More evidence hydroxychloroquine works

What paper in the NEJM was “fudging data?

 

That is why I put the red line in my signature

life is too short to waste time on those who refuse to listen and learn. Quite of few who just keep repeating “but sum bloke on da internetz sed do so u is rong hur hur” have made it to my list as have the “All knowing Trump is God and cannot be challenged” group

 

Okay

I am willing

Where is your evidence of HCQs efficacy in treatment of COVID 19

 

I would not want to have to defend either class. The only benefit to such a task would be job security.

So, because of the dedication of people like this lady, Gladys West,


to other disciplines of science, I was able to read your links and watch your video while my tractor did the driving today! Man I love GPS and auto-steer technology.

That’s interesting he’s pulled HQC from recommendation completely. The video (posted two weeks ago to YouTube) of the interview you link below he says something similar to what he says now on the website but added if he’s infected he has his stash of HQC at home and will take it. On the website today it says “stay tuned” as if he is undecided. I agree if there is a better ionophore we should use it.

Also from the interview he stated the WHO trials of HQC (high toxic dosages) were designed to kill people. I was shocked to hear him say that.

It was the early research on HQC that interested me in the first place. I don’t/didn’t watch Trump’s briefings so my interest in HQC has always been at the evidence level. I still think it has potential as a zinc ionophore (I’ve never thought it had any other useful mechanisms) but if something better exists I’m all for it. Quercetin has been around the herbal/natural medical community a long time. I’m skeptical of, but very open to, that sphere of influence. Quercetin in my opinion is one of the more legit things to come out of that arena. I say trial the dang thing.

This was a good piece of work. Pretty comprehensive and informative. I especially liked the openness to new ideas but only based on good prior information. Because I’ll forget to say the same about Marik later, I found his thought processes to be the same. “Evidence based forward thinking” for lack of a better description. That really resonates with me because that’s how I try to approach new problems in my occupation.

Anyway back to Yanuck. I’m going to make a list to try and keep things brief.
1) Thanks for feedback on macrophages. It seems to me they may be the key to keeping this virus from going into the overactive immune response phase. But that’s just me thinking things through and some people here have a strong negative reaction to that.
2) I was fascinated by the bit on blood clots. Last I looked into C19 and clotting it was all a big mystery and now we know quite a bit. It was interesting the same mechanisms seem to be in play as we see in cystic fibrosis. Neutrophil extracellular traps are a new concept to me and now I’m curious what role they may play in bovine respiratory diseases.
3) The section on prevention/treatments was well done. I am a bit of a digestive tract flora buff since ruminants are important to me, but I never really thought about lung microbiota. The paper explained how both can keep your baseline inflammation low to decrease risk of excessive inflammation in later stage C19.
4) On a lighter note, I had never heard of licorice as a way to control overactive immune response. Seemed like a tasteful choice but turns out it’s contraindicated for C19 because of potassium wasting. Bummer.
5) Free ATP from viral lysed cells has been known to trigger immune response. It’s something I remember from microbiology. But when the paper mentioned not to take ATP supplements to avoid overstimulation of immune response I scratched my head. Supplements with ATP? I googled it and sure enough, it’s a thing! I’m going to keep rolling my own.
6) Vitamin D. This paper recommended 40-60 ng/ml levels being optimal. I’ve heard of a doctor who did a bunch of research on D a few years ago and he claims we should be shooting for 100-120 ng/ml. Here is his book and name. I’ve not read it. It’s free if you have kindle unlimited I think.

You likely know much more about D than I, but I think what’s known now is the tip of the iceberg.

I got ahead of myself and addressed this above.

Thanks. I understand why they conducted the research the way they did. I don’t have a problem with less than perfection if it’s out in the open and for a good reason. Which I agree timelines was important. I’m for learning when and where we can. Something I’ve been thinking about lately is this quote that fits our discussions well.

That’s why I hate to see this disease and the science involved be politicized. You end up with people who want to stop asking questions.

Absolutely agree.

I think you will enjoy this interview. It sounds like you respect his work already. I have been to a doctor once in the last 27 years (broken collar bone). I’m just not a big consumer of healthcare. But if I needed a doc this dude is one I could feel good about seeing. On to the meat...

The big takeaway for me was how he differentiates the infection phase from the immune overreaction phase. It seems our bodies are really quite good at beating the virus but then we (sometimes) get carried away and can’t stop immune response and end up hospitalized. But by then the virus is beat and it’s all about mitigation of inflammatory response and getting the immune system back under control. I guess we know this, he just does a really good job of putting it all together so his MATH+ makes sense to people like me.

Excellent explanation of the role of melatonin, Vit.C, etc.

He answers several questions submitted to the interviewer. He’s a good communicator. I’d recommend everyone following this thread to watch it if you can.

A couple questions he responded to cracked me up. One question was more of a comment on the acronym MATH. The person submitting it said MATH should stand for Make America Think Harder. Sounds glib at first but pretty profound if you give it a bit of thought. Marik is certainly a thinker.

It’s people like Merik that are saving lives. He’s taking what’s known and applying it to C19 in novel ways. And by his results he’s applying it correctly.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Fabulous post, 557. After having interacted with someone here who doesn't even start comprehending the most basic concepts in Medicine until I took steps to screen out his "FAKE SCIENCE!!!" claims, it is refreshing to talk to someone who is well equipped to understand everything I'm bringing to the table, from whom I learn too, and who respects real science. The least I can say is that your animals are in good hands.

Yes, I admire Dr. Marik and I'll watch the full video this weekend when I have a moment.

To answer your question regarding Vitamin D, I once did a comprehensive review of it, including because I was negatively impressed with a colleague's habit of using megadoses for a long time for his patients. As you know, the A D E K liposoluble vitamins can be toxic in excess. So, to counter what this colleague was doing I dug dip into it and found good evidence that above 75, there is an overall increase in mortality by all causes, and there is hypercalcemia and increased deposit of calcium in major arteries. Therefore, I do not share Sommerville's enthusiasm for the 100-120ng/ml range. I remember that when I found the detrimental side of the > than 75 range, certain sources still tolerated 75 to 100 but definitely not above 100. Other sources, though, do only consider the toxic threshold at 150 ng/ml (which is equivalent to 375nmol/L if your lab practices this method).

Lay people may not realize how dangerous this vitamin can be. Symptoms of VDT (Vitamin D Toxicity) may be similar to those of other hypercalcemic states and include neuropsychiatric manifestations, such as difficulty in concentration, confusion, apathy, drowsiness, depression, psychosis, and in extreme cases, stupor and coma. The gastrointestinal symptoms of VDT include recurrent vomiting, abdominal pain, polydipsia, anorexia, constipation, peptic ulcers, and pancreatitis. The cardiovascular manifestations of VDT include hypertension, shortened QT interval, ST segment elevation, and bradyarrhythmias with first-degree block on the EKG. The renal symptoms include hypercalciuria as the earliest sign, polyuria, polydipsia, dehydration, nephrocalcinosis, and renal failure. Other symptoms of VDT caused by hypercalcemia include band keratopathy, hearing loss, and painful periarticular calcinosis.

You don't want your therapy to cause other problems you'll then need to treat. The Treatment of VDT beyond discontinuation of Vit D (and avoidance of sunlight and UV-B sources) includes IV fluids, loop diuretics once volemia is restored (attention to loss of potassium if a loop diuretic is used for too long), glucocorticoids e.g. hydrocortisone 100mg/day (which accelerate elimination of calcium and enhances the metabolization of Vit D into inactive metabolites) and antiresorptive therapy with calcitonin and bisphosphonates.

There was an IOM report in 2011 warning us about even levels as low as >50. Those effects include higher all-cause mortality, and higher incidence of certain cancers (breast, pancreatic, and prostate), as well as falls and fractures. What is correlation and what is causality, I don't know.

IOM (Institute of Medicine) Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; (2011) p. 1–1115.

You can download the full report from this link (click on PDF ResearchNet on the right side):

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+Calcium+and+Vitamin+D&publication_year=2011&

The other side of it is that there doesn't seem to be enhanced efficacy above 75, so, why go for those higher levels? I'm content with aiming for around 70.

 

Thanks. I just love biology and am addicted to learning. This forum can be frustrating. Just so you know, I’m the resident “pseudoscientist” here in some people’s opinion. We just have to remember this is a political forum so most people care little about facts or evidence. They just want to score political points. It’s a human nature thing, not specific to one party or ideology. I usually engage the authoritarian types most because I hate to see bad information or policy based on bad information forced on others. If people are ok living their own ignorance without trying to affect others with it I tend to ignore it.

Anyway, I’m having a ball discussing this without political overtones.

Cool. I wasn’t aware of any symptoms of excess D beyond artery calcification. Didn’t realize hypercalcemia had so many negative effects. My knowledge of calcium levels is more on the hypocalcemia side. Specifically “milk fever” in bovines. If caught before death occurs it’s the most rewarding condition to treat in the animal world. You can take a cow that’s unresponsive flat on the ground with shallow breathing and severe tachycardia to up eating in a matter of minutes.

As far as higher levels of D supplementation, I’ve heard supplemental magnesium and possibly Vit. A can confer tolerance to high serum levels of D. Did you run into anything like that in your review?

Also, what is the average levels of D you see in the wild without supplementation? Do you think deficiencies are prevalent?

 

Definitely. I've been trying to say forever, this issue should be a public health and medico-scientific issue, not a political issue. But I guess politics infiltrates everything, these days.

I don't recall that. Would have to look again. Since I've been aiming for a moderate range I haven't looked into how to tolerate higher ranges.

I never tabulated it to look at averages but have encountered deficiency consistently, as low as 12, often between 20 and 29. It's definitely very prevalent especially among African-Americans. By the way, in humans low vit D can also contribute to causing fatigue, low energy, and depression. The patients I encounter who have it normal without supplementation, often have it low normal (32, 33, etc).

 

Review the thread.

 

Am I supposed to have asked you to do something?

Exactly what are you "willing" to do?

 

Don't have time to participate in the moment, work is crazy, but I am enjoying following a respectful discussion that actually includes scientific facts. Keep going!

 

I am willing to listen to why you believe HCQ is effective

So far you have railed against those who believe it is not, woven elaborate conspiracy theories around why is it is not used for every case of COVID and done essentially everything BUT provide solid double blinded clinical trials proving its effectiveness

 

Medscape recently (as in the last week) had an article on COVID and vitamin D unfortunately I can not retrieve it at home until I do some deep unravelling of my ruddy password!

Here is an interesting article Meanwhile https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(20)30268-0/fulltext

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/hydroxy_hysteria_reaching_a_fever_pitch.html

 

A graph showing sales of ice cream in the summer very closely matches a graph for shark attacks in the summer. From this correlation and what you're implying above, I'm sure that ice cream consumption causes shark attacks.

 

Lols

it is from “American Stinker” which has always leaned toward the Alex Jones end of Journalism

 

Good call.

It is always comical when people show graphs that have absolutely nothing to do with making their point.

Kind of like this:

 

I know. What is a pity is that there are poor souls who read this crap and believe in it: "See? This proves that HCQ works!"

No, it doesn't. It is a mere correlation, and a faulty correlation to boot, done out of selective quoting, because the case of Brazil, for example, is conveniently excluded from the comparison, given that it is a country with a HUGE case-fatality rate, where HCQ is not only allowed, but very strongly encouraged to the point of being distributed to the population for free, which didn't do a think to curb the contagion or lower the CFR, there.

But let's assume for a moment that the correlation holds (I doubt it, given the case of Brazil and probably many others, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume it does). Then we'd have to look at a huge number of intervening factors that might better explain the correlation than the putative effect of HCQ.

For example, what's the average age of these populations? We know that the elderly die more often so countries with older average will have higher CFR.

Not only that, but how has the virus distributed among the age groups? We know of countries that have better secluded their elderly like South Korea so that the typical person with COVID-19 there is much younger than in other countries, resulting in lower case-fatality rate.

What's the social behavior of these populations? We know that Italy's high CFR has been attributed to several factors (I saw 6 listed in an Italian paper, none being the banning of HCQ) such as, among others (including Italy having one of the oldest populations in the world) the fact that in Italy the elderly typically reside with their younger relatives instead of in retirement communities, and they were particularly hard-hit by their youngsters getting the virus out there and bringing it home to them.

Then we need to look at when HCQ got yanked out. The bulk of Italy's high mortality rate happened BEFORE it was withdrawn, while it was still being actively encouraged and used.

Then we need to look at co-morbidity. It's been speculated that the CFR in the US is higher than expected because we have the highest obesity and diabetes indexes in the world, with 40% of our population having one or both, plus another 100 million people with hypertension.

Then you need to look at the pattern of use of HCQ despite discouragement. In the US it is not banned; any physician can still prescribe it off-label, and we know that it was extensively used, maybe much more than in some of the quoted countries where it isn't banned or discouraged, but still, our CFR is higher. So just saying banned/not banned, encouraged/discouraged is not the whole story. How many people, say, in Chile have actually been taking it? Could be a lower proportion than in the US although it's encouraged there and discouraged here.

Then, we have to look at testing. Countries that engaged in extensive testing, like the UAE having one of the highest testing per million of the population in the world (5th highest with only 4 tiny countries being higher), 531,000 tests per million of the population, meaning that more than 1 in 2 citizens have been tested (and among the non-tested half, there are probably millions of children who don't really need to be tested as COVID-19 is fairly harmless to them, so likely the proportion is even higher), will inevitably show a lower CFR because they'll be diagnosing more mild and asymptomatic cases, than a country with limited testing that is mostly testing the people sick enough to go to hospitals, so that they'll show a higher CFR.

I could go on and on. Healthcare structure, quality of testing, accessibility, etc., etc.

Anyway, what is done to sort out a situation like this, when there is a correlation but there are too many intervening factors?

A correlation points to an interesting hypothesis - "could HCQ be responsible for a lower CFR?" Then what is done is that we put it to the test, through randomized controlled trials, exactly to AVOID the influence of the numerous intervening factors I've mentioned above, and get to pure, exempt numbers that will deliver an answer.

Well, well, that HAS been done. And what did it show? Large RCTs have demonstrated that HCQ does NOT reduce CFR, not for severe cases, not for mild and moderate cases, and not even as a prophylactic.

So, the conclusion is that whatever differences in CFR are seen in different countries, they are due to something else, NOT to HCQ, since HCQ is not active in-vivo against the SARS-CoV-2, as confirmed by randomized controlled trials, which are the only way to sort out if a correlation is merely a correlation, or if it is indeed causal.

In other words, ice cream consumption doesn't cause shark attacks... But rather, an intervening factor, the summer heat, makes people buy more ice cream AND go more into the ocean, thus increasing shark attacks.

If you were to run a randomized controlled trial giving to half the population real ice cream and the other half placebo ice cream (probably wouldn't taste as good), one would find that the rate of victimization by shark attacks will not differ among the active group and the placebo group. So, it's not the ice cream. It's something else (in this case, the summer heat).

 

Stop, there is too much reasoning in your post that confuses people. They'd rather have the simple, black and white answer of HCQ=cure, because Trump touted the drug. Funny, because most of them had never heard of that drug >6 months ago, and if the did, they didn't care about it. Now, they have become emotionally attached.

 

Another content empty reply - unless you count random 'railing'.

Try framing some kind of substantive reply.
Silly election cycle rants are not very effective these days.

 

I believe the political elites and the media are using every issue they can to create false dichotomy to divide us.

I’m interested because I don’t believe we can analyze vitamins, steroids, minerals, and micro/macro nutrients independent of one another. Your list of things Vit.D can influence demonstrates the complexity of not just the immune system but all bodily functions and processes. In short, perhaps a deficiency or less than optimal level (or an excess, it cuts both ways) of something else, say magnesium, causes hypercalcemia from “excess” D. If all other potential antagonist, cofactors, substrates, etc. are at optimal levels, what we see as excessive levels clinically may not actually be excessive.

Not a perfect analogy, but something I’m contending with presently in my beef herd is the relationship of copper, selenium, sulfur, and molybdenum. Years ago we determined some of our immune deficiency problems leading to calf E. Coli and viral diarrhea problems were caused by prenatal and neonatal copper deficiency, even though dietary intake was more than adequate. Thankfully enough people were having the problem university research commenced and it was determined molybdenum levels in forage produced in certain soils was an antagonist to copper absorption. So we worked to lower dietary molybdenum and started using chelated copper mineral supplements and were successful. Until the ethanol industry ballooned and we all started feeding cheap, high protein/fat distillers byproducts. Well, nobody thought about the fact byproducts have high sulfur content and sulfur works with molybdenum to tie up copper absorption. Train wrecks of calf scours and all kinds of reproduction problems in cows resulted. In a few months it was all figured out at the theoretical level but it took the development of a good injectable supplement containing copper, selenium, manganese, and zinc to really correct everything at the population level in the herd.

But here’s the kicker. All this time we were working on copper, we were trying to optimize selenium (and Vit.E) as well. We weren’t seeing clinical symptoms of deficiency, but we knew it needed to be optimal for immune function and general growth and reproductive efficiency. As I’m sure you deal with in humans as well, it’s very easy to induce selenium toxicity. The “safe” range is narrow. So on the research side we kept bumping things up a little. We chelated selenium in mineral supplements and even included it in the injectable supplements I mentioned earlier. I thought we had it nailed.

Until a couple years ago when I started getting a handful of classic white muscle disease cases in neonatal calves. When treated with subcutaneous injections of selenium these calves recover in hours. These calves are out of dams getting more than sufficient selenium from feed, mineral supplements, and the injectable supplement. The calves are getting the same injectable supplement at birth. Have been for years. Feed rations similar, water source all the same. Feed samples show no increases in molybdenum or any other possible antagonist I’m aware of. And yes, Vit. E is sufficient as well prenatal and neonatal and symptoms are reversed only with selenium while Vit.E is ineffective.

So calves that by rights should show selenium toxicity if anything, are starting to show classic selenium deficiency in select individuals. There is no sign of deficiency in herd health overall.

So clearly there is something being overlooked. Perhaps someday I’ll figure it out. Genetic shifts perhaps? Maybe it will be a problem for others and someone with full access to a lab will research what’s going on. (Maybe someone with your experiences in humans will see what I’m missing). But at this point there isn’t enough economic impact to drive serious research.

Isn’t that kind of what happened to Vit. D initially? Once we isolated it and determined we could keep kids out of the hospital with rickets at certain levels we assumed we had D figured out for many years. Now we know there is a lot we don’t yet know about it.

I guess my point is I don’t think we know enough about optimal levels of D and a bunch of other hormones, vitamins, minerals, etc. to stop asking questions about what’s optimal for individuals. Especially considering we haven’t even thrown genetics into the mix except for your brief reference below on D deficiency demographics.

Thanks. So deficiency is not uncommon and neither is borderline deficiency. I’ve read individuals react quite differently to the same supplementation dosages. Have you observed that? Also, I’ve heard of mail in test kits. Are they reliable in your experience?

 

LOL, I think you're overestimating me because my head is now spinning with all the oligoelements you've mentioned above... I can handle one by one but the interactions between them are very complex. This is more for nutritionists and endocrinologists... I see your points, though, and that's why it is interesting to have integrative approach to Internal Medicine as well, but I'd say it's still in its infancy because we simply get too busy with other major illnesses and their complex treatments and tend to regretfully overlook the various aspects of nutrition and vitamin/oligoelement supplementation for optimal health.

Regarding mail-in test kits for vit D, again I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you regarding their accuracy because I have zero experience with them, given that I've been practicing in hospitals for decades and we do own own Vit D levels in our lab so no need to use mail-in. About individuals reacting differently to same supplementation dosages, absolutely. Vit D deficiency is generally sluggish to correct but some patients do correct it faster than others and I've had patients in pretty hefty daily doses for months who are still barely above the low normal, while others shoot up with modest correction. I guess it's individual metabolization speed according to the genes. Now we have genomic testing and we can look at the likelihood of fast, average, and sluggish metabolization in the P450 system for a very large number of medications, and that's neat; explains why patients have insufficient results with regular doses (fast metabolizers) while others get toxic fast (slow metabolizers; the drug tends to accumulate as steady state is not reached since elimination doesn't happen as completely so subsequent doses push the level higher and higher until it is toxic).

 

If HCQ works, why is Trump giving away our HCQ supply to Brazil when we had a shortage?

 

Well we chose not to be researchers so I guess we just have to wait for others to figure out the answers to the questions we can’t answer ourselves. They say choices have consequences!

Oh to have a staffed in-house lab! If I go to the trouble of drawing blood or collecting fecals or tissue samples it all has to be mailed directly or sometimes through a veterinarian. It’s days to weeks before I learn anything and by then the “patient” is dead or recovered.

I did not know such a genetic test existed for metabolism of drugs. That’s fascinating. Does it take pressure off prescribing decisions or just add another layer of things to consider? Seems it would allow for much better tailoring of treatment to the individual instead of averages of the illness/condition.

I’ll shut up and give you a break. You probably don’t want to deal with work subjects away from work all the time.

 

No, you don't need to shut up and give me a break, I'm enjoying our exchange.

About genomic testing: yes and no. They are helpful but not yet extremely well-developed. We have, what, 20,000 to 25,000 genes, right? One of the tests I use, analyzes 28 genes. The company offers consultation with a pharmacology PhD over the phone, after the result is issued. So we've discussed cases, and I had this and that question, and some features of the test didn't match what I expected for my patient, and his standard answer was "must be mediated by one of the thousands of genes we're not yet able to analyse." Again, it's in its infancy. An editorial on these tests in one of the major journals (I don't recall which one) said they may become helpful but are not yet ready for prime time, and the FDA has sanctioned one of the makers for false advertising and for making too many promises.

I'd say that they are a bit better than that (I think that often regulators lag behind scientific progress), but they still have many limitations. One of them is cost. They are going for $2,500. So, Medicaid and Medicare do pay for it, and some private insurances do, but not all. I've had patients pay out of pocket, although I told them (which is true) that in my experience the results were only helpful at best in 50% of cases and even for those, sometimes the results weren't enormously helpful, just a little helpful. I always say that before a patient decides if he/she wants the test, in case it's not covered.

Now, proponents of these tests, which includes trade people so it's not unbiased science, ran a large database study I believe using the Kaiser Permanente database, to see if prescribing practices guided by genomic testing saved money or not, in the long run. Their conclusion (duh, they want to sell the test) was that improved patient outcomes ended up saving money even if the test costs $2,500. They were able to show average savings of $3,000 in one year... a bit too convenient in my opinion, haha. Sounds like they priced their product exactly to fit that number... or came up with that number exactly to fit their price.

I presented a Grand Rounds on these tests, in my hospital, given that I was one of the pioneers in using them, there, and colleagues asked me to do a presentation for them. I used lots of caution and tried to present the most unbiased view with pros and cons, strengths and shortcomings, and I do not have any interest whatsoever in the companies that market these tests, receive no kick back of course (I'm ethical) and no personal advantage in any way, shape, or form, and I didn't even say in my Grand Rounds if I had a positive or negative impression of these tests, but rather allowed the audience to reach their own conclusions (just presented the latest literature on them, described each gene they analyzed and their various variations with their signficance, and my own results with my live patients, warts and all, including the patients for whom the tests made no difference whatsoever). But between us, in this anonymous forum, I'll tell you: my view is still favorable. I understand that it is still primitive, but I think that for some patients it makes a significant difference.

I had a patient who wasn't improving at all. Many colleagues had tried this or that, no result. She was transferred to my service from another service after they couldn't get her anywhere. I did the test, and changed 3 of her medications according to the results. Boom, great and immediate improvement, and she was successfully discharged. Her brother was so impressed that he wrote a letter to the administration, praising me.

And even in some of the patients for whom there wasn't a net benefit, at least we learned more about them. For example, one of them didn't seem to respond at all to a class of medications that are first choice for her condition, even though we tried different ones from that class. I ran the test. It didn't give me any better option and she continues to be just as sick, but it did show me why she wasn't improving: due to a mutation, she lacked a transponder enzyme that was essential for the very mechanism of action for that class of medications. So she could NOT respond. Well, like I said, there was no alternative as her genes were unfavorable to other options too, so she continued to not improve (some people are just not lucky and are born with the wrong combination of genes) but at least now we know why and at least we stopped trying to give her one medication after the other from that class, which at least saved her some money and some side effects. We listed her case as refractory and we give her palliative care, now, without trying any heroics.

OK, 28 genes versus 20,000 to 25,000... so it's an interesting approach but in its infancy. On the other hand, that keeps me employed, LOL. Because if one day we get to be able to analyse all 20,000 to 25,000 human genes to figure out how patients will respond to different treatments, then I'll be out of a job. A patient will give a blood sample, and a supercomputer will run the test and analyze everything, and cough up the ideal prescriptions...

 

I won’t then! I’m so out of the human healthcare loop as far as day to day operations go I’m learning a lot even beyond the C19 stuff.

How long has this been available to you? In cattle we’ve had Expected Progeny Difference (EPD’s) databases for ages. All based on measurable traits like birth weight or rib eye area. They have been how we pick genetics to improve our herds. About ten years ago they started dabbling in genetic tests to verify the information from measuring phenotype for EPD’s. I think now there are tests for a few performance traits as well as some genetic diseases. And of course parentage verification. But just like the testing you describe it’s really baby steps now. I have no idea how many genes are involved at this point. I really haven’t kept up with it because my wife handles all the purchases of genetics for all our animals. She’s much better at pairing different lines and predicting what the offspring will be like as well as picking animals based on phenotype alone. So I’m thankful she takes care of it. I think in a few years though EPD’s based on measurable traits will be outperformed and outpaced by genetic testing. I suppose something like you describe might exist in the animal world someday but it’s going to have to be less expensive than $2500 for a single test.

I wonder will prices drop or will they just add genes? Ha, when do prices ever drop. LOL

Sounds like you know a bit about marketing!

You must break the hearts of a lot of company reps.

From what you’ve said it sounds like this has the potential to really help a lot of people. For-profit business being the provider of the service has its downsides, but in my opinion it’s the best way to make advancements like this.

Awesome. With that many medications involved process of elimination tactics would have taken forever and still maybe not yielded as good of results. Did you share your secret with the other service? I’ve always wondered how much medical professionals share ideas or successes with others. The video interview of Dr. Marik you showed me had a question from a viewer about that. Sounded like maybe a nurse or something asking how to get her hospital to adopt the MATH+ protocol. He said something about following chain of command but I’m not sure what that is. It’s hilarious I’m asking you these questions. My college roommate is an anesthesiologist and runs a hospital he and some colleagues built about 40 miles from me but I only see him once a year or so and never talk about that stuff.

The stories I hear from people about side effects of drugs make me hope I go another 27 years without having to see a doctor barring injury. How do people react to the news they are not capable of responding to medication like that? Do you think it upsets some people more than not knowing? It starts getting into ethics at some point. I know it seems a long way off but at some point we are going to want to either design offspring based on parental testing or “choose/reject” pregnancies based on prenatal genetic testing. When I was in college they were talking about “sexing” semen for artificial insemination. They hadn’t figured out the sorting mechanism at that point but the ethics were being discussed because we knew it was coming. There were some people opposed to the practice, actually more than I would have expected. Today, it’s common practice and as far as I can tell universally accepted ethically. When people realized the economic advantages it wasn’t long before that was the primary driver of acceptance, not ethics. I was never opposed, but I’ll be honest I thought about it a lot. And I came down on the side of economics (I’ve not heard a real good argument against the practice but realize slippery slopes start somewhere) obviously because I’ve got a bunch of sexed (heifer) Jersey semen in liquid nitrogen in my garage.

Good point. And another can of worms with automation and artificial intelligence putting us all out of work. They will need you when the computer is down.