I found it interesting that at least one of the controls (gray dots) did just as well as anyone in the treatment groups. What was special about that one that enabled him to clear the virus on his own? As an unvaxxed person who had omicron in April and wasn’t very sick (and will never vax my kids) I think research into why some people/monkeys do fine on our own is essential.
Thanks for the comment Paula since it made me look back at Figure 3 and notice that all but one of the vehicle macaques appeared to have no infectious titers at 4 dpi which is a rather interesting result.
We have to remember that individual factors are always going to lead to differences in outcomes. Studies can't control for these differences and generally a large sample size is supposed to average out these individual differences. This may work for a research setting when one has to be concerned about multiple variables, but on the individual level it ends up masking key factors that tend to be overlooked.
That's why it's generally good to luck at studies with an open mind and assess the information yourself. See what the researchers say and look at the Figures and Results yourself and see what type of conclusions you can draw. Then see if those conclusions overlap with the researchers or may show some discrepancy.
In short, there's a ton of differences between each of us that may explain why someone does better and someone does worse. It's important to remember that each person is a walking medical history with their own story, one which generally gets missed in studies.
I know you have touched on that (individual differences down to the cellular level) before. That’s why it’s so infuriating that a one-size-fits-all vaccine policy was implemented.
Certainly true. The accumulating evidence raises questions as to why such broad strokes were made in pushing the vaccine. However, it's also a reminder that we should remain rationale in our assessment of everything going in. Just as these vaccines were pushed quickly and without robust efficacy data we should be careful in assuming that any adverse reaction under the sun is now caused by the vaccines.
Well, I will state that at the end of the day the arsenal of drugs available should be open to everyone who chooses it. Doctors who believe in HCQ or IVM should be allowed to prescribe it the same way that those who want Molnupiravir or PAXLOVID should be as well. It's the freedom to prescribe and for doctors to be doctors that should be allowed. I generally don't weigh in on IVM because any argument in favor or against it would be met with some sort of vitriol from someone and the amount of research needed to make these posts is already mentally exhausting so I'd rather not add onto more headache-inducing drama.
But I make those comments mostly because there may be a habit in which we may think the use of one thing may undermine the use of another. The use of off-label or repurposed drugs may undermine the vaccines and maybe that's why they were pushed out. However, we may then make that same argument with PAXLOVID as it may undermine HCQ or IVM. In reality, it shouldn't be about whether one drug undermines another but whether doctors are free to prescribe things they think are effective if the safety doesn't dissuade it. So I usually say I don't weight in on the effectiveness of IVM but given its fairly safe profile I don't see why doctors can prescribe it if they choose.
And your second sentence is why we really don't know how much rebound may be occurring. That would require extensive surveillance and monitoring of individuals which is already highly unethical (rampant testing, I would argue, has been unethical). So we don't really have much to work on aside from anecdotes, but given the fact that rebound is generally measured with PCR testing and some symptoms it's a territory that just opens up a whole degree variability.
I do find those remarks hilarious. I think for those seeking approval or direction from outside sources such remarks may either work or end up badly while those who do as they will regardless will really pay no heed. It is one of those things where you see how his base may react to such remarks though that may be a a bit entertaining. 🤷♂️
I found it interesting that at least one of the controls (gray dots) did just as well as anyone in the treatment groups. What was special about that one that enabled him to clear the virus on his own? As an unvaxxed person who had omicron in April and wasn’t very sick (and will never vax my kids) I think research into why some people/monkeys do fine on our own is essential.
Thanks for the comment Paula since it made me look back at Figure 3 and notice that all but one of the vehicle macaques appeared to have no infectious titers at 4 dpi which is a rather interesting result.
We have to remember that individual factors are always going to lead to differences in outcomes. Studies can't control for these differences and generally a large sample size is supposed to average out these individual differences. This may work for a research setting when one has to be concerned about multiple variables, but on the individual level it ends up masking key factors that tend to be overlooked.
That's why it's generally good to luck at studies with an open mind and assess the information yourself. See what the researchers say and look at the Figures and Results yourself and see what type of conclusions you can draw. Then see if those conclusions overlap with the researchers or may show some discrepancy.
In short, there's a ton of differences between each of us that may explain why someone does better and someone does worse. It's important to remember that each person is a walking medical history with their own story, one which generally gets missed in studies.
I know you have touched on that (individual differences down to the cellular level) before. That’s why it’s so infuriating that a one-size-fits-all vaccine policy was implemented.
Certainly true. The accumulating evidence raises questions as to why such broad strokes were made in pushing the vaccine. However, it's also a reminder that we should remain rationale in our assessment of everything going in. Just as these vaccines were pushed quickly and without robust efficacy data we should be careful in assuming that any adverse reaction under the sun is now caused by the vaccines.
Also true! I tend to assume every death I hear about is vaccine-related but that’s probably not the case 😁
Well, I will state that at the end of the day the arsenal of drugs available should be open to everyone who chooses it. Doctors who believe in HCQ or IVM should be allowed to prescribe it the same way that those who want Molnupiravir or PAXLOVID should be as well. It's the freedom to prescribe and for doctors to be doctors that should be allowed. I generally don't weigh in on IVM because any argument in favor or against it would be met with some sort of vitriol from someone and the amount of research needed to make these posts is already mentally exhausting so I'd rather not add onto more headache-inducing drama.
But I make those comments mostly because there may be a habit in which we may think the use of one thing may undermine the use of another. The use of off-label or repurposed drugs may undermine the vaccines and maybe that's why they were pushed out. However, we may then make that same argument with PAXLOVID as it may undermine HCQ or IVM. In reality, it shouldn't be about whether one drug undermines another but whether doctors are free to prescribe things they think are effective if the safety doesn't dissuade it. So I usually say I don't weight in on the effectiveness of IVM but given its fairly safe profile I don't see why doctors can prescribe it if they choose.
And your second sentence is why we really don't know how much rebound may be occurring. That would require extensive surveillance and monitoring of individuals which is already highly unethical (rampant testing, I would argue, has been unethical). So we don't really have much to work on aside from anecdotes, but given the fact that rebound is generally measured with PCR testing and some symptoms it's a territory that just opens up a whole degree variability.
I do find those remarks hilarious. I think for those seeking approval or direction from outside sources such remarks may either work or end up badly while those who do as they will regardless will really pay no heed. It is one of those things where you see how his base may react to such remarks though that may be a a bit entertaining. 🤷♂️