Abilify during crash? Save crash?

Messages
819
Likes
1,446
In my first 5 ot 6 years with ME/CFS, I had pretty bad mental health symptoms (appearing after the mild brain damage of the encephalitis which triggered my ME/CFS). These symptoms included depression, anhedonia, anxiety, mild psychosis and others.

I found that oxymatrine greatly worsened my depression, so was unable to take it, much as I wanted to try it. Only many years later, when I had improved a bit in health was I able to take oxymatrine without getting depression. But then unfortunately I found it did not help.
Ah ok but the many years later did you have any noticeable worsening or just no effect at all?
 
Messages
819
Likes
1,446
Very little effect. I tried oxymatrine on many occasions, just to double check, and sometimes I'd be a little more tired on the first week, but other times I noticed no change in symptoms.
Ah ok wow, even up to 6 pills a day? I think Martin didn't notice any effect either IIRC.

Maybe I should try it again if I can stabilise enough..? I just figured the symptoms were from inflammation as it is immunostimulatory and I should have noticed a benefit over the duration that I tried it. But if some people can take 3 months to respond maybe it's worth trying. But 3 months of being really bad and virtually in PEM the entire time from the side effects of the oxymatrine? I think I was partly worried it was just wearing me down and crashing me.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,246
Likes
38,666
I think you gave oxymatrine a good run, and did not see benefits. You could be one of these rarer people who need more than 3 months to respond, but that would be a long time I it makes you feel so much worse.

I took up to 6 pills of the AMS 300 mg oxymatrine tablets a day, which is a very high dose, but still no effect.
 
Messages
819
Likes
1,446
I think you gave oxymatrine a good run, and did not see benefits. You could be one of these rarer people who need more than 3 months to respond, but that would be a long time I it makes you feel so much worse.

I took up to 6 pills of the AMS 300 mg oxymatrine tablets a day, which is a very high dose, but still no effect.
Thanks Hip.

Seems like tenofovir et al are still worth pursuing though. Any easy place to check dosages and durations etc? Or interactions between them.?
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,246
Likes
38,666
I seem to remember there being a Facebook group or Whatsapp group for tenofovir and other antiretroviral drugs for ME/CFS. I was not in the group, but one person I know who was a member said some people had strong reactions to tenofovir, so had to start with a fraction of a tablet, and work up.

Maximum dose used by these people is 300 mg daily. Though 150 mg daily may be enough.

Unfortunately tenofovir caused mild psychosis side effects for me, so I was unable to try it, though I really wish I could.
 
Messages
819
Likes
1,446
I seem to remember there being a Facebook group or Whatsapp group for tenofovir and other antiretroviral drugs for ME/CFS. I was not in the group, but one person I know who was a member said some people had strong reactions to tenofovir, so had to start with a fraction of a tablet, and work up.

Maximum dose used by these people is 300 mg daily. Though 150 mg daily may be enough.

Unfortunately tenofovir caused mild psychosis side effects for me, so I was unable to try it, though I really wish I could.
Thanks I'll check the roadmap and be aware of reactions. Damn, psychosis - maybe clearing enterovirus from your brain... 🤔
 

Victronix

Senior Member
Messages
415
Likes
197
Location
California
The latest study I read about ivermectin is that is only worked for COVID in countries with a high prevalence of Strongyloides (an intestinal parasite which ivermectin will easily kill). The implication is that ivermectin reduces COVID deaths by killing this parasite which can be life-threatening when immunity becomes weak.
There are a LOT of ivermectin studies out there. Here is a good updated list with filters - https://c19ivermectin.com/#early

The trick with Ivermectin is that it has to be taken very early since the mechanism functions to disrupt the replication of the virus. That phase only lasts days, so within the first few days is the only window of time when it will make a big difference. So studies have been done for both HCQ and Ivermectin with patients who are weeks into the illness and then they say, "See? It didn't work." Similarly, studies with huge dosages that never should have been given, either out of ignorance or intention, and studies having to be halted. Headlines can then be made of those.

I've heard a number of anecdotal stories of people getting COVID and seeing it "knocked out" within hours after taking Ivermectin, including a close friend who only took ivermectin and vitamins, who is a man in his 80s. Dr. Robert Malone - who got COVID, then long COVID, then got vaccinated in hopes it would help the long COVID symptoms; It didn't - was surprised to discover, months later, that Ivermectin did improve those symptoms - within 3 days of taking it he reported on Twitter.

As a cheap generic repurposed drug, Ivermectin was overtly quashed in the mainstream media to redirect people toward vaccination.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,246
Likes
38,666
The trick with Ivermectin is that it has to be taken very early since the mechanism functions to disrupt the replication of the virus.
Ivermectin has no known in vivo antiviral mechanism that I am aware of.



As a cheap generic repurposed drug, Ivermectin was overtly quashed in the mainstream media to redirect people toward vaccination.
The suppressed cancer cure that "THEY" do not want you to know about. How many times have I seen that cliche written.
 

Victronix

Senior Member
Messages
415
Likes
197
Location
California
Ivermectin has no known in vivo antiviral mechanism that I am aware of.
"Recently, Caly et al. reported on the antiviral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 [9]. These authors demonstrated that a single dose of ivermectin was able to reduce the replication of an Australian isolate of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero/hSLAM cells by 5000-fold." (in vitro)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

The suppressed cancer cure that "THEY" do not want you to know about. How many times have I seen that cliche written.
I'm not talking about cancer, I'm talking about COVID.

"They" being the CDC & FDA to start with. "THEY" used shoddy studies to try to force their policies through. Some excellent analyses of the ways in studies put forth by the CDC and FDA have misrepresented results for the agenda to vaccinate as many people as possible (even 6 mo old with boosters) are on Dr. Vinay Prasad's channel (Hematologist Oncologist, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at UCSF, a big vaccine advocate who has been shocked at the actions of the CDC/FDA) -


Even Dr. John Campbell, another good doctor, a popular vaccine supporter with a 2M+ subscriber base, was shocked to see the Pfizer data (over 1200 deaths in the first 3 months after vaccination) himself when it was forced out by the courts.


These doctors and many others are in disbelief over how bad the regulatory agencies have performed and 2 FDA members have already resigned over it. This is not something you can just brush aside and label "conspiracy nonsense" but understanding what is going on takes time and effort that most are not willing to do because they don't feel comfortable saying the leading regulatory agencies in the nation are essentially committing fraud.

Multinational pharmaceuticals who are contracting with every nation in the world to get as many people injected as possible, are simply going to be economically motivated. They donate to politicians and, sadly, fund the FDA, so have a vested interest in suppressing repurposed treatments. There are multiple levels at which the regulatory agencies, pharmaceuticals (making more money than ever in history) and the media, work to push certain narratives and suppress others.

https://www.science.org/content/art...a-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/beleaguered-fda-in-talks-for-drug-company-funding-11626177049
https://www.pogo.org/investigation/...ry-funding-money-comes-with-strings-attached/

From a friend of mine, below. This is the level of analysis that has to be done to translate what the studies making headline news actually are doing. The vast majority of people just trust or assume that journals and three letter government agencies and well-intentioned vaccine makers really just have our best interests in mind, and would never let an economic or political motive drive their findings.

And who has time for all this? Easier to just say "I don't trust the conspiracists" and move on for most.

------
To make it easier going for the non-researcher, here are several of the key deliberate sins of the TOGETHER study:

1) It was designed to under-dose patients, first, by trying to give only a single dose of IVM, then by limiting dosing to three days and limiting the top dosage for someone weighing circa 200 pounds so that the most obese (who are most vulnerable and die from COVID) were inadequately medicated.

2) The control group did not use concurrent usage of IVM as a rule-out condition for participation. Hence, some of the control group patients were also self-treating with IVM (for other conditions).

3) The treatment and control groups were from different time periods with two different variants of COVID. The control group was taken from a period when a mild strain of COVID was afoot (so IVM's utility was limited) while the treatment group was challenged by a devastating strain of COVID, so even IVM's power faced a much stiffer challenge: and thus there was no honest comparison between the effects of IVM on the same disease at the same time for the same population.

4) The TOGETHER trial is so large because it compiles a series of smaller ones. The Standard Operating Procedure was to report that the trials “prove” no benefit even after all the biases the trials showed change in the direction of benefit, but were too small (i.e., under-powered) to reach the arbitrary level of “statistical significance” of 95% certainty. So if a small trial showed only 3 IVM patients hospitalized but 6 controls hospitalized, instead of saying 50% reduction in hospitalization, TOGETHER said, “Look, no effect at all!”

There are many more such instances of cynical fraud. The tragedy is that so much of the scientifically ignorant and morally cowardly medical profession cheered on these results.
-----
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,246
Likes
38,666
"Recently, Caly et al. reported on the antiviral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 [9]. These authors demonstrated that a single dose of ivermectin was able to reduce the replication of an Australian isolate of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero/hSLAM cells by 5000-fold." (in vitro)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/
That's in vitro. We need ivermectin to work in vivo, which is totally different.

There are hundreds of substances which are antiviral in vitro, but do not work at all in vivo. This is because in vitro studies tend to use massively high concentrations of the sustance which cannot be obtained in vivo. This is the case with ivermectin, they used concentrations thousands of times higher than can be obtained in the body.

The whole ivermectin story is one of scientific incompetence, with third-rate scientists who don't seem to know the difference between in vitro and in vivo.

Ivermectin may however still be beneficial for COVID, but not via any antiviral effects.


But we are taking this thread off-topic.
 

Victronix

Senior Member
Messages
415
Likes
197
Location
California
Yes, it is going off topic. Simply saying that everyone advocating ivermectin is "third rate" isn't the issue. The issue is that doctors need to be allowed to prescribe what they decide is best as long as people are not being injured, rather than having the FDA/CDC rule from above so doctors are robots.

Far worse, to me, is the wiping away of informed consent for an experimental use product.