infection clears, olfactory neurons don’t appear to need to be replaced or rebuilt from scratch,” he said. “But we need more data and a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms to confirm this conclusion.”

A majority of COVID-19 patients experience some level of anosmia, most often temporary. Analyses of electronic health records indicate that COVID-19 patients are 27 times more likely to have smell loss but are only around 2.2 to 2.6 times more likely to have fever, cough or respiratory difficulty, compared to patients without COVID-19.

Some studies have hinted that anosmia in COVID-19 differs from anosmia caused by other viral infections, including by other coronaviruses.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/how-covid-19-might-be-causing-smell-loss-337872

 

Perhaps also some role for 

Zinc?

too much, or nasal spray, can cause anosmia, but so can zinc deficiency 

if zinc gets depleted fighting the virus I wonder if that could be an added factor

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pen said:

 

Having prescribed medication versus actually taken seems like a problem for meaningful statistics if that’s common. 

 

 

Perhaps also some role for 

Zinc?

too much, or nasal spray, can cause anosmia, but so can zinc deficiency 

if zinc gets depleted fighting the virus I wonder if that could be an added factor

I went in and looked at the options. They ask about actual treatment done at the hospital such as oxygen and ventilation. There is an other option at the end where you fill in the blanks of treatment given. That’s where I entered it. 
 

He’s been taking Immune + with his multivitamins and that has zinc. He doesn’t use nasal spray. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m interested to see what comes of all the studies into loss of taste and smell. I lost mine years ago with the flu and ENT’s were all basically saying it’s more common than people realize and there’s nothing I can do. Maybe something will come from it that will help.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Err, let me check, one sec. 

So, I'd estimate that at the peak, we had 

50*1/10000*20,000,000  = 100,000 

daily cases or so, and at the peak 2 weeks later we had about 1000 deaths a day

 Right now, we have about 

1.1*1/10000*20,000,000  = 2200 

cases per day or so, and about 20 deaths a day. 

I'm seeing about the same IFR around a percent, frankly, if I assume my calculations are right. 

Also, note how GOOD these estimates are. There's a linear relationship. 

 

Shouldn’t it (IFR) change if any treatment at all is any better now than earlier? 

So...   if that’s actually true ...  could we conclude  then  from your statistics that nothing , not dexamethasone or anything else done in NY actually is helping survival? 

 

That does not seem to fit with what people I know in medicine are saying.

 

Word albeit anecdotal is that at certain points for some patients giving HCQ cocktail or at other points steroid cocktail (anticoagulants etc) is making s difference.  (Difference in terms of someone seeming deathly ill feeling and doing much better).

 

I know you tend to go with statistics as most significant and important.

I tend to rate observations in field from people I trust more highly than you do.  

 

 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I mean, my estimates are obviously not perfect, and the data is noisy. I would guess the IFR is changing from 1 percent to, like, 0.8 percent. But no, I don't think there's been something revolutionary that decreases deaths by a big factor. And to be fair, none of these studies are showing this large an effect. 

The data is all very noisy, but as long as I'm getting a linear relationship with some minor variation, I'm assuming that a lot of the anecdotal reports are confirmation bias. 

 

I will think about that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Joker said:

I’m interested to see what comes of all the studies into loss of taste and smell. I lost mine years ago with the flu and ENT’s were all basically saying it’s more common than people realize and there’s nothing I can do. Maybe something will come from it that will help.

 

12 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Ooh, I did NOT know that can happen :-/. 

Yes. My mom has had no sense of smell for 30 years after a bad flu. 
 

Side note: People with repeated head trauma or CTE lost their sense of smell before any other symptoms showed up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...