I’d love to say, would prefer to keep my account though!
I don’t want to create any controversy here, but why would you not advise taking anti-virals?
Keeping in mind that there are at least 3 different anti-viral types available, and different ones are prescribed based on vulnerability to COVID, and on currently prescribed medications. Is your advise against taking anti-virals general, or specific to one or more of the options?
Is what you want to say a ‘fringe opinion’, or controversial, or based on results published from scientific studies? I doubt there’s any risk of account bans from talking about published results from scientific studies. Even if they might contradict other studies.
Over the course of COVID, and right up to date, there have been numerous scientific studies of varying size and depth done to try to find answers to many questions people have regarding COVID and related effects from COVID, and COVID medications, and published results from scientific studies have changed the standard medical advice in many areas of COVID management and treatment over the course of this disease. Over the years, some small studies have proven less insightful than some later, larger studies, but overall, there aren’t too many glaringly opposite results, and most have contributed to a progression of understanding of the course, and treatment of the disease.
What does seem to vary much more widely is non-published, individual opinions on studies. This is to be expected, as firstly, it is possible for experts who published a study to have failed to consider some aspect of the analysis of their own study. Which is why these results are published, and face peer scrutiny and review. And also why multiple studies are needed to get greater understanding, as individual, especially smaller scale, studies, can produce results or conclusions that are outliers.
But also, secondly, many non-experts/non-peers have made their own interpretations on results of studies, and spread those opinions into a politically charged world of competing ideas and agendas. Amongst different communities online, you can find groups of people who hold onto almost every belief or interpretation possible. All with their own tidy little arguments to support their own beliefs. I tend to take less notice of non-expert opinions, as, over the course of this disease, I have seen many non-published conclusions people have drawn that fail a simple logic test, much less a rugged review from experts in their field. Without applying expertise to study results, interpretations can be wildly inaccurate/inconsistent.
2 Likes
I don’t know what virus I’ve had over the last 10 days but I’ve had every symptom you can think of and then some. Weirdest was sore teeth. Like when they tighten your braces sore.
I’m on antibiotics now but I’m still yet to regain my voice.
5 Likes
Specific to those available. One is an altered nucleoside - it works by buggering up the copies of the virus as it replicates. These nucleosides could interfere with the body’s own processes, (and possibly even be metabolized into a carcinogenic form). Recognizing this, it is not allowed in pregnancy and men are supposed to not get their partners pregnant for some time after taking it. If it can get into sperm, it probably means it gets into DNA and if it does that it could be carcinogenic.
Paxlovir has many interactions with other drugs and can have side effects including hypersensitivity reactions and liver toxicity. In one trial it did not reduce deaths; it reduced symptoms by about 2 days. I would not risk all that for a two day difference.
As both of these got rapid approval under EULA conditions, they had not been tested in normal phase III trials so other side effects may not be known. And long-term side effects will not be known.
Monoclonal antibodies are strain-dependent and I don’t know if any are available against current strains.
Against all these problems, there is a product by an Australian company. It is made of natural ingredients and is effective against covid. However, due to lack of investment and no government support, I think they can no longer manufacture it.
5 Likes
Is it even possible for this to be approved with out phase 111 trials?
1 Like
Yes under the EULA provisions which are for emergencies, which was the case during the pandemic.
1 Like
Thank you.
From what I understand, Paxlovid is the most effective anti-viral, but its interaction with many medications makes it less useful for the very people it’s most likely to be needed for. And the other anti-virals are less effective anyway.
I have used the other product you had mentioned. I remember it contained several natural immune boosters, including ecinacha, which would seem to have all the right properties for treating multiple aspects of COVID.
1 Like
And who’s funding those “scientific studies”?? 
If you’re happy putting your health into the hands of pharmaceutical companies, then please continue to do so… 
3 Likes
Obviously big pharma funds some scientific studies, and hopes that favourable results will provide evidence that leads to a profit. And when large profits are available, then, again, there have been instances of bribery and corruption. To be honest, I don’t think anyone is naive about that potential or possibility.
I do, however, think it’s naive to believe that ALL independent researchers are corrupt when funded by big pharma. There are also plenty of results on record that don’t show what the companies funding research were hoping for.
Seeing as you asked who funds scientific studies, many of the biggest studies done have been funded by different countries’ own government health institutions.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s just assume for a moment, that all scientific studies on COVID were completely controlled by big pharma, and governments trying to ‘control’ people, and there are no independent or objective scientists in the world. In this reality, how does one discover or discern the truth? If you’re going to treat mainstream beliefs with suspicion, because those funding research are corrupt, then how do you determine which minority belief/s are true? And once a minority belief gains popularity with the people, then aren’t the people pushing the new, alternative popular belief also able to profit from selling their ideas to many people? If power corrupts, will it also not corrupt these people?
When I look back over the years, I don’t see evidence of people with a smaller amount of power, say local councillors, being more upright than people with a larger amount of power, say mainstream government politicians. Corruption in leadership seems to happen right down to the smallest community groups you can find, whenever some have power over others. In fact, if anything, there seem to be more checks and balances at higher levels, because higher level leadership tends to attract more scrutiny, and harsher punishments.
Early on, COVID vaccines were recommended for everyone over 6 months old. This was based on evidence from small scale studies, designed to find major issues with vaccines. Then, as larger scale government funded scientific research results came back in after immunisation had begun, that recommendation changed to everyone over 18 years old. Then later again, as even larger study results came back, after scientists were able to study really small risks over huge populations, many started to recommend that the risks for young men even older than 18 may be too high. All of this was a natural progression in recommendation, based on results from scientific studies as they progressed from small to very large scale.
The Australian government had initially invested heavily in AstraZeneca, but not very heavily in MRNA vaccines. When the risks of blood clots began to show up in larger scale studies, ATAGI then recommended that it only be administered in over 50’s, where risks from COVID far outweighed risk from the vaccination. Even though it meant major setbacks in expenses and time for the Australian government.
These are examples of results from independent scientific studies changing the plans and behaviours of the government at the time. These weren’t considered optimal outcomes for the agenda of the local governments at that time.
You ask cynical questions, and suggest that having faith in scientific studies is foolishness. But you don’t suggest a better alternative.
I’ve taken some time to outline just a few examples where scientific studies guided public policy as more became known. And you can see how larger scale studies show a bigger picture. But larger scale studies that measure risks as low as a few per million, can’t exist until vaccines are deployed to many millions. Which is why small scale studies are done first.
If you sat in front of me and had a lengthy discussion, you’d probably discover we have areas of common belief. But writing off scientific studies, and professional interpretation of results from scientific studies makes no sense to me. Especially considering the alternative.
10 Likes
I think an unqualified internet influencer would be a far better bet. Oh dear.
2 Likes
Interesting comment. Generally Pharma Companies try very hard to develop products that work. They do not always succeed and some have tried to hide their mistakes, but the greater majority actually like helping people get better.
And I am yet to meet a Medical Researcher either at a Uni or Institution, or working for a private company who does not think of the people who may use their development.
I am more than happy with the work that these people and companies do, as they have made my life a lot easier.
8 Likes
Such a foolish statement.
I can only assume that you never take any sort of medicine or anti-biotic etc when you’re unwell.
True story coming up:
It concerns two friends of mine…one is a research scientist who has spent the last 18 years in America working for one of their large pharmaceutical companies.
The other is/was a physiotherapist living near The Sunshine Coast.
In mid 2015 she was diagnosed with melanoma and immediately rushed into surgery. The resultant treatments (Chemo etc) did not work and she was offered the chance to participate in a trial of a new cancer drug aimed specifically at melanoma cancer.
She took up the offer as her prognosis was that she wouldn’t last another six months.
Six months later…she was cancer free!
A few months later I was in America staying with my friends there. I told them the story of my Queensland friend…the delight that appeared on the face of my US based friend was beautiful…she and her team had been the ones who had developed the melanoma drug.
So spare me your tin hat pronouncements…Big Pharma saved my friend’s life.
She is still alive and well to this day.
16 Likes
Nice story. Your friends may have helped to commercially move that drug along the pipeline, but the chances are it was originally discovered/developed in a University/medical research Institute. (Especially if it was a MAb). Pharma don’t usually do the discovery - they acquire products usually after successful Phase I or II trials. When the small companies can’t afford the Phase III costs.
4 Likes
Way to be cynical…my friend told me that her and her team developed the drug.
I’ll stick with believing her thanks.
Not cynical. Having seen this for 40+ years I do have a bit of knowledge on the field. Tell me the name of the drug and I can tell you more. The major development in melanoma over that 10 year period was use of MAbs and I am pretty sure they did not originate inside a Pharma. Maybe your friends’ company was unusual.
Fair enough…I have no idea what the drug is…all I can tell you is that this happened (the drug trial) in Brisbane in the second half of 2015.
The drug was specifically aimed at melanoma.
Whilst visiting, I took my friend to the hospital for her treatment. She had blood tests prior to them preparing the drug so that they could work out what dosage to give her (at least that’s what I think the tests were for). It was administered intravenously and took around 20-30 minutes.
No side effects were evident (as distinct from when I took my dad for chemo when he had cancer).
There were several immunotherapy treatments for melanoma coming through then (e.g. Roughead successfully using Keytruda).
Some of them worked (or didn’t) based on a specific genetic trait, so that might have been what they were checking.
3 Likes
Yep, sounds like a MAB. Seemingly miracle cures with few side effects.
PS MAb technology was developed in a medical research Institute back in the '70s. Although the pace is quicker now, that gives you an idea of how long it takes from original discovery through to the clinic.
PPS I got a postcard from the conference where some of those results were announced. The message was “A NOBEL TO KOHLER AND MILSTEIN FOR SURE”.
And that prediction was correct.
3 Likes
She went from having two large tumours in her brain and lesions throughout her body to cancer free in a little over six months.
It was amazing.
She is still cancer free but the ongoing drugs she must take have had some side effects. She has developed a mild form of epilepsy and is no longer allowed to drive (lucky she lives in a small place where everyone just walks around)
4 Likes
Related to the above, kinda:
4 Likes