Standardized Covid Treatment Protocols?

[audreyh1]

So is it for the unvaccinated?

Or can it provide greater number of neutralizing antibodies than via vaccination?

I think it’s for someone who has been recently exposed including vaccinated.

It’s not a replacement for a vaccination.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) for postexposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in individuals (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

Looks like they are focused on high risk individuals, not everybody.

 

[Another Reader]

It was originally contemplated pre-vaccine as a prophylactic for high risk health care workers. It was originally authorized for early positives and now for post-exposure prophylaxis. It was then distributed through controlled channels. I expect to see that change, if it has not already.

 

[Another Reader]

Considering the parade of charlatans and snake oil salesmen peddling cures for Long Covid that the FDA has not cracked down on, I wonder how they will respond to this guy.

 

[sengsational]

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.

I'm not going to attempt to address SGOT (some guy on twitter). I've not referred to the site he's attempting to pick at, so won't attempt to defend that either. The meta analysis that has been done by Tess Lawrie (using Cochrain methodology), Andrew Hill (not quite as positive), and Pierre Kory (easiest to digest) are the ones I've referenced. How long have you been studying the effects of ivermectin on Covid-19? How many of the papers have you personally examined? I've been reading lots of papers for 14 or 16 months, often with the help of clinician physicians that are on the front lines treating Covid-19 (WhiteBoard Doctor was especially helpful in training me how to read these studies, including identifying specific strengths and weaknesses).

If I started looking into ivermectin today for the very first time, reading what came up first in search results, spending less than 10 hours researching and digging, I would probably come to the conclusion that ivermectin doesn't work against Covid-19. So you're all forgiven

Yes, it's a fact: Merck has an ivermectin analog in the works.

Yes, I call it a hit piece because they attacked the meta analysis which included the flawed study. The fact that the meta analysis holds-up just fine without this one flawed study. The meta analysis does not depend upon the flawed study to prove efficacy of ivermectin in treating Covid-19. I don't know the exact count, but there are something like 40 studies in the meta analysis. Of course the article wouldn't get as many clicks if the headline was "One of Forty Studies of Ivermectin Was Flawed".

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.

One of the so called "quacks", Dr. Pierre Kory, was bucking the system, administering dexamethasone way back in the early pandemic, when the establishment (NIH, WHO) was saying "don't administer steroids". I was watching this closely at the time, and there was "group think" about steroids reducing the body's ability to fight viruses. But Dr. Kory realized that the viral phase was over pretty early, and it became a different thing to treat, so started his patients on steroids. When it became apparent (without randomized controlled tests, by the way) that steroids saved lives, the establishment joined Kory and the thousands of other front line clinicians that were already treating Covid-19 patients in the later stages of disease with steroids. Oh, by the way, Dr. Kory is also the guy who's been treating patients with ivermectin, and having way above average recovery rates. Will the establishment finally see the light, as they did with steroids? Time will tell.

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!

You're right: there's no problem pointing out sloppy work. But, as is typical in these kinds of situations, people read a few headlines, form an opinion, and that's not something that's easily changed. I'm also an engineer, and I also pride myself on being able to change my mind. But if someone googles ivermectin and becomes an expert after reading the search result headlines, well, that's not going to change my mind. Ah, but about the "hit piece" label, read what I wrote above. Really. They could have just put the sentence "removal of this one flawed study from the many meta analysis done on ivermectin does not change the results of the meta analysis, which indicate efficacy of ivermectin against Covid-19".

Considering the parade of charlatans and snake oil salesmen peddling cures for Long Covid that the FDA has not cracked down on, I wonder how they will respond to this guy.

I'm not sure which guy you're referring to.

 

[bmcgonig]

Some Guy On Twitter is a well recognized epidemiologist. Some guy on Twitter is also the guys who do the TWIV podcasts, Some Guy On Twitter is also Nature Magazine.

And yes the entire meta analysis has been deemed suspect.

And yes there’s always a conspiracy out there. This time it’s Merck dissing their own drug because they have a new one in the mix.

I do take this personally because a good friend wouldn’t vaccinate because she read and believed all this stuff and knew that she would be fine with Ivermectin if she got Covid. Well she got Covid and ended up in hospital for a week on oxygen.

I won’t derail the thread further by getting into an ivermectin argument. It’s of the same ilk and vax-antivax.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

"Some guy"...there are simply too many of them. It's almost impossible to suss out legitimate information. Too many people (and organizations) that have monetary gains in their sights or just wanting attention or recognition or pushing an ideological position. Even the CDC has offered conflicting information, sometimes just hours apart. I really just want to scream, "SHUT UP!!!!" but that obviously won't do a damn thing.

 

[Freedom56]

One of the so called "quacks", Dr. Pierre Kory, was bucking the system, administering dexamethasone way back in the early pandemic, when the establishment (NIH, WHO) was saying "don't administer steroids". I was watching this closely at the time, and there was "group think" about steroids reducing the body's ability to fight viruses. But Dr. Kory realized that the viral phase was over pretty early, and it became a different thing to treat, so started his patients on steroids. When it became apparent (without randomized controlled tests, by the way) that steroids saved lives, the establishment joined Kory and the thousands of other front line clinicians that were already treating Covid-19 patients in the later stages of disease with steroids. Oh, by the way, Dr. Kory is also the guy who's been treating patients with ivermectin, and having way above average recovery rates. Will the establishment finally see the light, as they did with steroids? Time will tell.

Here are the facts regarding dexamethasone for the treatment of Covid-19:

"Oxford researchers Martin Landray (left) and Peter Horby helped save an estimated 1 million lives worldwide in their study on an effective treatment for Covid-19."

Dr. Pierre Kory had nothing to do with it.

https://www.vox.com/22397833/dexamethasone-coronavirus-uk-recovery-trial

 

[Sojourner]

I do take this personally because a good friend wouldn’t vaccinate because she read and believed all this stuff and knew that she would be fine with Ivermectin if she got Covid. Well she got Covid and ended up in hospital for a week on oxygen.

+1000

This is exactly the problem... the lack of basic, critical thinking skills. The mRNA vaccines are fantastically protective against severe COVID and have extremely low rates of side effects. Less than 0.01% of all people vaccinated have reported ANY sort of serious side effect. An unvaccinated person who gets COVID is roughly 100 times more likely to die from it (about 1 in 100) than a vaccinated person is to report any sort of serious side effect related to the vaccine (less than 1 in 10,000).

Foregoing vaccination in favor of something like ivermectin is akin to making a conscious decision to be flown from New York to Paris in a single-engine plane of unknown type/condition instead of in a modern, widely used, commercial jet. The risks of a bad outcome are so clearly, obviously different between the two scenarios that any rational, clear-thinking person would not hesitate to choose the jet. But, sadly, we have millions of people in our society who actually think the single-engine plane is the better, safer choice.

 

[sengsational]

Some Guy On Twitter is .... (snip)

No matter what follows that, you put your faith in that person. That's the good thing about doing original research, as I've been doing. No need to vet anyone who's motives are not clear.

I do take this personally because a good friend wouldn’t vaccinate because she read and believed all this stuff and knew that she would be fine with Ivermectin if she got Covid. Well she got Covid and ended up in hospital for a week on oxygen.

Your good friend, and lots of other people, apparently, seem not to have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation. Fighting the pandemic with more than one thing (vaccination and antivirals), concurrently, is probably going to be more effective than trusting just one thing to be the best approach.

I won’t derail the thread further by getting into an ivermectin argument. It’s of the same ilk and vax-antivax.

I'm certain I never said anything about not taking the vaccine. That's a straw man, marched out often, seemingly to inflame. From early on in the conversation, I wrote:

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.

"Some guy"...there are simply too many of them.

Right. That's why I'm not going to try to vet any of these guys. Even if I find the guy's on the payroll of big pharma and so has an obvious conflict of interest, there's a 100 other guys lined-up behind him saying the same thing. A waste of time to investigate.

Here are the facts regarding dexamethasone for the treatment of Covid-19:

"Oxford researchers Martin Landray (left) and Peter Horby helped save an estimated 1 million lives worldwide in their study on an effective treatment for Covid-19."

Dr. Pierre Kory had nothing to do with it.

https://www.vox.com/22397833/dexamethasone-coronavirus-uk-recovery-trial

I would say you searched the internet, and found "A Fact", not "the facts". It's wonderful these guys did the study on dexamethasone. Certainly helpful for the public health to have a higher level of proof that dexamethasone improves survivability of the disease. But many doctors, Kory included, knew long before the study results were released, that steroids, administered at the right point in the disease progression, was improving survivability. And here's another likely point of contention: dexamethasone, although more thoroughly studied, isn't the best steroid. Methyl Prednisolon is more effective. A thoughtful person might wonder how these smart guys, Landry and Hornby decided to test dexamethasone in the first place. I suspect it was because doctors like Kory were trying things and observed things. Wow, a doctor that thinks and acts vs a doctor that doesn't know about the study, so does nothing while the study is peer reviewed and published waits for a recommendation, based on the study, from the NIH. I'll take the thinking doctor, thank you very much.

Foregoing vaccination in favor of something like ivermectin is akin to making a conscious decision to be flown from New York to Paris in a single-engine plane of unknown type/condition instead of in a modern, widely used, commercial jet.

Let's be absolutely clear here: Although I DO see people here hand-wringing about people substituting other treatments instead of a vaccine, I don't see ANYONE here making that recommendation. Certainly not me. Using every effective tool in the toolbox seems the only logical approach, and vaccination is the best tool we have. Not the only tool, but the best. I don't discount the intelligence of the people of the world such that they can't understand that more than one tool can be applied in the fight against the virus.

The obvious first step is to get vaccinated. Circling back to where I started, we know that a few, not all that many, but a few vaccinated people will harbor and spread the virus. So limiting the time they're spreading, limiting the virus replication in their bodies will not only shorten the duration and severity for them, it will also protect others. So I will refer back to the early treatment protocol referenced earlier in this (the "Covid Treatment Protocol") thread: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/ This has changed since we've talked about it last (it's up to version 11).

Just so you don't need to download a PDF, if you're only mildly interested:

• Ivermectin (main stay)
• Fluvoxamine (added)
• Mouthwashes (added)

Still has vitamin D, zinc, the zinc ionaphor, etc, so that stuff hasn't changed. And of course vitamin C, as Paul Merik is involved

 

[Chuckanut]

Bucking the system has to be done at times.

IIRC, it took ten years for the system to realize many ulcers are caused by bacteria in the stomach, not too much acid.

 

[Sojourner]

Let's be absolutely clear here: Although I DO see people here hand-wringing about people substituting other treatments instead of a vaccine, I don't see ANYONE here making that recommendation. Certainly not me. Using every effective tool in the toolbox seems the only logical approach, and vaccination is the best tool we have. Not the only tool, but the best. I don't discount the intelligence of the people of the world such that they can't understand that more than one tool can be applied in the fight against the virus.

The obvious first step is to get vaccinated.

I'm glad that you are recommending that people get vaccinated, but, from what I've seen and heard, the most vocal pro-ivermectin voices out there (YouTube, podcasts, etc.) are strident anti-vaxxers when it comes to the mRNA vaccines. You seem to be in the small minority in this regard. And unfortunately, their voices are the ones being heard and listened to by lots of gullible people. Personally, I would have no problem with anyone saying that ivermectin (along with other treatments that have shown glimmers of efficacy in some trials) could very well prove to be helpful in the fight against severe COVID... as long as they also state the obvious fact that getting fully vaccinated with one of the mRNA vaccines is by far the best and safest way to avoid getting severe COVID.

 

[eytonxav]

Since getting vaccinated back in January, I have not paid much attention to all these various treatments. Now with the delta variant I am hearing about several vaccinated folks getting infected with the new variant. Have not heard about any severe illnesses in those cases, but am wondering what is the recommended treatment plan, if any, for those that are getting infected?

 

[Sojourner]

Since getting vaccinated back in January, I have not paid much attention to all these various treatments. Now with the delta variant I am hearing about several vaccinated folks getting infected with the new variant. Have not heard about any severe illnesses in those cases, but am wondering what is the recommended treatment plan, if any, for those that are getting infected?

I would assume it's very similar, if not identical, to the treatment protocols being used on unvaccinated people. Can't imagine why it would be different, honestly. I have heard that even in those rare "breakthrough" cases where a vaccinated person develops severe COVID, the duration of their hospital stay is typically much shorter and their symptoms less severe (and more responsive to standard treatments) than for those who aren't vaccinated.

Apparently, the majority of breakthrough cases are actually asymptomatic, and the vast majority of breakthrough cases are classified as "mild" (not much worse than a common cold or typical seasonal flu).

 

[audreyh1]

Since getting vaccinated back in January, I have not paid much attention to all these various treatments. Now with the delta variant I am hearing about several vaccinated folks getting infected with the new variant. Have not heard about any severe illnesses in those cases, but am wondering what is the recommended treatment plan, if any, for those that are getting infected?

Monoclonal antibody treatment within 10 days of symptoms is recommended. This is starting to be done more even outside of hospitals as a subcutaneous delivery is possible rather than infusion. https://www.covid19treatmentguideli...oducts/anti-sars-cov-2-monoclonal-antibodies/

There was even a recent study where a monoclonal antibody showed some protection reducing infections in people who were recently exposed to covid. (Regardless of vaccination status perhaps). It has been approved for that use in high risk people. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...-treatment-preventive-after-exposure-n1275737

And dexamethasone, an inexpensive steroid, is often used if someone has more serious disease. https://www.covid19treatmentguideli.../hospitalized-adults--therapeutic-management/

 

[sengsational]

Since getting vaccinated back in January, I have not paid much attention to all these various treatments. Now with the delta variant I am hearing about several vaccinated folks getting infected with the new variant. Have not heard about any severe illnesses in those cases, but am wondering what is the recommended treatment plan, if any, for those that are getting infected?

I referred to the prophylaxis and early treatment protocol earlier, but the critical care alliance also has a hospital protocol (PDF): [ https://flccc.net/flccc-alliance-mathplus-protocol-english/ ]. I haven't seen anything that differentiates treatment of someone vaccinated with someone who hasn't been vaccinated...it seems to be based on the patient's status.

The protocol includes methylpredisolone which, at least by this group of clinicians, has been deemed more effective than dexamethasone. They give it as soon as a person requires supplemental O2 or abnormal chest x-ray.

 

[eytonxav]

I would assume it's very similar, if not identical, to the treatment protocols being used on unvaccinated people. Can't imagine why it would be different, honestly. I have heard that even in those rare "breakthrough" cases where a vaccinated person develops severe COVID, the duration of their hospital stay is typically much shorter and their symptoms less severe (and more responsive to standard treatments) than for those who aren't vaccinated.

Apparently, the majority of breakthrough cases are actually asymptomatic, and the vast majority of breakthrough cases are classified as "mild" (not much worse than a common cold or typical seasonal flu).

Monoclonal antibody treatment within 10 days of symptoms is recommended. This is starting to be done more even outside of hospitals as a subcutaneous delivery is possible rather than infusion. https://www.covid19treatmentguideli...oducts/anti-sars-cov-2-monoclonal-antibodies/

There was even a recent study where a monoclonal antibody showed some protection reducing infections in people who were recently exposed to covid. (Regardless of vaccination status perhaps). It has been approved for that use in high risk people. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...-treatment-preventive-after-exposure-n1275737

And dexamethasone, an inexpensive steroid, is often used if someone has more serious disease. https://www.covid19treatmentguideli.../hospitalized-adults--therapeutic-management/

I referred to the prophylaxis and early treatment protocol earlier, but the critical care alliance also has a hospital protocol (PDF): [ https://flccc.net/flccc-alliance-mathplus-protocol-english/ ]. I haven't seen anything that differentiates treatment of someone vaccinated with someone who hasn't been vaccinated...it seems to be based on the patient's status.

The protocol includes methylpredisolone which, at least by this group of clinicians, has been deemed more effective than dexamethasone. They give it as soon as a person requires supplemental O2 or abnormal chest x-ray.

Thanks for that update. Hopefully everyone will stay uninfected or only deal with mild symptoms. The big debate right now in my neighborhood is parents wanting to home school their kiddos as they are afraid the schools safety protocols are insufficient. I will be glad if we can ever get to a point that such concerns go away.

 

[tmm99]

It looks like there's another treatment that is under development and that sounds promising.

AstraZeneca's antibody therapy prevents COVID-19, study shows

https://www.reuters.com/business/he...herapy-meets-main-goal-late-study-2021-08-20/


This could be a great arsenal along with or without the booster shot.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

It looks like there's another treatment that is under development and that sounds promising.





https://www.reuters.com/business/he...herapy-meets-main-goal-late-study-2021-08-20/


This could be a great arsenal along with or without the booster shot.

It would be nice. Just this week, DW and I have heard of 4 deaths of folks that we either knew personally or indirectly though other family members. It seems as all of them were in the hospital for less than a week before dying and 2 of them were under the age of 50.

 

[Alan]

It is targeted at people with compromised immune systems that can’t produce their own Covid antibodies so could be an excellent alternative to a vaccine by injecting lab-made antibodies into their bloodstream.

The British drugmaker said its new antibody therapy reduced the risk of people developing any COVID-19 symptoms by 77% in a late-stage trial.

While vaccines rely on an intact immune system to develop an arsenal of targeted antibodies and infection-fighting cells, AstraZeneca's AZD7442 therapy consists of lab-made antibodies that are designed to linger in the body for months to stifle the coronavirus in case of an infection.

The company said that 75% of the participants in the trial for the therapy - which comprises two types of antibodies discovered by Vanderbilt University Medical Center in the United States - had chronic conditions including some with a lower immune response to vaccinations.

 

[audreyh1]

Moved from the breakthrough club thread regarding monoclonal antibody treatment for covid.

EastWest Gal, is the monoclonal antibody readily available in most of the U.S.? I wonder if there are shortages?

It is readily available AFAIK. The issue seems to be letting people know about it. Why people haven’t been more aggressively informed I don’t understand.

Even some of the unvaccinated folks might have been able to stay out of the hospital if they’d gotten that treatment early instead of waiting until they couldn’t breathe. Once you’re in the hospital it’s generally too late. It needs to be done within 10 days of experiencing symptoms.

 

[explanade]

Where do you get them though?

Other than hospitals where they would hook you up to an IV?

If you go to hospital will they admit you unless you already have some severe symptoms?

If it's just fever and coughing, won't they say monitor your symptoms and if blood oxygen drops, come back but otherwise we need the beds for people who have more serious symptoms?

 

[Aerides]

Where do you get them though?

Other than hospitals where they would hook you up to an IV?

If you go to hospital will they admit you unless you already have some severe symptoms?

If it's just fever and coughing, won't they say monitor your symptoms and if blood oxygen drops, come back but otherwise we need the beds for people who have more serious symptoms?

In Fl there are pop up clinics all over the state, with new ones showing up daily. My understanding is now, in a lot of places, when you test positive you are provided with info.

They are not administered in just hospital settings, and you don't get admitted to get them. You don't get a room/bed for this treatment, it's a series of infusions. In some cases mobile clinics do in-home administering. The idea is to get you treated before your illness progresses, as it's most effective early, and not so much later on.

 

[REWahoo]

Where do you get them though?

In most locations outpatient centers have been set up to administer the treatment.

You have to test positive, then contact your physician who will determine if you are eligible and provide you with a prescription if you are.

 

[audreyh1]

Where do you get them though?

Other than hospitals where they would hook you up to an IV?

If you go to hospital will they admit you unless you already have some severe symptoms?

If it's just fever and coughing, won't they say monitor your symptoms and if blood oxygen drops, come back but otherwise we need the beds for people who have more serious symptoms?

It’s also available as a set of subcutaneous injections. Someone here had a nurse come to their home to administer it.

Some doctors can administer it.

Outpatient locations associated with hospitals.

If you have symptoms and tested positive you want to get the antibody treatment right away. Not just sit home and watch your oxygen level.

 

[tmm99]

Someone mentioned fluvoxamine (anti-depressant) a while back here. Fluvoxamine was featured on 60 Minutes last Sunday. It seems to work incredibly well. None of the patients who took fluvoxamine got hospitalized while 12.5% who didn't got hospitalized and one person died.

Here's one article that a friend of mine found (This university is in our province...)
https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/a...ovid-19-patients-mcmaster-led-research-shows/

Fluvoxamine is the only treatment that, if administered early, can prevent COVID-19 from becoming a life-threatening illness,” said Mills, co-principal investigator for the TOGETHER Trial and a professor of McMaster’s Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact. “It could be one of our most powerful weapons against the virus and its effectiveness is one of the most important discoveries we have made since the pandemic began.

“In addition, this cheap, easily-accessible pill is a massive boon to public health, both in Canada and internationally, allowing hospitals to avoid expensive and sometimes risky treatments.”

Costing about $4 per 10-day course, fluvoxamine could be a game-changer for poorer countries with low vaccination rates and lacking access to more advanced COVID-19 therapies, Mills said.