Texas Physician/Researchers Case Series Finds Reduction in COVID-19 Hospitalization by 87.6% & Death 74.9%

Texas PhysicianResearchers Case Series Finds Reduction in COVID-19 Hospitalization by 87.6% & Death 74.9%

A group of Texas-based providers, including physicians, some highly published, recently published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science results of a case series type of study involving a group of 320 COVID-19 patients deemed high risk—that is, over 50 years old with at least one comorbidity. The group actually was able to add 549 cases more by the end of the study period, which was December, 2020. This group of physicians, part of a small but vocal and dedicated camp, declare that during the pandemic, the medical profession disappointed, turning into “watchful waiters” for the vast majority of COVID-19 cases—and especially those cases that fit the study patient cateogry—desperately needing care. The authors argue that in far too many cases, these at risk patients were acknowledged to have COVID-19, sent home, and told to return if symptoms worsened. Many people lost parents and grandparents due to this form of doctoring, which could be classified by one point of view as the active caring wing but yet by a mainstream as rogue. This study is observational in nature (e.g. isn’t a randomized controlled trial) for the practitioners that provided the care as well as the framework for studious review and analysis of associated data—and results for them that matter. Based on the results, it most certainly did for the patients as well. Using a protocol of zinc, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and one antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) in combination with inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone, the doctors, including accomplished researchers, such as Dr. Peter McCullough who have presented on TrialSite Podcast,  sought to follow the Hippocratic oath and care for their COVID-19 patients—opting to take action and not passively stand by and do nothing. They found a lot of misleading information circulating about, and ambulatory patients with some risk factors during the pandemic actually were facing great risk. While the introduction of emergency use monoclonal antibodies (Lilly and Regeneron) helped care for more of this class of patient, they still were not reaching enough patientstoo many were dying. The results of their observational, case seriesbased comparison study to the Cleveland Clinic COVID-19 hospitalization calculator as applied to four Texas counties where they practice—were notable. The early ambulatory treatment regimen was associated with estimated 87.6% reduction in hospitalization and 74.9% reduction in death (p<0.0001).

The authors of this study have taken heat for doing what they signed up for doing as a doctor—following the Hippocratic oath and practicing medicine.  But particularly at the onset of the pandemic, they discussed among themselves the confusion among even the most elite of research institutions, the lengthy and in some cases irrelevant research funded with in hundreds of millions of dollars juxtaposed to the tens of thousands that were dying—in the aggregate, over 560,000 have passed away due to COVID-19. 

Care for the Patient: An Important Priority

These healthcare providers were concerned that during the two study periods associated with this case series (April to September 2020 and September to December 2020) that doing nothing while vaccines were under development was not good medicine. They felt they had a duty to look at studies around the world and find pathways that led to less death. While there are still no authorized drugs for ambulatory care (remdesivir requires hospitalization and monoclonal antibodies must be administered in clinical setting), and unfortunately no deemed conclusive randomized trials of multidrug therapy to help doctors, in this, and all serious medical conditions, the authors emphasize the historically significant and relevant role for empiric treatment in an attempt to reduce fatalities concluded the study authors. Thus, the doctors methodical oversight of a total of 869 patient cases with by comparison striking results. 

Could the outcomes here be the result of selection bias? That’s one of the common arguments to challenge this type of study.  But the argument here is not that the regimens included in this case serie—-ivermectin and doxycycline for example—is established evidence based on this study. That’s not the point. They authors, rather, in keeping to the Hippocratic oath, organized a study that would generate real world data and the clinical outcomes associated with an empiric multidrug regimen for confirmed COVID-19 patients presenting in the practices of the physicians in this part of Texas. 

Lead Research/Investigators

Call to Action: What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment or even register in TrialSite for a discussion that won’t be deleted. Check out the publication.

Responses

  1. I really appreciate all the intensive review and writing that the TSN staff has been doing all this time. Your YouTube channel is also great.

    I would like to mirror the comment of Andrew-Pearce below:

    “please (TSN) try to write more concisely and directly.”

    Also, please use plain English. Research shows that readability and comprehension in legal matters improves greatly when written at the 10th grade reading level, compared to the 25th grade level that most legal documents are written in. I’m sure the same applies to the medical field.

    I also recommend the grammar app ProWritingAid. It measures reading levels and has many more functions besides correcting grammar.

    Cheers and thank you again for such great reporting!

  2. A/ I think the phrase you (or the doctors) were looking for is “Watchful waiting” not watchful watchers.

    B/ good to report your case studies, but also include that American Journal of Medicine concluded Hydroxychloroquine Protocol (Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin [or doxycycline] plus zinc) works against Covid if started within days of infection:

    https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

  3. Nice to see that some doctors somewhere are acting as doctors should act.

    But please TSN. please try to write more concisely and directly. And always link to the study please.
    https://ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/1100

    The whole post boils down to “Using a protocol of zinc, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and one antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) in combination with inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone … The early ambulatory treatment regimen was associated with estimated 87.6% reduction in hospitalization and 74.9% reduction in death (p<0.0001)."

    Which apparently shows that both HCQ and IVM work for early treatment, with the help of some kind of steroid. Pretty much the same twp "cocktails" that do the job, that so many of us have been aware of for nearly a year now. Strait out of the AAPS protocol. And golly gee, early treatment sure does a body good. Literally. Thank you Texas, for acting like doctors.

    A quick read of the study shows that sicker patients were given and IV of B vitamins, magnesium, and folic acid. None of which will make things worse.

  4. I am becoming weary of the complaining about covid 19 and how terrible and dangerous it is. If the main stream media, social media, the world heath organization, the NIH, politicians and the pharmaceutical companies really cared about human life instead of the opportunity to make billions of dollars from this “wonderful” opportunity, there would be a rush to distribute Ivermectin to everyone in the world. It is sickening to me to continue to be bombarded with the display of grief and the complete disregard for the obvious (from the real world evidence) prevention and cure capabilities of Ivermectin. I have been following this story since early August when Dr. Thomas Borody reported on it. At that time I simply wondered if it really worked and thought it should be dispensed immediately to prove through real world evidence if it did have an effect. It has been long enough and the evidence is clear. It does work and still the organizations and individuals listed above not only ignore but discredit the evidence obviously for the money. This disease will be around for the rest of time and I hope that at some point when it is proven how effective Ivermectin is, a class action law suit is done and all these people who profited from this information suppression that costed so many hundreds of thousands of deaths are forced to give back all that money they made and distribute it to all who lost loved ones or needlessly suffered. This issue should not go away.