• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Protecting from Coronavirus - Supplements & Therapies

coronavirus flu disease epidemics viruses immunity covid-19

  • Please log in to reply
2158 replies to this topic

#2041 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2020 - 08:25 PM

 

So how is doxy different from the other antibiotics concerning timing?

 

 

https://www.medrxiv....4542v1.full.pdf

 

Thanks, lancebr, great catch.  That is difficult to interpret, and I’m embarrassed that I can’t give a good answer.  If anyone can give a good answer, please step in.  

 
The first primary outcome measure:  “Minocycline (p = 0.037) or doxycycline (p = 0.035) treatment within a year prior to ARDS diagnosis was associated with a 75% reduced likelihood for mechanical ventilation during hospital stay.”  
 
Next, the item to interpret:   “minocycline, doxycycline, or tetracycline for up to a year prior to diagnosis was compared to use of the antibiotic during ARDS diagnosis, which demonstrated a treatment difference only in patients that had taken doxycycline.”  See Figure 1C. 
 
First, for doxycycline timing of use, there is no significant difference in effects between administration prior to diagnosis and administration during diagnosis on the first primary outcome:  75% reduction of mechanical ventilation, p = 0.703.  
 
There are significant differences of effect for doxycycline timing of use for the outcome of duration of ventilation and the outcome of duration of ICU stay.  The direction and magnitude of those effects I am unable to discern.  I can’t tell whether the negative coefficient applies to “prior” or “during.”  I’m wildly guessing that doxycycline works as well during diagnosis and minocycline less so.   
 
Nevertheless, for minocycline and doxycycline, treatment (within a year) prior to ARDS diagnosis is associated with a 75% reduced likelihood for mechanical ventilation.  

  • Well Written x 1
  • Informative x 1

#2042 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 116
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 October 2020 - 10:05 AM

I have seen the following study floating around in other forums about the benefit of aspirin against RNA viruses:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5155651/

 

"In all experiments, aspirin showed a considerable dose‐dependent antiviral activity against CA9, HRV1A, HRV2

and substantial activity against FluA H1N1, HRV14 and HRV39. With respect to rhinoviruses in particular, further

research is required into the variation in responses observed between “major” and “minor group” strains."

 

So, is low dose aspirin something someone should be taking on a daily basis as a possible preventative measure

before catching Covid?

 

Or is it something to take after someone catches the Covid?

 

 


  • like x 1

#2043 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 21 October 2020 - 10:09 PM

I don’t see any reason to take aspirin for CV-19 prevention. 

 

It might be taken in the mild, beginning stage of the disease, for fever and pains, or perhaps to try to prevent thrombosis?  Although I’m mostly a do-it -yourselfer and am unusually risk-tolerant, I think taking aspirin upon suspicion of being infected with CV-19 should be done with caution - under medical care.  If the disease progresses, you might need more aggressive antithrombosis and aspirin aftereffects could be a complication.

 

Initially, WHO recommended against routine use of ibuprofen or aspirin, but withdrew that recommendation.    

https://www.webmd.co...avirus-symptoms

“For adults, it’s safe to take aspirin for pain or fever from COVID-19.”

 

Some of the more venturesome treatment protocols - not U.S. NIH standard - do specify aspirin in the mild, beginning stage of the disease. 

https://www.research...eptember_7_2020

https://www.evms.edu...19_Protocol.pdf

https://swprs.org/on...nt-of-covid-19/

 

Here is a guarded positive with needs-evidence qualification:

Should aspirin be used for prophylaxis of COVID-19-induced coagulopathy?

https://www.scienced...312408?via=ihub

 


  • Informative x 2

#2044 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 30
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 October 2020 - 01:40 AM

I have seen the following study floating around in other forums about the benefit of aspirin against RNA viruses:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5155651/

 

"In all experiments, aspirin showed a considerable dose‐dependent antiviral activity against CA9, HRV1A, HRV2

and substantial activity against FluA H1N1, HRV14 and HRV39. With respect to rhinoviruses in particular, further

research is required into the variation in responses observed between “major” and “minor group” strains."

 

So, is low dose aspirin something someone should be taking on a daily basis as a possible preventative measure

before catching Covid?

 

Or is it something to take after someone catches the Covid?

 

I don’t think this study says much one way or the other about aspirin and COVID-19.

 

1. The viruses studied are similar to SARS-CoV-2 in being RNA viruses, but they did not study more closely related viruses such as the coronaviruses that cause the common cold.

2. The effectiveness of aspirin was highly variable among the viruses they studied.

 

So, between 1 and 2, it is not possible to predict what aspirin will do to COVID.

 

Without knowing that aspirin would have a direct anti-viral effect, I am reluctant to interfere with a low grade fever early in any virus infection. Fever is unpleasant, but it is a defense mechanism against viruses. Of course you can’t let a fever run wild, and if the disease progresses the anti-clotting effect could tip the balance in favor of aspirin.



#2045 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,385 posts
  • 462
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 22 October 2020 - 01:48 AM

Clotting and anticoagulation are a major concern for me.  I may be wrong, but once your lungs have clotted off and the heart is stressed trying to pump blood through the clotted up lungs, it seems to me you've already hit the iceberg.  The fact that doctors don't want to treat until you become hypoxic and enter the hospital means it's up to us to decide whether or not to try to prevent clots.  I'm not particularly frightened of dying, but I don't want to become a pulmonary or cardiac cripple, or worse yet have parts of my brain go dead from stroke.  

 

Really don't know about aspirin, but I would go low dose & I've got some of this on hand.  Vitamin-E is also anti-clotting (two different mechanisms):

 

https://ods.od.nih.g...thProfessional/

 

"Vitamin E can inhibit platelet aggregation and antagonize vitamin K-dependent clotting factors"

 

NAC is supposed to inhibit both Von Willebrand factor and the oxidative stress Dr Seheult has opined may be responsible for clotting in the first place.  

 

Personally, I would want to be on at least one form of anticoagulant as soon as I became symptomatic.  Once clots form, they're a bear to get rid of, so prophylaxis would be the key.  Once you become hypoxic the clots may have already arrived.  

 


Edited by Dorian Grey, 22 October 2020 - 02:17 AM.

  • Good Point x 2

#2046 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 30
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 October 2020 - 02:56 AM

 

 

 

Personally, I would want to be on at least one form of anticoagulant as soon as I became symptomatic.  

 

The Metabolites of the Dietary Flavonoid Quercetin Possess Potent Antithrombotic Activity, and Interact with Aspirin to Enhance Antiplatelet Effects
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#2047 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 22 October 2020 - 03:29 AM

Dorian Grey, I think you’re right.  I overstated my caution.  My perhaps clouded understanding views resolving thrombosis the biggest threat to survival, and I don't want to make any mistakes, one way or another.  I would not wait for testing, would act as soon as likely symptomatic, and I expect to be at least in telemedicine care.  At that point I would take aspirin,  unless expressly directed otherwise. 

 

It’s supported in my links to WHO, Aguirre protocol, MATH+ protocol, and Swiss policy protocol; at doses of 200-300 mg/day, 81-325 mg/day, 162-325 mg/day. 

 

 


Edited by bladedmind, 22 October 2020 - 03:41 AM.

  • Informative x 1

#2048 Gal220

  • Member
  • 340 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 October 2020 - 03:22 PM

Personally, I would want to be on at least one form of anticoagulant as soon as I became symptomatic.  Once clots form, they're a bear to get rid of, so prophylaxis would be the key.  Once you become hypoxic the clots may have already arrived.  

 

100% agree, I have a bottle of Nattovena ready to go, several dosing strategies included on the bottle and webpage.  Their Neprinol AFD product is good idea to start and clean up your blood now.

 

 

However, I am sold on the hydrogen peroxide therapy from Levy, CDC confirms it kills it externally, hard to imagine it not working with a nebulizer internally.

 

There is a long history of people using it on earthclinic.org for other issues.  I plan on gargling with it daily, nebulizing for a few days if symptoms.  As I said before, dentist are already asking people to rinse with it.


  • Informative x 1

#2049 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 23 October 2020 - 03:29 PM

New

 

Aspirin Use is Associated with Decreased Mechanical Ventilation, ICU Admission, and In-Hospital Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

 

 

Background:
Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality.
 
Methods:
A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios for study outcomes were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and co-morbid conditions.
 
Results:
Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days prior to admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin vs. 48.4% non-aspirin, p=0.03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin vs. 51.0% non-aspirin, p=0.04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin vs. 23.2% non-aspirin, p=0.51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.85, p=0.007), ICU admission (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.85, p=0.005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90, p=0.02). There were no differences in major bleeding (p=0.69) or overt thrombosis (p=0.82) between aspirin users and non-aspirin users.
 
Conclusions:
Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

 

 

 


  • Informative x 3
  • Agree x 1

#2050 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 26 October 2020 - 04:39 PM

For your reference, this is an organized running tally of studies of HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamin D, and Remdesivir.  Source and quality of evidence is specified.   https://c19study.com/ 

 

Also, they argue that HCQ works in the earliest stage of the disease. 

 

Although it may be that HCQ is effective in the early stage, my view is that Ivermectin+ is a better bet all around. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attached Files


  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 1

#2051 Gal220

  • Member
  • 340 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States

Posted 26 October 2020 - 06:24 PM

Mercola's latest article claiming many of the worst patients are zinc deficient.

 

"Preliminary data also suggest people with low zinc levels are more likely to die from COVID-19 than those with higher levels. The research13,14,15,16,17 was presented at the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (ESCMID) Conference on Coronavirus Disease,18 held online September 23 through September 25, 2020, and posted19 on the preprint server medRxiv October 11, 2020."

 

He quotes a few other studies as well.

 

They tout zinc ionophores like Quercetin and EGCG as crucial, also part of his Stop Covid Cold protocol.

 

Sad how an anti-vaxer site is thumping the CDC for covid info.

 

 



#2052 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,385 posts
  • 462
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 27 October 2020 - 02:26 AM

Anyone better at math than I am?  Got some Ivermectin horse paste...  Says it contains 0.26oz (7.6cc?) @ 1.87%, which will treat up to a 1500 pound (680 kilo) animal.  

 

Veterinary site says dosing for horses is 200ug/kilo or 91ug/pound.  200 X 680 = 136000ug which = 136mg.  (91 X 1500 = 136.5mg). 

 

So 136mg per 7.6cc.  136 divided by 7.6cc = 17.89mg per cc?  

 

If I had a kitty (cough) that weighed 90 kilos / 200 pounds, & I wanted to treat it with a 12mg dose, that would be around 0.7cc?  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 27 October 2020 - 03:06 AM.


#2053 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,385 posts
  • 462
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 27 October 2020 - 06:20 AM

Aspirin gets a thumbs-UP!  

 

https://www.dailymai...e-COVID-19.html

 

  • Hospitalized coronavirus patients who took a low-dose daily aspirin for cardiovascular disease were compared o those who didn't
  • Patients in the aspirin group were 43% less likely to be admitted to the ICU and 44% less likely to need ventilators
  • Daily aspirin use also reduced the risk of death from COVID-19 among hospitalized patients by 47%

Got to stop the clots before they start.  Once your lungs are clotted off, you've already hit the iceberg. 

 

I like the low-dose model. Full 325mg doses wreck my gut.  Not something I want going on when I'm in phase one COVID.  


  • like x 2
  • Informative x 1

#2054 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 30
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 October 2020 - 12:30 PM

 

 

If I had a kitty (cough) that weighed 90 kilos / 200 pounds, & I wanted to treat it with a 12mg dose, that would be around 0.7cc?  

 

Does this kitty drink gin and tonic?


  • Cheerful x 1

#2055 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,019 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 October 2020 - 05:33 PM

Has this been posted yet? Another study showing the efficacy of HCQ with antibiotic and zinc. https://www.scienced...924857920304258

 

As you know, I am wondering why this forum seems to be one of the few that is talking about successful treatments - such as RCT proven vitamin D3. I am not surprised there are a lot of conspiracy theories about COVID. The "experts" and national news outlets (in the U.S.) seem absolutely uninterested in any talk about treatments.

 

Throughout my life, I always expected that when a significant illness hit the world, everyone would be hyper-focused on treatments. I am appalled that national media and health bureaucrats seem obsessed with masks and lockdowns instead of treatments.


  • Agree x 5
  • Good Point x 2
  • Informative x 1

#2056 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 1,664 posts
  • 267
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 October 2020 - 05:53 PM

Has this been posted yet? Another study showing the efficacy of HCQ with antibiotic and zinc. https://www.scienced...924857920304258

 

As you know, I am wondering why this forum seems to be one of the few that is talking about successful treatments - such as RCT proven vitamin D3. I am not surprised there are a lot of conspiracy theories about COVID. The "experts" and national news outlets (in the U.S.) seem absolutely uninterested in any talk about treatments.

 

Throughout my life, I always expected that when a significant illness hit the world, everyone would be hyper-focused on treatments. I am appalled that national media and health bureaucrats seem obsessed with masks and lockdowns instead of treatments.

 

The cynical side of me says this is being suppressed because of political biases and because Gilead would like to make a few billion dollars off Remdesivir.  Two powerful considerations that just so happen to coincide.

 

However, at the end of the day I think the FDA essentially being in bed with drug makers and not wanting to see a cheap and readily available treatment knock out a new and expensive on-patent drug is entirely sufficient to explain their institutional opposition to these treatments.  

 

Guys at the upper reaches of the FDA have this weird habit of landing lucrative positions at various top tier drug companies after they leave the agency.  Probably just a coincidence.


  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1

#2057 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 30
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 October 2020 - 06:50 PM

 I am appalled that national media and health bureaucrats seem obsessed with masks and lockdowns instead of treatments.

 

It is not just us on this forum who have noticed the lack of information about treatment.

A while back an older, working-class acquaintance of mine, who gets his news from TV, asked me, “Why can’t they figure out some way to treat this?” It was news to him when I told him about Vitamin D and zinc. I started to move on to HCQ and Ivermectin, but I realized I was ranting and I cut myself off by saying, “Don’t get me started”. He said, “It sounds like I already did.”

 

The same fellow told me about his 80-year-old neighbor who believes “If Trump is elected, all of us old people are going die”. The politically-motivated fear-mongering worked on that guy. This is why we don’t hear anything positive about treatment.

 

It is not that doctors who actually treat patients don’t know what is going on. Remdesivir and the Regeneron antibodies got all the publicity, but President Trump’s treatment also included vitamin D, zinc, famotidine, and melatonin. We don’t know how many front line doctors include these simple treatments. And yet is a complete mystery why infection rates are rising but death rates are not.

 

This is a good conversation starter to get people to think about what is going on. “Have you ever heard anything about vitamin D and COVID from anyone but me?”


  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2058 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 27 October 2020 - 09:48 PM

I’m a moderate skeptic, in all directions.  My eyes were opened recently by perusing Trial Site News on ivermectin and other CV-19 topics.  I learned that In many low- and middle-income countries public health authorities are clinically ambitious and also are emphasizing earliest possible treatment.   For example, some  cities in Latin America are handing out prophylactic packs to every citizen. I noticed that those authorities were revising clinical protocols as evidence developed.  Also, I was enlightened by the group of American physicians advocating early home treatment.  They are associated with a conservative medical group, which raises a yellow flag but does not automatically discredit.  https://aapsonline.o...-you-for-covid/ And if their protocol is flawed, the question remains:  given the risks of contagion and death, and the severe costs of economic shutdown, why in the U.S. is there zero effort on prophylaxis and earliest possible treatment?   Instead we wait days or weeks for a test result, as if there were not the urgency of a pandemic. 

 

The opposite pole is expressed here: -- https://www.atsjourn...TS.202004-325IP -- we can do nothing unless it is confirmed by multisite placebo controlled RCTs.  Of course that is the best evidence, and I understand completely how clinical knowledge can be illusory (to a lesser extent, RCTs can be flawed and ultimately found illusory).   But the standard of evidence for life-saving action is lower than that for scientific knowledge (I’ve cited before in this thread philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright, Evidence-Based Policy for a sophisticated defense of that claim).  Homo sapiens made it 100,000 years without RCTs. 

 

We can’t do prevention or treatment unless we have test results showing that you are positive. If you are positive we will give you supportive care.  If you get really sick - when it’s too late - we might give you a provisional treatment but only as part of RCT.  We will impose nonmedical social and economic measures of great cost that themselves will cause many harms including to health and life, without any kind of evidence from multisite RCTs, but we’re scientists and any who challenge our social prescription should be censored.  All of this strikes me as hyperscientistic dogma that mimics rationality but is irrational in conception and consequence.


  • Well Written x 2
  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2059 Gal220

  • Member
  • 340 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 October 2020 - 04:06 AM

 given the risks of contagion and death, and the severe costs of economic shutdown, why in the U.S. is there zero effort on prophylaxis and earliest possible treatment?   Instead we wait days or weeks for a test result, as if there were not the urgency of a pandemic. 

 

The opposite pole is expressed here: -- https://www.atsjourn...TS.202004-325IP -- we can do nothing unless it is confirmed by multisite placebo controlled RCTs.  

 

I think there is some empirical evidence no one(CDC) can deny.  Presumably everyone who survives covid does so because their immunity eventually fights it off(at least early on before antbodies), or else they would die?  Just blatant negligence or corruption that the CDC hasnt stressed optimizing ones immunity at the very least.  Wash your hands...


  • Good Point x 1

#2060 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 28 October 2020 - 04:32 AM

Dr. Paul Marik, leader of the the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol) today published a 49-minute semi-technical youtube:  “Covid 10:  Saving the Planet with Ivermectin and Masks.”

 

https://youtu.be/pU6nW97eQIU

 

He will be revising the EVMS MATH+ Protocol accordingly.  https://www.reddit.c...l_marik_on_his/


Edited by bladedmind, 28 October 2020 - 04:36 AM.

  • Informative x 3

#2061 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 1,664 posts
  • 267
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 October 2020 - 06:29 PM

Have we done this one?
 
 
MMR Vaccination: A Potential Strategy to Reduce Severity and Mortality of COVID-19 Illness
 

 

The authors suggest that MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccinations may provide a non-specific innate immunity that reduces the rate of covid infection and the severity of the disease for those who are infected.  They believe this may explain some of the "goldilocks" countries where covid deaths have been particularly low, specifically some of the counties in Asia which have a much more vigorous MMR vaccination program than those in Europe and America because these viruses are more common in these countries.

 

For what it's worth, I believe that you can get a MMR vaccination on a walk-in basis at pharmacies like Wallgreen's in the US depending on the rules in your state.

 

 


  • Informative x 2

#2062 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,385 posts
  • 462
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 28 October 2020 - 07:31 PM

Dr. Paul Marik, leader of the the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol) today published a 49-minute semi-technical youtube:  “Covid 10:  Saving the Planet with Ivermectin and Masks.”

 

https://youtu.be/pU6nW97eQIU

 

He will be revising the EVMS MATH+ Protocol accordingly.  https://www.reddit.c...l_marik_on_his/

 

Fantastic lecture from Dr Marik.  He is the one who said the cytokine storm is due to the immune response to residual dead viral fragments, & this is why treating patients experiencing cytokine storm with antivirals (remdesivir, antibodies etc) after the bodies own immune system has already killed off the virus is foolish & futile.  Like Tamiflu, antivirals have value only in the earliest period of disease (first 48 hours); after that, it's all about immune modulation to prevent cytokine storm before it gets out of control.  Much easier to prevent cytokine storm than to try and put it out once it is in full bloom.  

 

America is doing the exact opposite of what might help.  Giving antivirals late instead of early, and failing to provide cytokine storm prophylaxis.  Interesting they seemed to get it right for Trump.  Antibodies and remdesivir within 48 hour of onset, & steroid given earlier than expected.  I remember when the news broke he had been given dexamethasone, the TV doctors were saying "he must be in critical condition as this is the only time this should be used".  Wrong!  Throw everything you've got at the virus for the first few days, then head the cytokine storm off at the pass.  


  • Informative x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2063 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,240 posts
  • 366

Posted 28 October 2020 - 11:15 PM

It seems that autoimmune responses may be causing a lot of the damage in COVID-19:

 

Here is an article about it, which references a preprint that the authors have submitted.

 

https://theconversat...-illness-148509

 

Maybe these self-targeted antibody responses do indeed contribute to disease severity, helping explain the delayed onset of severe symptoms in some patients that may correlate with antibody production.

This could be a reason that treatment with dexamethasone, an immunosuppressant often used to quell “flare-ups” of autoimmune disorders, might be effective in treating patients with only the most severe disease. It is also possible that these responses are not short lived, outlasting the infection and contributing to ongoing symptoms now experienced by a growing number of “long-hauler” COVID-19 patients.

Most concerning, it is possible that these responses could self-perpetuate in some patients, resulting in the emergence of new, permanent autoimmune disorders.

 

 



#2064 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 29 October 2020 - 03:50 AM

Fantastic lecture from Dr Marik.  He is the one....

 

It is an excellent presentation, carefully done, clear and clean, lots of supporting visuals.  He talks slowly (and carefully) and even at 1.5 speed it sounded normal.  Marik argues and offers evidence that ivermectin is good for prophylaxis, the viral stage, and the pulmonary stage.  Along with doxycycline, maybe C to lessen any ivermectin side effect (not to mention other items in his MATH+ protocol). 

 

After reviewing the observational and the few RCT studies favorably, he shows the striking data from Peru public health.  They distributed ivermectin as widely as they could, but it was rolled out at different times in different provinces.

 

The vertical axis is excess deaths among population over 60.  The horizontal axis is time.  Time of Ivermectin introduction is marked. 

 

Attached File  Peru.png   446.02KB   0 downloads

 

This is much better than a single correlation.   The same effect in each province (introduction ivermectin  -> drop in excess deaths) at different times is pretty good evidence for the absence of confounds.  If I recall correctly, this is how it was shown that leaded gasoline caused crime - unleaded gasoline was introduced in different years in the different states.  The crime rate in each state consistently dropped x years after unleading of gasoline.  Compare that to only having data for a single state,  

 

 

https://www.trialsit...e-case-of-peru/ (graph source + more causal arguments)

https://youtu.be/vzO_9TX5vXc Trial Site News video doc on Peru, 15 minutes. 


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2065 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,385 posts
  • 462
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 29 October 2020 - 05:55 AM

Very excited about Ivermectin (Marik video).  A "one & done" 12mg dose that covers all the bases?  Pre & post exposure prophylaxis, viral replication inhibition AND immune modulation?  I may just swap my gin & ton for the horse paste, though one study combined ivermectin with HCQ so no interaction.  

 

I slept the sleep of the saved after seeing Dr Marik's presentation.  Ivermectin arriving tomorrow via amazon.  American made and only seven bucks?  One syringe treats an entire family?  

 

https://www.amazon.c...03953295&sr=8-5

 

My gal is bringing home a TB (1cc) syringe from work to measure.  0.7cc the magic 12mg dose.  Winter surge looks like it's already beginning in the Great White North.  It's going to be a fine mess.  

 

'You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.' (Donald Rumsfeld)


Edited by Dorian Grey, 29 October 2020 - 06:16 AM.

  • Agree x 2

#2066 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 116
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 October 2020 - 08:10 AM

Have we done this one?
 
MMR Vaccination: A Potential Strategy to Reduce Severity and Mortality of COVID-19 Illness
 

The authors suggest that MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccinations may provide a non-specific innate immunity that reduces the rate of covid infection and the severity of the disease for those who are infected.  They believe this may explain some of the "goldilocks" countries where covid deaths have been particularly low, specifically some of the counties in Asia which have a much more vigorous MMR vaccination program than those in Europe and America because these viruses are more common in these countries.

 

For what it's worth, I believe that you can get a MMR vaccination on a walk-in basis at pharmacies like Wallgreen's in the US depending on the rules in your state.

 

There have been a number of doctors and scientist over the past few months who have said they believe that the MMR vaccine

could possibly provide some protection against the worst symptoms of Covid.  They think that the Rubella part of the vaccine will

provide antibodies that have a similar match to the antibodies of Covid.  They also believe that since the MMR vaccine is a live

virus vaccine that it will improve the immune system to better fight Covid.  There are actually some studies that have been

started to test this theory of the MMR vaccine...but the results aren't expected until sometime next year.

 

 

There is also some talk about the pneumonia vaccine being of use to help protect from getting the lung infections that Covid

seems to cause.

 

https://theconversat...covid-19-147829

 

 

I knew that they recommended older people to get the pneumonia vaccine, but I never knew that it was given so widely to children.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...ports/2017.html

 

 

I wonder if it would be prudent to get the pneumonia vaccine even though I'm not over 50 yet.

 


Edited by lancebr, 29 October 2020 - 08:17 AM.


#2067 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 116
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 October 2020 - 08:37 AM

Dr. Paul Marik, leader of the the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol) today published a 49-minute semi-technical youtube:  “Covid 10:  Saving the Planet with Ivermectin and Masks.”

 

https://youtu.be/pU6nW97eQIU

 

He will be revising the EVMS MATH+ Protocol accordingly.  https://www.reddit.c...l_marik_on_his/

 

I am a little suprised at how far Ivermectin has come over these past months. I remember when I first heard about the test tube study where

it was found to kill the virus that there were many online medical specialists/scientists who poo-pooed it saying you would have to have

a dangerous massive dosage of it to work. I am just glad I didn't listen to them then and bought up my supply of it several months ago.

 

I still see that it is not really getting any mainstream coverage in the news or online to let as many people know about its effectiveness.

 

I noticed that it wasn't one of the items given to the President when he got Covid...it seems like they gave him everything plus the

kitchen sink to make sure something worked....but for some reason Ivermectin was not on that list of things.

 

There is a recent pig study that came out using a Ivermectin nasal spray.

 

https://www.biorxiv.....10.23.352831v1

 

They found that...."After nasal administration, the highest IVM concentrations were measured in NP and lung tissues.

Significant increases in IVM concentration profiles in both NPtissue and lungs were observed after the 2 dose nasal

administrations. The nasal/oral IVM concentration ratios in NP and lung tissues (at 6 h postdose) markedely increased

by repeating the spray application. The fast attainment of high and persistent IVM concentrations in NP tissue is the

main advantage of the nasal over the oral route. These original results are encouraging to support the undertaking

of further clinical trials to evaluate the safety/efficacy of the nasal IVM spray application in the treatment and/or

prevention of COVID-19."

 

 

 

 


  • Informative x 1

#2068 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 127 posts
  • 78
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 29 October 2020 - 02:57 PM

Goodthinkers!  Take note of, condemn, and censor this news from kooky, fringe Science magazine that irresponsibly questions the only scientifically validated Covid-19 therapeutic!

 

The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug

 

 


  • Cheerful x 1

#2069 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 1,664 posts
  • 267
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 October 2020 - 03:09 PM

Goodthinkers!  Take note of, condemn, and censor this news from kooky, fringe Science magazine that irresponsibly questions the only scientifically validated Covid-19 therapeutic!

 

The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug

 

 

I've been watching the remdesivir studies since this all started. I'd like to say I'm surprised that the FDA approved this drug, but I'm not.  

 

In any case, remdesivir is obviously of very marginal utility.  Some studies show a small benefit, some studies show none at all.  You don't see that in drugs that really work.  When penicillin was introduced, there was no doubt that it was effective. It was obvious.



#2070 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,385 posts
  • 462
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 29 October 2020 - 08:25 PM

Regarding remdesivir, they had to come up with something, and that something couldn't be a widely available outpatient med or it would jeopardize the vaccine Emergency Use Authorization which specifically states there must be no readily available alternative.  Remdesivir fits perfectly.  Inpatient/IV, doesn't work well, & very expensive.  This is why everyone will have to get their SARS shot as soon as Big Pharma can get their EUA.  .  

 

The tragedy is, if you could get it into patients veins within 48 hours of symptom onset (like Trump got), it actually might be quite helpful.  


Edited by Dorian Grey, 29 October 2020 - 08:30 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, flu, disease epidemics, viruses, immunity, covid-19

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)