TrumpLyftAlles | 8 points
Comparison of Viral Clearance between Ivermectin with Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine with Azithromycin in COVID-19 Patients (Bangladesh, found 2020-08-16)I totally do not understand why educated doctors who can lookup and read half-lifes on medication are only doing a single dose of ivermectin
Especially considering it's so cheap and has nearly zero side effects unless you do a mega-dose.
Even the parasite dose is multi-dose. WTF are they doing.
And of course it's better than HCQ which is basically just a zinc ionophore with far weaker virus interaction molecularly and causes some serious heart issues.
I really don't like the idea that people in the HCQ group were left to suffer extra days just to prove the ivermectin is better. Guess in the name of science and they didn't die but that is more days for covid to do damage.
Someone walks in the first hour with covid symptoms, don't wait another minute, give them a 200mcg/kg ivermectin dose, the sooner the better, and 24 hours later and another 24 hours later.
Hammer that covid, don't give it days to reproduce more.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I totally do not understand why educated doctors who can lookup and read half-lifes on medication are only doing a single dose of ivermectin
Good question! If you were designing the trial, what would you do? Not teasing, you know about taking ivermectin.
I really don't like the idea that people in the HCQ group were left to suffer extra days just to prove the ivermectin is better.
This study got NO traction on /r/covid19 -- their response was really disappointing -- because there was no control group. The researchers present HCQ + AZT as their control group. That's not good enough for /r/covid19 -- it has to be a blinded study with an actual placebo.
That's hard to justify with a disease that kills and maims people. HCQ + AZT is second best, from a design vantage point.
This study is optimized for the place where the research is done, because HCQ + AZT is a competing drug therapy. Comparing it to IVM + DOXY gives them guidance for treating patients.
I could never design a trial with a control because I couldn't stand to watch the group not getting the real medication suffer for days/weeks/months.
I mean with covid people getting non-real treatments could suffer serious permanent damage or death.
They will finally catch onto ivermectin in USA in a couple months when there is another surge and they run out of Remdesivir or hospital beds to administer it via IV - other countries were more willing to try it because patented $3000 drugs are not happening for their populations.
plus the president pretty much ruined any off-label medication politically, ivermectin could have a gold standard of proof and I am pretty sure no-one would trust it if he then said the name on TV
I am just really glad I saw that treatment chart from Peru and had a series of talks with my doctor and then the florida study and the oxford studies (dex) came out
this chart, the ideas in there it saved my life, if it had been a week later might not have made it
https://i.imgur.com/KzmJAl7.png
ps. note the multiple-day treatments on that chart
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
note the multiple-day treatments on that chart
Do you mean (for example) "6 tablets then 4 tablets daily for 4 days"?
I never noticed dexametasone on the chart until recently; it didn't enter my brain until the big UK study came out with positive results for it. That study came out on June 16 -- the same date as the chart. I wonder if he updated it the day the dexametasone study came out? It would be a weird coincidence.
Doesn't matter, immaterial question. Just nattering on here.
yup exactly
I'm sure glad I didn't try to do single dose treatments, it would have failed as I started like over four weeks into being sick, very high viral load
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Damn, I hope I never catch that virus. You went through hell and survived. I'm afraid I'll just go through hell.
I was mostly joking when I recently posted that I want to bring ivermectin to the hospital, if I catch the virus -- and maybe I should squirt the horse paste version I have into my near-empty toothpaste tube, so it's stealthy. Who is going to object to me brushing my teeth? Or notice that I'm eating my toothpaste instead of putting it on my brush?
I'd do it if I thought it could be done.
realize I am a very bad example, you won't be as bad as me if you catch it
if you started ivermectin the day you had a fever, I would bet you'll resolve it in 5-11 days and that is absolutely nothing for a virus this bad, you certainly won't get pneumonia or any lung damage that short
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
f you started ivermectin the day you had a fever
LOL. I take 300mcg/kg every 3-4 days. We talked about this: I think it's prophylactic.
Let me see if I can remember all 6 of my risk factors: old (67), fat (BMI 29), diabetic (A1C = 6.0, pretty good), hypertensive (140/90), still weak from a December fall that messed up both legs and put me in bed for 7 weeks (slow recovery because I'm lazy), and blood type A. 6!
I've gone from 228 pounds to 212 since March. Too slow! I barely eat -- but I barely move from my chair in front of the computer. ;)
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I wonder how many lives Dr. Aquirre's protocol has saved. Lots, I imagine.
by the way I've been accidentally saying it backwards
the -parasite- dose is a single dose
but the antiviral dose is multiple days
if I had not seen that chart first and my doctor had gone with single dose it probably would have failed at my viral load
yeah that chart, regardless of the different medications actually used, shows a three method therapy:
my doctor instantly recoignized that and also understood what medications could/couldn't be used outside a hospital which is how I ended up on what I did
also I can't use z-pak because I am allergic to sulfa based medication so ended up being doxy which I think in studies is now proven better, though I think it caused some breathing problems for me
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
my doctor instantly recoignized that and also understood what medications could/couldn't be used outside a hospital which is how I ended up on what I did
How nice to have a helpful doctor!
anti-inflammation medication
I don't know much about those. I'll look at the chart.
on the chart it's the bottom boxes "reduce auto-immunity"
"inhaled corticost" and the dex and the prednisolone
that doctor figured it out even before the oxford study I think
he pretty much listed everything on the shelf though lol
fluticasone, budenoside, beclomethasone, dexamethasone (what I used) and methylprednisode
all powerful steroid based anti-inflammatory, it basically tells your body to calm the hell down despite being under heavy attack from the virus and white-blood-cell flood
those steroids are why now in the USA there are less deaths per cases when people end up in the hospital, they didn't use them as much or at all back in March in new york
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
all powerful steroid based anti-inflammatory, it basically tells your body to calm the hell down despite being under heavy attack from the virus and white-blood-cell flood
I guess if I need it, I'll be in the hospital where they'll likely give it to me, given the UK trial and subsequent FDA approval.
yeah if you have breathing problems they will probably even give it to you first before anything else
see the red specked dots of inflammation on this diagram? that's what prevents people from getting oxygen into their alveoli no matter how hard they breathe if they get sick enough with the virus, it's why their spo2 plummets
https://i.imgur.com/8q0ah6q.png
but the dex and other steroids can radically reduce that inflammation despite not being able to cure the cause and allows you to actually get some oxygen transfer into your alveoli
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
TLATODO: Is this the corresponding clinical trial?
This study is really good evidence that ivermectin clears coronavirus: a single dose 18mg dose of ivermectin (plus doxycycline for 5 days) led to 83.5% of the patients testing negative after 6 days.
Punchline: IVM + DOXY clears the virus fast, twice as quickly as HCQ + AZT.
400 subjects were confirmed covid-19 positive by PCR test. Severe and critical cases were omitted from the study.
Group A: 200 patients in the ivermectin group received 18mg of ivermectin on the first day; plus 100mg of doxycycline twice daily for 5 days.
Group B: 200 patients were given 800mg of hydroxichloroquine on the first day, then 400mg of HCQ for 10 days; plus 500mg of azithromycin on the first day, then 250mg of AZT for 4 days.
(The text in the PDF is confusing; the AZT may have been given after the 10-day course of HCQ. Probably not.)
The results are shown by this image from the PDF:
Ivermectin cleared the virus for 83.5% of the patents in 6 days, compared to HCQ clearing it for 81.5% in 12 days.
Abstract:
Introduction: The whole world is on the brink of collapse due to the outbreak of COVID-19 with no solution to treat these cases with any specific drug. Extensive search for the Vaccine or effective treatment is going on while alarming infection and death toll is rising every day.
Aim: The study will compare the effect of Ivermectin with Doxycycline and Hydoxychloroquine with Azythromicin on a selective group of COVID -19 positive patients. Method: This is a comparative study that included 400 patients of COVID 19 positive patient who were divided in to two groups. Group- A Received Ivermectin with Doxycycline and the other group- B received hydroxichloroquine(HCQ) with azithromycin.
Result: Viral clearance is 132 (66%) on day 5 and 167 (83.5%) on day 6. Among them 33 (16.5%) remain PCR positive after 6th day of Ivermectin ingestion in Group A. Whereas there is 154 (77.0%) viral clearance at 11th day and 163 (81.5%) viral clearance at 12th day of Hydroxychloroquine ingestion in Group B. Among them 37 (18.5%) remain PCR positive after 12 day in group B. The P value is 0.000427 which is significant considering 5th day viral clearance of Ivermectin ingestion and 11th day of Hydroxychloroquine ingestion. But considering 6th day and 12th day the P-value is 0.59 which is not significant.
The last sentence means the difference between IVM's 85.5% cleared and HCQ's 81.5% cleared is not significant. That comparison is immaterial anyway, since it compares day 6 for IVM to day 12 for HCQ. The main finding of this study is that IVM + DOXY cleared the covid-19 virus, and by the way did so twice as fast as HCQ + AZT.
Conclusion: It appears Ivermectin and Doxycycline is safe and effective combination drug therapy in COVID-19 infected patients but need further extensive study to find out the scope of application on other groups of patients.
Note that HCQ advocates say that it works in the early stages. It appears that it was applied in the early stages, in this study, since severe and critical patients were excluded. HCQ advocates often say zinc is critical to treatment with HCQ, because HCQ is a zinc ionophore, i.e. HCQ helps zinc enter the cell. Zinc was not used in this study.
As mentioned in this post to the sub, doxycycline is also a zinc ionophore.
The study leaves me curious about the 15% or so who were still covid-19 positive on day 6. An emerging pattern of treatment is giving a second dose of ivermectin after 1 week. Maybe that pattern is due to MDs encountering patients who aren't cured by the first dose, as in this study.
On day 6, 17.5% more patients were cleared than on day 5 -- suggesting that the IVM + DOXY treatment would continue to clear more patients. Day 7 = 92%? Day 8 = 98%? We'll never know, unfortunately.
[-] movethroughit | 3 points
Viral load measurements would be good to have too. Overall, seems like this is the type of study that is impactful and could be executed relatively quickly.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Viral load measurements would be good to have too.
Why is that helpful? Honest question, I don't know why.
seems like this is the type of study that is impactful and could be executed relatively quickly.
Agreed, if you have a nice flow of patients. That's the hard part. You need a hot spot. CA + TX + FL had about 14 thousand new cases today -- but those are large states. How many new covid+ patients are they getting in any given hospital? And the MDs in those hospitals are busy, no time for a drug they've never heard of. AFAIK, Bangladesh was the first place to try IVM plus DOXY, a couple months ago, so there's probably some pride of ownership helping the busy docs there make time for the research.
Given the patients, how long does it take to do the study? Give them the drugs, do daily PCR tests to find out when they turn negative. If the results of this study hold elsewhere, then after 10 (?) days near-100% are cleared. Write up the results! You have to persuade the subjects to subject themselves to the test over and over...
[-] movethroughit | 2 points
More context in the case in the patients that still had a positive PCR after day 6 for IVR (or 12 for HCQ). Yes, the test was positive, but how many copies of the virus remained in the one cohort compared to the other.
This also assumes that the trial was approved and being run in a suitable facility with early phase patients that were going to show up anyway. We're just adding the viral load test at the end of the observation period.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
Makes sense, thanks.
Why is that helpful? Honest question, I don't know why.
You need to learn how PCR testing actually works. This video is about antigen testing, but it also has a good graph of viral load over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Sv_pS8MgQ
A PCR test isn't simply positive/negative. The amount of dna is way too small to be detectable by the test. First they need to duplicate the amount of dna found. This is why the numbers on the axis go in what appears to be the wrong way. It is the number of duplications needed to be detectable. The results of 85% negative after 6 days is nearly useless if you do not know how many duplications they did to get the negative.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
I watched the video, and got a different take altogether. IMO it deemed the PCR tests as accurate, the gold standard -- in fact, more accurate than is ideal for the purpose of determining whether someone is shedding the virus.
The amount of dna is way too small to be detectable by the test. First they need to duplicate the amount of dna found.
I watched the video twice (paying two-thirds attention each time) and saw nothing like that. This may be too much to ask, but if you can pinpoint where in the video, that point is made, then maybe I'll get it.
A PCR test isn't simply positive/negative.
This doesn't make sense to me. AFAIK PCR tests are reported as positive or negative, not degrees of something depending on the number of duplications required. I've never heard of PCR test results like "positive after N duplications". Are you saying that IS how they are reported? If that's the case, then why don't people publishing results present the duplications number? I've never seen it.
The results of 85% negative after 6 days is nearly useless if you do not know how many duplications they did to get the negative.
In many, many studies, a negative covid-19 test, specifically a PCR test, is a valid end point, or so deemed by the researchers. I've never (before) seen an argument that it is not valid. It is valid in this study too.
Your post seems like a real reach trying to undermine the results of the study. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. As I said, I didn't see in the video what you purport is there.
A PCR test isn't simply positive/negative.
I'll keep an eye out for this thesis. Maybe I have just missed it.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
On /r/covid19, someone tried to argue that clearing 83.5% of the virus is "normal", meaning ivermectin + doxycycline had NO effect. This is my counterargument.
From here this image indicates that 83.5% of the patients were cleared somewhere (eyeballing) around 15-17 days after onset of symptoms, for non-ICU patients. These were patients in hospital, a small number of whom were treated with various drugs. To make the study's 83.5% cleared on day 6 fit the data in the image, if IVM + DOXY had no effect -- the average time between onset of symptoms and arrival at the hospital would be 9 to 11 days. Isn't 2 or 3 days more likely than 9 to 11? 2 or 3 days would imply that ivermectin + doxycycline reduced the time to clearing by about half. Using the averages, it would take 16 - 2.5 = 13.5 days after hospitalization to hit 83.5% in the cited study, versus 6 days in this study.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
On \r\covid19, someone posted this link:
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2820%2930232-2
I found this in the PDF:
Mild cases were found to have an early viral clearance, with 90% of these patients repeatedly testing negative on RT-PCR by day 10 post-onset.
which led me to post there:
This observation supports the theses that the 83.5% clearance on Day 6 with ivermectin + docycycline is what you would see if the drugs had no effect. Disappointing.
This is why a control arm taking placebo is important. Unfortunately that's a difficult proposition with a virus as devastating as covid-19. "I need to you sign this consent statement that gives us the right to give you no medicine for your illness." MDs would have a huge ethical problem with that, even if subjects would cooperate.
It's a quandary.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 3 points | Aug 17 2020 05:40:32
Thanks for posting. Good to see a larger cohort, and the main observation is the faster viral clearance in the IVM+doxy arm even on such as low dose. HCQ could even be considered baseline clearance since it's so controversial now it might as well be doing nothing. Worth noting no major adverse effects developed with the HCQ arm, however they weren't able to measure for any cardiac issues. Nobody developed severe disease either which is interesting.
At this point the clinical observational data is pretty overwhelming, even given all the confounding factors, enough to warrant a large cohort prospective RCT study with a control placebo group. Of course the big problems being who is going to run this, will it be by an institution with any traction in the Western world, how is it not going to be politicised? It seems the trenches have been dug pretty deep, the delays stretch on and time is wasting.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points | Aug 17 2020 06:53:55
Good to see a larger cohort, and the main observation is the faster viral clearance in the IVM+doxy arm even on such as low dose.
And a single dose.
Actually, 18mg isn't that low, compared to the typical 200mcg/kg. But we've discussed that recently. ;)
enough to warrant a large cohort prospective RCT study with a control placebo group.
There are at least 45 trials still out there. I need to spend a long day compiling them into something analyzable. Who knows how many will actually report? Not me. Time will tell.
will it be by an institution with any traction in the Western world, how is it not going to be politicised?
I want to believe that at some point, as news comes in from around the world and as the RCTs report, the US and Europe etc. will wake up and pay attention. The CONCENTRATION TOO HIGH!!! argument isn't very persuasive in the face of results like this study's. Fortunately there's no way to make a IT'S DANGEROUS!!! argument with ivermectin, like they did with HCQ. Ivermectin's safety is too well established.
permalink
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points | Aug 17 2020 07:13:58
Actually yes 18mg is in the ballpark of the standard therapeutic dose that we refer to.
Yeah although I'm pretty quiet around here, I have been following every trial out there and reading every paper. With every study published the same issues get highlighted by critics: lack of prospective study, "low quality data", anecdotal, and so on. I'm at the point where these arguments simply need to be put to bed, and I don't blame the study authors to date because they need to treat patients first and not throw corpses at studies. There are trials recruiting and in progress, I look forward to more results. It frustrates me that progress is confounded by people self-administering of the drug so there's no data or control, political hype on both sides, it's a mess.
The same phenomenon gets reported across the world to the point that we can't deny that *something* is going on. The biomechanics are compelling and well understood even if hypothetical in vivo; this isn't a baseless hype drug. The people reporting these results are clinicians and scientists, they are observing something significant is happening, the medical community should be excited to get to the bottom of it.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points | Aug 17 2020 08:00:51
I have been following every trial out there and reading every paper.
Just ivermectin stuff? Or all of the vast panoply of candidates?
I just looked, and there are a total of 4 posts in /r/medicine about ivermectin. Most of the comments are negative. I routinely search the NY Times and Washington Post for ivermectin. I've found about 2 stories in each, both news wire stories that they take down after a while. The reality is that ivermectin has very low visibility.
If you're a busy doctor trying to keep up with covid-19 related research, there's just too much. There are over 3000 covid-19 trials on ClinicalTrials.gov.
So I get how ivermectin is easy to miss, if you're not looking for it.
It frustrates me that progress is confounded by people self-administering of the drug so there's no data or control, political hype on both sides, it's a mess.
The self-administering thing never occurred to me. It's not a problem with ivermectin, because it cured covid-19, so those people will never show up at the hospital. Mostly kidding.
The politics of ivermectin is pretty clean so far. People don't know that Bill Gates has an ivermectin connection (Medincell's research). A good thing for me has been withdrawal from politics, because I don't want to piss anyone off and thereby hurt my feeble efforts to spread the word about ivermectin on twitter, because they identify me as a friend of the enemy. That's probably good for my mental health.
Are you by any chance taking ivermectin yourself? I am, in the hope that it will keep me from catching the virus.
permalink
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points | Aug 17 2020 08:29:13
Not all therapies and papers, but learning as much as I can as a lay person, read through the papers and watch a lot of video lectures. It's not a medical science education but it's a start, one day will do that. I keep an eye on other promising drugs like Leronlimab and Aviptadil which stand out against Tocilizumab and the rest. TMPRSS2 inhibitors like Bromhexine and Camostat Mesylate need more investigation, but it's uncertain whether TMPRSS2 is necessary for cell entry.
Vaccines are important, but rushing them out, in particular modern mRNA vaccines, shouldn't be taken lightly. We have 7 billion people in the world, to vaccinate even 50% is a big ask with unknown consequences.
I don't take Ivermectin but I would ask for it if tested positive.
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points | Aug 17 2020 08:44:32
LOL. I haven't even heard of those drugs, in my ivermectin-focused world.
I don't take Ivermectin but I would ask for it if tested positive.
And if you're in the West, your doctor will give you a funny look and ignore your request.
If I catch the virus, I'm going to put a few tubes of the horse paste variety in my go bag. It might be smart to try to fill up my currently-almost-empty toothpaste tube with the horse paste, so it's stealthy. Maybe mix it with toothpaste and put it back in the tube, because it's not a pleasant taste. The hospital won't object to my brushing my teeth, and won't notice if I eat my "toothpaste". Again, mostly kidding. ;)
permalink
[-] LinkifyBot | 1 points | Aug 17 2020 08:01:03
I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:
I did the honors for you.
^delete ^| ^information ^| ^<3
permalink
[-] scionkia | 1 points | Sep 08 2020 20:46:22
Considering before Covid HCQ was considered very safe - I'm sure they can/will destroy the safety profile of Ivermectin.
permalink