The COVID-19 Conundrum, Part II

The Delta variant is old news and we must brace ourselves for the more vaccine-resistant mu variant. As the COVID-19 story continues to mature, our knowledge about treatment strategies are also evolving.  If we critically examine the data from Israel, with almost 80% of their population vaccinated, we have to acknowledge that vaccine efficacy is demonstrably waning, especially against the new variants. Israel is not the only example of vaccine failure; Cornell University, has a 95% vaccination rate with increasing cases above baseline modeling. I anticipate that this trend will continue as we approach this virus with blinders, believing that universal vaccination is the ONLY way to beat it.  Our health departments (WHO, CDC and FDA) and pharmaceutical companies are doing a major disservice to 46% of the population by not investigating alternative therapeutic options and only advocating vaccination as the sole treatment option. There are currently enough vaccine doses available to fully vaccinate every American, but it turns out that not every American wants it. It is time that we start to consider ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as viable substitutes to the vaccine-reluctant patients. With emerging clinical data suggesting reasonable efficacy of these two medications in the treatment of COVID-19, I find the AMA statement disgusting and lacking in curiosity.

The AMA statement addresses concern for risk of toxicity as the reason to avoid Ivermectin use. It should be recognized that Ivermectin has been used in humans for over 25 years with a well-documented safety profile. In the COVID-19 treatment protocols, it suggests 12mg/day for 5 days or 60mg total in 120 hours. When evaluating toxicity of a pharmaceuticals, they represent this information as LD50 (lethal dose of 50% of subjects). For Ivermectin, the LD50 is 10mg/kg.  Given the average physiologic human, reported in medical textbooks is 70kg, the median 50% lethal dose is 700mg (58x the therapeutic dose). The actual LD50 dosage is much higher because 70kg is a 154 pounds. Most people suffering from severe COVID are much larger than 150 pounds. With a half-life of 18-hours (excretion through feces, so kidney function plays no role in the pharmacokinetics) and a dosage of 12mg/day, this dosage is well below the toxic range. Current dosing schedules for parasitic infections is 0.2mg/kg.  Taking our same, arbitrary 70kg individual, the dosage suggested for treatment is 14mg/day. Recommending 12mg/day for 5 days clearly is within the safety and therapeutic threshold.

Some studies have suggested efficacy of ivermectin (here, here, video and here) for treatment of severe COVID-19 and hydroxycholorquine (here and here) might be a prophylactic agent or provide some symptom relief for mild cases. Either way, therapeutic options need to be investigated for people that are staunchly vaccine averse, cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons or for those with breakthrough infections of new variant strains. Myopic treatment strategies and reliance on a single approach for an unstable viral genome is poor practice. Resistant strains of microorganisms is not uncommon. If an antibiotic or chemotherapeutic agent demonstrates poor response to an infection or neoplasm, respectively, we alter the treatment for a more appropriate, desired response.  A patient that receives the influenza vaccine, but then gets infected with the flu, doesn’t require an influenza booster, this is illogical thinking.

Dissent to vaccine mandates does not imply that this subpopulation is villainous, nor dangerous.  If someone chooses to get the vaccine, they can anticipate less aggressive symptoms from COVID-19 if infected, despite a 0.04% risk of severe COVID symptoms in the unvaccinated.  People who choose to remain unvaccinated have accepted the consequences of their choices and the 99.96% chance of being asymptomatic or getting mild disease. We have seen a toxic, divisive culture where some people advocate that physicians should not treat unvaccinated individuals, which is malevolent and disgusting. This type of medical discrimination could set a dangerous precedent. Do I have the right to refuse treatment to a patient involved in a motorcycle accident because I think motorcycles are too dangerous and people that ride them are being unnecessarily careless? Are we not obligated to treat emphysema, chronic bronchitis or lung cancer in patients that smoke? Smoking is universally understood to cause significant health consequences and physicians routinely educate their patients about the dangers, but some patients still choose to selfishly indulge. Can we refuse venereal disease treatment to polygamists?

Practicing medicine via oversimplification and absolutism produces standard care practices and ignores individualized patient needs.  Universal, mandatory “vaccination for all” is the epitome of oversimplification and absolutism. Clinical practice guidelines have been useful in developing strategies for treatment of common causes of certain diseases, but this doesn’t mean that we should treat a specific disease as it has manifested the same way in every patient.  For example, common practice and first-line treatment for hypercholesterolemia is a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statins). Statins do work well for people that hyperproduce cholesterol, but not for hyperaborbers. In order to identify patients that would respond well to statins, we need to know if the patient is a hyperproducer or hyperabsorber of cholesterol. Elevated desmosterol levels would indicate hyperproduction of cholesterol, while elevated phytosterol levels would indicate hyperabsorption; blocking synthesis of desmosterol in a hyperabsorber (elevated phytosterol levels) would be detrimental to their production of steroid hormones (estrogen, progestins, testosterone, cortisol, aldosterone, etc.) as the phytosterols are poor precursors for steroid hormone production and potency.  However, we have chosen the “statin for all” as our initial approach; often never providing an ultimate solution for the patient’s biological aberrancy, but ordain them to pharmacological dependence in perpetuity. For the hyperabsorbers, a bile acid sequestrant, like cholestyramine, would be more appropriate. One key to making sense of the universe is knowing that the answers we get are dependent entirely upon the questions we ask. We’d better be asking the right questions before we conclude we got the right answers. Often instead of getting laboratory results and acknowledging how high the value is, we need to understand WHY the value is what it is. There are myriad reason as to the cause.  Understanding WHY will determine our treatment direction. Targeted trial therapy is far superior to generic “trial and error.”

Falsification of evidence in science can occur in two ways; 1. overt fraudulent reporting of the results (uncommon); 2. inadequately understanding the background. Our COVID story has been riddled with mishandled information and a murky background understanding.  In the general population, we identified the virus through ultrasensitive PCR testing (I have written about this in a previous blog — A 30,000′ View), which catches way too many asymptomatic individuals and therefore overrepresented presence of illness. A positive PCR test (presence of virus) is not synonymous with symptomatic disease.  Producing this falsified, artificial background has provided much of the lay public with a false understanding of the true reproductive rate of the virus.  The Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen studies identified SYMPTOMATIC disease, not PRESENCE OF VIRUS.  There is a clear distinction between these two outcomes.

Moving forward, we need to acknowledge and respect those that choose to rely upon their God-given immune system, rather than a rushed, unfamiliar, new technology for vaccination. Alternate, successful treatment strategies would also greatly benefit those with a lethargic immune response to the vaccine. Realizing that antibody production wanes in the elderly population, protein-calorie malnourished individuals and other immunocompromised states make it more important to discover therapeutic treatment options. As physicians, we need to respect our patients’ lifestyle choices and provide a service to them, without judgment, that allows them to live their lives freely and return them to the activities they enjoy. It is not our position to be authoritarian dictators to our patients; we provide information, to the best of our ability, and let them decide how much violation to their body they are willing to accept to obtain a desired result. “My body, my choice,” has been used (although I would argue inappropriately) vehemently for women’s reproductive rights, but this same ideology is not applied to mandated COVID vaccines, which is profound cognitive dissonance. If individuals don’t have the right to determine, with informed consent, acceptance of a treatment (their body), then we have completely destroyed our social culture and given credence to our government that they know what is best for us. Benjamin Franklin aptly said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Freedom is not often lost through large, overt political overreach, it occurs in slow, incremental, deliberate steps; after decades of small, seemingly meaningless concessions, one day you’ll wake up and wonder where your freedom went. Questioning arbitrary, authoritarian rules should not be discouraged, especially when they do not apply to the dictators formulating them.

Published by Blakemillerdo

I am an orthopedic trauma surgeon that has become disillusioned by our traditional medical system as I do not believe it works well for the people it is designed to help. We have lost our vision and the cost of care for the product is unacceptable. This site has been designed to help elucidate problems in medicine and help direct a change for our patients!

5 thoughts on “The COVID-19 Conundrum, Part II

  1. Thank you again for your eloquent case for freedom of medical choice and bodily autonomy. Thank you also for providing the more important question of why one person responds better to medicine than another person. As a very curious person, I am always determined to find a root cause versus treating a symptom. Case in point, years ago a gynecologist pressured me to have a hysterectomy based upon symptoms. The Holy Spirit guided me to dig deeper and I found out that I had pelvic congestion syndrome. Easily fixed by an interventional radiologist. If I had allowed myself to be cut open, I would have lost out on future children ( which I had) and risk bladder prolapse, etc. And I still would have been left with untreated pelvic congestion syndrome. Years later, I found out through genetic testing that I rapid cycle progesterone, which explains why I am more prone to estrogen-driven problems. Your blog is a God send.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, Elle! Thank God you had the desire to educate yourself and preserve your anatomy to have children! That is a very refreshing story, but could have led to a complete disaster! I appreciate your interest in my topics and I’m happy that you find them useful and encouraging!

      Blake

      Like

  2. I am so thankful to hear of a doctor that actually knows what’s really going on. My own private internal medicine docs refuse to even consider there is anything other than the “shot”. I can’t believe they aren’t reading and researching especially with all of the questions they are getting from
    so many people. Also with the side effects from the “shots” that we know exist – they wouldn’t even know what they are to consider them for a differential diagnosis.
    I had to educate the PA in the office and she asked for articles. No one is educating them on the other side of the story. They rely on politicians to make medical decisions for us I have a handful of other doctors that I have been sharing with but I have really lost faith in the medical profession since I have learned how much of the education is tied to big pharma and bandaide medicine. I am a dentist and I am trying to wake people up as much as I can.
    In your part 2 article did you mean Regeneron vs Remdisivir ? Regeneron is the monoclonal antibodies that has to be given in under ten days. Remdisivir is the only treatment they use after day ten and it causes kidney failure in 50% or more cases and ofcourse the ventilator … and we know what happens once they are on that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hey Lisa,

      Thank you for reading! I meant remdesivir, as that has shown some promise in severe cases and was a medication that we were using to slow viral spread. It could be that the combination of severe disease (knowingly causing microembolization) in addition to the remdesivir caused kidney failure. Regeneron definitely shows promise for curbing symptoms as well at other TNF-alpha antagonists. Stay tuned for my next blog exposing the ultimate failure of medical education, resulting in lazy practice habits and encouraging treatment strategies that will reimburse higher rates.

      Thank you for fighting the good fight! We will win!

      Blake

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: