It’s always good to define our terms, so I took the most conservative path I could: I collected all the Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed to be treating COVID-19 early. If I missed any, let me know. (If you feel like doing the same exercise on a different journal like
All I know is that COVID is magically the only thing in the world that you go to the hospital for, and they literally tell you there’s nothing they can do, come back when it’s too late.
Can you imagine any other illness?
“Oooh..that’s a weird looking mole there…come back when your leg falls off.”
Damn. You come in with a paper cut, and they’ll at least wash it and put a bandaid on it.
In one of my recent posts I covered the following study. It was a longitudinal study that was very small. However, the researchers suggest that the time from positive test to symptom onset may be as short as 1-2 days.
The issue is figuring out when the actual timing is supposed to hit what exactly. If it's viral proliferation then that means you only have a few days from exposure and not symptom onset to worry about, and unless someone were to undergo daily surveillance it'd be hard to figure out when that time would be.
Great post. Time to treatment is a very important factor, for sure. But equally important is the DURATION of treatment, especially when there is a long delay until the treatment is started. In particular, almost all large-scale ivermectin trials used an absurdly short treatment duration (after an absurdly long treatment delay). Plus, they shrewdly did not enroll patients who were old enough or high-risk enough to benefit from ivermectin. The perfect setup for failure. When you have time, perhaps you could do a post like this on treatment duration.
This really needed to be memorialized. Thanks for taking the time to write it. "Early treatment" means a lot of things, but what it doesn't mean is early treatment.
Think about the approved antivirals and the need for early administration. Our healthcare system doesn't do anything early. Fortunately (or unfortunately) those antivirals don't actually work in real life.
Not talking about "preventative" care that is a waste of money. Talking about actual treatment.
The ability to enrol a patient within 3 days of symptom onset (paxlovid trial) is questionable.
Steps required include confirming the diagnosis, recruitment, enrolment, data collection, randomisation and distribution of treatment or placebo. Essentially requires a very short interval between symptom onset and confirmation of diagnosis, followed by a massive commitment of resources to get the first dose in the patient within 72hrs.
One potential way to do it is to pre-enrol household close contacts such that at first hint of a symptom they are diagnosed and randomised. However, placebo and treatment have to be identical in every respect, otherwise blinding is potentially lost.
My hunch when I hear that a patient is enrolled within 72hrs of symptom onset is that something dodgy had occurred. Not sure what, take your pick, but the logistics are incredible for this to actually happen
All I know is that COVID is magically the only thing in the world that you go to the hospital for, and they literally tell you there’s nothing they can do, come back when it’s too late.
Can you imagine any other illness?
“Oooh..that’s a weird looking mole there…come back when your leg falls off.”
Damn. You come in with a paper cut, and they’ll at least wash it and put a bandaid on it.
In one of my recent posts I covered the following study. It was a longitudinal study that was very small. However, the researchers suggest that the time from positive test to symptom onset may be as short as 1-2 days.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00195-4
The issue is figuring out when the actual timing is supposed to hit what exactly. If it's viral proliferation then that means you only have a few days from exposure and not symptom onset to worry about, and unless someone were to undergo daily surveillance it'd be hard to figure out when that time would be.
What about Fluvoxamine and low dose naltrexone? Quecetin and zinc.
Great article. I have a bunch of ivermectin and some hydroxychloriquine in my cabinet.
Great post. Time to treatment is a very important factor, for sure. But equally important is the DURATION of treatment, especially when there is a long delay until the treatment is started. In particular, almost all large-scale ivermectin trials used an absurdly short treatment duration (after an absurdly long treatment delay). Plus, they shrewdly did not enroll patients who were old enough or high-risk enough to benefit from ivermectin. The perfect setup for failure. When you have time, perhaps you could do a post like this on treatment duration.
This really needed to be memorialized. Thanks for taking the time to write it. "Early treatment" means a lot of things, but what it doesn't mean is early treatment.
Think about the approved antivirals and the need for early administration. Our healthcare system doesn't do anything early. Fortunately (or unfortunately) those antivirals don't actually work in real life.
Not talking about "preventative" care that is a waste of money. Talking about actual treatment.
The ability to enrol a patient within 3 days of symptom onset (paxlovid trial) is questionable.
Steps required include confirming the diagnosis, recruitment, enrolment, data collection, randomisation and distribution of treatment or placebo. Essentially requires a very short interval between symptom onset and confirmation of diagnosis, followed by a massive commitment of resources to get the first dose in the patient within 72hrs.
One potential way to do it is to pre-enrol household close contacts such that at first hint of a symptom they are diagnosed and randomised. However, placebo and treatment have to be identical in every respect, otherwise blinding is potentially lost.
My hunch when I hear that a patient is enrolled within 72hrs of symptom onset is that something dodgy had occurred. Not sure what, take your pick, but the logistics are incredible for this to actually happen
Maybe because they like remdesivir as a ‘late’ treatment in hospital to get that Medicare bonus.
I don’t want to take a medicine recommended by Fauci.