Depletion of surfactant from the lungs of rats followed by mechanical ventilation is sufficient to cause infiltration by neutrophils, tissue damage, and pneumocyte apoptosis.
COX-2 expression was reduced, and treatment with COX-2 inhibitors further worsened the resulting damage.
The issue appears less likely to be relevant in milder cases, if it is indeed a potential concern. Opinions welcome.
@SWICU_Rays I thought of your recent experiments when I saw this. Another nice model for extracting a single facet of the COVID-19 disease process-- in this case, surfactant removal. Note the extensive alveolar damage and neutrophils.
@farid__jalali@pathdoc3 resembles earlier discussions on inadequate surfactant in hyaline membrane disease, another model converging on the same conclusion apart from the known case of infant respiratory distress syndrome
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
- decide what the word "evidence" means:
a) "clinical results with appropriate sample(s) and endpoints"
b) "what huge lumbering institutions claim ex cathedra with no citations"
c) "what gilead et al. claim"
d) "peer best practices"
- take low-risk bets
If in doubt, *ask the patient*.
People have a fundamental right to participate in their own health-- *they already do so 99% of the time anyway*.
'This might help with X; it's a bit less certain; may cause Y side effects; studies say usually well-tolerated; do you want to try?'
The continued failure to trial or use ITPP in critical care is an indictment against the regulatory and productive institutions of our supposedly-advanced (increasingly just shorthand for 'gridlocked') economy.
Thousands of people already use it for athletic activities.
It has no side effects, is safe at huge doses in animal studies, and has never had a serious adverse event reported in the community ('that's informal' it's post-marketing surveillance..).
The fact that we are jamming tubes down people's throats before giving this, or for that matter even giving cyproheptadine, absolutely disgusts and appalls me.
>Oh that isn't proven
Yes. It. Is.
READ A BOOK; THEY ARE BOTH LITERALLY BASIC PHYSIOLOGY.
>One hope is that the efficacy of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could rise if it is given as a two-dose regimen.
Obviously, yes! This is much more promising.
Single-dose frankly seems gimmicky, in a very specific sense:
This is effectively just offloading the debate about whether to halfway-dose existing vaccines to a new vaccine candidate instead-- one that has actually been trialed in this dosing schedule.
A couple things about which I would like to be clear, from the now-big account (likely smaller over time):
1) do not ever @/DM to ask where I am or act like I owe you something-- pay me a bitcoin if you want that kind of attention, I know that is pocket change to some of you
2) I have a life outside of COVID-19 and a very, very detailed post history that is approximately two clicks away, depending on your choice of platform access method: search feature, "__ice9 <whatever topic>" papers generally do not become 'out of date' and a result is a result
3) I am frankly a bit bored. The acute disease was obviated months ago by dual entry inhibition. Not my problem if the west ignored it because it came from Iran, or due to statistical illiteracy or vile conflicts of interest (hi Gilead puppets 🎭). Fluvoxamine looks great too.
Side note: strangely demanding PK study; very rigorous protocol. Hope participants were at least paid well. But they got us a number so I am pleased.
NAC may not have a large impact in monotherapy, given only EC50 is hittable (not EC90 except perhaps IV) and gappiness in plasma concentration peaks even q.i.d. (slightly compensated by permanent nature of damage done to exposed Spike copies).