OT: COVID-19 thread #4

[Dresden]

they've been calling it that from early on. At least in Oregon where I reside, and in Europe. I guess I just always liked the sound, "The Jab".

I believe it's a British term. If you listen to the BBC, you hear it used constantly.

[bulls_troy]

How are Vax rates going in the USA? At time of post, Australia has 56.5% of people 16 and over fully vaccinated. 79.4% have had 1st dose

[Almost Retired]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

[dougthonus]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/why-hcq-ivermectin-dropped-india-covid-treatment-protocol-1857306-2021-09-26

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 have dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection.

The decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

Studies also found there was no clarity on mortality benefit, no effect on length of hospital stay and recovery in case of Ivermectin.

Sure doesn't sound like a country that thinks Ivermectin has been a miracle cure for them, but the Desert Review likely has a greater pulse on what's going on medically in India than the Indian Council of Medical Research or the Indian National Task Force on COVID-19.

[Almost Retired]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/why-hcq-ivermectin-dropped-india-covid-treatment-protocol-1857306-2021-09-26

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 have dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection.

The decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

Studies also found there was no clarity on mortality benefit, no effect on length of hospital stay and recovery in case of Ivermectin.

Sure doesn't sound like a country that thinks Ivermectin has been a miracle cure for them, but the Desert Review likely has a greater pulse on what's going on medically in India than the Indian Council of Medical Research or the Indian National Task Force on COVID-19.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again. Because I will assume you are not intentionally obtuse let me draw a distinction, again. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not going to be effective TREATMENTS for people who are already sick enough from Covid to be hospitalized. The benefit, theoretically and in practice as demonstrated in Uttar Pradesh, is in prophylaxis or at the latest started at the time of presumed exposure or at the first appearance of mild symptoms. These compounds act as ionophores, they enhance the permeability of ions into cells. With regard to their effectiveness against Covid (and other RNA viruses for that matter) is in allowing zinc ions into the cells in greater concentrations. The zinc ions interfere with the virus's replication. By keeping the number of viruses down it allows the body's own immune system to gear up and provide the natural immunity that nature intended. If you wait until there are already billions upon billions of viruses making a patient sick enough to be hospitalized the benefit of using HCQ and Ivermectin are lost. As the article I copied indicated the "kits" being distributed in Uttar Pradesh contain Ivermectin, VIT D, ZINC, VIT C and doxycycline.

[Almost Retired]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

[Dresden]

How are Vax rates going in the USA? At time of post, Australia has 56.5% of people 16 and over fully vaccinated. 79.4% have had 1st dose

We are at 65% and 77% respectively for ages 12 and up. The good news here is that our new cases are falling sharply. They were over 150K per day a week or so ago, and now are down to about 108K per day. Death rates are also starting to decline. It's pretty amazing that when this latest surge hit us, forecasters were predicting that cases would level off and start dropping by early Oct., and they've been pretty right on with that.

[Dresden]

Identifying and prioritizing potential human-infecting viruses from their genome sequences using AI

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001390#sec002
Very interesting for future and also in that it could have done to predict CoV2
I'd need to see more but AI is often a data black box

our models could have identified Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a relatively high-risk coronavirus strain and that this prediction required no prior knowledge of zoonotic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-related coronaviruses.

I would like to see an AI/big data approach on evolution--might aid in finding the source. But I think you would have to track many coronaviruses over many years to have a model.

Focusing on potential antivirals and combinations (and broader vaccines) based on AI would seem to be money better spent than GOF--and I bet we can all agree on that!!!

That is an interesting approach, but as you mentioned, it still relies on a lot of data collection out in the field. The Wuhan Institute was able to track down the likely source of SARS to horseshoe bats in a particular region through field study, and I don't think you will ever be able to avoid that part of the equation.

[khufure]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/why-hcq-ivermectin-dropped-india-covid-treatment-protocol-1857306-2021-09-26

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 have dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection.

The decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

Studies also found there was no clarity on mortality benefit, no effect on length of hospital stay and recovery in case of Ivermectin.

Sure doesn't sound like a country that thinks Ivermectin has been a miracle cure for them, but the Desert Review likely has a greater pulse on what's going on medically in India than the Indian Council of Medical Research or the Indian National Task Force on COVID-19.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again. Because I will assume you are not intentionally obtuse let me draw a distinction, again. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not going to be effective TREATMENTS for people who are already sick enough from Covid to be hospitalized. The benefit, theoretically and in practice as demonstrated in Uttar Pradesh, is in prophylaxis or at the latest started at the time of presumed exposure or at the first appearance of mild symptoms. These compounds act as ionophores, they enhance the permeability of ions into cells. With regard to their effectiveness against Covid (and other RNA viruses for that matter) is in allowing zinc ions into the cells in greater concentrations. The zinc ions interfere with the virus's replication. By keeping the number of viruses down it allows the body's own immune system to gear up and provide the natural immunity that nature intended. If you wait until there are already billions upon billions of viruses making a patient sick enough to be hospitalized the benefit of using HCQ and Ivermectin are lost. As the article I copied indicated the "kits" being distributed in Uttar Pradesh contain Ivermectin, VIT D, ZINC, VIT C and doxycycline.

What a bunch of nonsense. No matter how many paragraphs of voodoo you type a horse de-wormer and hydroxychloroquine (a lupus drug) have been proven many times by actual science to not be effective against covid. If you want to not get the virus, get a vaccine. If you want to treat the virus you already have, get Merck's new pill or Remdesivir. Why do you trust nonsense information over doctors, people who take oaths and go to school for many years to help you?

[Dresden]

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/why-hcq-ivermectin-dropped-india-covid-treatment-protocol-1857306-2021-09-26

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 have dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection.

The decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

Studies also found there was no clarity on mortality benefit, no effect on length of hospital stay and recovery in case of Ivermectin.

Sure doesn't sound like a country that thinks Ivermectin has been a miracle cure for them, but the Desert Review likely has a greater pulse on what's going on medically in India than the Indian Council of Medical Research or the Indian National Task Force on COVID-19.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again. Because I will assume you are not intentionally obtuse let me draw a distinction, again. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not going to be effective TREATMENTS for people who are already sick enough from Covid to be hospitalized. The benefit, theoretically and in practice as demonstrated in Uttar Pradesh, is in prophylaxis or at the latest started at the time of presumed exposure or at the first appearance of mild symptoms. These compounds act as ionophores, they enhance the permeability of ions into cells. With regard to their effectiveness against Covid (and other RNA viruses for that matter) is in allowing zinc ions into the cells in greater concentrations. The zinc ions interfere with the virus's replication. By keeping the number of viruses down it allows the body's own immune system to gear up and provide the natural immunity that nature intended. If you wait until there are already billions upon billions of viruses making a patient sick enough to be hospitalized the benefit of using HCQ and Ivermectin are lost. As the article I copied indicated the "kits" being distributed in Uttar Pradesh contain Ivermectin, VIT D, ZINC, VIT C and doxycycline.

The article you cited from the NIH database seems to contradict what I have highlighted above. That article says: "Development of pulmonary delivery of ivermectin through synthesis of better ivermectin formulation has been reported recently and this is expected to shorten the treatment duration and lead to better outcomes [33]."

In other words, it IS or WAS being considered as a treatment for the illness, not as a preventitive. I'm assuming that the actual human clinical trials have not born out this possible effectiveness, and that's why it's not being used.

Also, that article states that invermectin is effective due to it's a ability to affect the protein binding of the virus, not, as you say above, by improving cellular permeability:

"The present study depicts comparative binding efficacy of a promising FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, against major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and their human counterparts involved in host–pathogen interaction. "

[dougthonus]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again. Because I will assume you are not intentionally obtuse let me draw a distinction, again.

I'm being obtuse?

Everyone in India literally said Ivermectin does nothing and recommended against using it, but some article by a newspaper in Arizona has decided it was a miracle drug in India despite everyone in India who is actually there saying that isn't true. If anyone is obtuse it would be you just believing whatever you want to believe. But yeah, as I said, random writer in Arizona knows what it's like in India way more than the Indian Medical council or Indian COVID 19 task force, why would those people know?

Let's do a real quick comparison
Ivermectin
- Repeatedly shown to have forged data, no proven effectiveness
- Has to be paid for out of your own pocket
- Has to be taken daily along with other pills you have to pay for
- Has caused many accidental poisonings because people aren't using it correctly (though could be resolved if people could get it properly prescribed)

Vaccine
- Clinically proven with over 4 billion doses given to reduce transmission, severity of symptoms, hospitalization, and death
- Completely free for you to get
- Does not require any daily use or follow up
- Does not require any other pills
- Has very low risk of side effects

[Almost Retired]

https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/why-hcq-ivermectin-dropped-india-covid-treatment-protocol-1857306-2021-09-26






Sure doesn't sound like a country that thinks Ivermectin has been a miracle cure for them, but the Desert Review likely has a greater pulse on what's going on medically in India than the Indian Council of Medical Research or the Indian National Task Force on COVID-19.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again. Because I will assume you are not intentionally obtuse let me draw a distinction, again. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not going to be effective TREATMENTS for people who are already sick enough from Covid to be hospitalized. The benefit, theoretically and in practice as demonstrated in Uttar Pradesh, is in prophylaxis or at the latest started at the time of presumed exposure or at the first appearance of mild symptoms. These compounds act as ionophores, they enhance the permeability of ions into cells. With regard to their effectiveness against Covid (and other RNA viruses for that matter) is in allowing zinc ions into the cells in greater concentrations. The zinc ions interfere with the virus's replication. By keeping the number of viruses down it allows the body's own immune system to gear up and provide the natural immunity that nature intended. If you wait until there are already billions upon billions of viruses making a patient sick enough to be hospitalized the benefit of using HCQ and Ivermectin are lost. As the article I copied indicated the "kits" being distributed in Uttar Pradesh contain Ivermectin, VIT D, ZINC, VIT C and doxycycline.

The article you cited from the NIH database seems to contradict what I have highlighted above. That article says: "Development of pulmonary delivery of ivermectin through synthesis of better ivermectin formulation has been reported recently and this is expected to shorten the treatment duration and lead to better outcomes [33]."



In other words, it IS or WAS being considered as a treatment for the illness, not as a preventitive. I'm assuming that the actual human clinical trials have not born out this possible effectiveness, and that's why it's not being used.

Also, that article states that invermectin is effective due to it's a ability to affect the protein binding of the virus, not, as you say above, by improving cellular permeability:

"The present study depicts comparative binding efficacy of a promising FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, against major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and their human counterparts involved in host–pathogen interaction. "

J Control Release. 2021 Jan 10; 329: 758–761.
Published online 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.10.009
PMCID: PMC7539925
PMID: 33038449
Ivermectin: an award-winning drug with expected antiviral activity against COVID-19
Fabio Rocha Formiga,a,b,⁎ Roger Leblanc,c Juliana de Souza Rebouças,d Leonardo Paiva Farias,e Ronaldo Nascimento de Oliveira,f and Lindomar Penag
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite this promise, the antiviral activity of ivermectin has not been consistently proven in vivo. While ivermectin's activity against SARS-CoV-2 is currently under investigation in patients, insufficient emphasis has been placed on formulation challenges. Here, we discuss challenges surrounding the use of ivermectin in the context of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and how novel formulations employing micro- and nanotechnologies may address these concerns.

Go to:
Graphical abstract
Unlabelled Image
Go to:
1. Commentary
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine was awarded to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ömura for their discoveries leading to ivermectin [1]. In addition to its extraordinary efficacy against parasitic diseases, ivermectin continues to offer new clinical applications due to its ability to be repurposed to treat new classes of diseases. Beyond its invaluable therapeutic role in onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, an increasing body of evidence points to the potential of ivermectin as an antiviral agent.

Ivermectin treatment was shown to increase survival in mice infected with the pseudorabies virus (PRV) [2] and reduced titers of porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2) in the tissues and sera of infected piglets [3]. In addition, Xu et al. reported the antiviral efficacy of ivermectin in dengue virus-infected Aedes albopictus mosquitoes [4]. Ivermectin was also identified as a promising agent against the alphaviruses chikungunya, Semliki Forest and Sindbis virus, as well as yellow fever, a flavivirus [5]. Moreover, a new study indicated that ivermectin presents strong antiviral activity against the West Nile virus, also a flavivirus, at low (μM) concentrations [6]. This drug has further been demonstrated to exert antiviral activity against Zika virus (ZIKV) in in vitro screening assays [7], but failed to offer protection in ZIKV-infected mice [8].

Recently, Caly et al. reported on the antiviral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 [9]. These authors demonstrated that a single dose of ivermectin was able to reduce the replication of an Australian isolate of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero/hSLAM cells by 5000-fold. This finding has generated great interest and excitement among physicians, researchers and public health authorities around the world. However, these results should be interpreted with caution. Firstly, it is important to note that the drug was only tested in vitro using a single line of monkey kidney cells engineered to express human signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM), also known as CDw150, which is a receptor for the measles virus [10]. Also, ivermectin has not been tested in any pulmonary cell lines, which are critical for SARS-CoV-2 in humans [11]. Furthermore, these authors did not show whether the reduction seen in RNA levels of SARS-CoV-2 following treatment with ivermectin would indeed lead to decreased infectious virus titers. Importantly, the drug concentration used in the study (5 μM) to block SARS-CoV-2 was 35-fold higher than the one approved by the FDA for treatment of parasitic diseases, which raises concerns about its efficacy in humans using the FDA approved dose in clinical trials [12].

In light of the potential of ivermectin to prevent replication in a broad spectrum of viruses, the inhibition of importin α/β1-mediated nuclear import of viral proteins is suggested as the probable mechanism underlying its antiviral activity [6]. Since SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, a similar mechanism of action may take place [9]. A possible ionophore role for ivermectin has also been reported [13]. Since ionophore molecules have been described as potential antiviral drugs [14], ivermectin could ultimately induce an ionic imbalance that disrupts the potential of the viral membrane, thereby threatening its integrity and functionality.


I think I'll rely on by Pharmacy Degree from The University of Illinois and my close to 40 years as a practicing hospital Pharmacist. But thanks anyway.

[Almost Retired]

[quote="khufure"]

What a bunch of nonsense. No matter how many paragraphs of voodoo you type a horse de-wormer and hydroxychloroquine (a lupus drug) have been proven many times by actual science to not be effective against covid.

**Your use of term "horse de-wormer", part of the smear campaign against Ivermectin kind of says a lot about your mind set. From where I sit that campaign seemed to be directed toward low IQ individuals (the predominant strain in modern America.) And it worked on you apparently. Enough said.


If you want to not get the virus, get a vaccine.

**Well the Director of the CDC says the vaccines will not stop you from getting the Virus nor will it prevent you from spreading the virus. I guess you missed that interview. It was on CNN. Your side's "go-to" place for the REAL NEWS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/08/06/cdc_director_vaccines_no_longer_prevent_you_from_spreading_covid.html?jwsource=cl

If you want to treat the virus you already have, get Merck's new pill or Remdesivir.

**Merck's new pill has not yet been approved. They will fast track it. But approval is still months away at best. So currently unavailable to anyone. And Remdesivir is overrated. One Doctor in one of my hospitals has put this comment in at least 2 profiles that I have had to look over; "Patient refused Remdesevir, which is just as well as the data does not support it's efficacy." There have been cases of liver toxicity, renal toxicity, and cardio-toxicity with use of Remdesevir. Maybe it's worth a shot for a critical patient. But I'm not seeing any miracle results from it's use in the 3 hospitals I cover. Toxilizumab shows some efficacy against cytokine storm. And the plasma infusions seem to help as well. But I would not want my life depending on Remdesevir..

Why do you trust nonsense information over doctors, people who take oaths and go to school for many years to help you?


**I actually did go to school for many years, with degrees in Pharmacy and later in Law, both from the University of Illinois. And I passed 2 different Bar exams on the first try, the second one after less than a week of prep. I don't relish having to run counter to 95% of the posters on this forum. But I have the courage of my convictions. My education, my extensive reading, my observations as I oversee drug therapy in the hospitals I cover, all lead me to believe what I believe. Being unpopular here is not going to alter that. I don't need anyone's approval. The older you get the less you give a **** what other people think about you. It's liberating.

[dougthonus]

**I actually did go to school for many years, with degrees in Pharmacy and later in Law, both from the University of Illinois. And I passed 2 different Bar exams on the first try, the second one after less than a week of prep. I don't relish having to run counter to 95% of the posters on this forum. But I have the courage of my convictions. My education, my extensive reading, my observations as I oversee drug therapy in the hospitals I cover, all lead me to believe what I believe. Being unpopular here is not going to alter that. I don't need anyone's approval. The older you get the less you give a **** what other people think about you. It's liberating.

Was it in your clinical overseeing of treatment that you saw them put the microchips in the vaccine or do you no longer believe that is true? You did state earlier that you there are microchips in the vaccine, perhaps you were joking, but since you quote every conspiracy theory out there as fact, it is legitimately hard to tell if it was a joke or not. Maybe one of those "I'm joking... Unless you think so too.... " moments.

[Dresden]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again. Because I will assume you are not intentionally obtuse let me draw a distinction, again. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are not going to be effective TREATMENTS for people who are already sick enough from Covid to be hospitalized. The benefit, theoretically and in practice as demonstrated in Uttar Pradesh, is in prophylaxis or at the latest started at the time of presumed exposure or at the first appearance of mild symptoms. These compounds act as ionophores, they enhance the permeability of ions into cells. With regard to their effectiveness against Covid (and other RNA viruses for that matter) is in allowing zinc ions into the cells in greater concentrations. The zinc ions interfere with the virus's replication. By keeping the number of viruses down it allows the body's own immune system to gear up and provide the natural immunity that nature intended. If you wait until there are already billions upon billions of viruses making a patient sick enough to be hospitalized the benefit of using HCQ and Ivermectin are lost. As the article I copied indicated the "kits" being distributed in Uttar Pradesh contain Ivermectin, VIT D, ZINC, VIT C and doxycycline.

The article you cited from the NIH database seems to contradict what I have highlighted above. That article says: "Development of pulmonary delivery of ivermectin through synthesis of better ivermectin formulation has been reported recently and this is expected to shorten the treatment duration and lead to better outcomes [33]."



In other words, it IS or WAS being considered as a treatment for the illness, not as a preventitive. I'm assuming that the actual human clinical trials have not born out this possible effectiveness, and that's why it's not being used.

Also, that article states that invermectin is effective due to it's a ability to affect the protein binding of the virus, not, as you say above, by improving cellular permeability:

"The present study depicts comparative binding efficacy of a promising FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, against major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and their human counterparts involved in host–pathogen interaction. "

J Control Release. 2021 Jan 10; 329: 758–761.
Published online 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.10.009
PMCID: PMC7539925
PMID: 33038449
Ivermectin: an award-winning drug with expected antiviral activity against COVID-19
Fabio Rocha Formiga,a,b,⁎ Roger Leblanc,c Juliana de Souza Rebouças,d Leonardo Paiva Farias,e Ronaldo Nascimento de Oliveira,f and Lindomar Penag
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite this promise, the antiviral activity of ivermectin has not been consistently proven in vivo. While ivermectin's activity against SARS-CoV-2 is currently under investigation in patients, insufficient emphasis has been placed on formulation challenges. Here, we discuss challenges surrounding the use of ivermectin in the context of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and how novel formulations employing micro- and nanotechnologies may address these concerns.

Go to:
Graphical abstract
Unlabelled Image
Go to:
1. Commentary
The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine was awarded to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ömura for their discoveries leading to ivermectin [1]. In addition to its extraordinary efficacy against parasitic diseases, ivermectin continues to offer new clinical applications due to its ability to be repurposed to treat new classes of diseases. Beyond its invaluable therapeutic role in onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, an increasing body of evidence points to the potential of ivermectin as an antiviral agent.

Ivermectin treatment was shown to increase survival in mice infected with the pseudorabies virus (PRV) [2] and reduced titers of porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2) in the tissues and sera of infected piglets [3]. In addition, Xu et al. reported the antiviral efficacy of ivermectin in dengue virus-infected Aedes albopictus mosquitoes [4]. Ivermectin was also identified as a promising agent against the alphaviruses chikungunya, Semliki Forest and Sindbis virus, as well as yellow fever, a flavivirus [5]. Moreover, a new study indicated that ivermectin presents strong antiviral activity against the West Nile virus, also a flavivirus, at low (μM) concentrations [6]. This drug has further been demonstrated to exert antiviral activity against Zika virus (ZIKV) in in vitro screening assays [7], but failed to offer protection in ZIKV-infected mice [8].

Recently, Caly et al. reported on the antiviral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 [9]. These authors demonstrated that a single dose of ivermectin was able to reduce the replication of an Australian isolate of SARS-CoV-2 in Vero/hSLAM cells by 5000-fold. This finding has generated great interest and excitement among physicians, researchers and public health authorities around the world. However, these results should be interpreted with caution. Firstly, it is important to note that the drug was only tested in vitro using a single line of monkey kidney cells engineered to express human signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM), also known as CDw150, which is a receptor for the measles virus [10]. Also, ivermectin has not been tested in any pulmonary cell lines, which are critical for SARS-CoV-2 in humans [11]. Furthermore, these authors did not show whether the reduction seen in RNA levels of SARS-CoV-2 following treatment with ivermectin would indeed lead to decreased infectious virus titers. Importantly, the drug concentration used in the study (5 μM) to block SARS-CoV-2 was 35-fold higher than the one approved by the FDA for treatment of parasitic diseases, which raises concerns about its efficacy in humans using the FDA approved dose in clinical trials [12].

In light of the potential of ivermectin to prevent replication in a broad spectrum of viruses, the inhibition of importin α/β1-mediated nuclear import of viral proteins is suggested as the probable mechanism underlying its antiviral activity [6]. Since SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, a similar mechanism of action may take place [9]. A possible ionophore role for ivermectin has also been reported [13]. Since ionophore molecules have been described as potential antiviral drugs [14], ivermectin could ultimately induce an ionic imbalance that disrupts the potential of the viral membrane, thereby threatening its integrity and functionality.


I think I'll rely on by Pharmacy Degree from The University of Illinois and my close to 40 years as a practicing hospital Pharmacist. But thanks anyway.

Ok, no need to be snide. This is a different article than the one you referenced. And it does mention that it is the ability to inhibit proteins that is the likely mechanism, thus echoing the other article. It sounds to me like this other mechanism, the "ionophore role" is "possible", but has not been proven.

[Dresden]

**Well the Director of the CDC says the vaccines will not stop you from getting the Virus nor will it prevent you from spreading the virus. I guess you missed that interview. It was on CNN. Your side's "go-to" place for the REAL NEWS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/08/06/cdc_director_vaccines_no_longer_prevent_you_from_spreading_covid.html?jwsource=cl

You are completely misreading or misrepresenting what the CDC director says here. This is the context of the quote:

"Fully vaccinated people who get a COVID-19 "breakthrough" infection can spread the virus to others even if they are not symptomatic, Centers for Disease Control Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN on Thursday.

She warned that an autumn/winter surge in the COVID "Delta" variant could again see hundreds of thousands of cases per day.

"Our vaccines are working exceptionally well," she said. "They continue to work well with delta with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission.""

She is saying that a vaccinated person can still transmit the disease. It WILL absolutely prevent you from getting it, at least up to around 93% effectiveness- studies have shown this. I don't know how someone with a law degree can misread what she is saying here. It's plain as day that she is encouraging people to get vaxed, that getting vaxed will help prevent you from getting seriously ill if you should have a breakthrough case, but that you can still transmit the virus to others even though you are vaxed (although I believe studies have shown that you are less likely to than a person who is unvaxed).

And you are also ignoring the fact that the more people who become infected, the greater the chance of another variant developing, which is why in my opinion, it is everyone's duty to take the shot, so that we can wipe this out as much as possible.

[Flopper]

However, these results should be interpreted with caution.
Firstly, it is important to note that the drug was only tested in vitro using a single line of monkey kidney cells engineered to express human signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (SLAM), also known as CDw150, which is a receptor for the measles virus [10]. Also, ivermectin has not been tested in any pulmonary cell lines, which are critical for SARS-CoV-2 in humans [11]. Furthermore, these authors did not show whether the reduction seen in RNA levels of SARS-CoV-2 following treatment with ivermectin would indeed lead to decreased infectious virus titers. Importantly, the drug concentration used in the study (5 μM) to block SARS-CoV-2 was 35-fold higher than the one approved by the FDA for treatment of parasitic diseases, which raises concerns about its efficacy in humans using the FDA approved dose in clinical trials [12].

And this is supposed to bolster your argument about the efficacy of Ivermectin?

[dice]

**I actually did go to school for many years, with degrees in Pharmacy and later in Law, both from the University of Illinois. And I passed 2 different Bar exams on the first try, the second one after less than a week of prep. I don't relish having to run counter to 95% of the posters on this forum. But I have the courage of my convictions. My education, my extensive reading, my observations as I oversee drug therapy in the hospitals I cover, all lead me to believe what I believe. Being unpopular here is not going to alter that. I don't need anyone's approval. The older you get the less you give a **** what other people think about you. It's liberating.

perhaps you are extensively reading the wrong stuff...that which dovetails with your worldview. misinformation campaigns ensnare a lot of reasonably intelligent people in this way

[chifan1798]

What a bunch of nonsense. No matter how many paragraphs of voodoo you type a horse de-wormer and hydroxychloroquine (a lupus drug) have been proven many times by actual science to not be effective against covid.

**Your use of term "horse de-wormer", part of the smear campaign against Ivermectin kind of says a lot about your mind set. From where I sit that campaign seemed to be directed toward low IQ individuals (the predominant strain in modern America.) And it worked on you apparently. Enough said.


If you want to not get the virus, get a vaccine.

**Well the Director of the CDC says the vaccines will not stop you from getting the Virus nor will it prevent you from spreading the virus. I guess you missed that interview. It was on CNN. Your side's "go-to" place for the REAL NEWS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/08/06/cdc_director_vaccines_no_longer_prevent_you_from_spreading_covid.html?jwsource=cl

If you want to treat the virus you already have, get Merck's new pill or Remdesivir.

**Merck's new pill has not yet been approved. They will fast track it. But approval is still months away at best. So currently unavailable to anyone. And Remdesivir is overrated. One Doctor in one of my hospitals has put this comment in at least 2 profiles that I have had to look over; "Patient refused Remdesevir, which is just as well as the data does not support it's efficacy." There have been cases of liver toxicity, renal toxicity, and cardio-toxicity with use of Remdesevir. Maybe it's worth a shot for a critical patient. But I'm not seeing any miracle results from it's use in the 3 hospitals I cover. Toxilizumab shows some efficacy against cytokine storm. And the plasma infusions seem to help as well. But I would not want my life depending on Remdesevir..

Why do you trust nonsense information over doctors, people who take oaths and go to school for many years to help you?


**I actually did go to school for many years, with degrees in Pharmacy and later in Law, both from the University of Illinois. And I passed 2 different Bar exams on the first try, the second one after less than a week of prep. I don't relish having to run counter to 95% of the posters on this forum. But I have the courage of my convictions. My education, my extensive reading, my observations as I oversee drug therapy in the hospitals I cover, all lead me to believe what I believe. Being unpopular here is not going to alter that. I don't need anyone's approval. The older you get the less you give a **** what other people think about you. It's liberating.

The thing is, you put so much effort into trying to find counter information on why not to take the vaccine. You post all of these random links, some of which are opinions of people who have no such medical training, when you could probably find 50 times as many articles, links, or peer reviewed studies, that shows why the vaccine is safe and effective. You’re just arguing for arguments sake. For any opinion or argument that we have, you can easily look up data, which you think will support your point of view, and then you choose to believe that. The data for COVID is overwhelmingly in favor for the vaccine.

You claim to talk to random people who say this or that, and talk about a random nurse or a random doctor who may have noticed something. I can claim that I have access to multiple groups that are restricted for only physicians, who talk about these things at length, on a daily basis. Out of the thousands of doctors that are in the multiple physician groups that I belong to, I have yet to see any one of them advocate for NOT getting the vaccine. There have been much disagreement on shutting down the country, but never about the vaccine efficacy or the results that we have personally witnessed on people with or without the vaccine, or the post COVID long hauler symptoms that we witness patients experience.

Great for you, you’re educated. My husband is a soon to be pharmacist…however he knows, just like other pharmacists, that our training is different. As the other poster mentioned, we have literally have dedicated our lives to treat people. We have to take 3 standardized tests during our 4 years of medical school (Step 1, Step 2CS and Step 2 CK), then take Step 3 during residency (shortest residency being 3 years), and then pass our board exam after residency. And if you do a fellowship after residency, go ahead and add another board exam. So we are very extensively trained. We all have our role…we all work as a team (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc), but the doctors are the ones who have the ability to integrate someone’s personal health profile, and demographic data, with the knowledge for risks and benefits for particular treatments, because that is what we have been taught to do. This is why I’ll go back to one of my first points in this thread….please go see your doctor so that you can discuss with them what is best for you. They can help answer questions about what is fact from fiction, and any questions that you may have on the COVID vaccine or vaccines in general, and why they work best when a large percentage of people gets them.

[dougthonus]

Ok, no need to be snide. This is a different article than the one you referenced. And it does mention that it is the ability to inhibit proteins that is the likely mechanism, thus echoing the other article. It sounds to me like this other mechanism, the "ionophore role" is "possible", but has not been proven.

Nothing with Ivermectin is proven.

It's silly though, because the way he describes using it, even if it was proven, would be like, you can pay $200 a year for a cocktail of pills you take daily to avoid getting a vaccine that would be dramatically more effective, cost you nothing, have less side effects, and requires no upkeep or work on your part.

We have a term at my company when measuring financial impact of bonds that we called rainbowing. Rainbowing is when you chart a graph and one instrument is better in all scenarios than another. There is no scenario that one instrument wins, so you would never by that instrument. The vaccine would rainbow Ivermectin even if Ivermectin did what the forged data said it did (which actual studies show it doesn't), but even if that forged data was correct the only reason you would take it was because the vaccine wasn't available for you.