2 ms·

Do you have in mind something like this? https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-cli

Do you have in mind something like this? https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials#activ6 https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Yes, this exactly. I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. A completion date of 2022/2023 is pretty unreasonable for a pandemic starting in 2019. On a social level, I think we should all be hope such treatments to be a success, and don't understand people rooting for them to fail.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  > I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. In that case you will be delighted to learn that this type of work did start much earlier. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll see that the trials for Activ-1 started on 15-Oct-2020, for Activ-2 on 19-Aug-2020, for Activ-3 on 4-Aug-2020, for Activ-4 on 4-Sep-2020, for Activ-5 on 5-Oct-2020, etc. Even before that, on 19-Mar-2020, there's the start of the Recovery trial, which tested, among others, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and tocilizumab (and about a dozen more) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 There were other trials as well. Not all were unsuccessful. In particular dexomethazone came out as an effective treatment after such a trial.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Well I am glad some researchers and the NIH have their heads screwed on right. Thanks for sharing this. Any thoughts on why this topic is so polarized in public discourse and what we can do to unwind it? It seems like we are in a really unhealthy place where specific medicines are bashed. In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Of course people should be cautioned against self diagnosis and self prescription, but surely there is some middle ground. Hopefully one without villianizing patients and doctors.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      > In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Instead of perusing such experimental treatments, they could just get vaccinated. Story time: this Monday (i.e. 2 days ago) I got Covid. Terrible headache, complete loss of taste. But I had the vaccine (Moderna). The whole experience was just some amusing thing for me. I took some ibuprofen, aleve and tylenol to deal with the headache (yes, I had to take multiple medications, it was that bad) and aspirin, just to be on the safe side with the potential blood clots. Yesterday I had just a slight headache, and right now I'm absolutely fine. I did not need to do any sort of experiments with Ivermectin, or anything else. The vaccine just took care of it.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >Instead of perusing such experimental treatments, they could just get vaccinated. This is the attitude I am talking about. As I said earlier, I agree treatment options are not a substitute for vaccination. Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options? First off, Some people can't get vaccinated, and some vaccinated still get ill. Second, for those who refuse to get vaccinated (as ill advised as it may be), don't we want them to have the 2nd best health outcome possible? Don't we want to minimize healthcare burden and social harm? It seems like there is a large contingent of the population that want these people to suffer and die, and root for treatments to fail. Some sort of vindictiveness where folks are willing to sacrifice the public interest and their own to spite the vaccine-resistant.
        credit_guy 5y ago
        > Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options? There are treatment options. Remdesivir, dexomethazone, monoclonal antibodies, anti-clotting drugs, etc. NIH has put out guidelines [1], especially p. 62-63. One year or one year and a half ago not much was known about Covid, so people were looking at vitamin D, aspirin, hydroxychloroquine, etc. Now there are quite a few options. As you can see, the NIH continues to investigate additional options like Ivermectin. There's no grand conspiracy to hide cures from people. The need for people to experiment by themselves is simply not there. It probably was in the first half of 2020, but not anymore. [1] https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/...

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Yes, this exactly. I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. A completion date of 2022/2023 is pretty unreasonable for a pandemic starting in 2019. On a social level, I think we should all be hope such treatments to be a success, and don't understand people rooting for them to fail.

credit_guy 5y ago
> I would have liked to see this type of work start much earlier given the potential to save lives in the US and globally. In that case you will be delighted to learn that this type of work did start much earlier. If you follow the link I provided above, you'll see that the trials for Activ-1 started on 15-Oct-2020, for Activ-2 on 19-Aug-2020, for Activ-3 on 4-Aug-2020, for Activ-4 on 4-Sep-2020, for Activ-5 on 5-Oct-2020, etc. Even before that, on 19-Mar-2020, there's the start of the Recovery trial, which tested, among others, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and tocilizumab (and about a dozen more) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 There were other trials as well. Not all were unsuccessful. In particular dexomethazone came out as an effective treatment after such a trial.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Well I am glad some researchers and the NIH have their heads screwed on right. Thanks for sharing this. Any thoughts on why this topic is so polarized in public discourse and what we can do to unwind it? It seems like we are in a really unhealthy place where specific medicines are bashed. In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Of course people should be cautioned against self diagnosis and self prescription, but surely there is some middle ground. Hopefully one without villianizing patients and doctors.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    > In the media people are shamed for perusing experimental treatment under their doctors supervision. Instead of perusing such experimental treatments, they could just get vaccinated. Story time: this Monday (i.e. 2 days ago) I got Covid. Terrible headache, complete loss of taste. But I had the vaccine (Moderna). The whole experience was just some amusing thing for me. I took some ibuprofen, aleve and tylenol to deal with the headache (yes, I had to take multiple medications, it was that bad) and aspirin, just to be on the safe side with the potential blood clots. Yesterday I had just a slight headache, and right now I'm absolutely fine. I did not need to do any sort of experiments with Ivermectin, or anything else. The vaccine just took care of it.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >Instead of perusing such experimental treatments, they could just get vaccinated. This is the attitude I am talking about. As I said earlier, I agree treatment options are not a substitute for vaccination. Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options? First off, Some people can't get vaccinated, and some vaccinated still get ill. Second, for those who refuse to get vaccinated (as ill advised as it may be), don't we want them to have the 2nd best health outcome possible? Don't we want to minimize healthcare burden and social harm? It seems like there is a large contingent of the population that want these people to suffer and die, and root for treatments to fail. Some sort of vindictiveness where folks are willing to sacrifice the public interest and their own to spite the vaccine-resistant.
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        > Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options? There are treatment options. Remdesivir, dexomethazone, monoclonal antibodies, anti-clotting drugs, etc. NIH has put out guidelines [1], especially p. 62-63. One year or one year and a half ago not much was known about Covid, so people were looking at vitamin D, aspirin, hydroxychloroquine, etc. Now there are quite a few options. As you can see, the NIH continues to investigate additional options like Ivermectin. There's no grand conspiracy to hide cures from people. The need for people to experiment by themselves is simply not there. It probably was in the first half of 2020, but not anymore. [1] https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/...