30 ms·

Yes - a bunch of discredited quacks (with multiple papers now retracted for the terrible quality of their science) causing enormous headaches for every practici

Yes - a bunch of discredited quacks (with multiple papers now retracted for the terrible quality of their science) causing enormous headaches for every practicing doctor and nurse having to treat the unvaccinated "Facebook Researchers" who end up in the hospital trying to get their useless cocktail of meds.

swader999 5y ago
What specifically in the linked protocol do you disagree with?
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  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.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Ok, so just ad hominem then I guess. Lazy and a disservice to yourself and anyone suffering from this.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Sometimes the timing is just great -- how about the fact that the protocol was designed by several grifters selling fraudulent "long Covid" tests and charging people thousands of dollars for tele-health visits where they then lie about lab tests and prescribe drugs that don't remotely work. Just published now: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/desperate-patients-are-shelling-out-thousands-for-a-long-covid-cure-is-it-for-real/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/desperate-patie... These people should be in prison.
      - swader999 5y ago
        I didn't suggest anyone use IncellDX or covid long haulers.com. Just because Bruce Patterson had his name associated with the flccc doesn't prove anything about it's viability. Keep trying.
        mikeyouse 5y ago
        If the fact that fraudulent grifters developed the treatment protocol you're advocating for, I'm not sure where to go from there. (Not just Patterson, but Yogendra too -- it's not just "his name associated" with flccc -- he and yogendera are two of the primary authors of the protocol!) And if I understand your timeline right --- you think a single dose of the vaccine gave you "long covid" symptoms? So you're going to rely on the long-covid treatment path, even though you've never had the virus? Yikes man..
        swader999 5y ago
        Yikes man indeed. Hard to describe how desperate I was back then. If you read the protocol, you'd see where they describe how a subset of vaccine injury and long covid essential present and are treated identically. My story: got all the long covid symptoms, started eight hours after the AZ vaccine. Tested negative twice on pcr. 3.5 months with little improvement. Optometrist noted blood heme in eye, had a clot removed from forehead vein recently. Both of those noted within a week or three of vaccine date. At the 3.5 month date I started that protocol, first with ivermectin. Within five hours I felt better than I had in the past three months and then in five days brain fog, sob, headaches, extreme fatigue, heart issues, high blood pressure all resolved. I quit the daily dose of ivm then and started prednisone for remaining lung inflammation. (Describe this like extreme asthma, any deep inhalation would trigger coughing). That worked. I still have a bit of a dry like congestion that lingers (8 months since vax). Maybe I caught covid same time frame as vax but the two negative tests seem to not support that. The symptoms certainly presented right after the shot. They very clearly resolved a few hours after the ivermectin. It was like a light switch. My wife noticed improvement in my color even.
        swader999 5y ago
  - texasbigdata 5y ago
    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.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      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 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.
      - texasbigdata 5y ago
        I personally formed a three person reading group with 2 friends (one chemistry PhD and one retired tech CEO that's a longevity genius) and we read a stack of these papers end to end and even attempted to fumble through a recalcution of a meta-analysis following the retraction of one paper. 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.

swader999 5y ago

What specifically in the linked protocol do you disagree with?

mikeyouse 5y ago
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.
- swader999 5y ago
  Ok, so just ad hominem then I guess. Lazy and a disservice to yourself and anyone suffering from this.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Sometimes the timing is just great -- how about the fact that the protocol was designed by several grifters selling fraudulent "long Covid" tests and charging people thousands of dollars for tele-health visits where they then lie about lab tests and prescribe drugs that don't remotely work. Just published now: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/desperate-patients-are-shelling-out-thousands-for-a-long-covid-cure-is-it-for-real/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/01/desperate-patie... These people should be in prison.
    - swader999 5y ago
      I didn't suggest anyone use IncellDX or covid long haulers.com. Just because Bruce Patterson had his name associated with the flccc doesn't prove anything about it's viability. Keep trying.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        If the fact that fraudulent grifters developed the treatment protocol you're advocating for, I'm not sure where to go from there. (Not just Patterson, but Yogendra too -- it's not just "his name associated" with flccc -- he and yogendera are two of the primary authors of the protocol!) And if I understand your timeline right --- you think a single dose of the vaccine gave you "long covid" symptoms? So you're going to rely on the long-covid treatment path, even though you've never had the virus? Yikes man..
        swader999 5y ago
        Yikes man indeed. Hard to describe how desperate I was back then. If you read the protocol, you'd see where they describe how a subset of vaccine injury and long covid essential present and are treated identically. My story: got all the long covid symptoms, started eight hours after the AZ vaccine. Tested negative twice on pcr. 3.5 months with little improvement. Optometrist noted blood heme in eye, had a clot removed from forehead vein recently. Both of those noted within a week or three of vaccine date. At the 3.5 month date I started that protocol, first with ivermectin. Within five hours I felt better than I had in the past three months and then in five days brain fog, sob, headaches, extreme fatigue, heart issues, high blood pressure all resolved. I quit the daily dose of ivm then and started prednisone for remaining lung inflammation. (Describe this like extreme asthma, any deep inhalation would trigger coughing). That worked. I still have a bit of a dry like congestion that lingers (8 months since vax). Maybe I caught covid same time frame as vax but the two negative tests seem to not support that. The symptoms certainly presented right after the shot. They very clearly resolved a few hours after the ivermectin. It was like a light switch. My wife noticed improvement in my color even.
        swader999 5y ago
- texasbigdata 5y ago
  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.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    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 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.
    - texasbigdata 5y ago
      I personally formed a three person reading group with 2 friends (one chemistry PhD and one retired tech CEO that's a longevity genius) and we read a stack of these papers end to end and even attempted to fumble through a recalcution of a meta-analysis following the retraction of one paper. 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.