Bob, I’ve got to admit, I like your line of …

Comment on Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories by Sunny.

Bob, I’ve got to admit, I like your line of questioning. I will add some questions: When one claims that a treatment if ‘effective’ or not – what is the definition of effectiveness? (we can ask that question for COVID treatments AND the vaccine) What is the mechanism by which COVID causes disease – not just the theories, but 1 1/2 years in, do we have a mechanism elucidated? This is important if anyone is going to claim that one treatment is more effective than another. Often the arguments about the effectiveness of treatment choices, such as ivermectin, boil down to a misunderstanding about the purpose of the treatment – and therefore the timing of treatment – which is all about the mechanism. IF one is to look at meta-analysis’s, a big challenge to the usefulness of the data is comparing the methodology of the study and outcome points. It can very well be like comparing apples to oranges. I’d also argue that just because a study is a double blind placebo controlled study, that doesn’t negate data from a meta-analysis – or make that data less powerful. The methodology (and questions asked/answered) matters. So… what is the point of using ivermectin? what is the point of using hydroxychloroquine? What are they trying to do? Would their goal, therefore, depend on timing of use of that medication? For this reason, understanding the ‘process’ of the symptomatology development in COVID is hugely important. At different ‘stages’ of COVID, like other medical issues, treatment choices are and should be different. If I think about mechanisms and stages of the COVID illness, I think there very well may be a place for ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine – until the time when good basic science in vitro and in vivo studies suggest otherwise. They are both very safe medications when used properly and are helpful for various types of infections.

I believe I also read in this thread that someone ‘dissed’ vitamins/supplements and their usefulness in treatment of COVID. I think the usefulness of these ‘adjunctive therapies’ is actually based on understanding the mechanisms at the base of our immune responses. I don’t think anyone – including Dr. McCullough – claim that supplements/vitamins/nutrients alone fix COVID. It’s more about understanding that these nutrients are often essential for proper functioning of various enzymes and proteins involved in an immune response…building blocks, if you will. If they are missing, or in short supply – or rapidly being used up due to a very active immune response (for any reason)- then can you have a solid foundation for your immune response to a virus such as COVID? Essentially all of the supplements being recommended to boost the immune system, to ‘prepare’ for potential infection (prophylactic recommendations) or to be used during active treatment are ‘essential’ – our bodies don’t make them. Getting back to the ‘mechanism’ by which COVID causes disease: when might the ‘building blocks’ of our immune response be working overtime? At what point should we be focusing on supporting our immune response? Why might it be helpful to concentrate on supplementing with vitamins/nutrients? Why might believing you get all you need in your food not be a safe option? Is there a way to change that? What risk factors related to those who have the worst outcomes with COVID (and maybe the vaccine??) might be associated with inflammation – and, therefore, perhaps immune system building block issues?

I guess what I’m really getting at is that I think claims that one treatment or another is ‘conspiracy theory’ or ‘effective’ are simply wrong – and happen because of a misunderstanding of goals and not asking the best questions. We should not be polarizing the search for effective treatments. A study supposedly ‘proving’ that ivermectin doesn’t work may very well have a method that set it up to fail (i.e. giving it at a stage in the disease process where it’s MOA isn’t targeting the current problem). Studies that have claimed ivermectin does work need to have their methods reproduced in a study that is a DB RCT… should be easy enough to do given the numbers of COVID cases. Perhaps someone here knows if such a study has been done – so far, I don’t think it has been. I, personally, don’t believe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquin or ANY anti-viral will be very useful by the time someone is very ill – but that’s because I don’t believe the mechanism of illness at that point is actually related to the virus at all. However, early use – maybe preventive use – I don’t think one can make a true scientific conclusion on that yet. And, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by demonizing these options as ‘conspiracy theories’.

Sunny Also Commented

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
“You see, the vaccines primarily generate blood-based immunity while the initial Delta infection is a mucosal infection within the nasopharynx. So, while vaccine-based immunity is less effective at blocking the initial Delta infection, it is very good at preventing the virus from spreading from the mucosa of the nasopharynx throughout the rest of the body.“. Can you provide the data source you use for this statement? It’s my understanding that those getting COVID after vaccination are getting symptoms beyond their nasal mucosa. And, both vaccinated and non- vaccinated are getting similar symptoms (and severity, from my experience). I’m also trying to understand the definition of ‘effectiveness’ ascribed to the vaccine – what definition are you using with relation to the vaccine? From your perspective, does getting Covid give you the same assumed protection as the vaccine? Why/why not? Why should people with antibodies post COVID get the vaccine?