BC-007: Successful drug against Autoantibodies helps with long COVID

[Treeman]

I believe that the discord group has already had it produced once and are now taking orders for a second batch.[/QUOTE]

after thinking about that a bit more, I think it's incorrect.

 

[Shimey]

I’m pretty desperate at this point so if there is any possible chance to join it would be appreciated, even if it’s not being made. Shimey0148

 

[tcamde]

Some update from Germany:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www...03/bc-007-long-covid-medikament-studie-corona

The phase 2 trial was now approved by German authorities. It starts Q2 2023 and should finish by the end of the year. It will be 100 subjects in multiple centers.

Regardings the copycat in China. I have no info on that but apparently the drug is quite hard to produce. Even Berlin Cures was/is having a hard time with it. I know that Berlin Cures has a patent filed on it so I guess one could look up its molecular structure but producing it might be a different beast.

 

[tcamde]

The study is now registered in the EU Clinical Trial Registry:
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2022-003452-14/DE
114 subjects
Placebo controlled
Double blind
6 different country locations
Comparing different dosages
Only long covid patients that have been infected 3-12 months before
Endpoint is a fatigue scale

 

[Dude]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675772252187394048

 

[Dude]

I'm still wondering if it really only works for those who have auto antibodies against G receptors and if that was a selection criteria?

 

[Osaca]

I'm still wondering if it really only works for those who have auto antibodies against G receptors and if that was a selection criteria?

Yes it's part of the selection criteria. Note however that they aren't only measuring levels, which Scheibenbogen aka Celltrend do, but also measure the functionality of them by essentially applying them to rats (spontaneously beating neonatal rat cardiomyocytes=naturally beating rat heart cells) and seeing whether that has an effect on these rats. Whether that's a good notion of functionality that carries over to humans is hard to asses, at least for me, but it's different to just measuring the levels which seems slightly useless.

 

[tcamde]

First patients are being treated now as part of the clincial trial. I know of 3 patients that have received the treatments/placebo. 2 had no effect (maybe placebo or treatment not working) and one has improved dramatically and interestingly keeps getting even better over time.

Nobody reported side effects.

 

[MonkeyMan]

First patients are being treated now as part of the clincial trial. I know of 3 patients that have received the treatments/placebo. 2 had no effect (maybe placebo or treatment not working) and one has improved dramatically and interestingly keeps getting even better over time.

Nobody reported side effects.

Wow, this is very encouraging news. Thank you for posting, @tcamde.

Let's hope the 2 were on placebo and the 1 on active treatment! Would you know when the patients will learn which arm they were in?

 

[Osaca]

Wow, this is very encouraging news. Thank you for posting, @tcamde.

Let's hope the 2 were on placebo and the 1 on active treatment! Would you know when the patients will learn which arm they were in?

One of the 3 accounts writing these reports doesn't have Long-Covid in the first place. So either it's a troll account or somethings gone wrong in selecting participants. It’s a double blinded trial with a follow-up period of 330 days. So I wouldn’t expect the participants to know in which arm they belong anytime before that (entire duration is 381 days).

Personally, I think the only useful thing is to wait for official preliminary trial results, especially since it should be our priority that this trial runs smoothly. Anything to minimise wrong information, ensuring the blinding is applied and not inviting trolls to particpate in the trial for internet points or whatever reasons has to be the priority.

 

[tcamde]

Not sure you are talking about the same people?
As far as I know they all have long covid as well as certified pcr tests.

Neither patients nor treating doctors in the facilities know which one of them is placebo/treatment arm.

 

[Osaca]

Possibly not, but I believe we're talking about the same people. One of the 3 people I'm talking about is https://twitter.com/SirchMarina reporting to be in the trial and writing about it (her tweets even include some rather authentic details, see for instance www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1653006620174024704, www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1684937498475053056). This person has previously been very open about having Post-Vac, see for instance www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1641438259548139520, www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1636266499609448448.

I don't know anything about the other people (Ingo or who else still exists).

 

[Dude]

I think many of those who claim their long covid comes from the vaccination actually had a mild infection that led to long covid. like the person mentioned in the post above. To get bc007 she had to show a positive covid test. twitter is really so infested with these anti vaxxers, you can't have a normal discussion anymore without getting spammed. I do believe that there is a very small proportion of postvac people, but by far not everyone who claims on the Internet. sorry for the rant.

 

[Osaca]

It is more complex than that. If a person is willing to take part in a trial for which she doesn't meet the necessary conditions, she is also willing to fake test results or possibly just had a Covid infection in the past year without influence on their previous condition (Post-Vac). The person above never mentioned having a mild infection so I'm not sure we can assume it, a friendly doctor could have also just written a confirmation letter, who knows.

Secondly the time frame doesn't match. Even if the trial was for Long-Covid+Post-Vac, almost everyone in Germany had their last vaccine more than a year ago, whilst illness onset for the trial is <1 year (plus this person claims to have had an IA last year has done HBOT and other things, which makes the 1 year timeframe even less believable).

All in all it is very bad if people participate in trials that don't have the condition and criteria described necessary to participate in the trial. It doesn't speak for the quality of the study if 1 out of the first 3 people don't even have the condition and it certainly doesn't speak for the rigour of patients selected (note: post-vac patients don't have many doctors they can go to without being dismissed, as such they all go to the same doctor, let's not hope that BC is recruiting from such a databasis). Of course it can still be that this person isn't part of the trial and is only claiming to be part of it, or just claims to have Post-Vac on the internet.

I agree it's very hard to be active on social media with anti-vaxxers being all over the place, that also makes it harder for those with genuine Post-Vac. I also believe Post-Vac is 100% real, but that there'll be cases which might also be stemming from mild or asymptomatic infections, but that isn't really relevant in this case. In this case a person is taking part in a trial, where she has no right to be in. Or people are just pretening to be in trials which they are not part of.

I don't think we have to read too much into it, but people should be aware of these things. Let's hope the EMA isn't.

 

[MonkeyMan]

Possibly not, but I believe we're talking about the same people. One of the 3 people I'm talking about is https://twitter.com/SirchMarina reporting to be in the trial and writing about it (her tweets even include some rather authentic details, see for instance www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1653006620174024704, www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1684937498475053056). This person has previously been very open about having Post-Vac, see for instance www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1641438259548139520, www.twitter.com/SirchMarina/status/1636266499609448448.

I don't know anything about the other people (Ingo or who else still exists).

We can probably figure out whether it's the same people.
@Osaca Does SirchMarina claim to have "improved dramatically and interestingly keeps getting even better over time"? (I don't use Twitter so I can't check this).
@tcamde Any more details you can share about the person you're referring to who claims this improvement, and/or where you got the information about them?

 

[Osaca]

Unfortunately I have been able to confirm it. Marina Sirch is one of the 3 people that are commonly referred to on Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter to be part of the trial. She is not the one improving, but that is irrelevant. The problem is that we already have people partcipating in this trial that knowingly don't have Long-Covid, which doesn't speak for the quality of the secltion criteria of trial or the honesty of the participants.

 

[MonkeyMan]

Unfortunately I have been able to confirm it. Marina Sirch is one of the 3 people that are commonly referred to on Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter to be part of the trial. She is not the one improving, but that is irrelevant. The problem is that we already have people partcipating in this trial that knowingly don't have Long-Covid, which doesn't speak for the quality of the secltion criteria of trial or the honesty of the participants.

Well, I agree that at least one person claiming to be in the trial should not be in the trial, but nonetheless, the one improving may be a legitimate LC patient.

 

[Osaca]

Well, I agree that at least one person claiming to be in the trial should not be in the trial, but nonetheless, the one improving may be a legitimate LC patient.

Yes, that is true. In the best case scenario this person isn't part of the trial (which seems less likely based on current information). The second best case scenario is that this person received a placebo. The worst case scenario is that this person received BC007 without having Long-Covid and having had Post-Vac for much longer than a year.

In a trial as small as 114 participants, small numbers of patients that don't actually have the condition or don't meet the requirements reach statistical significance and can destroy the trial very quickly. You can be assured that the EMA is not satisfied by such things.

 

[MonkeyMan]

Yes, that is true. In the best case scenario this person isn't part of the trial (which seems less likely based on current information). The second best case scenario is that this person received a placebo. The worst case scenario is that this person received BC007 without having Long-Covid and having had Post-Vac for much longer than a year.

For your "best case scenario": if this person wasn't in the trial, then they couldn't have received the BC007, correct? How is that the "best case scenario"?

For your "second best case scenario", if they got placebo, that would be worse news for patients than if they were in the BC007 arm, no? Again, I'm not following your logic here.

Your "worst case scenario" is admittedly worse than if they are a legit LC patient, but it still would suggest LC007 has positive effects for patients with related conditions.

Either I'm missing something here or you are grasping at straws, my friend. But grasping in the opposite direction from what a patient who wants hope would go in!

 

[Osaca]

For your "best case scenario": if this person wasn't in the trial, then they couldn't have received the BC007, correct? How is that the "best case scenario"?

For your "second best case scenario", if they got placebo, that would be worse news for patients than if they were in the BC007 arm, no? Again, I'm not following your logic here.

Your "worst case scenario" is admittedly worse than if they are a legit LC patient, but it still would suggest LC007 has positive effects for patients with related conditions.

Either I'm missing something here or you are grasping at straws, my friend.

I'm talking about the person that doesn't have Long-Covid and claims to be part of the trial but hasn't improved. Does that make sense to you?