Thanks for this. Preventative and early treatment works, but until it's an Rx the medical community is not interested.
Flccc has done great work in this area. I have been on their protocol all year and, in spite of close exposures, have not gotten ill when others in the group did.
I won't speak to other compounds, but considering that Quercetin is so ubiquitous in our diets I wouldn't even necessarily consider it exogenous to some extent. It seems more like a vital nutrient that we haven't really taken into consideration. My next post will argue that position although it won't be fully backed by evidence and is more speculate but I think it is a reasonable argument to make.
I'll say I won't advocate for any group, although doctors within the FLCCC attest to the effectiveness of their regimen, and as someone who isn't a doctor I don't think I have a position to discredit their work. I would argue that more research is better, and it's something that I don't think we're seeing enough of when it comes to repurposed drugs or supplements.
I'd hesitate to use the FLCCC as a source for legitimizing the use of ivermectin in clinical practice. First, the dose they recommend is much different than the "safe" evaluated dose for parasitic infections that was approved by the FDA log ago; thus the potential physiologic effects are not known and the relative safety of the drug given at their recommendation cannot be extrapolated from the existing data. Additionally, I would hesitate to take any sort of guidance from a group for whom "membership" requires that you support their recommendations (their "join us" form asks that the applicant check off all the drugs that they use in practice, which is basically a list of the vitamins/drugs the FLCCC recommends). Does ivermectin work theoretically? Sure, there's evidence. Does it work in actual clinical settings? The verdict is still not clear, mostly being anecdotal or small scale. Given the lack of large scale controlled clinical trials (and lack of dose-escalation studies to even define a working range), it seems premature to advocate for their inclusion in a treatment regimen - especially for prophylaxis.
I'll say that I take everything with some level of skepticism. I cited the FLCCC and Dr. Zelenko as people who are proponents of these compounds and my argument here is to see whether there is some credence to possibly using some of these compounds.
I hope my posts don't come off as advocacy for any group, but if something seems to be gaining traction the argument is to see whether there is reasonable evidence to suggest this drug. I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't know the effectiveness in practice, although the relative safety/tolerance of ivermectin may be higher than considered.
It's an interesting position, because it seems like many of the FDA's safety doses may be something to reevaluate, considering that some researchers/doctors are arguing that the recommended daily dose of Vitamin D should actually be higher, and that safe cholesterol levels may be higher than recommended as well.
So this shouldn't be seen as legitimizing them more than it is to examine if, and why Quercetin may work as a prophylactic or for early treatment.
Thanks for this. Preventative and early treatment works, but until it's an Rx the medical community is not interested.
Flccc has done great work in this area. I have been on their protocol all year and, in spite of close exposures, have not gotten ill when others in the group did.
I won't speak to other compounds, but considering that Quercetin is so ubiquitous in our diets I wouldn't even necessarily consider it exogenous to some extent. It seems more like a vital nutrient that we haven't really taken into consideration. My next post will argue that position although it won't be fully backed by evidence and is more speculate but I think it is a reasonable argument to make.
I'll say I won't advocate for any group, although doctors within the FLCCC attest to the effectiveness of their regimen, and as someone who isn't a doctor I don't think I have a position to discredit their work. I would argue that more research is better, and it's something that I don't think we're seeing enough of when it comes to repurposed drugs or supplements.
I'd hesitate to use the FLCCC as a source for legitimizing the use of ivermectin in clinical practice. First, the dose they recommend is much different than the "safe" evaluated dose for parasitic infections that was approved by the FDA log ago; thus the potential physiologic effects are not known and the relative safety of the drug given at their recommendation cannot be extrapolated from the existing data. Additionally, I would hesitate to take any sort of guidance from a group for whom "membership" requires that you support their recommendations (their "join us" form asks that the applicant check off all the drugs that they use in practice, which is basically a list of the vitamins/drugs the FLCCC recommends). Does ivermectin work theoretically? Sure, there's evidence. Does it work in actual clinical settings? The verdict is still not clear, mostly being anecdotal or small scale. Given the lack of large scale controlled clinical trials (and lack of dose-escalation studies to even define a working range), it seems premature to advocate for their inclusion in a treatment regimen - especially for prophylaxis.
I'll say that I take everything with some level of skepticism. I cited the FLCCC and Dr. Zelenko as people who are proponents of these compounds and my argument here is to see whether there is some credence to possibly using some of these compounds.
I hope my posts don't come off as advocacy for any group, but if something seems to be gaining traction the argument is to see whether there is reasonable evidence to suggest this drug. I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't know the effectiveness in practice, although the relative safety/tolerance of ivermectin may be higher than considered.
It's an interesting position, because it seems like many of the FDA's safety doses may be something to reevaluate, considering that some researchers/doctors are arguing that the recommended daily dose of Vitamin D should actually be higher, and that safe cholesterol levels may be higher than recommended as well.
So this shouldn't be seen as legitimizing them more than it is to examine if, and why Quercetin may work as a prophylactic or for early treatment.