Standardized Covid Treatment Protocols?

I recall it was successful.
 
Regarding the OP, having the inevitable standard protocol established for COVID-19 makes me a little leery. That's not to say there shouldn't be a 'best practices' routine of treatments and drugs. But eventually the treatments may turn into 'one size fits all' medication regimen for patients. And Big Pharma will make a pricey little drug cocktail package that they market to doctors.

My trepidation is based upon my experience back when I had a heart attack. I got a regimen of drugs that, as I recovered, I had difficulty getting changed to meet my specific circumstances. I eventually got a retiring cardiologist who was comfortable drastically changing up the treatment regimen. In Cardio rehab, I met other patients on other medication packages, but they all did about the same thing, just with different drug manufacturers and product names.

I can easily visualize the 'COVID-19 Treatment in a Box' approach where PCPs just get your positive test results and then give you a cookie cutter box of drugs and treatments depending upon your list of medical attributes, new infection or long hauler, vaccinated or not, and which drug company the Dr. deals with the most. Eventually I can see hospital style buildings with names like 'COVID-19 Treatment Centers of America' advertising on late night TV. The UK NHS already has clinics for long haulers.
 
pacergal said:
Isn't ivermectin part of the iMask or iMATH protocol and wasn't it being used in some hospitals early on?
Sorry, I can't link the articles I used months ago.
Click to expand...

First came the MATH+ protocol for hospital patients. I'm not sure when it was introduced. I searched it out in late April or early may after reading a newspaper article about Dr. Joe Varon of Houston.

Up till then, and even for a long time after, the standard was doing only "supportive care" (ie., not much more than fluids) until you needed to be intubated and put on a ventilator.

The FLCCC.net docs were advocating for using corticosteroids, specifically Methylprednisone, as part of their MATH+ protocol when the CDC still said steroids were a no-no. The CDC finally acknowledged steroids at some point.

The word spread and hospitals started using (mostly) antibiotics and a blood thinner along with dexamethasone because dex had gotten some press. It only seemed like doctors following MATH+ were also using Thiamine and Vitamin C and the items listed under + (Plus) on their website.

I noticed the i-MASK+ prevention protocol in late October. The protocol changed a couple of times, and Ivermectin was so impressive they added it to all stages of treatment (for prevention, for early treatment, and throughout hospitalization).

Hope this helps.
 
I just did a search and did not see a post on this since January 31st.

Monoclonal antibodies have been shown to be about 85% effective in preventing hospitalization in high risk patients with mild symptoms. It takes about an hour to infuse, and in places, it is being given IN nursing homes. Apparently in Imperial County, which was overrun with COVID during big November-January spike, they have instituted a program making it easy to get a monoclonal antibody infusion through home health nurses, infusion centers, particularly in nursing homes. This treatment so far is the most effective I've heard of.

If I get Covid, I will definitely demand it.

They use monthly monoclonal antibodies injections on micropremies every winter during hospitalization and after to prevent severe RSV for RSV season, typically October-April and have been doing this for at least 25 years.
 
EastWest Gal said:
Monoclonal antibodies have been shown to be about 85% effective in preventing hospitalization in high risk patients with mild symptoms. It takes about an hour to infuse,

If I get Covid, I will definitely demand it.
Click to expand...

I was in the Elly Lilly Phase 2/3 trial for this and just had my 60 day follow up blood draw. Since I am fairly certain (after a 2 day recovery) that I did get the real juice, I would highly recommend it. I was told that due to the high efficacy this would be come an approved treatment.:popcorn:
 
TMPRSS2 / ACE2 Theory and Proxalutimide

There was a small prospective RCT using a drug called proxalutamide that showed very positive results in treating mild to moderate Covid-19. The mechanism of action is to disrupt the way Sars-CoV-2 binds to human cells. Not everyone agrees, but many that study the mechanism of binding think that TMPRSS2 helps the spike protein attach to ACE2 and the human cell membrane. This drug, along with bromhexine and camostat mesilate seem to alter this mechanism.

The trial for proxalutamide looks pretty impressive to me. One clinical endpoint was resolution of symptoms at day 7. 82% of the treatment group was symptom-free at day 7 compared to 24% of the placebo group.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/522...mized-double-blinded-placebo-controlled-trial

ETA: I should have said that the drug proxalutimide is a cancer drug, and it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to use it for Covid-19. The point is that what this drug does is prevent creating TMPRSS2, and with less of that, the virus is less successful at getting into human cells. But bromhexine and camostat mesilate mess-up the viral binding by messing up TMPRSS2...so a more direct approach. In a perfect world, a trial would put the three drugs up against each other, but only proxalutimide is a potential money-maker, so the trial we need will never get done. Too bad our governments, who could do such a trial, are in the pocket of pharma business.
 
Last edited:
sengsational said:
In the meantime, we have safe and effective (against Sars-CoV-2 replication) anti-virals that are being completely ignored. Why? Well, IMO, it's because it might cause some people to think it's a replacement for a vaccination. It's not a replacement. Both can be used in the interest of public health, but our system isn't putting public health first, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
retire-early said:
https://youtu.be/cnJTNtU2Zuc?t=476
At 8:08 he mentions what has been effective
Click to expand...
What I heard is that this doctor (don't know him from Adam, so can't vouch for anything he says) mentions what's been tried in US hospitals and says, basically, nothing really works, except steroids (duh). This highlights my point: There's nothing in the mainstream media that points out that there ARE things being employed around the world that have efficacy against the virus. Here in the US, the official position is "wait until you can't breathe, then come to the hospital". Elsewhere in the world, there's guidance for things you can do before that point. One may presume that the American guidance we are seeing is the pinnacle of the application of knowledge to reduce suffering and death from Covid-19. I happen to think people in other countries are just as smart, but not as biased toward profit over human suffering. And in those countries, they are embracing various protocols that have robust clinical studies that prove the treatments are safe and effective.
 
sengsational said:
What I heard is that this doctor (don't know him from Adam, so can't vouch for anything he says) mentions what's been tried in US hospitals and says, basically, nothing really works, except steroids (duh). This highlights my point: There's nothing in the mainstream media that points out that there ARE things being employed around the world that have efficacy against the virus. Here in the US, the official position is "wait until you can't breathe, then come to the hospital". Elsewhere in the world, there's guidance for things you can do before that point. One may presume that the American guidance we are seeing is the pinnacle of the application of knowledge to reduce suffering and death from Covid-19. I happen to think people in other countries are just as smart, but not as biased toward profit over human suffering. And in those countries, they are embracing various protocols that have robust clinical studies that prove the treatments are safe and effective.
Click to expand...




No... it's not wait until you can't breathe, they stopped saying that over a year ago. Good grief we had a poster that got MAB administered in her home two days after a positive test.



Enough with the restlessness US bashing it's getting old and it's not accurate.
 
Monoclonal antibody treatment within 10 days from symptoms seems to be very effective and readily available.

It used to be that patients had to ask for this, insist on it even. Perhaps it’s more commonly offered now.
 
audreyh1 said:
Monoclonal antibody treatment within 10 days from symptoms seems to be very effective and readily available.

It used to be that patients had to ask for this, insist on it even. Perhaps it’s more commonly offered now.
Click to expand...


We had poster get a call from the place she got a positive test and they brought the MA directly to her house. It doesn't get any easier then that.
 
Yes,I remember that, I was impressed.

Dr. disneysteve also weighed in that they immediately have their patients treated with MAB if within time, including the vaccinated folks.
 
audreyh1 said:
Monoclonal antibody treatment within 10 days from symptoms seems to be very effective and readily available.

It used to be that patients had to ask for this, insist on it even. Perhaps it’s more commonly offered now.
Click to expand...



Listening to Daniel Griffin MD, Thus Week in Virology clinical update, it’s clear that monoclonal antibodies are not universally offered or available. It is effective, if given early enough. Dexamethasone is helpful if given when oxygen is started. Remdesivir has not been proven that helpful, and there is no place for hydroxychloroquine.

The YouTube video linked several posts ago was a bit strange. Implying that “they” are ignoring antivirals, is unhelpful and flat out wrong. With the exception of the antivirals developed for the herpesvirus family (which are DNA viruses) and the antivirals developed for HIV, which took years, and more recently Hepatitis C, not many antivirals have been effective, and HepC and HIV antivirals are for chronic infection.

I also find it odd that this critical care specialist has posted 90 blog entries and 110 YouTube videos in about 2 years. He also has an Instagram and TikTok channel. He promotes vitamin D, pomegranate juice, and CBD On his blog. There is a doctor with the same name in the Pittsburgh area, but is much older than the guy in the video. I can’t find a board certification for this Mike Hansen. With all that, I find it difficult to believe he has much time to spend on patient care. He is selling an “energy boosting” course on his website. It doesn’t sound like he is practicing critical care medicine but rather is positioning himself to sell stuff on the internet.

TWIV podcast has been discussing papers and research, almost exclusively about COVID, for the past year. There is a ton of research being done, but it won’t be in the news or in YouTube videos. And good research requires double-blind placebo controlled trials, with rigorous analysis of the data as it is collected.
 
Delta variant can infect families from exposed children, even vaccinated adults.

EastWest Gal said:
Listening to Daniel Griffin MD, Thus Week in Virology clinical update, it’s clear that monoclonal antibodies are not universally offered or available. It is effective, if given early enough. Dexamethasone is helpful if given when oxygen is started. Remdesivir has not been proven that helpful, and there is no place for hydroxychloroquine.

The YouTube video linked several posts ago was a bit strange. Implying that “they” are ignoring antivirals, is unhelpful and flat out wrong. With the exception of the antivirals developed for the herpesvirus family (which are DNA viruses) and the antivirals developed for HIV, which took years, and more recently Hepatitis C, not many antivirals have been effective, and HepC and HIV antivirals are for chronic infection.

I also find it odd that this critical care specialist has posted 90 blog entries and 110 YouTube videos in about 2 years. He also has an Instagram and TikTok channel. He promotes vitamin D, pomegranate juice, and CBD On his blog. There is a doctor with the same name in the Pittsburgh area, but is much older than the guy in the video. I can’t find a board certification for this Mike Hansen. With all that, I find it difficult to believe he has much time to spend on patient care. He is selling an “energy boosting” course on his website. It doesn’t sound like he is practicing critical care medicine but rather is positioning himself to sell stuff on the internet.

TWIV podcast has been discussing papers and research, almost exclusively about COVID, for the past year. There is a ton of research being done, but it won’t be in the news or in YouTube videos. And good research requires double-blind placebo controlled trials, with rigorous analysis of the data as it is collected.
Click to expand...



This seems to be a location list of sites that give the Regeneron MAB. If not offered it would be worthwhile to call I imagine.

https://covid.infusioncenter.org/

Got it from the Regeneron website

https://www.regeneron.com/covid19
 
Last edited:
sengsational said:
There's nothing in the mainstream media that points out that there ARE things being employed around the world that have efficacy against the virus. Here in the US, the official position is "wait until you can't breathe, then come to the hospital". Elsewhere in the world, there's guidance for things you can do before that point. One may presume that the American guidance we are seeing is the pinnacle of the application of knowledge to reduce suffering and death from Covid-19. I happen to think people in other countries are just as smart, but not as biased toward profit over human suffering. And in those countries, they are embracing various protocols that have robust clinical studies that prove the treatments are safe and effective.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Despite what you hear from the mainstream media in the U.S., there is a protocol being used in various countries around the world that is proving to be effective against COVID. And the same protocol is also being used successfully by various doctors and hospitals here in the USA, but the mainstream media doesn't really cover it very well (if at all). Ivermectin, a drug with a proven safety record, is part of the protocol, yet even mentioning the word Ivermectin seems to be forbidden in much of the mainstream media these days. Vaccines are important, but there is so much more that could be done to treat people - and treat them early, as you say, rather than waiting until people have breathing difficulty before beginning treatment.

Here is a link to the protocol being employed by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
 
Delta variant can infect families from exposed children, even vaccinated adults.

RAE said:
Yes, I agree. Despite what you hear from the mainstream media in the U.S., there is a protocol being used in various countries around the world that is proving to be effective against COVID. And the same protocol is also being used successfully by various doctors and hospitals here in the USA, but the mainstream media doesn't really cover it very well (if at all). Ivermectin, a drug with a proven safety record, is part of the protocol, yet even mentioning the word Ivermectin seems to be forbidden in much of the mainstream media these days. Vaccines are important, but there is so much more that could be done to treat people - and treat them early, as you say, rather than waiting until people have breathing difficulty before beginning treatment.

Here is a link to the protocol being employed by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Click to expand...


“Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data”



https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
 
RAE said:
Here is a link to the protocol being employed by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
Click to expand...




Yes. When I mentioned "antiviral" above, I was thinking of ivermectin. I can't remember which, but the WHO, FDA or another of the organizations that are supposed to be protecting public health, made a statement that ivermectin was NOT an antiviral, despite having been used, pre-covid, against several viruses. And, of course, the 20 RCT's by clinicians around the world that show it acts as an antiviral against Sars-CoV-2, including a dose response. As someone who has been reading the papers as they've been peer reviewed and published, I'm left convinced that some day, ivermectin, or something like it, will help humanity manage this virus. I say "something like it" because Merck has an ivermectin analog they're scurrying to get to market. How much you wanna bet that their trial won't go head to head with ivermectin?
 
Last edited:
bmcgonig said:
“Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data”

https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
Click to expand...
Whoa!
It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.

“The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said.

“The authors claimed they conducted the study between the 8th of June and 20th of September 2020, however most of the patients who died were admitted into hospital and died before the 8th of June according to the raw data. The data was also terribly formatted, and includes one patient who left hospital on the non-existent date of 31/06/2020.”

There were other concerns.

“In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

Lawrence and the Guardian sent Elgazzar a comprehensive list of questions about the data, but did not receive a reply. The university’s press office also did not respond.
Click to expand...
 
bmcgonig said:
“Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns
The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data”



https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
Click to expand...
Yeah, another "hit piece" But what about the 20 other RCT's that all show efficacy? This link has a list of those, and other papers where ivermectin showed effectiveness: https://c19ivermectin.com/


I find it interesting that when one out of dozens of papers has problems, they don't mention anything about other evidence that's still aound. Here is a response to the guardian piece by the FLCCC: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-...LCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1.pdf
Contrary to the voices quoted in the article, there is no scientific basis to state that the removal of one study from meta-analyses would "reverse results.! Worryingly, this article!s insinuation is reported as if it is fact.
According to the most recent analyses by BIRD, excluding the Elgazzar data from the cited metaanalyses by Bryant and Hill does not change the conclusions of these reviews, with the findings still clearly favouring ivermectin for both prevention and treatment.
Click to expand...
Not that I expect logic to win out here... people don't change their minds.


But, if someone with an open mind wanted to really understand what's going on with ivermectin, a quick look at the top google results isn't going to give you the whole story. Instead of searching ivermectin, search Tess Lawrie, Pierre Korry, Andrew Hill. The FLCCC site has grown a lot, and has some interesting data that's pretty easy to digest.
 
Last edited:
Delta variant can infect families from exposed children, even vaccinated adults.

sengsational said:
Yeah, another "hit piece" But what about the 20 other RCT's that all show efficacy? This link has a list of those, and other papers where ivermectin showed effectiveness: https://c19ivermectin.com/
Click to expand...



An entire set of meta analyses are being proven as basically corrupt.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1422044335076306947

And when someone qualified combs thru a study and finds fault then you call this a hit piece?

Even Merck says it doesn’t necessarily work. And yes I’m sure you’re going to say that Merck is somehow going to profit from a different drug so that’s why they slam it.

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Ivermectin might work, but there’s just no real, believable evidence that it does.
 
Last edited:
Amazing how many quacks come out of hiding during a medical crisis. First it was
hydroxychloroquine and now ivermectin. Doctors around the world have been successfully treating more severe cases of COVID-19 with dexamethasone, a drug that costs $1 per day. So the conspiracy theories that somehow the main stream media and main stream medical community are promoting expensive treatments are just nonsense. If you want to prevent COVID-19, get vaccinated with either of the two mRNA vaccines and wear a NIOSH approved N95 mask when in crowded situations or if you are immunocompromised.
 
sengsational said:
Yeah, another "hit piece"
Click to expand...

It is not "hit piece" when there are legitimate inconsistencies and outright flaws in the data.

My degree is not in pure science.
I am engineer.

Pointing out sloppy work is what others should be doing!
 
Another Reader said:
This news about REGEN-COV being authorized for prophylactic use for exposed patients in some populations is huge. https://www.empr.com/home/news/fda-...ntibody-therapy-for-postexposure-prophylaxis/

There is already speculation about trialing it for Long Covid, with one doctor in Nevada claiming success with the few patients he has treated. Not buying a plane ticket just yet.
Click to expand...

So is it for the unvaccinated?

Or can it provide greater number of neutralizing antibodies than via vaccination?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Tax treatment of Discounted Treasury bonds or strips
Replies
0
Views
357
beachfire
B
L
Medicare - False Diagnosis ??
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Koolau
Koolau
Tranquility Base
Second Brokerage Account As a Substitute for Savings Account
Replies
17
Views
724
Sojourner
Sojourner
E
For Musicans - Music Notation
Replies
10
Views
344
razztazz
R
G
Jordan/Covid
Replies
21
Views
2K
Gearhead Jim
G

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom