OK, I have waited a couple of days to post this, I'm just hesitant to do so. But I feel like I should. I can't remember if I have already started a thread or posted somewhere else on the subject of this study. I think I might have. But that would've been about
my frustration because of a study that I had been waiting for since maybe February, which was supposed to be complete in sept. But September came and no results, then October and November. And finally, at clinical trials.org, where I had been keeping up with it, a few weeks ago I saw this notice "trial terminated due to lack of patients". They were supposed to look at a large number of patients either getting vitamin C or placebo, but because the pandemic slowed down so much in China(where they give a lot of IV C), supposedly, they could not get enough patients to match their predetermined number so " you are terminated".
Well, low and behold the study finally appears a few days ago. And the results – at least until I did the usual digging in for the details - seemed quite unimpressive and disappointing."HDIVC failed to reduce 28-day mortality (P = 0.27)..........Conclusion: This pilot trial showed that HDIVC failed to improve IMVFD28, but might
show a potential signal of benefit in oxygenation for critically ill patients with COVID-19 improving PaO2/FiO2 even though.". IMVFD28, the PRIMARY outcome looked at, is the number of days ventilator FREE during the 28 days of the study. 26 for the C group, and 22 days without a vent for the placebo.
Yes, a slight improvement for the C group, and I'd take it, but not significantly significant, and thus "failed to improve". Boy, not much excitement with that result, and boy was I surprised and disappointed since they gave 24,000 mg of vitamin C into the vein, along with all the other usual treatments.
But when I dug into the details, I found results that were quite different from what was indicated in that summary. This is a situation that I have not uncommonly found when looking at studies. But in this case, I could not think of any reason these Chinese researchers would want to play down their results. Then it dawned on me: I had been told by an American MD/PhD associated with the study that they had been trying to get ths published for months, but were turned down several times. Did they need to tone it down in order to find some one who would publish it? (it was finally published in the "Annals of Intensive Care" ) I don't know. But another good question is, why would any one turn them down for publishing, as was reported to me? Another great mystery related to the world of research.
Anyway, I gave the less than impressive abstract results above. In the next post, I will copy what I found in the charts and tables. It paints quite a different story.
The results seemed quite exciting to me, if I was in the hospital with Covid I would dang sure want to be in the Vitamin C group and not in the placebo group. Also, according to the Docs at the FLCCC, it is super important to get started on their MATH+ protocol( the A = Ascorbic Acid aka vitamin C) very early in the disease. They have argued against some researchers, which did not get as good results as they routinely do, by saying their studies were designed to fail by starting the vitamin C ridiculously late in the disease. Also, you need to keep it going until you are pretty certain of a cure, or surviving virus can attack you again. None the less, even though they got great results(IMO), a potential drawback/handicap for this study is that they did not begin the vitamin C on average until 17 days after 1st symptoms. And, only gave the C for 7 days
, though these people were in the hospital for 28 days, apparently 28 days after the study started. (not certain about
that last) Despite all of those handicaps, lives were saved by the addition of high dose IV C
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/14/2021 3:07:24 PM (GMT-7)