hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Maybe the active drug is not longer under patent? Maybe they havn't gotten their market plan in place? Maybe just maybe, there are majority shareholders and board members who own both Merc and JnJ and xyz and 123 and........
Ivermectin a promising drug...
- Thread starter ribbont
- Start date
Here is the newest study I found, no to ivermectin but another drug may be showing promise:
McMaster TOGETHER Trial: Ivermectin a No Show While Fluvoxamine Shows Some Promise
Recently, McMaster University's Professor Ed Mills, principal investigator of the Together trial, highlighted interim analysis results evidencing no impact of ivermectin and some other repurposed study drugs while pointing to some promise for Fluvoxamine. TOGETHER is a randomized, Adaptive...
trialsitenews.com
Here is the newest study I found, no to ivermectin but another drug may be showing promise:
McMaster TOGETHER Trial: Ivermectin a No Show While Fluvoxamine Shows Some Promise
Recently, McMaster University's Professor Ed Mills, principal investigator of the Together trial, highlighted interim analysis results evidencing no impact of ivermectin and some other repurposed study drugs while pointing to some promise for Fluvoxamine. TOGETHER is a randomized, Adaptive...trialsitenews.com
Great! But why should I rely on this study versus the multiple studies listed on FLCCC? Or if there are multiple studies like the one you linked vs multiple studies on FLCCC?
Hooper was a fine parasitologist and helped develop a nice antiparasitic agent, so that makes him a go-to virologist?
Look to JAMA studies and to blinded clinical trial results. Look for language like "statistically significant".
If I give 15 people ivermectin, unblinded, and 15 others I don't, maybe I pick the least sick or youngest to get it. But say it was random. Say 15 of 15 live with ivermectin and "only" 14 of 15 live without it. Shout it from the mountaintops, I saved a life! Hallelujah!
Um.... 15 people? Not statistically significant. But... we will find some pay-to-play paper harvesting publisher to get my unsupported conclusions out there. Some rubes will believe it.
If I give 15 people ivermectin, unblinded, and 15 others I don't, maybe I pick the least sick or youngest to get it. But say it was random. Say 15 of 15 live with ivermectin and "only" 14 of 15 live without it. Shout it from the mountaintops, I saved a life! Hallelujah!
Um.... 15 people? Not statistically significant. But... we will find some pay-to-play paper harvesting publisher to get my unsupported conclusions out there. Some rubes will believe it.
IDK, RMK was a nice college basketball player, so that makes him a great coach?
Yea, that people have to repeatedly say "do not take horse dewormer" ... is a bit surreal.
hmmmmmm.
Maybe just let them? I'm not saying promote it, but why fight it?
Signed,
Darwin.
hmmmmmm.
Maybe just let them? I'm not saying promote it, but why fight it?
Signed,
Darwin.
I’m a fan of scientists who are saving lives. So, if that’s a fan of “big pharma”, yes I am.
Then again, I haven’t gone to my local livestock store where I could get horse pills!
I guess I’m not as wise as a moron like you.
The same Ivermectin you suggest should be considered as an anti-Covid tool was developed by Merck, wasn't it? Isn't Merck "big pharma"?
Henry Ford medical center in Michigan cane out with a study very very early that showed Hydroxy was the miracle cure.
The problem was it was an observational study. They went through their records and put people in two groups, those that received the drug and those that did not. Those that did had a better survival rate.
But that study has limitations. Two became quickly apparent. One was they only gave hydroxy to patients they believed had a chance. Second, among those patients they also gave steroids in larger numbers. Steroids were discovered to be effective shortly after in Britain.
So what did the Ford study really show? It showed 1) that patients who 9nly receive palliative care die more often and 2) some combination. Of hydroxy and/or steroids works. Of course we learned that steroids alone worked as well as steroids and hydroxy.
Being that they argue large double blind trials are useless, those are not the trials they are doing. They are ER doctors, they say it is unethical to withhold treatment. So if they are giving treatment and we know steroids are called for, how do we know what role this drug is providing?
So if faced with a non-controlled observational study or a controlled experiment, the latter is considered better. If faced with multiple observational studies, then you get into a numbers game.
I am not paranoid enough to think it has been proven to work and the entire mainstream medical community is in on a fix except the three docs.
It's all about the dosing. Ivermectin is safe in humans at the appropriate dose.
But it hasn't been proven effective for Covid. Would I take it if my physician said let's give it a try....absolutely because I know it's safe.
The only issue I have is the one where folks won't get a vaccine that we know works but will take Ivermectin that we don't know that it works.
Also, only take if prescribed by your physician... don't get it from TSC and guess at the dose
You are an idiot.
Put down the bottle...you can't handle your booze
Objectively speaking, this is a some solid shit talk. Creative and clever
Well, Hoops replied to a post of mine last Feb that maybe MRK didn't really want to use ivermectin because it had another treatment drug for COVID in its pipeline. He sarcastically replied it was a conspiracy, which to me he was defending MRK. I found it odd that a liberal would defend big pharma, as MRK is.
Big pharma is saving a lot of people's lives right now.
I know. I love them. Making lots of money on them.
And 4 billion people are happy ivermectin has been available in human doses to combat 21 different human viruses. Maybe 22 if the FDA looks at the data.
But you be you and be close minded.
Good, then stop your whining about Big Pharma.
LOL on the Ivermectin. You are bonkers. Please link a study by a reputable source that says Ivermectin is effective in treating Covid. MERCK, who makes the drug is urging people not to take it for Covid.
Is your next plan to get an exorcist?
Column: Major study of ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd's latest COVID drug, finds 'no effect whatsoever'
Ivermectin, touted as a treatment of COVID by the anti-vaccine crowd, has "no effect," according to a major study.
www.latimes.com
Fact check: Ivermectin is not a proven treatment for COVID-19
Scientists are studying whether ivermectin could be used to treat COVID-19, but so far, there's little data to suggest it's effective.
www.usatoday.com
Seriously, these idiots want to use every possible thing they read about on Facebook, except the one thing that is proven to stop Covid: The vaccine!
click the link if you want to educate yourself on the POSSIBILTY of the drug
The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited…
Last edited:
From a research article I linked for Hoops.
Originally identified as an inhibitor of interaction between the human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) integrase protein (IN) and the importin (IMP) α/β1 heterodimer responsible for IN nuclear import (Wagstaff et al., 2011), Ivermectin has since been confirmed to inhibit IN nuclear import and HIV-1 replication (Wagstaff et al., 2012). Other actions of ivermectin have been reported (Mastrangelo et al., 2012), but ivermectin has been shown to inhibit nuclear import of host (eg. (Kosyna et al., 2015; van der Watt et al., 2016)) and viral proteins, including simian virus SV40 large tumour antigen (T-ag) and dengue virus (DENV) non-structural protein 5 (Wagstaff et al., 2012, Wagstaff et al., 2011). Importantly, it has been demonstrated to limit infection by RNA viruses such as DENV 1-4 (Tay et al., 2013), West Nile Virus (Yang et al., 2020), Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) (Lundberg et al., 2013) and influenza (Gotz et al., 2016), with this broad spectrum activity believed to be due to the reliance by many different RNA viruses on IMPα/β1 during infection (Caly et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2019). Ivermectin has similarly been shown to be effective against the DNA virus pseudorabies virus (PRV) both in vitro and in vivo, with ivermectin treatment shown to increase survival in PRV-infected mice (Lv et al., 2018). Efficacy was not observed for ivermectin against Zika virus (ZIKV) in mice, but the authors acknowledged that study limitations justified re-evaluation of ivermectin's anti-ZIKV activity (Ketkar et al., 2019). Finally, ivermectin was the focus of a phase III clinical trial in Thailand in 2014–2017, against DENV infection, in which a single daily oral dose was observed to be safe and resulted in a significant reduction in serum levels of viral NS1 protein, but no change in viremia or clinical benefit was observed (see below) (Yamasmith et al., 2018).
The causative agent of the current COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, is a single stranded positive sense RNA virus that is closely related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Studies on SARS-CoV proteins have revealed a potential role for IMPα/β1 during infection in signal-dependent nucleocytoplasmic shutting of the SARS-CoV Nucleocapsid protein (Rowland et al., 2005; Timani et al., 2005; Wulan et al., 2015), that may impact host cell division (Hiscox et al., 2001; Wurm et al., 2001). In addition, the SARS-CoV accessory protein ORF6 has been shown to antagonize the antiviral activity of the STAT1 transcription factor by sequestering IMPα/β1 on the rough ER/Golgi membrane (Frieman et al., 2007). Taken together, these reports suggested that ivermectin's nuclear transport inhibitory activity may be effective against SARS-CoV-2.
Virus including HIV-1, West Nile, and several more. See the link I provided Hoops, who probably won't read it.
My sister was vaccinated. She tested positive for Covid Monday. The vaccine helps but its stopping nothing.
It stops people from getting sick and dying. Why do people insist on dismissing that?
Interesting stats out of LA. From May through the end of July 25% of all cases were fully vaccinated people. 3.2% of fully vaxd were hospitalized. 0.05 admitted to icu and 0.25 were on a vent. This is better than the unvacd group. Although the unvacd group's numbers were still very low too.
More timely LA's breakthrough cases are at about 30 percent now. I wonder will breakthrough data will start to dissuade people. Not as sick is a different message than won't get it.
I still think employer mandates is the quickest way to elevate numbers.
Ohio State announced a vaccine mandate today for students and employees.
Ohio State now requiring the COVID-19 vaccine. Will other universities follow?
Following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Ohio State says it will require COVID-19 vaccines.
www.dispatch.com
I agree. I have been vaccinated. But not everyone can be vaccinated. So should we not look into treatments for them?
Is she in the hospital, on a ventilator or dead? Please tell me that at this point in the pandemic you don't understand how these vaccines work. You realize that 99% of the people dying of covid are unvaccinated, right?
You are aggressively ignorant.
