171–180 of 234 posts
It's a preprint that has already been criticized by peers It's resolving a symptom, not the cause and there's no long-term followup to see if the results stuck around.
I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. All my patients got a higher dose of Lovenox (anticoagulant) as soon as they hit the unit. The trick is balancing risk vs. benefits. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet will kill a 30 yo healthy person who slips on ice and hit his head. Your mild concussions are now massive brain bleeds.
Sorry, what? You’re telling us that you were treating long COVID patients in the ICU when the pandemic started?
I don’t know if you misspoke or misread the headline or what, but in no way is it possibly true that you were treating long COVID with anything in the ICU at the beginning of the pandemic, or any time for that matter.
I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. All my patients got a higher dose of Lovenox (anticoagulant) as soon as they hit the unit. The trick is balancing risk vs. benefits. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet will kill a 30 yo healthy person who slips on ice and hit his head. Your mild concussions are now massive brain bleeds.
> I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. Sorry, what? You’re telling us that you were treating long COVID patients in the ICU when the pandemic started ? I don’t know if you misspoke or misread the headline or what, but in no way is it possibly true that you were treating long COVID with anything in the ICU at the beginning of the pandemic, or any time for t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't need to do a line-by-line rebuttal of a Covid protocol my HVAC technician wrote -- though he likely did more to help the pandemic by changing out HEPA air filters than the Front Link covid quacks did with their awful advice and martyr complex. If someone is catastrophically and unapologetically wrong on problem 1a, you don't really need to pay attention to their solution to problem 1b.
Super not helpful. Also, some of your points could be debated (fluvoxamine recently, statins in trials, vitamin C, etc). But overall the tone makes it hard to have a civil discussion.
There's no benefit to cosplaying as Socrates when there is no data point or research result that could change the mind of these weird conspiracy theorists. If a well-done study came out tomorrow that demonstrated Ivermectin worked to help Covid patients, it would literally be in every hospital's protocol tomorrow.
On the opposite side, these charlatans have been promoting IVM since March 2020 with absolutely no evidence of efficacy (often at the expense of convincing people to not get vaccinated). What little evidence has come out has only weakened the case for it as a treatment, and yet, they're still promoting it as fervently as ever.
If you want a long-covid treatment protocol, you should absolutely look somewhere else aside from the pages of the most stubbornly wrong people in this whole pandemic. They've shown repeatedly that they don't care about updating their priors when there's contradictory evidence. At least the HCQ dorks have mostly retired to complaining about cancel culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. Sorry, what? You’re telling us that you were treating long COVID patients in the ICU when the pandemic started ? I don’t know if you misspoke or misread the headline or what, but in no way is it possibly true that you were treating long COVID with anything in the ICU at the beginning of the pandemic, or any time for t…
I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are circles of of the web which knew incredible amounts of very accurate and precise details about COVID in Feb/March of 2020. The early mistreatments accounted for vast amounts of preventable deaths while people proposing the eventual correct solutions were deplatformed
2. None of this matters to the claim I addressed. Long COVID it’s not something that would be treated in an ICU. It’s also not something that even had a name “when COVID hit”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super not helpful. Also, some of your points could be debated (fluvoxamine recently, statins in trials, vitamin C, etc). But overall the tone makes it hard to have a civil discussion.
It's my contention that it's actively harmful to truth, science, and public health when we pretend like there's value in having a "civil conversation" with bad faith actors. There's no benefit to cosplaying as Socrates when there is no data point or research result that could change the mind of these weird conspiracy theorists. If a well-done study came out tomorrow that demonstrated Ivermectin worked to help Covid p…
Before personally taking the medicine we spent 1.5 weeks reading everything we could find. Straight from Google Scholar or pubmed. Respectfully, I disagree with you. But that's based on my own reading and I'm not an MD or medical professional.
I would say, a) it is very common in certain countries, and like hey, they awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine partially for it in 2015, but b) we have to agree to disagree here, were just too far apart on tone. But respect your point of view.
I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. All my patients got a higher dose of Lovenox (anticoagulant) as soon as they hit the unit. The trick is balancing risk vs. benefits. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet will kill a 30 yo healthy person who slips on ice and hit his head. Your mild concussions are now massive brain bleeds.
> I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. Sorry, what? You’re telling us that you were treating long COVID patients in the ICU when the pandemic started ? I don’t know if you misspoke or misread the headline or what, but in no way is it possibly true that you were treating long COVID with anything in the ICU at the beginning of the pandemic, or any time for t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the two different definitions of "imply" (formal vs colloquial) make "correlation doesn't imply causation" simultaneously true and false. On one hand, correlation doesn't necessarily demonstrate causation, but on the other hand (like the comment says) it does suggest fertile ground for research.
We also don't make all our decisions in life based upon research. If I eat something and it upsets my stomach, I'm not going to commission a study on it. I'm just gonna avoid eating it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that without a control group there's no way to know.
That's not strictly true. Consider our complete set of medical knowledge today. What percentage of that knowledge came from studies with control groups?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was rounding in the ICU when COVID hit, we knew this 2 weeks in - so not new information at all. Sorry, what? You’re telling us that you were treating long COVID patients in the ICU when the pandemic started ? I don’t know if you misspoke or misread the headline or what, but in no way is it possibly true that you were treating long COVID with anything in the ICU at the beginning of the pandemic, or any time for t…
One of the underlying problems of COVID is an excessive immune system response, which we have known for 10+ years that it leads to coagulation issues. Long COVID or acute COVID - it is fundamentally your body fighting a battle in the wrong way. So, in that specific way, COVID is COVID.
I also find this a really odd line to draw. The fact that treating ICU patients with anticoagulants is standard does not automatically mean it’s useful for long COVID patients. If it turns out that it’s useful, awesome, but it’s not obvious a priori.