I have not vetted Adam Gaertner - I am going by the confidence Dr. Been and Dr. Yo (who collaborates with Dr. Mike Hansen also) had in Adam Gaertner to highlight him on their show.

Superficially Adam Gaertner may be somewhat idiosyncratic in the way he talks - but it could also be the traits of a very smart individual.

His overall vibe does seem to be someone who is smart and able to make leaps and connections between things. Along with that may be a lack of interest in converting everyone.

Perhaps the same occurred to him when you asked him about ClinicalTrials - i.e. he may have seen it as a bait that was to drag him into a discussion he did not need.

He has said somewhere - perhaps in his twitter comments - that he purposefully did not put too much info in the GoFundMe webpage, because it would only attract censorship.

So the purpose of the GoFundMe may be achieved or it may not be achieved by the way it is progressing.

But it does not detract from anyone else's efforts - so I don't see why Adam Gaertner's efforts need to be hindered. I would suggest let him try in his own way.

Regarding his twitter history - there does seem to be a pro-Trump element in it - which may be an original view, or may be a view he acquired given the hostility the other side may have afforded HCQ or alternative therapies.

I have mentioned before that anti-Trump folks using HCQ or other treatments as a weapon against Trump is a misguided strategy - one which could lead to an own goal. Just as Trump should not have politicized treatment strategies, similarly anti-Trump should avoid doing the same - the US is unique in how it has managed to inject politics into an emergency (sure Trump was the trigger, but the bait was readily taken up by others - which could backfire if alternative treatments turn out to have been right).

So Adam Gaertner may have some political leanings - but that should not be an impediment to his research.

Dr. Been and Dr. Yo are not pro-Trump from what I understand and they were sufficiently impressed to feature Adam Gaertner on their videos.

So my gut feeling is to let the guy do what he wants to do.

But I could be wrong.

EDIT: I have noticed that Adam Gaertner's twitter profile does seem to highlight ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement). And he has mentioned it in a few comments:

https://twitter.com/veryvirology

ADE is when after being infected once, on being infected again, the prognosis gets worse - something like that happens with Dengue where the second infection can be deadlier.

From my superficial reading of his twitter - my guess is he is alluding to a possibility that vaccination may have a negative - the possibility of ADE occurring i.e. exposure from vaccine making infection become deadlier.

I recall in my earlier reading on covid19, I was cognizant of ADE as a factor - but so far ADE has not been mentioned much in the context of covid19. Reinfections have not thrown up too many cases of ADE (I may be wrong).

So I don't know what Adam Gaertner's issue with ADE and covid19 vaccines may be - whether it is part of a traditional "anti-vaxxer" ideology - or whether it is a real risk. I haven't studied it enough to know.

But from his twitter it does seem that some retweets he has made are of posts by others where they are talking about the risk of getting a vaccine too early into circulation i.e. if a vaccine is brought into mass use before adequate testing (because of the pressing need to get society back on track).

Traditionally vaccines are examined closely for ADE and other such factors - which is why it takes years for a vaccine.

Perhaps this is what is of concern to these "anti-vaxxer" types.

Further complicating the discussion is the Moderna vaccine which is an RNA vaccine - which while elegant in concept for years is from what I understand the first RNA vaccine to be set for mass vaccination.

And there may be some critics of RNA vaccines who may have issue with that.

Perhaps their problem would be that since with covid19 and with vaccination we are dealing with problems which sometimes only become apparent after millions of people have been administered the treatment, it is hard to understand the secondary effects unless it is tried in a large trial first.

Fortunately Ivermectin and such do not have such issues - and the hope is that even without a vaccine (which may come a bit late) - we may be able to minimize the death rates from covid19 sufficiently so it becomes a relatively safe disease.

permalink

What's a bolus? Why vitamin C? Why didn't he at least write a page or two justifying his choice of therapies?

Bolus dose is when it is given in one dose or within short period of time:

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/bolus-dose

Vitamin C if I recall is recommended for use with Quercetin.

And I vaguely recalling Adam Gaertner may have mentioned it for use with Ivermectin.

In any case, searching google for - ivermectin vitamin c - seems to throw up something like that ie vitamin c may reduce negative side effects of ivermectin:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30128972/ Effect of vitamin A and vitamin C on attenuation of ivermectin-induced toxicity in male Wistar rats

http://basjvet.org/files/110-124.pdf HISTOPATHOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL EFFECTS OF IVERMECTIN ON KIDNEY FUNCTIONS, LUNG AND THE AMELIORATIVE EFFECTS OF VITAMIN C IN RABBITS

Conclusion The repeated administration of ivermectin causes hazardous effects on kidney function and many of histopathological changes were demonstrated in kidney and lung structure. The administration of Vitamin C can acts as protective agent.

permalink

He may be right about the $24 - as that may be the manufacturing cost of the raw material.

You probably need about 1000 kg of ivermectin - which may have a manufacturing cost of that - he has mentioned that figure a few times.

But I have no way of knowing how correct it is.

Cursory search suggests it is $150-200 per kg - which would be about $150,000-200,000.

permalink