EVMS Doc Saves Lives with New COVID-19 Treatment Protocol

Paul Marik, front-line physician at EVMS in battle against COVID-19.

by James A. Bacon

Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS), is part of a group, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, which says that application of a new therapeutic protocol can dramatically reduce mortality rates of the coronavirus.

In a paper outlining the EVMS’ COVID-19 management protocol and a statement released by the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, Marik and his colleagues deliver a message of hope: By changing its treatment protocols, hospitals and doctors can save thousands of lives.

“If you can administer ascorbic acid and corticosteroids intravenously starting in the Emergency Room and every 6 hours thereafter while in the hospital, the mortality rate of this disease and the need for mechanical ventilators will likely be greatly reduced,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, the Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center and Chief of the Critical Care Service at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. It is the severe inflammation sparked by the Coronavirus, not the virus itself, that kills patients, he explained in a recent statement of the front-line consortium.

Marik elaborates:

It is our collective opinion that the historically high levels of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is due to a single factor: the widespread and inappropriate reluctance amongst intensivists to employ anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant treatments, including corticosteroid therapy, early in the course of a patient’s hospitalization. It is essential to recognize that it is not the virus that is killing the patient, rather it is the patient’s overactive immune system. The flames of the “cytokine fire” are out of control and need to be extinguished. Providing supportive care (with ventilators that themselves stoke the fire) and waiting for the cytokine fire to burn itself out simply does not work… this approach has FAILED and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients.

The systematic failure of critical care systems to adopt corticosteroid therapy resulted from the published recommendations against corticosteroids use by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS), Infectious Diseases Association of America (IDSA) amongst others. A very recent publication by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and authored one of the members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) group (UM), identified the errors made by these organizations in their analyses of corticosteroid studies based on the findings of the SARS and H1N1 pandemics. Their erroneous recommendation to avoid corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 has led to the development of myriad organ failures which have overwhelmed critical care systems across the world.

Our treatment protocol targeting these key pathologies has achieved near uniform success, if begun within 6 hours of a COVID-19 patient presenting with shortness of breath or needing ≥ 4L/min of oxygen. If such early initiation of treatment could be systematically achieved, the need for mechanical ventilators and ICU beds will decrease dramatically.

Admittedly, the evidence falls far short of randomized, double-blind clinical trials, the scientific gold standard, so it is inevitable that even some scientists (not just lefty journalists) will disagree. Marik has used the protocol to treat seven COVID-19 patients, and all survived. (One other died of a pre-existing heart condition and gastro-intestinal bleed.) Dr. Joseph Varon in Houston used the protocol to treat 24 seriously ill patients, and all survived. Those are small samples. As the epidemic rages and hundreds of patients die every day, however, we don’t the luxury of waiting for clinical trials. The trial-and-error approach in front-line treatment is all we’ve got.

I have argued repeatedly that physicians are learning more and more about COVID-19 and how to treat it, and I suspect that the Front-Line consortium may have identified a major breakthrough. If their findings are confirmed by other front-line physicians, this is wonderful news both for COVID-19 patients and for anyone who wants to see life return to normal.

If the mortality rate of COVID-19 can be brought down to the level of the common flu, everyone can resume shopping, dining, going back to work, attending church, organizing protests, looting stores, and tearing down statues of Civil War generals.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

38 responses to “EVMS Doc Saves Lives with New COVID-19 Treatment Protocol”

  1. Here is a summary PDF of the recommendations. Not sure what to make of it, but a former colleague of mine from New Jersey was sending this link around recently.

    https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/Marik-Covid-Protocol-Summary.pdf

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    You are right, doctors are learning a lot about treating the disease. Somewhere recently (I wish I could find the source), that many doctors have found a regime of one of the HIV antiviral drugs along with corticosteroids to mitigate the cytokine storm is proving effective.

  3. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    This is of course is happening all over the country. And it has also sparked investigations into allegedly faulty research that was used by some in efforts to halt some of these developments nationally and internationally. Politics is everywhere today, worldwide.

    1. MAdams Avatar

      The only problem with the therapeutic of HCQ was that Trump suggested it. While POTUS Trump doesn’t seem at task to handle lots of things, a broken clock is indeed right twice a day.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Yes, I thought at the time that if he really believed it worked, he should have discouraged its use, attacked it on Twitter. The MSM would then have been clamoring for widespread distribution. Science is a process – they’re getting there. And that drug is still subject to ongoing trials. I’ve seen vitamin C mentioned elsewhere, but that also has sparked debate.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Vitamin C has been touted as a cure for polio too, and Laetrile cures cancer.

  4. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    This is of course is happening all over the country. And it has also sparked investigations into allegedly faulty research that was used by some in efforts to halt some of these developments nationally and internationally. Politics is everywhere today, worldwide.

    1. MAdams Avatar

      The only problem with the therapeutic of HCQ was that Trump suggested it. While POTUS Trump doesn’t seem at task to handle lots of things, a broken clock is indeed right twice a day.

      1. Steve Haner Avatar
        Steve Haner

        Yes, I thought at the time that if he really believed it worked, he should have discouraged its use, attacked it on Twitter. The MSM would then have been clamoring for widespread distribution. Science is a process – they’re getting there. And that drug is still subject to ongoing trials. I’ve seen vitamin C mentioned elsewhere, but that also has sparked debate.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Vitamin C has been touted as a cure for polio too, and Laetrile cures cancer.

  5. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    They are NOT recommending hydroxychloroquine. Specifically, “Optional/uncertain: … chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine may have a role in prophylaxis in high risk subgroups…. Ongoing studies are testing this hypothesis.”

    “Optional: Hydroxychloroquine 400mg BID day 1 followed by 200mg BID for 4 days [22]. Recent evidence suggests that HCQ has no role in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.[23] However, the potential role of HCQ in early symptomatic patients (prior to hospitalization) is unknown.

    Not at all for hospitalized patients.

    If your hope was a vindication of MD-in-Chief, this was another nothingburger.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      But still not a reason to give up the G&T’s, right? Quinine in that form doesn’t hurt….

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Have you tried Fever Tree tonic? Really good with Hendricks. Much tastier than any major brand.

    2. You are right, the doctors do not “recommend” hydroxychloroquine. They do describe it as “optional” for symptomatic patients at home, and as “optional/uncertain” for use as a prophylactic.

      It was a mistake to drag hydroxychloroquine (and by implication Trump) into the picture because the mere mention of his name automatically polarizes the conversation. Accordingly, I have deleted the two paragraphs mentioning the drug. The main point of the post — that doctors have developed a better treatment protocol — comes through more clearly as a result.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Anyone, including the POTUS, without medical knowledge, would be ignorant to lock on to one particular drug or treatment … what polarizes it is for the POTUS to make some ignorant statement and then his supporters to blindly defend his idiocy.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        There are more than one protocols for hospitalized patients. Neat to see that EVMS has one as well. Obviously Trump didn’t come up with HCQ, he heard it from a doctor at some briefing, and for all we know, it may have value in the two cases.

        The problem with those hospitalized, is they may be beyond any marginal value. I suspect studies in the early stages or prophylactic use are ongoing.

    3. MAdams Avatar

      The citation that was used in reference to indicate HCQ has no role in hospitalized patients was the retracted Lancet article. That article was based upon the Surgisphere data which has been determined suspect.

      You should spend more time reading, and less time attempting to be snarky.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Hey, it’s not my paper. Not my job to edit the damned thing nor to be a nonprofessional referee. You should contact the author with your little gem and tell him what you have discovered…

        Hey, it’s EVMS. Maybe they’ll make you a doctor… or even d’Gub’na

        1. MAdams Avatar

          Well you’re the one that took it at face value you even though you saw citation. Considering you tout the fact you reviewed technical documents, you should’ve known better.

          Why would they make me a Governor for pointing out the basis for their citation has been retracted given it was fallacious data?

          I can understand why you use snark though, it’s very very evident.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Okay Tom Terrific. You know what to do.

            I didn’t take anything at face value. I corrected James’ interpretation of the protocols and he retracted as a result. That was my only objective. Done.

            If the paper had said the sky is orange, and James said that the paper said the sky is purple, I do not have to prove the sky is blue to correct James.

            While on the subject, one of the authors retracted the paper. It was the largest such study, but not the only to draw the same conclusion. There are also other studies on prophylactic use where HCQ did no better than the placebo.

            But again, not my job. I don’t care a wit about HCQ or its use. Now take your fish tank cleaner dose and go back to bed.

          2. MAdams Avatar

            You are aware that snark is only effective when you know what you’re talking about right? Outside of that it just makes you look like a fool.

            So lets lay this out, you felt the need to correct James but yet didn’t even make an effort to validate your statement?

            The author of the Lancet retracted the paper, because it was written using data that a company falsified because it fit a narrative the naive (your picture there) were hunting for.

            “There are also other studies on prophylactic use where HCQ did no better than the placebo.”

            Pleas feel free to cite those studies, it’s real easy to make claims without backing them up.

            “But again, not my job. I don’t care a wit about HCQ or its use. Now take your fish tank cleaner dose and go back to bed.”

            Oh but you do care, because Trump spoke on it. PS telling someone to ingest a lethal substance has landed people in jail, you probably should choose your words more wisely, considering you claim to be so intelligent.

  6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    They are NOT recommending hydroxychloroquine. Specifically, “Optional/uncertain: … chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine may have a role in prophylaxis in high risk subgroups…. Ongoing studies are testing this hypothesis.”

    “Optional: Hydroxychloroquine 400mg BID day 1 followed by 200mg BID for 4 days [22]. Recent evidence suggests that HCQ has no role in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.[23] However, the potential role of HCQ in early symptomatic patients (prior to hospitalization) is unknown.

    Not at all for hospitalized patients.

    If your hope was a vindication of MD-in-Chief, this was another nothingburger.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      But still not a reason to give up the G&T’s, right? Quinine in that form doesn’t hurt….

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Have you tried Fever Tree tonic? Really good with Hendricks. Much tastier than any major brand.

    2. You are right, the doctors do not “recommend” hydroxychloroquine. They do describe it as “optional” for symptomatic patients at home, and as “optional/uncertain” for use as a prophylactic.

      It was a mistake to drag hydroxychloroquine (and by implication Trump) into the picture because the mere mention of his name automatically polarizes the conversation. Accordingly, I have deleted the two paragraphs mentioning the drug. The main point of the post — that doctors have developed a better treatment protocol — comes through more clearly as a result.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Anyone, including the POTUS, without medical knowledge, would be ignorant to lock on to one particular drug or treatment … what polarizes it is for the POTUS to make some ignorant statement and then his supporters to blindly defend his idiocy.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        There are more than one protocols for hospitalized patients. Neat to see that EVMS has one as well. Obviously Trump didn’t come up with HCQ, he heard it from a doctor at some briefing, and for all we know, it may have value in the two cases.

        The problem with those hospitalized, is they may be beyond any marginal value. I suspect studies in the early stages or prophylactic use are ongoing.

    3. MAdams Avatar

      The citation that was used in reference to indicate HCQ has no role in hospitalized patients was the retracted Lancet article. That article was based upon the Surgisphere data which has been determined suspect.

      You should spend more time reading, and less time attempting to be snarky.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Hey, it’s not my paper. Not my job to edit the damned thing nor to be a nonprofessional referee. You should contact the author with your little gem and tell him what you have discovered…

        Hey, it’s EVMS. Maybe they’ll make you a doctor… or even d’Gub’na

        1. MAdams Avatar

          Well you’re the one that took it at face value you even though you saw citation. Considering you tout the fact you reviewed technical documents, you should’ve known better.

          Why would they make me a Governor for pointing out the basis for their citation has been retracted given it was fallacious data?

          I can understand why you use snark though, it’s very very evident.

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Okay Tom Terrific. You know what to do.

            I didn’t take anything at face value. I corrected James’ interpretation of the protocols and he retracted as a result. That was my only objective. Done.

            If the paper had said the sky is orange, and James said that the paper said the sky is purple, I do not have to prove the sky is blue to correct James.

            While on the subject, one of the authors retracted the paper. It was the largest such study, but not the only to draw the same conclusion. There are also other studies on prophylactic use where HCQ did no better than the placebo.

            But again, not my job. I don’t care a wit about HCQ or its use. Now take your fish tank cleaner dose and go back to bed.

          2. MAdams Avatar

            You are aware that snark is only effective when you know what you’re talking about right? Outside of that it just makes you look like a fool.

            So lets lay this out, you felt the need to correct James but yet didn’t even make an effort to validate your statement?

            The author of the Lancet retracted the paper, because it was written using data that a company falsified because it fit a narrative the naive (your picture there) were hunting for.

            “There are also other studies on prophylactic use where HCQ did no better than the placebo.”

            Pleas feel free to cite those studies, it’s real easy to make claims without backing them up.

            “But again, not my job. I don’t care a wit about HCQ or its use. Now take your fish tank cleaner dose and go back to bed.”

            Oh but you do care, because Trump spoke on it. PS telling someone to ingest a lethal substance has landed people in jail, you probably should choose your words more wisely, considering you claim to be so intelligent.

  7. Here is a summary PDF of the recommendations. Not sure what to make of it, but a former colleague of mine from New Jersey was sending this link around recently.

    https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/Marik-Covid-Protocol-Summary.pdf

  8. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    You are right, doctors are learning a lot about treating the disease. Somewhere recently (I wish I could find the source), that many doctors have found a regime of one of the HIV antiviral drugs along with corticosteroids to mitigate the cytokine storm is proving effective.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    social distancing and the other restrictions actually buy time for these therapies and treatments to be developed . The reality is between the two choices of vaccine and let-it-all-hang-out herd immunity.

    A vaccine is more “sexy” than these therapies but the reality is that therapies likely have more promise to save a lot of lives – including those who are older and have health issues.

    Quite a few infectious diseases have yet to develop a vaccine… and that may end up be the case here..

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    social distancing and the other restrictions actually buy time for these therapies and treatments to be developed . The reality is between the two choices of vaccine and let-it-all-hang-out herd immunity.

    A vaccine is more “sexy” than these therapies but the reality is that therapies likely have more promise to save a lot of lives – including those who are older and have health issues.

    Quite a few infectious diseases have yet to develop a vaccine… and that may end up be the case here..

  11. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Covid-19 Patient Gets Double Lung Transplant, Offering Hope for Others
    The operation is believed to be the first of its kind in the U.S. The patient, a woman in her 20s, had been healthy, but the coronavirus devastated her lungs.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/health/coronavirus-lung-transplant.html

  12. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Covid-19 Patient Gets Double Lung Transplant, Offering Hope for Others
    The operation is believed to be the first of its kind in the U.S. The patient, a woman in her 20s, had been healthy, but the coronavirus devastated her lungs.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/health/coronavirus-lung-transplant.html

Leave a Reply