re: Mrs M is in Lane Hospital struggling with double Covid pneumonia.

quote:

---

Wow a person with real world experience dropping knowledge

Nice to see on here

---

The knowledge is “now we just all kinda do our own thing”.

I’m heartbroken for you.

Prayers up to Mrs. M., your family, and especially you.

quote:

---

Since cialis has a daily delivery, I would be interested to see how this plays out in a study (especially when coupled with aspirin).

Lastly, given that these drugs are generally male specific, could this potentially be beneficially in your opinion, for a woman?

---

I am fascinated lately with these drugs. They just help with circulation for small vessels. There’s nothing male specific about it aside from the small vessels it usually helps y’all out with!

There is all kinds of promise for it and Alzheimer’s disease - potentially as a prophylactic.

Hopeful that this can help the blood transport oxygen from the lungs for Mrs. M and for lots of other folks who need it.

It wrecks organs. Killed thousands. Dig. Facts are there. Good luck.

quote:

---

There’s nothing male specific about it aside from the small vessels it usually helps y’all out with!

---

THEYRE NOT SMALL!

I was reading through this the other night when I made my long post and wanted to include a bit of a critique about the meta-analysis.
There are tons of forms of bias out there. We are all susceptible to it. My experience and my colleagues’ experience tends to agree that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine don’t have much use even in the early phases. I’ve been a bit warmer on results and data with fluvoxamine since I’ve really re-evaluated my practice pattern with a new “surge” and the best therapy (our mAb) gone missing. It’s easy for me to say, “I don’t think ivermectin does much,” find a new meta-analysis that supports it, and move on. But the devil is in the details. Here’s why I question the meta analysis you provide:



“Search strategy and selection criteria”

quote:

---

We did include studies that were preprints (not yet published in peer-reviewed journals) after completing a risk of bias assessment and discussions with the investigators. However, 2 studies that were initially included were later removed due to concerns about the quality of data.

---

1) using preprint, non-peer reviewed data is like building a house on sand instead of a slab. You want to use unverified, unquestioned information to prove a point. It weakens your argument
2) choosing to include data and then later exclude it with those details is, at best, dubious. They didn’t mention which studies were included then excluded and what their concerns with the data are.


General rule for a meta-analysis is this:
You want to ask a question and set stringent criteria for what needs to have been done to answer that question before you read the studies. Then, you create your selection criteria (all studies done on this type of patient within 3d of symptoms and we are looking for an effect on mortality, hospitalizations, DVTs, (or whatever)).
Then you set out searching for studies. You include all of them that have the data to answer your question. You read their methods section first to decide if they meet your criteria or not. If you don’t include them initially, you have to explain why. But if you include them then later exclude them, it’s very possible that you found out a problem with that study while you were looking more into it. But in the world we live in, people rush to publish (and do things like include preprint studies instead of waiting on them to be published), and they change their own methods and inclusion criteria to find a positive or negative result after the initial results weren’t what they wanted (lies, damned lies, statistics).

Because of this methodology, even though my experience with the medication and the meta-analysis published result of “no effect” agree, it’s not necessarily a strong negative result.


Opinion: there are a slew of prospective cohorts and trials coming up. We will probably eventually find no-to-very-small benefit, the publishers knew it, so they did what they needed to do to put their paper out first (and probably found a small benefit in their dataset but know that the coming ones will say none, or something like that, so they re-applied what data they were considering so they could publish a result consistent with what they were looking for and will be coming down the pipe)




I do ever so much hope that I’m wrong, if that means anything.

quote:

---

the publishers knew it, so they did what they needed to do to put their paper out first (and probably found a small benefit in their dataset but know that the coming ones will say none, or something like that, so they re-applied what data they were considering so they could publish a result consistent with what they were looking for and will be coming down the pipe)

---

Your speculation may be spot on, and if it is, then what they have done is incredibly unethical imho. As stated earlier, trust needs to be earned. That isn’t a way to do it.

Mr. M, First off I'm not in the medical field, If nothing is working please contact Dr. Scott Kelly at Cytodyn.(small biotech company) I believe they're still providing a life saving molecule called Leronlimab for Right to try. You will need to get your wife's doctor to submit the request. This drug is a life changing molecule that has many trials ongoing.
They had a severe/critical covid trial that finished months ago that almost hit its endpoints. The reason this drug didn't receive an EUA is because they only gave 2 doses( sub Q injections) instead of 4. The FDA/CRO dropped the ball to protect Big Pharma. It had a 82% survival rate after the two doses, the half life of the drug is 10 days and the FDA required that the study go out to 42 days, It misses the P valve of the sabotaged trial but still ended up saving around 32%. They also placed 2/3 of patients who were over 65 years of age in the drug arm in the trial skewing the numbers. Nothing has even come close to those number for critical patients. They are currently doing a critical covid trial in Brazil to work around the US FDA. This drug could have saved over 500,000 people but it has many powerful entities trying to bankrupt the company because they would cost Big Pharma billions. If there was a therapeutic that would work they couldn't have given an EUA for the vax. Just wanted to give you another option; also this drug has no side effects. CDC and the FDA are suppose to do no harm; they killed many people.
God bless your wife.

quote:

---

Mr. M

---

Peace be with you