I think we have all heard the news that patients whose conditions have worsened enough to be put on a ventilator are crossing a threshold of much greater risk of dying. I don’t think it has been widely explained why this is.
The general implication is that if the disease is serious enough to require a ventilator, then it is the heightened seriousness of the disease that increases the chance of dying.
But there is another explanation coming forward, and that is that the ventilator is the wrong tool to use. It appears that in some, if not the majority of cases, the problem is not a failure to get air into the lungs. Instead, it is a failure to get oxygen out of the lungs and into the bloodstream. The ventilator addresses the first problem, but not the second one.
https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/
“We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue,” Kyle-Sidell warned. “I believe we are treating the wrong disease, and I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time.”
It seems to me that this new paradigm is being challenged by the safer preference for following the standard way of thinking. I think we need to ask Dr. Fauci about this.
EuclidI think we need to ask Dr. Fauci about this.
Methinks you need to ask a real doctor...
I'll be quiet now.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
EuclidBut there is another explanation coming forward, and that is that the ventilator is the wrong tool to use. It appears that in some, if not the majority of cases, the problem is not a failure to get air into the lungs. Instead, it is a failure to get oxygen out of the lungs and into the bloodstream. The ventilator addresses the first problem, but not the second one.
Non-morons understood this by 2012. If that wasn't clear enough by late 2019, subsequent discussion regarding the Percussionaire device alone would have established a number of the prospective difficulties ... and requirements.
Oddly, one of the 'correct' therapies for worsening ARDS would be facilitated by a line of research that would likely have been 'top news' had its publicity not been wiped out by the pandemic frothing: the commercialization AT LAST of an 'artificial heart' system that does not replace the patient's own heart but provides parallel pressure and circulation support as appropriate. This manifestly allows sufficient blood oxygenation to support gradual regrowth of lung tissue without the risk of trading off mechanical damage with 'respiratory' survival. (As a fringe benefit, careful selective filtration to reduce Il-6 or other cytokines as was demonstrated successfully in July 2017 would become a relatively simple adjunct therapy, probably easily provided by anyone knowledgeable as a commercial dialysis tech.)
Why anyone with appropriate medical knowledge continues to think intrusive ventilation is a meaningful response to advanced ARDS at all is a place conspiracy theories might be gainfully suggested. One place to watch is YouTube enforcement of its 'ban' on non-medical therapy discussions for COVID-19. While there are plenty of quacks needing correction (or worse) there is also some troubling potential for mistaken ideas to continue to be mainstreamed as if they were relevant going forward.
I was on a ventilator for some time. I don't remember much at all...I was parched and wanted a drink, rememeber that. I was told they were allowed to rub water on my lips taking great care not to have any of it into the mouth. Remember vividly I was 'somewhere else ' in great detail. Had no idea at all I was on it. At some point, close to when I came off, I remember hearing the beep-beep -beep and how it would start and stop and trying to guess watching a clock on the wall when it would start beeping again. That seemed real, think it was . Remember the noises made right at the end when they disconnected stuff from a station mounted on the wall. Like a carpenter putting tools back in the toolbox. Taste buds were totally shot for some time, food tasted awful.
The Head Nurse came by for a final go over checklist as I was sitting dressed in my room waiting for the final green light to go and one of the last things she said was " you are our Christmas Miracle " .
MM, if you don't mind my asking, what were you hospitalized for?
LO-- Flash Pulmonary Edema caused from a bacterial infection, from what I'm told. Lungs filled up with fluid, heart says I can't do this anymore, there was some heart damage,.. and then you call 911 on the third and last attempt to get it right while the world is fading fast ..wake up 3 weeks later after going on a journey somewhere else . Then your delusional for a week or more, which I remember very well. Some of that was funny.
Guess I was a real pain in the arse at times. Saw conspiracies everywhere, hid meds under my tongue and spit them out, tried escaping, even got outside once, called 911 twice stating they were going to BBQ me. Cops came. The view across the North Saskatchewan River was North Korea, with giant posters of Mao and Lenin and gigantic steam locomotives rolling by with coal trains. Whooo boy!
Holy crap, man. Glad you got through that. Really sounds like a close call and a very rough ride.
I hope you're feeling fine now. Be safe.
LO-- Yes I'm ok now. That was six years ago although I wound up in the hospital for ten days last year with a bad bug. I was conscious the whole time, had some frightening moments, but nothing like that.
When I called 911 I went outside to get to the top of the driveway. I was very disorientated and used the outside wall of the house to keep me up. Stumbling along, that's where they found me. I was told I was dead as a doorknob for 11 minutes. Was air ambulanced out to Saskatoon and woke up 3 weeks later. Another 10 days in the hospital, 7 of them loopy, then regained the real world. It was like a light switch , 'just like that'.
Spent a month at home, slept a lot, was grateful for all the simple things. I was very relaxed. Would pour myself a Coke, make a big deal out of it. On a nice tray, with a saucer and the glass full of ice. One of the things I saw clearly when I was 'gone' those 3 weeks. I just wanted something cold and quenching. My mind remembered that ventilator and was making darn sure I would not be denied now.
This is the clearest plain spoken explanation of the issues with using ventilators and how they are overcome with oxygen therapy using hyperbaric methods. The implications are monumental. If this reasoning proves to be correct, it means that a lot of lives have been lost due to using the improper remedy of ventilators.
This is opposed to the status quo belief that patients dying on ventilators is just a testament to how the disease is so threatening that ventilators are not enough to save them. Whereas the fact may be that it is the ventilators that are killing the patients.
Right now, the paradigm conflict is moving forward with evidence being presented. When it catches up, it may be clear in hind sight that the ventilator paradigm was a grave mistake; a malpractice resulting in thousands of needless deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4sG2-Ma_Y
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Vs. Ventilators for Respiratory Virus -Response to Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell
x
Euclid This is the clearest plain spoken explanation of the issues with using ventilators and how they are overcome with oxygen therapy using hyperbaric methods. The implications are monumental. If this reasoning proves to be correct, it means that a lot of lives have been lost due to using the improper remedy of ventilators. This is opposed to the status quo belief that patients dying on ventilators is just a testament to how the disease is so threatening that ventilators are not enough to save them. Whereas the fact may be that it is the ventilators that are killing the patients. Right now, the paradigm conflict is moving forward with evidence being presented. When it catches up, it may be clear in hind sight that the ventilator paradigm was a grave mistake; a malpractice resulting in thousands of needless deaths. Dr. Jason Sonners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4sG2-Ma_Y Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Vs. Ventilators for Respiratory Virus -Response to Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell
Dr. Jason Sonners:
Here is Dr. Kyle-Sidell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elgct0nOcKY
Euclid Euclid This is the clearest plain spoken explanation of the issues with using ventilators and how they are overcome with oxygen therapy using hyperbaric methods. The implications are monumental. If this reasoning proves to be correct, it means that a lot of lives have been lost due to using the improper remedy of ventilators. This is opposed to the status quo belief that patients dying on ventilators is just a testament to how the disease is so threatening that ventilators are not enough to save them. Whereas the fact may be that it is the ventilators that are killing the patients. Right now, the paradigm conflict is moving forward with evidence being presented. When it catches up, it may be clear in hind sight that the ventilator paradigm was a grave mistake; a malpractice resulting in thousands of needless deaths. Dr. Jason Sonners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4sG2-Ma_Y Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Vs. Ventilators for Respiratory Virus -Response to Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell Here is Dr. Kyle-Sidell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elgct0nOcKY
The problem in changing treatment regimes tends to start with Health Insurance and Malpractice Suits. There is no 'protection' for a healthcare practitioner when they pursue at treatment that is a variance with the generally accepted treatments. Health Insurance most likely won't pay for the non-standard treatment and if/when there is a bad outcome it opens the pratitioner to a 'slam dunk' malpractice judgement.
While the hyperbaric form of breathing may (MAY) be the most successful form of treatment - at this point in time it is not the generally accepted form of treatment for covid-19; thus many practitioners would be very hesitant in pursuing the 'new' form of treatment.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Wow, Miningman, that was quite an adventure. Glad you're with us today.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Thank you very much Paul of Covington, honoured to know you.
BaltACD Euclid Euclid This is the clearest plain spoken explanation of the issues with using ventilators and how they are overcome with oxygen therapy using hyperbaric methods. The implications are monumental. If this reasoning proves to be correct, it means that a lot of lives have been lost due to using the improper remedy of ventilators. This is opposed to the status quo belief that patients dying on ventilators is just a testament to how the disease is so threatening that ventilators are not enough to save them. Whereas the fact may be that it is the ventilators that are killing the patients. Right now, the paradigm conflict is moving forward with evidence being presented. When it catches up, it may be clear in hind sight that the ventilator paradigm was a grave mistake; a malpractice resulting in thousands of needless deaths. Dr. Jason Sonners: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4sG2-Ma_Y Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Vs. Ventilators for Respiratory Virus -Response to Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell Here is Dr. Kyle-Sidell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elgct0nOcKY The problem in changing treatment regimes tends to start with Health Insurance and Malpractice Suits. There is no 'protection' for a healthcare practitioner when they pursue at treatment that is a variance with the generally accepted treatments. Health Insurance most likely won't pay for the non-standard treatment and if/when there is a bad outcome it opens the pratitioner to a 'slam dunk' malpractice judgement. While the hyperbaric form of breathing may (MAY) be the most successful form of treatment - at this point in time it is not the generally accepted form of treatment for covid-19; thus many practitioners would be very hesitant in pursuing the 'new' form of treatment.
The death toll in this country is now said to be at least 80,000. How many of these deaths are due to patients dying from oxygen starvation while on the ventilator? This new paradigm concludes that ventilators are the wrong tool to use. This is because, although they power the lungs when their muscles are too fatigued, the lungs are not capable of delivering the inhaled oxygen to the blood stream. There is no way to prevent that problem. So the new paradigm is to circumvent the problem by adding oxygen directly into the bloodstream while bypassing the lungs.
It may not be as clear as determining which approach works best. While there may be great promise with the oxygen therapy, there are probably cases in which the ventilator works best or cases where a ventilator should be used with oxygen therapy. But new paradigms are not always held back by the need to change objective science. Attitudes and beliefs must also change, and they do not change overnight. Yet a quick and nimble response is exactly what is needed to make a pivotal change during a pandemic crisis. In this case, the change does not require new technology which might take a lot of time to develop. The technology for the change is readily available, and only thing holding it back is the attitudes and beliefs.
Seeing all of the various motives in this crisis, I have no confidence that the attitudes and beliefs protecting the ventilator treatment paradigm will change in time to mitigate the disease. Yet the science will move forward and reach more conclusions over time. As it does, it may become obvious that the ventilator paradigm is the wrong treatment. Then all we can do is look to future pandemics for application of the new treatment. We can also look back and realize that the ventilator treatment was the wrong approach to this current pandemic, and was directly responsible for deaths that could have been prevented by the new paradigm.
How many preventable deaths would that be? The current death toll is now over 80,000 with more to come. Will we look back and see that this wrong paradigm cost 50,000 lives? As we finally see the bigger picture, the statistics will paint a very stark picture of the consequences of not being able to respond to the new paradigm quickly enough.
EuclidHow many preventable deaths would that be? The current death toll is now over 80,000 with more to come. Will we look back and see that this wrong paradigm cost 50,000 lives? As we finally see the bigger picture, the statistics will paint a very stark picture of the consequences of not being able to respond to the new paradigm quickly enough.
Until the 'generally accepted principles of treatment' are changed by those the sanctify such treatments - from a 'practitioners' legal point of view - if there is a bad outcome from using the 'generally accepted principles of treatment' they are "protected" when the malpractice and wrongful death law suits come - AND THEY WILL. If there is a bad outcome and treatment other than the 'generally accepted principles of treatment' were followed - the practitioner will probably lose insurability from any malpractice insurer, if they are able to keep their medical license.
While everything I have seen would indicate hyperbaric oxygen treatment may be more promising - it has not achieved 'official' status as a accepted treatment. The death toll will continue, unfortunately. Healthcare and health insurance have painted themselves into a corner from being proactive in being able to explore alternative treatments.
When I retired - it took a year to get RR Medicare to understand that I had infact retired and they were on the primary hook for my healthcare expenses. Nothing moves fast in the world of healthcare and healthcare insurance.
The Italians, through autopsies, have identified some previously unrecognized factors in the deaths. This has led to a school of thought involving antibiotics and antivirals (chloroquine, anyone?) being the preferred treatment.
You can't necessarily fault the docs, who were following protocols and accepted practices. Who knew that certain NSAIDs would actually ascerbate the disease?
As the medical community sorts this out, we may reach the point of COVID being regarded as little more than a common cold.
tree68As the medical community sorts this out, we may reach the point of COVID being regarded as little more than a common cold.
But let's sort it out first.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
tree68The Italians, through autopsies, have identified some previously unrecognized factors in the deaths. This has led to a school of thought involving antibiotics and antivirals (chloroquine, anyone?) being the preferred treatment.
This has the actual science (such as it was) entirely bass-ackward. The original research on (hydroxy)chloroquine and anti-inflammatories was years before COVID-19. I am still trying to figure out how small-molecule 'Zithromax' style antibiotic came to be substituted in the "research" here -- I have read papers that attempt to describe the action, but they leave one more disquieted at the end than before reading.
You can't necessarily fault the docs, who were following protocols and accepted practices.
Can you be a little more specific on what these protocols and 'accepted practices' actually were, when researching a disease supposedly largely caused by a novel mutation? With all the whining going on about 'we need to know more' and 'further research is required' and 'science doesn't completely understand how xxxx effect of a drug, or symptom of a disease, is produced' it would be almost fatuous to think that 'normal science' paradigms should apply in a time of plague; on the other hand, some of these whackjob 'bridge' schemes for treatments or equipment couldn't possibly pass scientific muster, let alone medical IRB scrutiny. "Desperation" may be a necessary mother of invention; heaven knows the whole field of triage involves it intimately. But don't go pretending that's science in the sense of finding 'therapies' or "cures".
Who knew that certain NSAIDs would actually exacerbate the disease?
Meanwhile, be very careful about what the CDC people actually said about the problem of hydroxychloroquine 'therapy' -- personally I think that cardiac side effects are relatively tolerable in an emergency therapy (compare the effects of far more common chemotherapy) and that 'other forces' are making a considerable amount of FOD-style 'spider egg' capital out of it with little, if any, actual scientific justification, but that is only peripherally important to the medical issue.
I wondered about the purpose of the hydroxychloroquine early on, when charlie hebdo first mentioned the idea to me -- it turns out that it is supposed to create the effect of very strong acidity in the 'forming' association of envelope proteins and ACE2 complex that gives the extraordinary infectiousness. This is useful for oncologist-style 'therapy', but it begs the question entirely of 'what happens to the ACE2 after you have degraded the bound complex that was formed with the spike protein'. Evidently 'further research is required' because the permalink document on 'knowledge of proteins in SARS-CoV-2' had not been updated since December 2019, as of last night.
That does not mean that additional research hasn't been done, of course, or that much of it may be brilliant and well-conducted. Just that the official 'clearinghouse' reference document contains no reference to it.
As the medical community sorts this out, we may reach the point of COVID-19 being regarded as little more than a common cold.
Which, of course, is what it likely is to most of the population, and all it really was except for a couple of convenient point mutations that have made it some combination of 'superinfectious' and triggering of immune-system hyperreaction. I have been hearing all sorts of more-or-less-quack science in the past couple of days on the XM 'doctor channel' (hey, it's free for the duration of the pandemic!) about how to target the spike proteins with antibodies (evidently ignorant of syncytial issues) or whether making virus clones without functional E proteins will 'give us a vaccine'. I am still waiting for someone to tell me about protein tails on the ACE2 complex and mechanisms of regulation in the RAAS system.
Meanwhile, there are the usual idiots talking about 'other effects of COVID-19 in the body'. Most of which, surprise surprise, appear to be related to disseminated small clot formation in lungs affected by ARDS-induced necrosis, what a surprise that seems to be, a sort of 21st-Century version of catarrh, perhaps. There are people who say with a straight face that the anosmia is a result of this, without so far 'explaining' it any other way than some version of mini-ischemia. Which would be fine except they'll have to explain why it is selective and reasonably persistent in the absence of far more obvious pathology that would be evident if just smell and taste -- which work on a far different basis from the other senses, and are fascinating in their own right -- were selectively obliterated.
!
OvermodCan you be a little more specific on what these protocols and 'accepted practices' actually were, when researching a disease supposedly largely caused by a novel mutation?
A doctor with a very ill patient in front of them will reach into the established treatments/protocols for those symptoms. They aren't doing research as such, they're trying to save a life. I suppose you could regard trying different treatments in a clinical setting as research, but that goes on every day. Medication A doesn't effectively treat your illness, but another option, Medication B does. Or maybe they have to go to Medication C.
It appears that some, or most, of those treatments weren't actually appropriate - something on-going research has established.
When Viagra first hit the market, some first-line medications for heart attacks suddenly became contraindicated...
Where's Doctor Morell when you need him?
tree68 Euclid I think we need to ask Dr. Fauci about this. Methinks you need to ask a real doctor... I'll be quiet now.
Euclid I think we need to ask Dr. Fauci about this.
Do you question Dr.Fauci's credentials? Please elaborate.
243129Do you question Dr.Fauci's credentials? Please elaborate.
More than me. It's in the news.
He's a bureaucrat. I haven't trusted him from the beginning. He's always been in the "OMG YOU NEED TO LIVE IN FEAR" camp.
There is this today... comments! Seems to good to be true?
https://www.theblaze.com/news/coronavirus-treatment-antibody-covid19?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202020-05-15&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM%20-%20last%20270%20days
MiningmanThere is this today... comments! Seems to good to be true? https://www.theblaze.com/news/coronavirus-treatment-antibody-covid19?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202020-05-15&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM%20-%20last%20270%20days
Blaze Media is functionally Trump Media -
Contains the dread words 'Fox News'. And the guy talks like a Page Three girl.
Not that there's anything particularly novel about tinkering with clonable antibodies that have binding affinity to SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins (more effective than targeting other proteins in the viral structure) -- the proof of the science comes when you ask about binding of the antibody in syncytia, a word somewhat ominously missing from this happy-talk report.
Fun to see the good ol' C-word used in conjunction with an antibody therapy that will have to be periodically administered (probably at a tidy profit per dose) for the entire period it takes for the patient to develop their own immunity; note how carefully this is not mentioned and an alternative 'implication' is not-so-carefully touted.
Is it useful for at-risk patients? Sure is, perhaps dramatically so ... but again administering it needs to be done before the secondary immunological or cytokine-storm symptoms have developed: in short, before the patient runs a significant fever. So all the early noninvasive-testing concerns are still valid (and likely to remain so until well after the turn of the year).
tree68He's a bureaucrat. I haven't trusted him from the beginning. He's always been in the "OMG YOU NEED TO LIVE IN FEAR" camp.
I don't think wanting to protect yourself or others is "living in fear".
IMO, that's just the narrative people who are selfish and unwilling to alter their daily lives a little seem to cling to.
tree68 243129 Do you question Dr.Fauci's credentials? Please elaborate. More than me. It's in the news. He's a bureaucrat. I haven't trusted him from the beginning. He's always been in the "OMG YOU NEED TO LIVE IN FEAR" camp.
243129 Do you question Dr.Fauci's credentials? Please elaborate.
So those that understand risk 'live in fear'? Bovine you know what. Risk is taking a chance doing something that is not necessary and where the potential bad outcome is far and away more costly than what can be recieved from a successful outcome.
Death is rarely considered a good outcome. Weeks or months of hospitalization, while being a better outcome than death is not a good outcome, especially if one is left with some dibilitating condition for the balance of their life.
Going to a gathering with unknown or even known people, with unknown covid-19 conditions - these days is a BIG Risk, and what is the return.
Dr. Fauci is just disseminating the facts as he, with his medical education, understands them.
In my state, parts of it had restrictions eased as of 5 PM today. Other parts of the state - in accordance with the political leadership of those counties and Baltimore City have maintained the restrictions as implemented on March 30. Those political jurisdictions have the highest incidence of the disease in the state.
You know how many deaths South Korea has had? 260. That's right, 260.
If the US had the same ratio of deaths to population, we would have 1,700 deaths.
But we have 85,000 deaths.
Anyone who wants to believe Trump is doing a good job has the right to do so. It's a free country.
zugmannIMO, that's just the narrative people who are selfish and unwilling to alter their daily lives a little seem to cling to.
Or be able to support their families, keep their businesses, etc, and so on. Our paper just published a story about a small business going out of business because of this. Domestic violence is up, significantly. So are drug issues.
In 1969 we had the Hong Kong flu and Woodstock. We're on track to well exceed those 100,000 deaths, even with quarantines, pauses, shelter at home, etc.
It's not Fauci who's selling the live in fear story - it's the petit tyrants who are enjoying their reigns. But Fauci isn't doing anything to counter them. Far too many people seem to believe that simply catching this virus is a death sentence. Even at it's worst, the death rate was only ~2%. Fauci has been inconsistent, at best. It's not a problem. Oh, wait, it is. Wear a mask. Don't wear a mask. I wouldn't buy a used car from him.
And now they're finding that millions actually have had the virus, sans serious symptoms, and have developed antibodies.
At this point, my county has 67 confirmed cases since they started counting. And no deaths. There are, however, over 200 active cases of the flu in the county right now... And nationwide we've seen ~30,000 deaths from the flu so far this season...
This virus is a bad thing, no question. The question is whether the reaction to it was over the top. Many feel it was.
Is it really necessary to pull the license of a barber who is giving free haircuts to willing customers?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.