Covid early / home treatment...

STOP WITH THE COVID THREADS

quote:

---

STOP WITH THE COVID THREADS

---

It is the only one that I have posted in recent memory.

If you have an issue with it...

quote:

---

He also went on to say “You can’t beat natural immunity. You can’t vaccinate on top of it and make it better! There is no scientific clinical or safety rationale for ever vaccinating a Covid recovered patient.”

---

I don’t think I agree with this statement. A 15 day old that contracts pneumococcal meningitis/pneumonia/bacteremia/uti still gets multiple vaccinations against pneumococcus, assuming they live through it.
Every adult that has varicella (chicken pox) would reduce their chance of recurrent zoster “flare” with vaccination (shingrix).
He’s not wrong that there’s no solid evidence for this specific virus and recurrence rates/second-occurrence prevention. But the concept of vaccination in addition to “natural immunity” isn’t a foreign one.

quote:

---

Drug cocktails are the only workable solutions. So before people shite on any one drug and cite a study supporting your stance...your point is moot.

---

The only problem here is there is a general lack of data for just about anything right now. Most of the data is rushed and poorly obtained.
Many of the treatments are touted as “effective if given early.” This is a pretty problematic statement to me, because if the goal of therapy is to give it to the “not so sick,” the majority of which will go on to get better without therapy in the first place, you haven’t really done much that is useful to help change the way people are treated, and you get a lot of anecdotal silliness. IE- If I had 100 patients go rub ketchup on their bellies the day after exposure, I may very well have a 100% success rate in curing their illness, especially if I treat a lot of 14-year olds.
There has been no particularly solid way to screen who will do poorly from those who will do well, and there have not been any particularly effective methods of treatment in my experience. Of course, this is also anecdotal. But I haven’t seen a big difference in those who got or didn’t get steroids or z packs. I’ve watched people on plaquenil both get better and die, I’ve seen remdesivir fail, I’ve admitted patients after getting monoclonal antibody infusions, I’ve watched ivermectin do the same, and I haven’t honestly seen a rhyme or reason to any of it. And just about no one around me has found anything particularly more effective than anything else. I do have a few partners that think the mAbs are the bees’ knees, so maybe one or both of our sample sizes are skewed. Or maybe I just suck as a doctor. But the concept of ultra-early intervention without real strict controls or at least decent data collection outside of anecdote-bundles is just very far from an impressive way to prove an “effective” therapy.

quote:

---

“You can’t beat natural immunity.

---

Was in reference to Covid, not your example.

quote:

---

Drug cocktails are the only workable solutions. So before people shite on any one drug and cite a study supporting your stance...your point is moot.

---

quote:

---

I don’t think I agree with this statement.

---

His information is there for the world to see.
My guess is that you only looked at the cliffs, figured out a manner to be tactfully defiant, but didn’t actually watch the video or look up the info.

quote:

---

Many of the treatments are touted as “effective if given early.” This is a pretty problematic statement to me, because if the goal of therapy is to give it to the “not so sick,” the majority of which will go on to get better without therapy in the first place, you haven’t really done much that is useful to help change the way people are treated, and you get a lot of anecdotal silliness.

---

Only the data indicates that they have been effective. I don’t know what else to say other than it seems as though have dug your heals in. I’m not into oppositional defiance.

Ketchup on the belly is a dismissive deflection.
I heard none of those types of misdirections in his testimony. If so, enlighten me.

As for drug cocktails and alternative uses, old drugs sometimes find new uses. Lamictal is now used for bi-polar treatment. It is an old drug used for seizures. Then again, instead of dismissing its use, the data drove the direction for usage.

Lastly, and this was most telling imho, out of 50,000 plus peer reviewed published articles on Covid at the time of his submission, not one dealt with treatment prior to hospitalization.
But yeah...ketchup.

In the very least, I appreciate you admitting (in a roundabout way) that you didn’t watch the video or look at the published material.

As for:

quote:

---

We’ve followed similar protocols and seen his passed around. There weren’t big differences in outcomes

---

the title is referencing early and home treatment. Are you telling me that you sent people home with the cocktail described and all of them ended up hospitalized? Other doctors did this as well? Because I have yet to hear of this before. When I was diagnosed I got a z pack, that was it. It didn’t do much on its on. I wish I had gone to your facility, as I would have loved to have had access to Ivermectin back then (I had zinc). In short, it was “I hope you get better, but if not, go to the hospital!” Hell, the inhaler he mentions was never brought up.

Again, you have your heels dug in - cool.

As for others, the information is linked.

Let me enter this conversation with a disclaimer that I am not a physician.

It feels to me (yes I said feels, as it is my experience not defended by literature) like the plaquenil/ivermectin effectiveness is similar to the “does cell phone usage cause brain cancer” topic that was all the rage in the 90s. It seemed like every week we would hear of a study that said “there is a small correlation in brain cancer with cell phone usage” and then the next week, a new study would say “there is no correlation in cancer compared to cell phone usage.” These two findings were bounced back and forth for a decade.

At the end of the day, if results can not be reproduced consistently, that is proof that there is no correlation. This resulted in the current understanding that cell phones do not cause brain cancer. It seems so obvious to us now, but that was a very debated topic for several years. After many many many attempts, results could not be reproduced to prove correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage.

That is what the ivermectin/hcq discussion feels like now. The entire world is hungry for a cure or an effective treatment for covid. Countries like India have 1.8 billion people that they are trying to keep safe, and they would love to do it with ivermectin or hcq. We have had 1.5 years to prove that these drugs benefit covid patients. Nowhere in the world has been able to reliably prove that those drugs help. Thousands of doctors from every country in the world have prescribed these drugs, and nobody has successfully been able to reproduce clear results.

I might be willing to hear discussion that big pharma is standing in the way of clinical trials here in the US, but they cannot stop research around the whole world. I guarantee that there are doctors all over the world trying to use hcq/ivermectin. I know several locally that did, and stopped. They did not stop because big brother told them to. They stopped because it wasn’t working.

I wish I was more well versed in the literature but I stand behind one fact. If doctors saw positive results from cheap, readily available medicine, then the entire world would be using it to end this pandemic and save lives. The fact that they are not being used does not prove conspiracy. It proves ineffectiveness.

With all due respect, I'm glad your not my Dr.