• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Permanent Industry Changes in the Post-COVID World

Status
Not open for further replies.

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
18,644
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
A drug being used safely for decades is irrelevant if it actually doesn't do anything to treat a particular disease.

You do know that India took Ivermectin off their clinical guidance months ago...right?
Aware of those, and it wasn't just Ivermectin that India used during their Delta spike. It was a cocktail of drugs, and frankly again as I have stated, at times it does take some thinking outside of the box, especially with what India did as with a population of over a billion and something like only 6% of their population vaccinated at the time the Delta spike hit there (and with Delta seemingly having more potentially severe side effects) there really wasn't much to loose by incorpating a drug given billions of times over decades with a great safety record even if it may or may not have beneficial effects.

I am just perplexed by why folks actually trying to TREAT the disease, are shunned by so many who are putting forth the leadership and guidance for the disease in this country. Heck, we're I belive the most vaxxed country (by number of doses given not percent of the population) and our infection rates aren't significantly lower than most any other country out there. So why not look for treatment options, even if they might only involve existing, off patent drugs that won't make the pharmaceutical industry more $$ and culd bring in question the "experimental status" that the vaccines have used to be pushed across so much of society under the ethical principles for an experimental status drug?
 

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
722
Points
43
Aware of those, and it wasn't just Ivermectin that India used during their Delta spike. It was a cocktail of drugs, and frankly again as I have stated, at times it does take some thinking outside of the box, especially with what India did as with a population of over a billion and something like only 6% of their population vaccinated at the time the Delta spike hit there (and with Delta seemingly having more potentially severe side effects) there really wasn't much to loose by incorpating a drug given billions of times over decades with a great safety record even if it may or may not have beneficial effects.

I am just perplexed by why folks actually trying to TREAT the disease, are shunned by so many who are putting forth the leadership and guidance for the disease in this country. Heck, we're I belive the most vaxxed country (by number of doses given not percent of the population) and our infection rates aren't significantly lower than most any other country out there. So why not look for treatment options, even if they might only involve existing, off patent drugs that won't make the pharmaceutical industry more $$ and culd bring in question the "experimental status" that the vaccines have used to be pushed across so much of society under the ethical principles for an experimental status drug?
Follow the $ Jeff, Follow the $
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,651
Points
83
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
I am just perplexed by why folks actually trying to TREAT the disease, are shunned by so many who are putting forth the leadership and guidance for the disease in this country.
But that's simply not true.

There're actual treatments, several of them. Clinically proven by double blind trials. There're still many drugs being "trialed" in hospitals as we speak. (I happened to know a doctor participating in one such).

What's being shunned are unproven, or worse proven no better than placebo, "treatment".
 

icecoast1

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
722
Points
43
There're actual treatments, several of them. Clinically proven by double blind trials. There're still many drugs being studied in hospitals as we speak. (I happened to know a doctor participating in one such study)
Yup and in many areas it's a struggle to get them. There doesn't seem to be much interest in treating somebody til it's time to go on a vent in the ICU when it's far too late far any of the early treatments to have any effectiveness
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
5,702
Points
113
Location
NJ
I am just perplexed by why folks actually trying to TREAT the disease, are shunned by so many who are putting forth the leadership and guidance for the disease in this country. Heck, we're I belive the most vaxxed country (by number of doses given not percent of the population) and our infection rates aren't significantly lower than most any other country out there. So why not look for treatment options, even if they might only involve existing, off patent drugs that won't make the pharmaceutical industry more $$ and culd bring in question the "experimental status" that the vaccines have used to be pushed across so much of society under the ethical principles for an experimental status drug?

You can't be serious with that comment...the sheer number of doses is irrelevant compared to the percentage. Come on...you know that.

And no one is shunning genuine treatments. Treatments are absolutely critical. I fully agree. But they need to be supported by real data and real clinical trials done the proper way. If older off-patent drugs showed real benefits, I'd be all for them. But the problem is when properly conducted studies are done, these drugs like Ivermectin aren't showing to make a significant difference. They only show a difference for some reason anecdotally or through faulty studies (which means there are likely other variables and factors at play if you can't duplicate those findings in a controlled study environment).
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,651
Points
83
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
Yup and in many areas it's a struggle to get them. There doesn't seem to be much interest in treating somebody til it's time to go on a vent in the ICU when it's far too late far any of the early treatments to have any effectiveness
That has a lot more to do with our medical profession than anything else.

Doctors are train to treat the sick, not to prevent people from getting sick. Specialist focus on the sickest and they get their kick from rescuing those on death's door.

Couple that with a nation without universal health coverage and no mandatory sick leave, meaning many mildly sick people won't even go to see doctors until symptom got really severe.

Early treatment to forestall severe outcome is an uphill battle in this environment.

Specific to Covid, why after nearly 2 years, insurance is only now starting to cover at-home Covid test! How does one get these new treatments, almost all of them need to be taken within the first 5 days, when one can't get a test appointment for more than 5 days?
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
18,644
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
But that's simply not true.

There're actual treatments, several of them. Clinically proven by double blind trials. There're still many drugs being "trialed" in hospitals as we speak. (I happened to know a doctor participating in one such).

What's being shunned are unproven, or worse proven no better than placebo, "treatment".
True, there are now within the last week or 2, some drugs available to treat COVID symptoms and others in trials now. Those will be on patent, big $$ per dose drugs when used.

Early on, when there weren't treatment drugs available and people were (and still are dying in significant numbers) and people were trying various drugs based on general mechanism of how that drug(s) work and the known at that time mechanism of COVID, even if those drugs weren;'t big $$ drugs for the pharmaceutical industry, why not try them?

Heck, should be try and discuss the topic of monoclonal antibodies and how the federal government has limited their supply? And before one says that they're not Omicron specific, remember that the vast majority of the severe disease now is still Delta, which did respond to monoclonal antibodies when used early in the infection stage, such as pre-hospitalization situations.

The scientific process is one based on an exchange of ideas in an open fashion. It seems at times like COVID is trying to be viewed as something where the scientifc process need not always apply if it ends up questioning something
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,341
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
You can't be serious with that comment...the sheer number of doses is irrelevant compared to the percentage. Come on...you know that.

And no one is shunning genuine treatments. Treatments are absolutely critical. I fully agree. But they need to be supported by real data and real clinical trials done the proper way. If older off-patent drugs showed real benefits, I'd be all for them. But the problem is when properly conducted studies are done, these drugs like Ivermectin aren't showing to make a significant difference. They only show a difference for some reason anecdotally or through faulty studies (which means there are likely other variables and factors at play if you can't duplicate those findings in a controlled study environment).

Exactly. Most people aren't questioning Remdesivir, Monoclonal antibodies and the recently approved Pfizer therapeutic etc. Most aren't just saying NO! Vaccines are the only way. It's always been a vaccine PLUS treatment battle.

But you have a very loud, conspiracy leaning group of people who are screaming Big Pharma only wants their drugs out there and are suppressing Invermectin, Hydro and others to protect their own profits. Big Pharma is paying off the government, media and big tech to silence those pushing other treatments. Blah, blah, blah.

No, all that's being recommended is the Invermectin people prove out their theory through trials and data just like Pfizer had to do to bring their new treatment to market.

I'm aware that there's been some poor behavior by pharmaceutical companies and crooked doctors over the years. Plenty of shitheads throughout history like the Sacklers.

But it's not enough to discredit the fact that probably the number one reason we are living on average to an age of near 80 today vs barely 50 in 1900 is drug therapies. But the drug companies are the enemy because of the money they make.
 

machski

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
3,312
Points
83
Location
Northwood, NH (Sunday River, ME)
My favorite part of the pandemic is that it has taken us to Omicron before the medical authorities reverse themselves again on masks and now say cloth mask are useless or nearly so for this strain. Umm, I don't the size of the virus particle has change in any substantial way, so pretty sure cloth masks have been ineffective from the start. How many times can they change course on simple guidance??
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
5,702
Points
113
Location
NJ
Without getting into the efficacy of Ivermectin, I hope we all can agree that it was improper for the mainstream media to refer to a drug that has been properly prescribed to millions of people merely as "horse de-wormer."
I'll absolutely agree with you there. The media has made many mistakes and definitely done a lot of harm with sowing seeds of doubt about various things in people's minds with no valid basis to do so.
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,651
Points
83
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
Early on, when there weren't treatment drugs available and people were (and still are dying in significant numbers) and people were trying various drugs based on general mechanism of how that drug(s) work and the known at that time mechanism of COVID, even if those drugs weren;'t big $$ drugs for the pharmaceutical industry, why not try them?
Again, "those drugs" had been tried. Quite many of them during the earlier waves. Some (hydroxychloroquine anyone?) had been proven to be no more effective than placebo!

Why do you think only the "new" drugs got approved? Wait, existing drugs don't need approvals. They only need some doctor to proclaim they work. ;) But wouldn't the drug makers do double blind clinical trial to prove their effectiveness? In some of the most high profile cases, the clinical trials show those drugs didn't work!

Still, I was pretty vocal in saying the Trump administration was starving clinical trial of treatments during the height of the vaccine development in Operation Warp Speed. Of course, I was nobody and not even the medical people are going to cross the President by suggesting he should give some of the money for vaccine development to treatment development!

Despite that, there're now several proven drugs, who do you think will sign up as candidates for the trial of those off-label drugs that may or may not work? Would you?

The only few off-label drugs left that had no proven efficacy yet are still being pushed around by a few individual are being shunned. For very good reasons.
 
Last edited:

Dickc

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
522
Points
43
Location
Northeast Mass
If you can't access the article in full, perhaps you can provide the link to the article so those who have access can read it and see the context in which the limited view you saw?
That snippet came from a New York Times newsletter that you can sign up for for free. I posted it on another site and can verify its authenticity. It was part of a MUCH larger piece, but I thought that part was the most interesting of it. PM me an email address if you want the original forwarded as I still have it.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
18,644
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
We would not have been able to vaccinate our way out of measles either if only 60% of the population was vaccinated.
If one gets a measles vaxx, they aren't getting ,measles, regardless of if someone else near them has measles, and that protection appears to last decades.

Same thing with the mentioned earlier in this thread polio vaccine.

COVID is different. I think we can all agree with that and vaccine efficacy. Disease severity reduction is there. Some efficacy against infection is there. However, especially now with Omicron, if a vaxxed, boosted person is near even an asymptomatic positive person, their risk of contracting COVID sure seems to be far greater than say the measles or polio referenced groups.

Again it a small subset pertaining to my household, but roughly 5 weeks post booster, we had a positive test this week.

I am happy to be vaccinated and boosted. Let's just be open to what that all means and understand that it may be different with COVID vs previous vaccines, regardless of percentage of the population that is vaccinated or not
 

2Planker

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
1,195
Points
83
Location
MWV, NH
Respectfully disagree
Of course some will take it to the grave like smoking cigarettes.

I heard a story from an associate
His brother and wife and disabled son not vax’d
Husband spent 6 days in the hospital
All 3 will now get vax’d

Sad way to get convinced but I have heard other similar stories.
Similar story, Dad wouldn't let anyone get Vaxx'd
Dad then got covid, spent 35 days in the Hosp., before he passed
Wife and 2 kids still not gonna get Vaxx.
Nothing you can do anymore.....

My family too, more than 1/2 of us are MD/RN/ & healthcare PhD's. But we have 3 siblings who are never gonna get a Vacc.
One is hospitalized now, and will probably be in the ICU shortly

We just ordered 4 mortuary refrigerators and freezers in preparation of what is to come
 
Last edited:

boston_e

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
694
Points
43
If one gets a measles vaxx, they aren't getting ,measles, regardless of if someone else near them has measles.
Probably not entirely true.. Per the CDC about 3 in 100 people who have their doses of the MMR vaccine will get measles if exposed to the measles virus. MMR effiicacy is only about 88% against Mumps. I agree it is a more effective vaccine at prevention than the Covid vaccine, but part of why we almost never see measles and mumps is because so many people have been vaccinated that exposures almost never happen.

If a much higher percentage of the population were vaccinated, your family member would have been less likely to have been exposed to the virus.

I agree with you that the Covid vaccines are less effective at preventing infection than MMR, but you also can't ignore that part of how vaccines work is reducing the overall presence of a virus, not just form the individual protection they provide.
 
Last edited:

x10003q

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
860
Points
28
Location
Bergen County, NJ
Without getting into the efficacy of Ivermectin, I hope we all can agree that it was improper for the mainstream media to refer to a drug that has been properly prescribed to millions of people merely as "horse de-wormer."
Which part of the reporting are you angry with - that they reported there are zero double blind studies to show that Ivermectin treats COVID or that the horse paste Ivermectin was flying off the shelves in certain areas of the US?

"The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea."

"Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous. "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top