3083 replies to this topic

[pamojja]

Then it is up to researchers to prove this, using human or animal in vivo studies. Until they do, we have no evidence of effect. 

 

Of course, there is an other way. Just try it yourself and see if its works.

 

I had a walking-disabilty from PAD, a COPD stage 1 diagnosis, and ME/CFS symptoms (PEMs). There is no evidence for any medicine conventional or alternative to reverse any of them. However, with nothing more to loose than my life itself I tried natural means, and experienced remission of all 3 diseases (after years of efforts).

 

Actually its somehow embarasing how far that went: that it took all-out life-style changes and really comprehensive supplementation. In fact, except the pharmaceutical options, I probably taken virually everything in this thread suggested (against covid) for the last 13 years. Without even thinking of their possibly anti-viral effects, but multiple others. Of course also Licorice as powder or extract. My personal ongoing clincal trial of all vitamins, minerals, amino acids and phytochemicals. With no other outcome, than having my life back

Edited by pamojja, 06 July 2021 - 03:06 PM.

[Hip]

https://www.medrxiv....0.30.20217364v4

 

Three hundred and thirteen patients - 210 moderate and 103 severe - underwent randomization from April 30 to July 29, 2020. Among these, 107 were assigned to HNS whereas 103 to placebo for moderate cases. For severe cases, 50 were given HNS and 53 were given placebos.

 

HNS resulted in ∼50% reduction in time taken to alleviate symptoms as compared to placebo (Moderate (4 versus 7 days) and severe (6 versus 13 days)

 

HNS also cleared the virus 4 days earlier than placebo group in moderate (6 versus 10 days) and severe cases (8.5 versus 12 days). HNS further led to a better clinical score on day 6 with normal activity resumption in 63.6% versus 10.9% among moderate cases and hospital discharge in 50% versus 2.8% in severe cases.

 

In severe cases, mortality rate was four-fold lower in HNS group than placebo. No HNS-related adverse effects were observed.

 

-

That is a huge difference, sounds a bit too good to be true?  Honey @ 1 gram per kg + Nigela Sativa seeds @ 80mg per kg (over 2-3 daily doses) cleared the virus 3.5 - 4 days earlier than placebo, and cut duration of symptoms in half.  But the study has not been published / reviewed yet. 

-

 

 

Nigella sativa (black seed oil) looks like a more promising line of investigation.  

 

Bit of trivia: the Prophet once said that black seed oil cures heals every disease except for death. 

 

 

One of Nigella sativa's active ingredients is thymoquinone, which has an anti-inflammatory effect in vivo. See this paper.

 

Thymoquinone has an impact on nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), which is a fundamental factor in inflammatory responses. NF-κB has been implicated in COVID.

 

Black seed oil contains about 1% thymoquinone. Whether thymoquinone would offer any benefits over standard corticosteroid treatment of COVID I am not sure.

 

Another active ingredient is thymol, which stimulates macrophages.

Edited by Hip, 06 July 2021 - 03:30 PM.

[CarlSagan]

I've added Nigella sativa to my stack in all 3 forms. raw seed, the oil, and a standardized seed extract. 5g of the seed, 500mg of the oil, and 200mg of the extract standardized to 5% Thymoquinone daily spread over 3 doses 1 at a time, on symptoms onset. maybe for the first 5 days.

 

I also added Honey as an important part of the stack for reasons mentioned on the previous page. 50g+ raw untreated honey daily with symptoms. will take a tablespoon or so with each nigella dose. If it crystallizes in storage you warm it up at around 35 - 40 degrees to return it to liquid form without damaging compounds in it.

That's next to 3000mg vit C 1g an hour for 3 hours, 6000IU vit D w some magnesium around symptom time, 500mg quercetin x2 (it has a little bromelain+vit c for absorption, without food) + 60mg zinc acetate over the day. and taking 900mg PEA (Palmitoylethanolamid) or 600mg micronized pea in advance to limit inflammatory outcomes, which is generally well tolerated. 

 

may add licorice tea to drink during symptoms (if so short term due to the cortisol / aldosterone skewing effects I wouldn't like to take it for more than 1 week or so). as mentioned though glycyrrhizin from licorice intake can't have effects itself, the converted acid has shown some promise against viruses in mice studies, which gives at least some weight to the positive outcomes for the TCM trials along with it being related to glycyrrhizin which showed in vitro benefits against covid.

Im pretty happy with that. maybe one or 2 more things.

will look into nattokinase mentioned on the last page blot clot prevention https://www.bmj.com/...369/bmj.m2058  vitamin E maybe useful too as has blood thinning effects

chamomile and ubiquinol is on the list to look at + an acute inflammatory for impact on the lungs, that isnt aspirin or circumin. maybe NAC

Edited by CarlSagan, 06 July 2021 - 04:48 PM.

[Gal220]

I've added Nigella sativa to my stack in all 3 forms. raw seed, the oil, and a standardized seed extract. 5g of the seed, 500mg of the oil, and 200mg of the extract standardized to 5% Thymoquinone daily spread over 3 doses 1 at a time, on symptoms onset. maybe for the first 5 days.

 

Im pretty happy with that. maybe one or 2 more things.

 

Black Cumin seed was on the list of best Anti-virals  for TCM

 

Melatonin is one of the other one or two things I would add. 

 

CoD liver oil would be another, get your omegas + vitamin A, Wileys orange burst has very mild taste.- Immunity in brief

 

A multivitamin would get you B vitamins and selenium, try to find one with K2 if your vitamin D doesnt have it.

Edited by Gal220, 06 July 2021 - 06:20 PM.

[smithx]

So to summarize the thread so far, what readily accessible things are with trying at the onset of symptoms?

 

Zinc (50mg) with Quercitin (500mg twice daily) as an ionophore & inflammation controller ? https://rcm.imrpress...CM2020264.shtml

 

Vitamin D 6000IU daily (with magnesium) ?

 

Vitamin C 3000mg daily ?

 

The above plus:

- up to 160mg/d of famotidine (pepcid) (20-40mg, 4x /d)

- 10mg up to 80mg of melatonin before bed. Can take it other times but will make you sleepy

 

there are other supplements that can be useful but those are probably the most accessible.

[CarlSagan]

The above plus:

- up to 160mg/d of famotidine (pepcid) (20-40mg, 4x /d)

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7473796/

 

Good one thanks.

this lowered c reactive protein like 30% and all 4 infection related markers significantly compared to those who didn't take it. It lowered deaths by more than 90%. brilliant

Unfortunately it's prescription only in the UK... so gotta go through some extra hoops to get it
 

 

 

I would be taking NAC(Jarrow brand), glutathione(Jarrow brand), Curcumin(Life extension brand), and nattokinase(Jarrow or arthur andrew medical brand)

nattokinase is a good suggestion thanks. not only prevents blood clots but dissolves existing ones too. https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5372539/

and works acutely going by the dog study using 4 standard capsules which dissolved blood clots completely within 5 hours.
 

When dogs were orally administered four NK capsules (2000 FU/capsule), chemically-induced thrombi in the major leg vein were completely dissolved within five hours and normal blood flood was restored.

A rat model of thrombosis in the common carotid artery also demonstrated that NK-treated rats recovered 62% of arterial blood flow. 

 

Even a single dose of NK has been reported to result in fibrinolysis via the cleavage of cross-linked fibrin [10]. In that study, 12 healthy, young males were randomly administered a single capsule of NK (2000 FU/ 100mg). The antithrombin concentration in their blood increased significantly two hours after the oral consumption of the NK capsule.

 

In human clinical studies, no-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) was found when healthy human volunteers orally consumed NK (10 mg/kg) daily for 28 days 

 

There's some talk of it not surviving stomach acid unless in a specific formula, but that looks to be inaccurate. standard NK goes through fine.

 

Both NK and lumbrokinase (derived from earthworms), unlike most proteins, are more resistant to the highly acidic gastric fluids in the stomach and can be absorbed in the later sections of the digestive tract. in 2013, a research team in the United States detected intact NK in the serum of healthy humans after they were administrated a single, oral dose of NK (2000 FU/100 mg) in a capsule [16]. Other studies have also shown that oral administration of NK can enhance fibrinolytic activity in plasma [3,16]. The mechanism by which NK is transported from the digestive tract into the circulatory system still needs to be elucidated. NK can resist high temperature (50 °C) and pH (to 10), which certainly contributes to the ability of this enzyme to remain intact in the gastrointestinal tract [6].

 

Adding famotidine at 20mg x4 daily for the 80mg median dose. which should sort out the inflammation increase. 
And adding 2x 2000 FU / 100mg nattokinase to cover the thrombosis

stack sorted (as long as I can get my hands on famotidine). cheers

Edited by CarlSagan, 07 July 2021 - 12:02 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

CarlSagan, have you investigated the possible effects of famotidine on dementia?

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

Hot off the Press, peer reviewed & to be published (pre-proof): 

 

Early COVID-19 Therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to Known outcomes in untreated patients

 

https://www.scienced...052297521000792

 

Somehow I'm having difficulty getting a mental picture of Fauci announcing HCQ is getting a new EUA, but sooner or later, we're going to have to start treating patients outside the hospital.  

[Hip]

Hot off the Press, peer reviewed & to be published (pre-proof): 

 

Early COVID-19 Therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to Known outcomes in untreated patients

 

https://www.scienced...052297521000792

 

Somehow I'm having difficulty getting a mental picture of Fauci announcing HCQ is getting a new EUA, but sooner or later, we're going to have to start treating patients outside the hospital.  

 

Let the experts pour over it first. Lots of rubbish studies with flawed methodology are being published during this pandemic, so experts need to examine studies before we can accept any conclusions. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Let the experts pour over it first. Lots of rubbish studies with flawed methodology are being published during this pandemic, so experts need to examine studies before we can accept any conclusions. 

 

The experts seem rather inclined to dismiss anything that isn't an on-patent drug at the moment. 

 

I don't get this reflexive inclination to defer to experts.  Reasonable people can look at the published papers, their methodology, the results, and make their own determinations.  

 

Remember, experts generally have their own biases and conflicts of interests. The dispassionate researcher only interested in the science is a lovely image, but more often mythical than factual.  The experts are alas, mere humans as well. We should consider their opinions, investigate their biases and interests, look at all the facts, and make up our own minds.

 

The problems with experts is that their opinions come so cheaply to them. They rarely have to face any real consequences when their expert opinions are later proven wrong, in many cases disastrously so.

[Hip]

Reasonable people can look at the published papers, their methodology, the results, and make their own determinations.  

 

It actually takes quite a bit of skill to find methodology flaws in papers. 

 

Do you feel you have that sort of expertise? I don't. I can maybe find some basic simple flaws, but the experts go much deeper. 

 

Just looking at the paper already, there control group selection was very dubious, and so is the fact that different patients received different combos of drugs, so even if there were clinical benefit, we would not know which drugs were providing those benefits.

[Dorian Grey]

It actually takes quite a bit of skill to find methodology flaws in papers. 

 

Do you feel you have that sort of expertise? I don't. I can maybe find some basic simple flaws, but the experts go much deeper. 

 

Just looking at the paper already, there control group selection was very dubious, and so is the fact that different patients received different combos of drugs, so even if there were clinical benefit, we would not know which drugs were providing those benefits.

 

I had no trouble at all finding the flaws in Solidarity/Recovery trials of HCQ.  

 

1: Delaying treatment until patients were in or near critical condition?  

2: Triple dosing these critically ill patients the first 24 hours with a drug known to be safe at normal doses, but cause cardiac arrhythmia at excessive doses?  

 

This mad scientist stuff isn't as complicated as one might think!  

[Gal220]

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7473796/

 

 

And adding 2x 2000 FU / 100mg nattokinase to cover the thrombosis

 

Nattokinase will absorb fine if taken on an empty stomach.  Not as a easy to get as natto, BUT some alternatives like Block Buster All Clear(UK product), Nephrinol AFD, or Serracor NK have natto plus other enzymes to digest protein in the blood...  Like that nasty little spike protein that apparently is the root of so many issues.

[Gal220]

It actually takes quite a bit of skill to find methodology flaws in papers. 

 

Do you feel you have that sort of expertise? I don't. I can maybe find some basic simple flaws, but the experts go much deeper. 

 

Just looking at the paper already, there control group selection was very dubious, and so is the fact that different patients received different combos of drugs, so even if there were clinical benefit, we would not know which drugs were providing those benefits.

 

I wish they would have stuck to one or the other, but there is also zinc, selenium, vitamin Bs, C, D and sugar control that would all play a part and may explain why some doctors get protocols to work and others do not. 

 

I dont think anyone who continues eating a high sugar diet will have a good outcome.

 

 

However I dont think you can see an 87% improvement in hospitalizations accidentally, IMO it is working beyond question.  McCullough and others are right, its medical nihilism, we have ruthlessly let patients die without giving these drugs a shot that show way more benefit than remdesivir..  Its absolutely disgusting.

Edited by Gal220, 08 July 2021 - 02:45 AM.

[Hip]

1: Delaying treatment until patients were in or near critical condition?  

 

That would not be classed as a methodological flaw as such, but a limitation in the scope of the study.

 

Provided there were no methodological flaws in those studies, then within their scope (of only examining late use of hydroxychloroquine), their results would be sound.  

 

Usually when there are limitations like this, the authors of the study will mention them. They might say something like "these results suggest that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for COVID when given at the late stage, but it does not rule out the possibly of an effect if used earlier".

[geo12the]

 

 

Remember, experts generally have their own biases and conflicts of interests. The dispassionate researcher only interested in the science is a lovely image, but more often mythical than factual.  The experts are alas, mere humans as well. We should consider their opinions, investigate their biases and interests, look at all the facts, and make up our own minds.

 

The problems with experts is that their opinions come so cheaply to them. They rarely have to face any real consequences when their expert opinions are later proven wrong, in many cases disastrously so.

 

Yes experts may have their own biases BUT so do the armchair scientists on this forum who will on the one hand not criticize sketchy studies from places like Iran, if those studies reinforce their beliefs- HCQ works or whatever and on the other hand pick apart and exaggerate flaws in studies that don't conform to their beliefs. At the end of the day I will trust the experts not the armchair scientists and the fringe quacks so frequently referenced here.  

[Dorian Grey]

Yes experts may have their own biases BUT so do the armchair scientists on this forum who will on the one hand not criticize sketchy studies from places like Iran, if those studies reinforce their beliefs- HCQ works or whatever and on the other hand pick apart and exaggerate flaws in studies that don't conform to their beliefs. At the end of the day I will trust the experts not the armchair scientists and the fringe quacks so frequently referenced here.  

 

I believe what you are trying to say is that doctors actually treating patients in the field are too dim to determine what is working and what is not; and that "desk-doctors" with remarkably close ties to Big Pharma are the only ones bright enough to judge how well various therapeutics being used in the field are working.  

 

No doctor is going to get rich off of IVM or HCQ, but there is literally billions at stake in Big Pharma's new drugs under development as we speak.  

 

I actually worked in healthcare for 35 years, & the front line doctors actually treating patients are some of the brightest & finest people I've ever met.  Not the type to be mystified by reality.  The evidence is piling up higher & higher...  

 

https://c19early.com/

 

You still putting your faith in remdesivir?  

[geo12the]

I had no trouble at all finding the flaws in Solidarity/Recovery trials of HCQ.  

 

1: Delaying treatment until patients were in or near critical condition?  

2: Triple dosing these critically ill patients the first 24 hours with a drug known to be safe at normal doses, but cause cardiac arrhythmia at excessive doses?  

 

This mad scientist stuff isn't as complicated as one might think!  

 

I went back and looked for where these studies say treatment was delayed until patients were in critical condition. I could not find it. Here is the M&M section of one of the Solidarity trial papers:

 

METHODS The protocol3 was designed to involve hundreds of potentially over-stressed hospitals in dozens of countries. Hence, no form-filling was required, and trial procedures were minimal but rigorous. Online randomization of consented patients (via a cloud-based GCP-compliant clinical data management system) took just a few minutes, as did online reporting of death in hospital or discharge alive (plus brief details of respiratory support in hospital and use of study drugs and certain non-study drugs). No other reporting was required unless doctors suspected an unexpected serious adverse reaction (SUSAR). National and global monitors resolved queries and checked progress and data completeness. Eligible patients were age ≥18 years, hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19, not known to have received any study drug, without anticipated transfer elsewhere within 72 hours, and, in the physician’s view, with no contra-indication to any study drug. Participants were randomized in equal proportions between control and whichever other study drugs were locally available (up to 5 options: these drugs, and local standard-of-care). Placebos were not used. Study drugs were Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon (given with Lopinavir, until July 4).

 

From the recovery trial paper:

 

Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically-suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed as of May 9, 2020.

Edited by geo12the, 08 July 2021 - 04:00 AM.

[geo12the]

Hot off the Press, peer reviewed & to be published (pre-proof): 

 

Early COVID-19 Therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in Outpatient Settings Significantly Improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to Known outcomes in untreated patients

 

https://www.scienced...052297521000792

 

Somehow I'm having difficulty getting a mental picture of Fauci announcing HCQ is getting a new EUA, but sooner or later, we're going to have to start treating patients outside the hospital.  

 

So I tried reading this paper. Bottom line I don't believe it. They are comparing apples and oranges.  This is from the M&M section:

 

A second control group (Control Group 2 - CG2) (paired for 585 patients) resulted from a precise estimative based on a thorough and structured review of articles indexed in PubMed and MEDLINE and statements by official government agencies and specific medical societies (2,36-58), in addition to the living systematic review of the British Medical Journal expected estimates for each outcome in untreated patients (11)

 

When controls are "estimatives" you've lost me.  "Estimative" is not a real control. By massaging and picking and choosing data and controls you can get whatever result you want.

 

So the same armchair scientist folks who are so critical  of the Solidatity/Recovery trials are uncritical of this? Get real folks. 

[Gal220]

So the same armchair scientist folks who are so critical  of the Solidatity/Recovery trials are uncritical of this? Get real folks. 

 

I dont see how you deny the blatant corruption here?  Ivermectin studies show no harm and way more benefit than remdesivir, except one was going to make a ton of dollars.

It cost a few dollars to add to a protocol, why cant we freaking know if it works, why wasnt it approved under compassionate use, like before Thanksgiving?!  There are only bad/worse answers to these questions...

 

 

The study I linked was here in the US, patients over 50 with at least one comorbidity, 87% fewer hospitalizations - LINK

 

Edited by Gal220, 08 July 2021 - 04:11 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

I went back and looked for where these studies say treatment was delayed until patients were in critical condition. I could not find it. Here is the M&M section of one of the Solidarity trial papers:

 

METHODS The protocol3 was designed to involve hundreds of potentially over-stressed hospitals in dozens of countries. Hence, no form-filling was required, and trial procedures were minimal but rigorous. Online randomization of consented patients (via a cloud-based GCP-compliant clinical data management system) took just a few minutes, as did online reporting of death in hospital or discharge alive (plus brief details of respiratory support in hospital and use of study drugs and certain non-study drugs). No other reporting was required unless doctors suspected an unexpected serious adverse reaction (SUSAR). National and global monitors resolved queries and checked progress and data completeness. Eligible patients were age ≥18 years, hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19, not known to have received any study drug, without anticipated transfer elsewhere within 72 hours, and, in the physician’s view, with no contra-indication to any study drug. Participants were randomized in equal proportions between control and whichever other study drugs were locally available (up to 5 options: these drugs, and local standard-of-care). Placebos were not used. Study drugs were Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon (given with Lopinavir, until July 4).

 

From the recovery trial paper:

 

Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically-suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed as of May 9, 2020.

 

Hospitalized patients?  How sick do you need to be with COVID to require hospitalization?  If Tamiflu was trialed in this way for influenza, what do you reckon the outcome would be?  Would this "prove" Tamiflu a totally worthless therapeutic?  

[Dorian Grey]

That would not be classed as a methodological flaw as such, but a limitation in the scope of the study.

 

Provided there were no methodological flaws in those studies, then within their scope (of only examining late use of hydroxychloroquine), their results would be sound.  

 

Usually when there are limitations like this, the authors of the study will mention them. They might say something like "these results suggest that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for COVID when given at the late stage, but it does not rule out the possibly of an effect if used earlier".

 

Methodological flaw?  Limit of scope?  How 'bout catastrophic design error!  Name one antiviral, antibiotic, cancer treatment or therapy where patients are told to isolate at home and call 911 when they start turning blue.  

 

Early intervention is and always has been the hallmark of good medicine.  Solidarity & Recovery were SHAM SHOWS by design, long before the first patient every got his/her massive overdose upon admission to the trials, after they had become sick enough to require hospitalization.  

[geo12the]

I dont see how you deny the blatant corruption here?  Ivermectin studies show no harm and way more benefit than remdesivir, except one was going to make a ton of dollars.

It cost a few dollars to add to a protocol, why cant we freaking know if it works, why wasnt it approved under compassionate use, like before Thanksgiving?!  There are only bad/worse answers to these questions...

 

 

The study I linked was here in the US, patients over 50 with at least one comorbidity, 87% fewer hospitalizations - LINK

 

First, I do think Ivermectin looks promising. Second, I do think Remdesivir is weak and the science around it was problematic. Third, it's not like COVID patients who end up in the hospital are not offered treatments that work:  Steroids have been shown in trials to be effective AND they are cheap and readily available. 

[geo12the]

Methodological flaw?  Limit of scope?  How 'bout catastrophic design error!  Name one antiviral, antibiotic, cancer treatment or therapy where patients are told to isolate at home and call 911 when they start turning blue.  

 

Early intervention is and always has been the hallmark of good medicine.  Solidarity & Recovery were SHAM SHOWS by design, long before the first patient every got his/her massive overdose upon admission to the trials, after they had become sick enough to require hospitalization.  

 

There are also studies that show that Early administration of HCQ does not work.

[geo12the]

Methodological flaw?  Limit of scope?  How 'bout catastrophic design error!  Name one antiviral, antibiotic, cancer treatment or therapy where patients are told to isolate at home and call 911 when they start turning blue.  

 

Early intervention is and always has been the hallmark of good medicine.  Solidarity & Recovery were SHAM SHOWS by design, long before the first patient every got his/her massive overdose upon admission to the trials, after they had become sick enough to require hospitalization.  

  

 

The Solidarity studies did show a benefit of Steroids in hospitalized patients.  

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes experts may have their own biases BUT so do the armchair scientists on this forum who will on the one hand not criticize sketchy studies from places like Iran, if those studies reinforce their beliefs- HCQ works or whatever and on the other hand pick apart and exaggerate flaws in studies that don't conform to their beliefs. At the end of the day I will trust the experts not the armchair scientists and the fringe quacks so frequently referenced here.  

 

Absolutely. Pretty much everyone has a bias, including people in this forum, right down to myself.

 

However, blindly "trusting the experts" has fared poorly in the past. After all, we had one notable expert (Fauci) telling us in February of last year "Nobody in this country needs to worry about this virus".  Turns out he was wrong, or maybe he was just lying as he is wont to do that on occasion. In either case, trusting the expert failed and historically has failed many times in the past (but ah .... this era is different .... our experts are much better than those prior experts).

 

Experts are great. I'm glad we have them. They should be listened to. Their advice should be deeply considered. But you should never turn over the running of society over to "the experts". It's been tried in the past. The results have not been pretty.

 

See, one of the problems with experts is they like power as much as the next fellow. And we live in an era where science and politics have become thoroughly intertwined.  And scientists are not beyond rendering expert opinion not based on "the science", but instead based on which political side offers them the biggest seat at the table of power. Or maybe they just need to cover their ass over some questionable decisions they've made in order to maintain what power they've accumulated. We've seen some fine examples of this very recently.

 

Turns out scientists are just as venal as the rest of us.  And power corrupts them just as well as it corrupts those vile politicians you disagree with (but of course not the ones on your side, whatever side that may be).

[Dorian Grey]

So I tried reading this paper. Bottom line I don't believe it. They are comparing apples and oranges.  This is from the M&M section:

 

A second control group (Control Group 2 - CG2) (paired for 585 patients) resulted from a precise estimative based on a thorough and structured review of articles indexed in PubMed and MEDLINE and statements by official government agencies and specific medical societies (2,36-58), in addition to the living systematic review of the British Medical Journal expected estimates for each outcome in untreated patients (11)

 

When controls are "estimatives" you've lost me.  "Estimative" is not a real control. By massaging and picking and choosing data and controls you can get whatever result you want.

 

So the same armchair scientist folks who are so critical  of the Solidatity/Recovery trials are uncritical of this? Get real folks. 

 

Do you know of anyone posting here that is not an "armchair scientist"?  To the best of my knowledge, none of us are doctors, but I respect all opinions grounded in some way by the reality of data we have access to.  

 

For this trial to get published, it had to first pass "peer review".  Are you opining these peer reviewers are also rube armchair scientist's too?  The journal, something not worthy of wiping your backside with?  

[Dorian Grey]

The Solidarity studies did show a benefit of Steroids in hospitalized patients.  

 

Thank God for small favors...  To opine this proves the entirety of Solidarity must somehow be valid doesn't hold water.  The blatant design errors Solidarity implemented with their HCQ trial speaks for itself.  The potential benefits were twofold.  Inhibiting viral replication, & immune modulation.  

 

By the time a COVID patient is hospitalized, the viral replication phase has already peaked, and even immune modulators like steroids work better if given before patients are deep into cytokine storm.  I'm actually surprised their steroids had a significant effect, given the late stage of disease where treatment was allowed to start.  

[Dorian Grey]

First, I do think Ivermectin looks promising. Second, I do think Remdesivir is weak and the science around it was problematic. Third, it's not like COVID patients who end up in the hospital are not offered treatments that work:  Steroids have been shown in trials to be effective AND they are cheap and readily available. 

 

Thanks for throwing me a bone here!  Now, how do you think remdesivir is still the "standard of care" in the USA, even after the WHO said they could find no benefit?  While the FDA still allows absolutely NOTHING for outpatient therapy?  

 

Do you believe it is truly imperative ALL of this: https://c19early.com/ remain forbidden fruit?  Doctors not allowed to prescribe without risking loosing their licence?  Pharmacists allowed to deny prescriptions written by licensed practitioners?  

 

Why is it so imperative the doctor patient relationship be totally controlled by government?   

[CarlSagan]

CarlSagan, have you investigated the possible effects of famotidine on dementia?

 

hmm seems legit good to be aware of. Looks like PPIs have less or no risk connected but the Histamine H2 antagonists do in older people when taken often. so best not to be taken frequently as a preventative. 

 

i'd imagine taking it for less than 1 week at symptom onset around standard doses, especially in non-elderly people, the risk would be negligible. and any short term cognitive impairment if any worth the big boost in recovery

Edited by CarlSagan, 08 July 2021 - 07:29 AM.