Flu + Covid is Happening Now!

[Ausmumof3]

19 minutes ago, Pen said:

 Ivm also has been being studied by doctors seeking solutions. 
 

I mean that my sense is that studies aren’t likely to meet the demands for rigor of many on Wtm in my personal experience. 
 

I am Not trying to be critical of doctors trying to do their best.   I simply do not expect that the majority of “you” reading this will find the studies satisfying.  I am certainly open to being surprised about that. 
 

Nonetheless, Possibly knowing about Ivm or updates on it could be helpful to someone like @easypeasy who indirectly knows someone sick. 
 

If something like IVM or Vitamin D might help a couple of people here or their family or friends that’s wonderful. 
 

And obviously ymmv but I think lack of $$$ to do research does tend to affect the ability to have huge, excellent RCT. 
 

 

I know we’ve talked about this before a bit.  So apologies if I’m repeating myself.  But I don’t really mind if the trials aren’t perfect and I’d be willing to try stuff I just get frustrated when people use them to claim we have effective proven treatment so we can stop social distancing and go back to normal.  We have indications that some things may work and if we get exposed accidentally they may be worth trying but we don’t have enough evidence to throw the control measures out the window.  This is not anyone on this forum but unfortunately there seem to be many many others who think like that.  
 

I do think there’s more funding for trials of inexpensive drugs than typical because governments are desperate to get economies back on track and functioning.  

[Ausmumof3]

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=Ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
 

According to this register there are 44 trials registered for ivermectin.  Also if you’re interested in it some of them are still recruiting so you could try to contact them and ask to be involved I guess.

[Halftime Hope]

4 hours ago, popmom said:

Well, I'm a bit "tied up in knots". How do you find out which doctors are willing to prescribe Ivermectin? Or which doctors are having success treating outpatient? Are these primary care docs? 

I would have been, too, if I hadn't been so immersed in the medical side of this!  There were a couple of primary care doctors locally who spoke out early on: they were going to practice medicine during the pandemic.  Their offices would stay open, they would treat people, and take whatever precautions seemed reasonable, but by all means, patients should plan on being treated.  Mind you, we got our first wave in mid-March, so we had an advantage over NY and NJ.  The docs here who were very vocally treating people were using the Zelenko protocol.  Or nebulized steroids.  And they started keeping tallies and posting photos of their patient count on their Facebook pages: patient treated, patients hospitalized, and deaths.  Gradually, people whose primary care docs or NPs were treating them made noise about it on social media.   

There are two places I've found that have doctors who are willing to treat patients with medications:  SpeakwithanMD.com is a telemed site, and the FLCCC.net website has affiliate doctors.  It seems like I had seen a third one, but I can't find it right now.  

You can also use supplements as prophylaxis, if not to completely avoid catching COVID, to mitigate the symptoms.  That's where I first began to relax, when I started listening to MedCram and the data from journal-published studies that he was presenting.  This was very early on, in March.  He was doing what good doctors do:  think.  

I have no idea if you pay attention to media outlets, but I just can't.  I skim headlines from a left-leaning source and a right-leaning source, both send daily COVID updates to my email, but the sensationalism of voices and emotions on TV is too much for me.

[Halftime Hope]

30 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I know we’ve talked about this before a bit.  So apologies if I’m repeating myself.  But I don’t really mind if the trials aren’t perfect and I’d be willing to try stuff I just get frustrated when people use them to claim we have effective proven treatment so we can stop social distancing and go back to normal.  We have indications that some things may work and if we get exposed accidentally they may be worth trying but we don’t have enough evidence to throw the control measures out the window.  This is not anyone on this forum but unfortunately there seem to be many many others who think like that.  
 

I do think there’s more funding for trials of inexpensive drugs than typical because governments are desperate to get economies back on track and functioning.  

Marik, et al. named the protocol the i-MASK protocol, making an obvious point that masks and social distancing have to be a part of the protocol, so clearly it's not them or me saying that "everything will go back to normal." 

But I do know that I will be traveling to see my 2 month old grandchild because I have the safety net of meds going with me.  Without them, I could not possibly consider putting my husband in harm's way.   We will travel ridiculously protected, layer upon layer, precaution piled on top of precaution, so that the meds are only a final layer of safety net, taken if all else fails. 

That's how I think we should be thinking of this:  life can carry on because we have a safety net for those at highest risk, and we'll bring the terrible toll of this far, far down.  We have to start treating patients and preventing them ever going to the hospital.  

[Pen]

24 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=Ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
 

According to this register there are 44 trials registered for ivermectin.  Also if you’re interested in it some of them are still recruiting so you could try to contact them and ask to be involved I guess.

for a lot of such studies it is more complicated than that 

one would have to be in right location at right time with right stage of illness

still, if one were in a big city with many hospitals of the type that does studies, and choosing a hospital to go to if sick with CV19, it might make sense to try one that is studying whatever seems promising.

Or just to try a doctor willing to prescribe something if that’s legal in Australia. 

I don’t know in Australia where that might be, but I have heard some names.   Wagstaff or a similar name at Monash? Broder or a name like that somewhere else? 
 

not to be political but IME these tend to be Conservative for sources — so you might try Sky News   I think I saw Australian references on US Newsmax. 

 

though very likely most of you in Australia will have plenty of vaccine before needing to consider a treatment

[Pen]

 

removed for safety 

 

FDA goes after practitioners trying to help so best not post it in public

 

I hope enough have seen it to be able to privately pass it on to others for whom it could be a huge help potentially 

 

“

Q: What is the FDA doing to protect people from fraudulent COVID-19 products?

A: We have established a cross-agency task force dedicated to closely monitoring for fraudulent COVID-19 products. We have reached out to major retailers to ask for their help in monitoring online marketplaces for fraudulent COVID-19 products. Products sold are subject to FDA investigation and potential enforcement action if they claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure COVID-19 and have not demonstrated safety and effectiveness for that intended use. The task force has already worked with retailers to remove dozens of these types of product listings online. 

The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issue warning letters to companies that violate federal law and pose significant risks to patient health by selling unapproved products with fraudulent claims to treat or prevent COVID-19. View the warning letters for more information.”

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Pen

[Halftime Hope]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Do you have any links to studies etc.  I’m finding a lot of opinions but not much in the way of science.  It looks like Dr Mariks is a meta analysis rather than RCT?  I found one from Egypt and one from Iran but that was all.  

Apologies, Ausmum.  I've seen two slides, but they are re-writing (updating) their ivermectin references page, their bib, in essence, since there are SO many new studies coming out.  I'd encourage you to keep an eye on the FLCCC.net page.  

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

The docs here who were very vocally treating people were using the Zelenko protocol. 

I still haven't seen anything convincing with HCQ. I've looked and looked, and I'm not in any way against it, but I just don't see any evidence for it. (And time you spend treating with things that may not work isn't free -- it's time you don't spend looking for other things.) 

I talked to DH about the ivermectin trials, and he confirmed my sense that trials out of India and Iran aren't great evidence. I'm hoping to see a larger RCT from a Western country... there's definitely better data with ivermectin so far than with HCQ, so fingers crossed. 

There also seem to be good preliminary results with fluvoxamine: 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2020.22760?guestAccessKey=4fbdad81-8bd8-42ed-bef1-68c7ee8f0478&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_term=mostread&utm_content=olf-widget_11202020

I'd like a bigger RCT for this one, too, but it's all a good sign! 

[Halftime Hope]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

@popmom
 

The AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) which I offered links to from the long thread by pm only due to “political issues,” and not wanting to deal with nasty WTM pile-ons when only trying to help (at least, that’s the way I frequently experience it ) maintains a list of physicians/ practitioners in all 50 states (iirc - or at least most of them) of USA who are willing to treat at early stages / home care, often by telemedicine if there’s no one nearby. 
 

It’s a link in the appendix of the downloadable pamphlet. 

I am mentioning this here openly in case it could be lifesaving for someone- take what you can use and leave the rest.  Use your own judgment. 
 

 

 

Thanks, Pen.  That's helpful, too!  One of my concerns is that many states have restricted the meds that are available, in what to me is a very unconscionable way.  So some of the boardies may not be able to get meds even if they have a doctor willing to treat.  

 

[Pen]

@Ausmumof3

Borody not Broder:

https://www.newsmax.com/Health/health-news/Australia-Ivermectin-coronavirus-covid/2020/08/08/id/981220/

 

[Frances]

19 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Marik, et al. named the protocol the i-MASK protocol, making an obvious point that masks and social distancing have to be a part of the protocol, so clearly it's not them or me saying that "everything will go back to normal." 

But I do know that I will be traveling to see my 2 month old grandchild because I have the safety net of meds going with me.  Without them, I could not possibly consider putting my husband in harm's way.   We will travel ridiculously protected, layer upon layer, precaution piled on top of precaution, so that the meds are only a final layer of safety net, taken if all else fails. 

That's how I think we should be thinking of this:  life can carry on because we have a safety net for those at highest risk, and we'll bring the terrible toll of this far, far down.  We have to start treating patients and preventing them ever going to the hospital.  

Which meds are you taking with you?

[Pen]

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

Thanks, Pen.  That's helpful, too!  One of my concerns is that many states have restricted the meds that are available, in what to me is a very unconscionable way.  So some of the boardies may not be able to get meds even if they have a doctor willing to treat.  

 

yes.  
Alas.  

I know.

None, or only minuscule amounts 
 

 I think it is indeed unconscionable and horrible!!!!

[Halftime Hope]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I still haven't seen anything convincing with HCQ. I've looked and looked, and I'm not in any way against it, but I just don't see any evidence for it. (And time you spend treating with things that may not work isn't free -- it's time you don't spend looking for other things.) 

I talked to DH about the ivermectin trials, and he confirmed my sense that trials out of India and Iran aren't great evidence. I'm hoping to see a larger RCT from a Western country... there's definitely better data with ivermectin so far than with HCQ, so fingers crossed. 

There also seem to be good preliminary results with fluvoxamine: 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2020.22760?guestAccessKey=4fbdad81-8bd8-42ed-bef1-68c7ee8f0478&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_term=mostread&utm_content=olf-widget_11202020

I'd like a bigger RCT for this one, too, but it's all a good sign! 

You might want to go watch the Dr Marik videos.  There is more there there.  😉   

I also think it is really inappropriate to discount sequential case studies.  They are a legitimate form of data.  If someone like Dr. Zelenko is risk stratifying his patients, giving HQC + zinc to only his highest risk patients, treating the rest with quercetin+zinc, and of those on HCQ, the numbers hospitalized are very very low, in what would normally be a high risk group, something good is going on.  Something about the timing or manner of dosing is different, and that's what needs to be trialed exactly to see if it can be replicated.  We're having the similar success in the DFW area with several doctors doing it here.   

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Halftime Hope said:

You might want to go watch the Dr Marik videos.  There is more there there.  😉   

I also think it is really inappropriate to discount sequential case studies.  They are a legitimate form of data.  If someone like Dr. Zelenko is risk stratifying his patients, giving HQC + zinc to only his highest risk patients, treating the rest with quercetin+zinc, and of those on HCQ, the numbers hospitalized are very very low, in what would normally be a high risk group, something good is going on.  Something about the timing or manner of dosing is different, and that's what needs to be trialed exactly to see if it can be replicated.  We're having the similar success in the DFW area with several doctors doing it here.   

If it works for him, it should work in an RCT. If it only works for him, everyone else will mess up the dosing, too, right? Then why figure it'll work? 

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

Thanks, Pen.  That's helpful, too!  One of my concerns is that many states have restricted the meds that are available, in what to me is a very unconscionable way.  So some of the boardies may not be able to get meds even if they have a doctor willing to treat.  

 

Removed

reference to non prescription approach

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Pen
Important NB and an ETA source for more inf

[Not_a_Number]

Here's Zelenko's write up, if anyone's curious: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258?via%3Dihub#fig0004

I'm not sure what to make of it, to be honest. If I'm not missing something, I don't see any inclusion of the characteristics of his control group. I understand he's comparing to the rest of his community, but I would really need to know what's going on with the rest of them. We know what percentage of them were hospitalized and how many died (and the difference in death rates didn't reach statistical significance, by the way), but we know pretty much nothing else about them.

Am I missing something? Does he provide data about his control group anywhere? 

His dosing also doesn't look all that different from the bigger trials I've seen, and those don't show any effect. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Halftime Hope]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

If it works for him, it should work in an RCT. If it only works for him, everyone else will mess up the dosing, too, right? Then why figure it'll work? 

Not necessarily.   I'm old, and I can't tell you how many times I've read of someone having fantastic results with a protocol, then the NIH (I'm just picking on them tonight) is begged to study it, except they do it VERY differently than the original study, and so it doesn't show efficacy.  That happened with Marik and the IV Vitamin C protocol for ARDS.   That happened with the guy from NY with a pancreatic cancer protocol. Ad nauseum. 

The Solidarity trial gave HQC at 2400mg for crying out loud.  That's a "criminal" dose, to quote Dr. Campbell.   

So someone needs to enroll doctors in hot spot areas to trial the Zelenko protocol exactly the way he did it. Outpatients, showing up in offices and being run through his risk-stratifying questionnaire, then being given the meds cocktail exactly the way he did with the same outpatient instructions.  Either it will pan out or it won't.  But to my knowledge, no one has tried that yet.  My guess is that people were showing up at the doctor early because they hadn't been told to stay home and wait it out, remember, we're talking about February and early March.  So they were going in for treatment fairly early -- after all, they were hearing horror stories of what is going on a train-ride away in NYC.  And we have a pretty good sense now, that HQC is best as an anti-viral, early on in the viral replication stage.  

[Not_a_Number]

@Halftime Hope: I'm going to try to find a prophylaxis trial (I'm pretty sure there has been one), but here's a list of trials going on: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7489223/

There's really a lot of testing happening. It's not the case that anyone is dismissing HCQ. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Not necessarily.   I'm old, and I can't tell you how many times I've read of someone having fantastic results with a protocol, then the NIH (I'm just picking on them tonight) is begged to study it, except they do it VERY differently than the original study, and so it doesn't show efficacy.  That happened with Marik and the IV Vitamin C protocol for ARDS.   That happened with the guy from NY with a pancreatic cancer protocol. Ad nauseum. 

But the other possibility is that the early protocol is a fluke, and that it won't show efficacy because it doesn't work. Non-randomized things are really prone to LOOKING like they work, until you actually test it. (Hence the many breathless headlines about chocolate curing all evils 😉 . ) 

Here's a prophylaxis study: 

https://c19study.com/omrani.html

It's not the SAME as the Zelenko thing, but it's going to be hard to design things to be exactly the same. It's certainly not using criminally large amounts of HCQ, which is a very valid criticism. For what it's worth, most of the RCTs I've seen on hospitalized patients didn't use the quadruple dose (yeesh), either.

[Pen]

 

Quote

Do you know why they have restrictions in place?

 

yes . I do. 
 

thank you for the reminder.

 

I will go back and remove my posts. 
 

sadly 

@Halftime Hope please remove the quote of mine referencing AAPS and it’s doctor list, and consider removal of the source for telemedicine ...   There’s a lot of pressure being put on such people and I don’t want to add to making it impossible to get help short of in hospital near death by outing them in a possibly adverse public forum like this. 
 

TIA!

 

”

Q: What is the FDA doing to protect people from fraudulent COVID-19 products?

A: We have established a cross-agency task force dedicated to closely monitoring for fraudulent COVID-19 products. We have reached out to major retailers to ask for their help in monitoring online marketplaces for fraudulent COVID-19 products. Products sold are subject to FDA investigation and potential enforcement action if they claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure COVID-19 and have not demonstrated safety and effectiveness for that intended use. The task force has already worked with retailers to remove dozens of these types of product listings online. 

The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issue warning letters to companies that violate federal law and pose significant risks to patient health by selling unapproved products with fraudulent claims to treat or prevent COVID-19. View the warning letters for more information.”

Edited December 2, 2020 by Pen

[BakersDozen]

9 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Who I've come to trust are the doctors who are obviously practicing the art and science of medicine.  The independent voices who are having success treating patients. The voices of logic and reason and "do no harm" and "let's talk about the studies and pre-prints."

In my relatively small town I have seen family physicians, dentists, and those who work in the hospital shopping without masks on. Their wives and children do the same. A local business/home school family hosted a barn dance last month with around 300 people in attendance. Yes, there was the capability of being outside but no one wore masks, people were standing in close groups talking, etc. Numerous medical professionals were there, a local fire chief, a few EMTs, etc.

I don't know who to trust. Because if those here who are practicing the art and science of medicine are also the ones behaving this way and saying things about not wearing masks and such, then who in the heck do I trust???

Feeling really confused, overwhelmed, isolated, shunned...but mostly feeling not trusting even though I want to...I really do.

[Pen]

1 hour ago, kand said:

I’m definitely interested in ivermectin, don’t get me wrong on that. Heck, we have it in the house. I even know how to titrate it down all the way from horse paste to guinea pig sized dose. So, if it turns out to be effective, sign me up. I’d be all over that. I’m also a big proponent of vitamin D and am currently working on getting mine and my kids’ levels out after finding they have dropped way off for two of us. So, don’t misunderstand me to think none of these things could be helpful. I just think it’s important to be really careful with looking at all the science, and not thinking we have cures before we do and not thinking that the reason they’re not being widely used is due to some conspiracy. I one hundred percent do not believe that.

I think some people like Dr Zelenko, Dr Been, Dr Marik have put themselves out there very heroically, but we are in very dangerous times and I believe that at least 2 of the 3 have reported receiving death threats. Or other substantial threats. 
 

Short of death or similar threats I know one doctor whose license was threatened for trying to help outside of hospitalization . 

I don’t want to add to that by putting public links to any person or group who is less in the public eye. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Pen

[Frances]

8 minutes ago, BakersDozen said:

In my relatively small town I have seen family physicians, dentists, and those who work in the hospital shopping without masks on. Their wives and children do the same. A local business/home school family hosted a barn dance last month with around 300 people in attendance. Yes, there was the capability of being outside but no one wore masks, people were standing in close groups talking, etc. Numerous medical professionals were there, a local fire chief, a few EMTs, etc.

I don't know who to trust. Because if those here who are practicing the art and science of medicine are also the ones behaving this way and saying things about not wearing masks and such, then who in the heck do I trust???

Feeling really confused, overwhelmed, isolated, shunned...but mostly feeling not trusting even though I want to...I really do.

What part of the country? It sounds more political than science based.

[katilac]

 

1 hour ago, Pen said:

Short of death threats I know one doctor whose license was threatened for trying to help outside of hospitalization . 

  

I don't understand what you mean by this? 

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Apologies, Ausmum.  I've seen two slides, but they are re-writing (updating) their ivermectin references page, their bib, in essence, since there are SO many new studies coming out.  I'd encourage you to keep an eye on the FLCCC.net page.  

That’s ok.  I will look for the Dr Marik talk anyway when I have time.

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, Pen said:

for a lot of such studies it is more complicated than that 

one would have to be in right location at right time with right stage of illness

still, if one were in a big city with many hospitals of the type that does studies, and choosing a hospital to go to if sick with CV19, it might make sense to try one that is studying whatever seems promising.

Or just to try a doctor willing to prescribe something if that’s legal in Australia. 

I don’t know in Australia where that might be, but I have heard some names.   Wagstaff or a similar name at Monash? Broder or a name like that somewhere else? 
 

not to be political but IME these tend to be Conservative for sources — so you might try Sky News   I think I saw Australian references on US Newsmax. 

 

though very likely most of you in Australia will have plenty of vaccine before needing to consider a treatment

Sky news is really not very reputable, conservative or not I don’t think.  

[Ausmumof3]

4 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

I would have been, too, if I hadn't been so immersed in the medical side of this!  There were a couple of primary care doctors locally who spoke out early on: they were going to practice medicine during the pandemic.  Their offices would stay open, they would treat people, and take whatever precautions seemed reasonable, but by all means, patients should plan on being treated.  Mind you, we got our first wave in mid-March, so we had an advantage over NY and NJ.  The docs here who were very vocally treating people were using the Zelenko protocol.  Or nebulized steroids.  And they started keeping tallies and posting photos of their patient count on their Facebook pages: patient treated, patients hospitalized, and deaths.  Gradually, people whose primary care docs or NPs were treating them made noise about it on social media.   

There are two places I've found that have doctors who are willing to treat patients with medications:  SpeakwithanMD.com is a telemed site, and the FLCCC.net website has affiliate doctors.  It seems like I had seen a third one, but I can't find it right now.  

You can also use supplements as prophylaxis, if not to completely avoid catching COVID, to mitigate the symptoms.  That's where I first began to relax, when I started listening to MedCram and the data from journal-published studies that he was presenting.  This was very early on, in March.  He was doing what good doctors do:  think.  

I have no idea if you pay attention to media outlets, but I just can't.  I skim headlines from a left-leaning source and a right-leaning source, both send daily COVID updates to my email, but the sensationalism of voices and emotions on TV is too much for me.

I read epidemiologists, doctors and virologists tweets etc and read the studies when I have time and I listen to the coronacast daily.  And I check worldometer for statistics on infection and death rates.  I don’t really like video sources I prefer to read text and facts without the emotion.

to be honest your post is exactly why I’m wary of protocols etc without really solid proof.  If the safety net of medications is not actually a safety net but a false hope and literally thousands of people are making the same decisions it could pretty literally be deadly.  

[Pen]

https://youtu.be/fmuHAogT-Yw 
 

Pfizer / Biontech vaccine approved to start use in UK next week!

 

(meant to put it on long thread, but guess ok here too)

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Sky news is really not very reputable, conservative or not I don’t think.  

 

it may have been Sky that had report about the Doctor possibly with W name at Monash U studying  Ivermectin -  

Or not

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

16 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

it may have been Sky that had report about the Doctor possibly with W name at Monash U studying  Ivermectin -  

Or not

 

 

I think my post was probably a bit harsh.  Sky news runs fairly mainstream programming through the day but from what I understand their night programs can be a bit wacky.  I don’t really watch them but they have repeatedly run anti lockdown, anti border closure, anti social distancing news the entire pandemic.  Thanks to the fact that our health people have ignored that, we are almost at the point of open internal borders and living normal lives without the massive death toll.  So they have really made me feel quite frustrated this whole time.  Note we have a right/conservative government in my state and I have been very impressed with their response most of the time so it’s not political.  

Edited December 2, 2020 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

23 minutes ago, Pen said:

https://youtu.be/fmuHAogT-Yw
 

Pfizer / Biontech vaccine approved to start use in UK next week!

 

(meant to put it on long thread, but guess ok here too)

Hopefully it lives up to the early results!  

[Ausmumof3]

48 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

it may have been Sky that had report about the Doctor possibly with W name at Monash U studying  Ivermectin -  

Or not

 

 

https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/the-fda-approved-drug-ivermectin-inhibits-the-replication-of-sars
 

In vitro study from monash

https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/ivermectin-as-a-broad-spectrum-host-directed-antiviral-the-real-d

Mini review of ivermectin as a potential broad spectrum antiviral 

https://research.monash.edu/en/projects/ivermectin-as-an-anti-viral-against-sars-cov-2
 

currently in progress study on it against Covid 

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I keep debating whether to have the flu shot, knowing that it suppresses your immune system for a couple of weeks afterwards.

Re. dining inside a restaurant--I have not chosen to do it since before the official SIP / shutdown.  Once it was reasonable to think that there might be community transmission, I just stopped dead right there.  I have had only three served restaurant meals since then, all outside and pretty distanced from strangers at other tables.  

Go ahead and do it.  Get the flu shot.  One interesting feature is that they thought a lot of us immunosuppresant people who be getting COvid easier and with worse results.  It hasn't happened.  In fact, all studies of autoimmune disease people seem to show less COVID positives and less serious diseases if they get it.  Asthma patients are  15% less likely to get COVID.  

[Not_a_Number]

6 hours ago, kand said:

I was thinking about this and thinking about the fact that my own doctor would be unlikely to know if I got it. I would quarantine at home unless I got really sick and then I would go to the hospital. I certainly wouldn’t want to bring the virus into her little office. I  wonder how many people contact their primary care dr when they test positive. Maybe I’m weird that way?

This is why seeing the dentist makes me uneasy while cases are high, even if they had good protocols in place. They see so many people with mouths open and saliva spraying, and I worry about the dentist being infected and spreading it back to patients while asymptomatic. 

I’ve been following closely from the medical side as well, but what you’re following is very different from what I’m following. I’m not sure how I would know what is actually happening in hospitals right now if I didn’t pay any attention to the news, though (although I get virus news linked from the scientists I follow as well). 

Do you know why they have restrictions in place?

That’s what stands out to me, as well. There is no info at all about the control group patients other than that they were selected from the community. We have no idea how they were selected or their characteristics. We don’t even know their age. We do know that 100% of the treatment group was white. We don’t have corresponding data for the control group. 

Yeah, we have no data at all. I’d assume these are all Orthodox people from his community?

He could have possibly just been wrong about risk factors. Also, it’s a very genetically specific group... hard to generalize from.

[Halftime Hope]

7 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

In my relatively small town I have seen family physicians, dentists, and those who work in the hospital shopping without masks on. Their wives and children do the same. A local business/home school family hosted a barn dance last month with around 300 people in attendance. Yes, there was the capability of being outside but no one wore masks, people were standing in close groups talking, etc. Numerous medical professionals were there, a local fire chief, a few EMTs, etc.

I don't know who to trust. Because if those here who are practicing the art and science of medicine are also the ones behaving this way and saying things about not wearing masks and such, then who in the heck do I trust???

Feeling really confused, overwhelmed, isolated, shunned...but mostly feeling not trusting even though I want to...I really do.

Man, I feel ya!  The only explanation I can think of is that they just want to pretend things are normal and it won't reach them.  A small group in our church did that in August for a moving away party, and bam, four of the couples in the group came down with COVID.  These folks had known each other for twenty years and thought the probability would be low, so they didn't take any precautions.   Sigh.  No one died, but one man nearly did.  

This makes me really, really mad on behalf of the cadre of frontline medical workers who have to treat those who are not being careful. It's bad enough that they have to treat those who catch it in spite of precautions.

[Halftime Hope]

48 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, we have no data at all. I’d assume these are all Orthodox people from his community?

He could have possibly just been wrong about risk factors. Also, it’s a very genetically specific group... hard to generalize from.

That's why it should be studied in an exact same way.  But I have to tell you, there are two very vocal doctors here in DFW who are having great results with HQC.  I have no way of knowing how many others are doing so but not being vocal.  Maybe a lot, maybe not.   Dr Mobeen Syed is treating referrals by telemed, mostly family members of medical personnel he knows, and he reports much better success with ivermectin, often times treating patients who already had a course of HQC and are out of the hospital but not getting well.  He is pleased with ivermectin and with a "pulse" of steroids (his term) and perhaps a second one for very tough cases.  So far, no long-haulers in his patients.  (That's actually pretty amazing because he is seeing really sick, non-responding patients.) I'm guessing mostly causcasian, Asian, and middle-eastern patients, given the overseas connections he mentions and his west coast location, but i've never heard him mention demographics, other than a lot of advanced age patients. 

[Halftime Hope]

8 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But the other possibility is that the early protocol is a fluke, and that it won't show efficacy because it doesn't work. Non-randomized things are really prone to LOOKING like they work, until you actually test it. (Hence the many breathless headlines about chocolate curing all evils 😉 . ) 

Here's a prophylaxis study: 

https://c19study.com/omrani.html

It's not the SAME as the Zelenko thing, but it's going to be hard to design things to be exactly the same. It's certainly not using criminally large amounts of HCQ, which is a very valid criticism. For what it's worth, most of the RCTs I've seen on hospitalized patients didn't use the quadruple dose (yeesh), either.

To be clear, I think the data is out on HQC, and with ivermectin showing such promise, that would be my first choice.  It's probable a more ethical choice, too, at this point.  

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

That's why it should be studied in an exact same way. 

“Exact same” is hard to define. It should be random, not risk stratified, to be analyzable. And there are prophylaxis studies with zinc and HCQ, none of which have not shown great results. You should look through the list of trials and papers, if you haven’t 🙂 .

7 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Dr Mobeen Syed is treating referrals by telemed, mostly family members of medical personnel he knows, and he reports much better success with ivermectin, often times treating patients who already had a course of HQC and are out of the hospital but not getting well. 

This data does look better so far. I hope they’ll run a trial in the US, though.

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I have no way of knowing how many others are doing so but not being vocal.  Maybe a lot, maybe not. 

If they aren’t being vocal, it may be that they aren’t seeing great results... it’s possible a bunch of doctors are trying this, and the only ones piping up got lucky. This is where randomizing helps.

[Halftime Hope]

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I read epidemiologists, doctors and virologists tweets etc and read the studies when I have time and I listen to the coronacast daily.  And I check worldometer for statistics on infection and death rates.  I don’t really like video sources I prefer to read text and facts without the emotion.

to be honest your post is exactly why I’m wary of protocols etc without really solid proof.  If the safety net of medications is not actually a safety net but a false hope and literally thousands of people are making the same decisions it could pretty literally be deadly.  

Fair enough.  But the alternative is not not treat patients and continuing to do the same which is NOT working for a very well known percentage of people, meanwhile demanding "better proof" and better data.  These teams of doctors are working in consultation with colleagues from around the world and they are looking at studies and at public health data where it has been given to people as a public health tool, and what happened to case counts and deaths in those areas. 

If the data is not pristine or convincing enough for you, that is definitely your prerogative.   

[Halftime Hope]

17 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

If they aren’t being vocal, it may be that they aren’t seeing great results... it’s possible a bunch of doctors are trying this, and the only ones piping up got lucky. This is where randomizing helps.

No, that's not what I mean.  I think a lot of doctors, like my husband's PCP, is willing to treat, but he does so very "quietly."  He has no social media presence, and he's interested in taking care of his own existing patients and not having a lot of new patients flocking to him.  He hadn't seen enough COVID patients to form a trend in October, per him. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Halftime Hope said:

No, that's not what I mean.  I think a lot of doctors, like my husband's PCP, is willing to treat, but he does so very "quietly."  He has no social media presence, and he's interested in taking care of his own existing patients and not having a lot of new patients flocking to him.  He hadn't seen enough COVID patients to form a trend in October, per him. 

Yeah, but it's also true that people WOULDN'T be vocal if they tried it and it didn't work. So then you're likely to hear from people who were successful. It's a selection bias. 

I have nothing against people trying to treat patients as best they can. There are currently no therapies that have unambiguous records, so it's not like you're avoiding a treatment that works to try something experimental. However, I do think it's good to keep studying what helps and what doesn't on average, because sometimes, good outcomes really are a fluke. 

[Halftime Hope]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, but it's also true that people WOULDN'T be vocal if they tried it and it didn't work. So then you're likely to hear from people who were successful. It's a selection bias. 

I have nothing against people trying to treat patients as best they can. There are currently no therapies that have unambiguous records, so it's not like you're avoiding a treatment that works to try something experimental. However, I do think it's good to keep studying what helps and what doesn't on average, because sometimes, good outcomes really are a fluke. 

I'd be really glad to be a fluke.  Just sayin'.   :-)    

ETA:  I'm going to bow out of this thread now.  I have Christmas packing to do.  :-)   

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Halftime Hope

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Halftime Hope said:

I'd be really glad to be a fluke.  Just sayin'.  🙂   

Sure. One can get lucky with or without treatment... MANY people have barely any symptoms at all with COVID-19. It's a weird disease. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

ETA:  I'm going to bow out of this thread now.  I have Christmas packing to do.  🙂  

Good luck with the packing!

[kbutton]

7 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Asthma patients are  15% less likely to get COVID.  

Ooh, link? This sounds encouraging.

[mathnerd]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

Ooh, link? This sounds encouraging.

This is the first time I have read this too! I thought that asthma patients were at higher risk.

[TravelingChris]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-science/asthma-patients-less-likely-to-die-from-virus-new-test-better-at-telling-who-is-still-infectious-idUSKBN26S38T

I don't think this is where I read it but hopefully it has the same info

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

Ooh, link? This sounds encouraging.

And has anyone else heard that smokers seem to be having less complications than non smokers?  Not that I think anyone should start smoking....but how weird.

[Not_a_Number]

39 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

This is the first time I have read this too! I thought that asthma patients were at higher risk.

I don't have a link, but I've also seen that asthma patients were lower risk. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Not_a_Number