Did you catch it ?

RussS said:
agreed, they should have a choice...as should all Americans. I have seen polls where “most Americans support staying quarantined” but honestly I think those polls are a bit suspect.
Click to expand...
I don't, unfortunately, based on some of the people I know.

Unlike some of the purists, I supported quarantine for it's original purpose, to keep from overwhelming the hospitals. Now I think it's time to end it.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Sometimes you have to make a choice. Do we go out and live normally, and kill Grams in the nursing home? Do we isolate our oldsters?
Click to expand...

Many nursing home plans are busted. The numbers clearly show that.

Nobody going out to a job that’s as distanced as the Walmart is adding any significant risk to gram that the busted plan didn’t already multiply ten fold.

Keeping the most vulnerable, demographically, inside any building that has it get in, is colossally stupid.

We won’t even let a grocery store remain open that has had one.

We had these numbers all the way back to the earliest outbreaks in Washington State. Colorado wasn’t far behind and we also have the numbers.

Many States are now *hiding* these numbers. There’s lawsuits ongoing here to demand when health officials knew about our most lethal outbreaks AME what they did about it under our sunshine laws.

They’re stalling and charging the press much higher than normal information collection fees to get that information. It’s a political football here now, with still no real plan.

Total insanity. Other States should take warning and change plans even if we’re going to allow it to degenerate into politics here, because clearly what we did, didn’t work.

Any other plan will be better, and we’re a long way away from it no longer getting into locked dorm facilities.

It won’t matter the linear growth rate, it’s getting in. The staff and deliveries have to keep coming and going, and I doubt the staff is willing to lockdown in the facility and stay there.

They and deliveries are the eventual infection vector. They’ll try real hard, but three days of asymptomatic virus shedding will eventually break through.

Just like that’s how most of the rest of us will get it.

Get your local politicians to understand this sooner rather than later. This thing isn’t a two month event.
 
RJM62 said:
One thing that seems to be missing from the discussion is giving old folks a choice in the matter. Maybe some of them would rather take their chances and be able to hug their grandchildren, than sit alone all day watching TV and waiting for meals. If someone actually asked, maybe they could be sorted out into separate facilities according to their preferences.
Click to expand...
So long as all of those (regardless of age) who choose to take their chances are willing to sign a DNR and waive any medical treatment, I'm all for it. If you get it, you either survive or you don't but you don't get to take up a hospital bed while waiting to see how it pans out. If that's the plan, I'm all for it.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So long as all of those (regardless of age) who choose to take their chances are willing to sign a DNR and waive any medical treatment, I'm all for it. If you get it, you either survive or you don't but you don't get to take up a hospital bed while waiting to see how it pans out. If that's the plan, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

So long as you own the hospital or pay my insurance premiums, it's a deal. Otherwise, it's none of your ****ing business.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
So long as you own the hospital or pay my insurance premiums, it's a deal. Otherwise, it's none of your ****ing business.
Click to expand...
You're all for allowing people to make their own choices and so am I. When you make a choice that puts others at increased risk of not being able to get medical care should they need it, its no longer a case of making your own choice, you're now making a choice forces others to also take their chances whether they want to or not.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Sometimes you have to make a choice. Do we go out and live normally, and kill Grams in the nursing home? Do we isolate our oldsters?
Click to expand...

The healthcare workers, their families, their neighbors, are all spreading it to grams... How many healthcare workers live in big apartment complexes? How many healthcare workers have kids? How many kids of those workers are actually staying home confined with another parent that also stays home confined?

My apartment complex has two hospital employees alone. Everyone in that apartment complex is exposed to the air in the common hallway that is the only entrance to the building.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
You're all for allowing people to make their own choices and so am I. When you make a choice that puts others at increased risk of not being able to get medical care should they need it, its no longer a case of making your own choice, you're now making a choice forces others to also take their chances whether they want to or not.
Click to expand...

It's also my choice to grant you the honor of being the first person, after all my years on POA, to be added to my ignore list. Goodbye.

Rich
 
One thing I haven't heard much about till now is the status of covid-19 in Russia.

Putin's coronavirus crisis deepens with fatal hospital fire and spokesman's diagnosis

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/europe/russia-fire-coronavirus-patients-intl/index.html

Spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin hospitalized with coronavirus
Though the COVID-19 outbreak was slow to spread in Russia, the country has in recent weeks seen growth rates explode.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...dimir-putin-hospitalized-coronavirus-n1205141

Russian president’s spokesman hospitalized with coronavirus

https://apnews.com/0e8858138ffa9082bff09b960a3217ce
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So long as all of those (regardless of age) who choose to take their chances are willing to sign a DNR and waive any medical treatment, I'm all for it. If you get it, you either survive or you don't but you don't get to take up a hospital bed while waiting to see how it pans out. If that's the plan, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

That’s dumb. If that was the goal then why save the hospitals?

The goal was stopping exponential growth. Nothing has changed significantly about linear growth until herd immunity is reached.

Some facts to get people’s heads into the long game:

We’ve known about coronaviruses for a long time. Thee has yet to be a successful vaccine. We didn’t start on this problem this year, we started on it years ago. Nobody planning for even the best should expect much. The best we’ve got is an anti-viral that shortens symptoms four days.

With available numbers you’re looking at nearly two years to herd immunity at lockdown rates. 1/5 of the population is already jobless. Clearly that’s unsustainable.

If you’re hoping for widespread testing, the engineering effort alone to get to 320 million years is well past September. We are currently at 9 million tested.

You have a new exponential “curve to flatten”. Nobody is going to like it.

Here’s what is still completely on the table mathematically right now. What are your plans for 2021 as this continues right through it?

Better get one.

Telling people they need a DNR is just nasty.

But I’m fine with my “essential” nurse making anyone non-essential and not in a risk group like the elderly, especially those with with a comfortable income who say the desperate should stay home, wait all day for her services after the essentials.

How’s that sound? A little skin in the game?

50 million jobless. 8 million treated for Covid. Only a tiny handful of hospitals were in trouble. Goal accomplished. New gauge on the dashboard pushing past redline.

Going to have to manage both. For a year at higher infection rates then we currently have.

Don’t have to like it. It’s the reality of the numbers. Instead of wishing a DNR on someone, better see if you can write a check for their mortgage payment if you’re serious.

We’re a couple weeks ahead of most places. The household essential says her hospital has been ready for the linear growth for a month. They never got above 350 patients and they’re appreciative of stopping the exponent so they could better prepare. They reopened elective procedures three weeks ago. Her clinic never saw more than a one week decline in patient load for wound care, keeping them out of the ER since the initial lockdown.

She’s over it. The goal of stopping the exponent was met. Limited opening to turn on the patient spigot to get to herd immunity is her goal now. She wants nothing to do with this new creation of desperate people by the tens of millions blamed on her industry. They’re waiting.

She’s also not too impressed with the medical staff or fake medical staff posts online (some real some fake) complaining about the job they signed up for.

She’s been working her normal schedule so even attempting to get a word in edgewise against the non-medical rhetoric online is at best a Saturday only thing against the flood of non-essentials with entire weeks on their hands. Nobody is putting out what the hospitals are putting on their websites and PR news wires.

And she’s laughing and facepalming daily at your awful use of PPE. :)

Even my docs at Mayo announced ourpatient is reopening shortly. Right on schedule, three weeks behind us.

Really dense places, less opening. More time. Throttle to the hospitals. Many other places can go faster. Whatever your local hospital says.

And forcing their other services closed instead of letting them manage it, is a disaster. Don’t allow that. We didn’t. Those patients get worse and don’t show up, due to fear-mongering, which is utterly retarded.

The ER doc she works with is super concerned about their other patient load stopping. It means their message that they have services completely isolated from Covid patients, isn’t getting heard and politicians aren’t assuring people to go.

“Go to the damn hospital if you’re having a heart attack” should be in every “update” press conference by now.
 
denverpilot said:
That’s dumb. If that was the goal then why save the hospitals?
Click to expand...
If we're going to have a society, we need to agree to follow the rules of said society. I'm all for giving everyone the freedom to do as they please within a society. I'm not for allowing people to make choices for themselves that puts myself or my family at increased risk of harm. This is why its illegal to drink and drive. If we're going to decide to just do away with all current shelter and distancing orders and simply let the citizens choose for themselves if they want to distance or not, we run the risk of running out of hospital beds and resources. That puts people at risk who otherwise were not at risk.

Now if those who are qualified to predict such things say it looks like we should be ok to lift X restrictions in Y locations, have at it. But that isn't the same as what was being suggested.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Sometimes you have to make a choice. Do we go out and live normally, and kill Grams in the nursing home? Do we isolate our oldsters?
Click to expand...
That's not an either/or. Yes, we go out with intelligent precautions, and yes, we isolate and/or protect those at serious risk, and no, we don't kill Grams in the nursing home. There are many, MANY choices other than the the two you depict. Your question is sort of like asking, "Would you like to fly a Cirrus, or kill a puppy?"
 
RussS said:
agreed, they should have a choice...as should all Americans. I have seen polls where “most Americans support staying quarantined” but honestly I think those polls are a bit suspect.
Click to expand...
They are MORE than a "bit suspect." The CNN article that led with that headline didn't even get to that part of the poll until the third paragraph, and when it did it was with so many caveats that it was meaningless.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
If we're going to have a society, we need to agree to follow the rules of said society. I'm all for giving everyone the freedom to do as they please within a society. I'm not for allowing people to make choices for themselves that puts myself or my family at increased risk of harm. This is why its illegal to drink and drive. If we're going to decide to just do away with all current shelter and distancing orders and simply let the citizens choose for themselves if they want to distance or not, we run the risk of running out of hospital beds and resources. That puts people at risk who otherwise were not at risk.

Now if those who are qualified to predict such things say it looks like we should be ok to lift X restrictions in Y locations, have at it. But that isn't the same as what was being suggested.
Click to expand...

The thing is, at least in the good ol' US of A, our government is supposed to serve the people's wishes and "promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." It is not supposed to rule us, or protect us from our own decisions. I agree with you partly... we should not be allowed to harm others. However, that also means that the government should not be allowed to harm us. We are in a time where those in power, a power which should reside with the people and not with a chosen few, are making the rules rather than the people as a collective society making the rules. I am NOT in favor of anarchy, every man for himself, "screw you, I've got a RIGHT to PAARRTAYYYY!!!" A civilized society needs to live by common sense guidelines, and some of the approaches to this virus ARE common sense guidelines. Quite a few are not, and are causing much, MUCH more human damage than the virus ever could have. That damage is being caused by those in power, not the virus.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
If we're going to have a society, we need to agree to follow the rules of said society.
Click to expand...

Aaid society may need to protect the ability of tens of millions to make a living in that society vs 1 million dying of an illness. Or it’s not a society.

Just pointing out the argument.

Nobody going out is threatening you while you stay home, any more than you’re already taking going to the grocery store or accepting deliveries, really.

Not in any significant way, anyway. The math has never supported that myth.

You may catch it slightly sooner, but it doesn’t change your body’s response to it. Nothing has changed that yet. Distancing changes infection rate. Not death rate.


What’s your age and BMI? There’s your real risk. Those aren’t changing between now and a month from now or a year from now. (Well you could change the BMI. Haha. Hide out and work out. LOL! Most wont.)

As long as you get the same non-hospital overload treatment as everyone else, you’ve got the best shot for you. If you even require hospitalization. Vast majority don’t.

Most of us partook of the most deadly activity any American could this week if actually concerned about early death. Some even yesterday. Ate a cheeseburger. :)

Most will happily decide their “society” has gone crazy if they’re told they can’t do eBay the guy across the street is doing. If WalMart and Costco are safe, so is any other identically distanced business.

It goes accelerate contacts but you simply throttle it to continue to protect hospitals.

You’re still looking at a year at that infection rate. Unless the rate is wildly wrong. If it is, and it’s low, the death ratio is even lower.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
'm not for allowing people to make choices for themselves that puts myself or my family at increased risk of harm. This is why its illegal to drink and drive. If we're going to decide to just do away with all current shelter and distancing orders and simply let the citizens choose for themselves if they want to distance or not, we run the risk of running out of hospital beds and resources. That puts people at risk who otherwise were not at risk.
Click to expand...

The risk to you of a person of unknown COVID-19 status interacting with you casually on the street once a day is about the same as the normal risks of living. And you have control over whether that happens or not. Other people not social distancing is not a risk to you at more than a de-minimus level. There is no real self defense argument for these coercive social distancing restrictions.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
The risk to you of a person of unknown COVID-19 status interacting with you casually on the street once a day is about the same as the normal risks of living. And you have control over whether that happens or not. Other people not social distancing is not a risk to you at more than a de-minimus level. There is no real self defense argument for these coercive social distancing restrictions.
Click to expand...
Your first statement may possibly be true, but chances are people will be interacting with many people, who have interacted with many more.
I'm for freedom, but if someone makes me sick, I'll sue their ass, even if they didn't know they were sick. That's fair, right?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I'm for freedom, but if someone makes me sick, I'll sue their ass, even if they didn't know they were sick. That's fair, right?
Click to expand...

So, will that be the norm going forward after one catches the flu or a common cold?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
..
I'm for freedom, but if someone makes me sick, I'll sue their ass, even if they didn't know they were sick. That's fair, right?
Click to expand...
No. If they are in your HOME or on your property without your permission and you can prove that they are responsible for getting you sick, then yes. If you are out in public, that is YOUR choice. You can't possibly hold someone else responsible for getting you sick if they do not know that THEY are sick if you have chosen to be out in public. Nor, of course, could you identify who exactly made you sick. There's simply no logic in your statement, but rather just the desire to assign blame to someone for what is, unfortunately, a situation wherein no one can shoulder all the blame nor be absolved from all of it.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Your first statement may possibly be true, but chances are people will be interacting with many people, who have interacted with many more.
I'm for freedom, but if someone makes me sick, I'll sue their ass, even if they didn't know they were sick. That's fair, right?
Click to expand...

Good luck with lawsuits. A whole lot of people that I come into contact with daily aren't millionaires, not worth the effort, even if I could definitively prove it.

Turn the image around. Say you come into contact with a cancer patient and you transmitted something to them, and they just happen to immunesupressed from cancer treatments, are you responsible for their death?

Your children could receive or transmit anything at school, that could kill anyone they come into contact with. Parents can die from the stuff their kids bring home.

These are all rabbit holes with nothing but rabbit coco puffs at the bottom. Wanting 100% safety from others will destroy everything we have, which is happening right now.
 
Last edited:
Juliet Hotel said:
You're all for allowing people to make their own choices and so am I. When you make a choice that puts others at increased risk of not being able to get medical care should they need it, its no longer a case of making your own choice, you're now making a choice forces others to also take their chances whether they want to or not.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand how a free society works. Follow your logic and our immigration debate will end because we will be just like all the other places people are trying to leave.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
You're all for allowing people to make their own choices and so am I. When you make a choice that puts others at increased risk of not being able to get medical care should they need it, its no longer a case of making your own choice, you're now making a choice forces others to also take their chances whether they want to or not.
Click to expand...
I think we should bring back prohibition. To many people die from drunk driving and the consequences of alcohol being legal. People are not exercising their freedom to choose and manage alcohol use effectively. We should just make it illegal because we (the government) know what’s best. It’s not about restricting freedom. It’s about public health and safety.

you see... there will always be something we need to be protected from and the government will be happy to protect us.
This virus is a bad deal. No one can argue otherwise and have it hold water. Freedom is expensive. It costs more than taxes and dead solders.

I think you are willing to value your freedom much less than I value mine. I also think you care zero, or very close to it, about my freedom.

Personally I would be willing to die for your freedom.

you be you and I’ll be me. Tell me how to live my life because you’re scared then we have a problem.

This situation is creating an interesting political landscape.
 
Palmpilot said:
Doctors express glimmers of hope as they try out new approaches against coronavirus
There are no proven treatments, but knowledge about the pathogen — and how to help those infected — have increased over the past two months

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/13/coronavirus-treatments/
Click to expand...

I continue to wonder whether Cat's Claw (Uncaria tomentosa) could be useful. I read an article about it being investigated for COVID-19; but I didn't bookmark it, and now I can't find it. It's a very interesting herb because some of its alkaloids seems to regulate the immune response. People take it both to improve their immunity and to treat autoimmune problems. It's also a potent anti-inflammatory. It seems like the kind of herb that would be of great interest to researchers right now.

It's also an herb, however; so whatever naturally-occurring magical alkaloids it contains can't be patented. I'm not naive enough to believe that profit potential doesn't factor into the equation.

Rich
 
The question that I would like to see answered is this: "Is a robust immune system a good thing or a bad thing where Coronavirus is concerned"? On the surface it would appear that a strong immune system
is desirable (as is the case in general). The majority of the deaths and serious complications have occurred in older people, often with underlying health issues - but there have been exceptions. On the other
hand, the victims of the 1918 Flu Pandemic tended to be people in the prime of life (if the tales are true). Suspect is the so-called "Cytokine Storm": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome
Does anyone know if this is the cause of the terribly adverse reactions seen in a minority of cases?

This is not a hypothetical question. Being identified as "High Risk" (due primarily to my age group), I will be directly affected by the answer. However, I wonder about the truth of "High Risk" due to age. This is
because I have enjoyed very good health for all my adult life. I almost never get sick - and when I do it is mild and of short duration. Many times I have observed people around me catch "whatever is going around" -
and I don't. This has continued uninterrupted to the present time. Not surprisingly, I conclude that I have a robust immune system. Will it protect me from Coronavirus - or is it likely a predictor of a grim outcome
if I do catch the disease?

The World Wants to Know.

Dave
 
Well, the current data shows that NY state, despite some desperate times in the last month, is back to where it was on March 18. This is remarkable progress. We've gone from a doubling time of 2 days to around 80 days and declining. Much of the state will start its first moves back to a new normal this week, with low infection rates, and enough testing in place to hopefully keep it there. It's only been like 60 days, not forever to get to this point. Patience in challenging times. Nothing will be completely "normal" for a while yet, but there is progress...
 
cessna182b said:
The question that I would like to see answered is this: "Is a robust immune system a good thing or a bad thing where Coronavirus is concerned"? On the surface it would appear that a strong immune system
is desirable (as is the case in general). The majority of the deaths and serious complications have occurred in older people, often with underlying health issues - but there have been exceptions. On the other
hand, the victims of the 1918 Flu Pandemic tended to be people in the prime of life (if the tales are true). Suspect is the so-called "Cytokine Storm": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome
Does anyone know if this is the cause of the terribly adverse reactions seen in a minority of cases?

This is not a hypothetical question. Being identified as "High Risk" (due primarily to my age group), I will be directly affected by the answer. However, I wonder about the truth of "High Risk" due to age. This is
because I have enjoyed very good health for all my adult life. I almost never get sick - and when I do it is mild and of short duration. Many times I have observed people around me catch "whatever is going around" -
and I don't. This has continued uninterrupted to the present time. Not surprisingly, I conclude that I have a robust immune system. Will it protect me from Coronavirus - or is it likely a predictor of a grim outcome
if I do catch the disease?

The World Wants to Know.

Dave
Click to expand...

That's another thing I've wondered about. I asked one of my doctors about it over the phone. She went silent long enough for me to wonder if the call had been dropped, and then said, "That's very interesting." And like Poe's raven, only that and nothing more.

I think we're talking about the same line of reasoning, anyway: If we assume for the sake of argument that people who survive to advanced age are more likely to have robust immune systems, does that person's immune system's habit of aggressively responding to new pathogens make them more likely to experience bad outcomes due to hypercytokinemia -- the so-called "cytokine storm" -- that can cause respiratory distress and multi-organ failure?

The medical implications of that would be above my pay grade. But it does make me wonder, firstly, whether medications (or herbs, like the aforementioned "cat's claw") that seem to moderate immune response should be considered as routine therapeutics for symptomatic cases; and secondly, whether vaccines for this virus might be more risky than is generally the case. Could a vaccine trigger iatrogenic hypercytokinemia and kill a previously-healthy patient? I really don't know. But as a person like yourself who "never gets sick," I do wonder about it.

As for the aforementioned cat's claw, I started taking it many years ago for mild arthritis on the advice of a former girlfriend who was a physician with a keen interest in herbal medicine.

Fast forward to a year or so ago, when I was treated at an ER for a slip-and-fall accident. The follow-up exam revealed arthritis in my shoulder severe enough that three providers (two physicians and a PA) were flabbergasted that I had normal range of movement and zero pain. I could (and still can) feel the crepitus (as could they), but it is neither painful nor motion-limiting. I also know that if I stop taking cat's claw, I start experiencing pain in my shoulder and in the joints in my fingers after a few days to a week.

Their shock didn't surprise me as I've been taking and following research on cat's claw for decades. It's perhaps the most-studied herb in the jungle.

There are actually two species of cat's claw that seem to be of particular interest to researchers, Uncaria tomentosa and Uncaria guianensis, with hundreds, or maybe thousands by now, of published studies between them. It's been investigated for practically all inflammatory and autoimmune conditions (it contains pentacyclic oxindole alkaloids that are believed to help regulate the immune system and tame the autoimmune response), as well as osteoarthritis, HIV, Alzheimer's (where the research is especially promising), and most recently, cancer.

The only suspected side effect that I know of is a big one: Because cat's claw seems to have at least some anti-tumor properties, it's possible that it's also a teratogen, as many anti-cancer drugs that act as cell-division traffic cops are. So it's definitely not something that pregnant women or nursing mothers should take.

With those exceptions, however, I can't shake this nagging feeling that some researcher in some lab somewhere really needs to be looking at cat's claw as a possible therapeutic for the hypercytokinemia that seems to be the actual killer in many or most COVID-19 cases. I'm not a physician, so I can't go as far as to say they should be prescribing it; but I do think they should be looking at it.

And at least one scientist is. I read the article. But now I can't find it in the sea of search results. The problem is that since I read it, practically every science site in the world, along with altogether too many non-science commercial sites, have added COVID notices, links, or banners; so doing a Boolean search for "[literally anything in the world]" AND "COVID" yields bazillions of irrelevant results.

Rich
 
Last edited:
cessna182b said:
On the other hand, the victims of the 1918 Flu Pandemic tended to be people in the prime of life
Click to expand...
FWIW: you don't need to go back that far. The H1N1 Swine flu caused more hospitalizations and deaths for those less than 65 yoa, or 80% of the population. It was thought that the 65 and above crowd had antibodies from a past H1N1 outbreak whereas the younger generations did not have said antibodies.
cessna182b said:
The question that I would like to see answered is this
Click to expand...
The questions I would like answered is why was there a shift from protecting the medical systems of high density urban areas from COVID overload to protecting every citizen in the US from death by COVID? And, what makes dying from COVID so unique to shutdown a nation's economy considering about a million people die every year from other preventable causes but with no similar national action?
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: you don't need to go back that far. The H1N1 Swine flu caused more hospitalizations and deaths for those less than 65 yoa, or 80% of the population. It was thought that the 65 and above crowd had antibodies from a past H1N1 outbreak whereas the younger generations did not have said antibodies.

The questions I would like answered is why was there a shift from protecting the medical systems of high density urban areas from COVID overload to protecting every citizen in the US from death by COVID? And, what makes dying from COVID so unique to shutdown a nation's economy considering about a million people die every year from other preventable causes but with no similar national action?
Click to expand...

H1N1 pandemic happened in 2009. I was immunocomprimised, I spent 10 days in the ICU and another two month in Burn Unit being amputated and patched up, and it had nothing to do with H1N1 at all. Never did get the flu that year.
 
RJM62 said:
As for the aforementioned cat's claw, I started taking it many years ago for mild arthritis on the advice of a former girlfriend who was a physician with a keen interest in herbal medicine.

Fast forward to a year or so ago, when I was treated at an ER for a slip-and-fall accident. The follow-up exam revealed arthritis in my shoulder severe enough that three providers (two physicians and a PA) were flabbergasted that I had normal range of movement and zero pain. I could (and still can) feel the crepitus (as could they), but it is neither painful nor motion-limiting. I also know that if I stop taking cat's claw, I start experiencing pain in my shoulder and in the joints in my fingers after a few days to a week.

Their shock didn't surprise me as I've been taking and following research on cat's claw for decades. It's perhaps the most-studied herb in the jungle.

There are actually two species of cat's claw that seem to be of particular interest to researchers, Uncaria tomentosa and Uncaria guianensis, with hundreds, or maybe thousands by now, of published studies between them. It's been investigated for practically all inflammatory and autoimmune conditions (it contains pentacyclic oxindole alkaloids that are believed to help regulate the immune system and tame the autoimmune response), as well as osteoarthritis, HIV, Alzheimer's (where the research is especially promising), and most recently, cancer.

The only suspected side effect that I know of is a big one: Because cat's claw seems to have at least some anti-tumor properties, it's possible that it's also a teratogen, as many anti-cancer drugs that act as cell-division traffic cops are. So it's definitely not something that pregnant women or nursing mothers should take.

With those exceptions, however, I can't shake this nagging feeling that some researcher in some lab somewhere really needs to be looking at cat's claw as a possible therapeutic for the hypercytokinemia that seems to be the actual killer in many or most COVID-19 cases. I'm not a physician, so I can't go as far as to say they should be prescribing it; but I do think they should be looking at it.

And at least one scientist is. I read the article. But now I can't find it in the sea of search results. The problem is that since I read it, practically every science site in the world, along with altogether too many non-science commercial sites, have added COVID notices, links, or banners; so doing a Boolean search for "[literally anything in the world]" AND "COVID" yields bazillions of irrelevant results.

Rich
Click to expand...

At what dosage, and how often, are you taking cat's claw for your arthritis? I've been having some joint pain and might give it a try.
 
Palmpilot said:
At what dosage, and how often, are you taking cat's claw for your arthritis?
Click to expand...

2 grams, once daily with a meal. I use the whole herb capsules rather than the extract. NOW or Vitamin Shoppe brand, which appear to be identical save for the label.

It takes a week or two to kick in at first, if you're considering it.

I am not a doctor.

cats-claw.jpg


Rich
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top