Dr. Aguirre says that if you are taking ivermectin and nonetheless catch covid, you will have a lower viral load and a less severe, dangerous course of disease.

[-] Bo-K | 5 points | Dec 12 2020 00:45:46

Dr Aguirre is a great man. I have spoken with him dozens of times and we helped a few long haulers together to get large reductions in symptoms.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points | Dec 12 2020 01:05:00

Wow, that's so cool!

In 1976 I shook Jimmy Carter's hand during the Michigan primary campaign.

Actually talking to Dr. Aguirre many times is SO much cooler!

[-] Bo-K | 3 points | Dec 12 2020 01:11:45

Yeah he is doing humanity a great service. He did adopt the lysine rich diet in one or two papers, after he saw what a difference it makes in long haulers. Unfortunately 3 lh we could not improve out of several dozen. They have the CFS.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points | Dec 12 2020 01:13:20

I hope you're helping the people in /r/covidlonghaulers. You sound like a true expert. Have you written up what worked?

[-] Bo-K | 2 points | Dec 12 2020 01:23:38

I think I got kicked out of that group. Jaja. All because I was trying to explain that covid causes a nitric oxide disregulation and I was laying out the plan for inhibiting NO, until your body self regulates again. People are stubborn to understand too much of a good thing may hurt you and needs to be scaled back a bit.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points | Dec 12 2020 01:28:05

LOL I got banned for posting Dr. Aguirre's call for participants in his long haul treatment study (IVM + aspirin). In exchanging messages about that with the moderator, I concluded that I don't like him very much. NOT a reasonable person.

It's a shame, you could really help people.

Why don't you create \r\covidlonghaul?

[-] Bo-K | 2 points | Dec 12 2020 02:23:33

May be in the future. Been very busy in my life already with LHRS.

[-] rraak | 2 points | Dec 12 2020 04:09:58

People are so fucking stubborn about listening to any kind of anecdotal advice or even research. You'd think we have the luxury of multi-year RCTs to prove everything conclusively from the way lots of people act.

If something is not dangerous and seems to help, the word needs to get out. Mainstream medicine is behind the curve, and people are either misinformed or willfully ignorant. So much pointless death.

[-] Bo-K | 2 points | Dec 12 2020 04:17:11

AMEN.

[-] radiantnoir | 2 points | Dec 12 2020 08:37:27

I’ve been searching this information on facebook but i got lectured for it. Doesn’t matter. What’s important is that atleast they have an idea there’s a study helping stop the spread and treat covid 19 patients out there around the globe through this study.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Dec 11 2020 18:59:54

Those who take Ivermectin as Prophylaxis, and become ill, will do so with a lower Viral Load, and this determines the risk of developing serious disease and mortality. That is why it is important to estimate the level of Viral Load based on the response to treatment, as we do.

image

I didn't understand the relationship between the image and the text. Could someone with a bigger brain explain it please?

[-] rraak | 1 points | Dec 11 2020 19:39:06

I think the right side of the chart is intended to estimate viral load and persistence in terms of how much symptoms subside over time after the first dose of ivermectin for someone who is infected and showing symptoms - with the point that prompt (e.g., within 3 hours) administration of ivermectin is expected to rapidly halt viral replication and symptoms in a patient who responds well to it, but that if ivermectin is given hours to days after first symptoms, the effect isn't going to be as significant and viral load will remain high. I don't think there's a direct link to prophylaxis, except to say that people regularly taking ivermectin for prophylaxis may tend to fall more into the "very fast response" category similar to someone who received their first dose within 3 to 12 hours of showing the first symptom. Best guess anyway, maybe wishful thinking.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Dec 11 2020 21:14:13

Is the utility of the classification in to x-y hours, that it implies how much more ivermectin should be given? If that were true, I would expect the dose to be on the chart.

Thanks for the response. I'll try again.

[-] smorgasmic | 1 points | Dec 12 2020 07:20:53

I think it is a poorly organized chart. His objective is clear: he waits 27 to 30 hours after giving ivermectin to evaluate its effectiveness. Based on the evolution of symptoms after 27 to 30 hours, he estimates what the impact of the drug was on viral load.

But that's a very subjective take on things since he has no independent measurement of viral load. Better to just statistically summarize case outcomes.

[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points | Dec 12 2020 16:45:02

Thanks, that's helpful. I guess Dr. Aguirre is working with few resources, if he has to base is diagnosis on symptoms instead of PCR or rapid tests.

[-] [deleted] | 1 points | Dec 11 2020 22:39:48

[deleted]