SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
This is quackery (if prescribed for COVID) and I would not like to be treated by such a medical doctor, and is just as bad as homeopathy.
You're comment is well taken. Ethical and legal issues for doctors that do it.
That's why its paramount for these studies in progress to reach a conclusion one way or another and save lives.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
There are some large studies underway that are being funded by the NIH (first link below). It appears to me that no results for the NIH ivermectin trial have been posted yet (second link below).

Oxford had a large ivermectin trial underway but it was halted due to supply issues (third link below). As you can see, Merck has stated "the probability of ivermectin providing a potentially safe and efficacious treatment option for SARS-CoV-2 infection is low."

Despite the lack of solid evidence ivermectin is effective, many doctors are prescribing ivermectin, and insurance companies are picking a big chunk of the cost (fourth link below). Just because ivermectin is not FDA approved for treating COVID doesn't mean doctors can't prescribe it.

It's somewhat puzzling why so many people are apparently upset that the FDA has not approved ivermectin for treating COVID. I can't prove it, but my impression is that a lot of the people clamoring for FDA approval of ivermectin are the same people who are skeptical of the FDA approval of the COVID vaccines and Paxlovid.

>>>Large Clinical Trial to Study Repurposed Drugs to Treat COVID-19 Symptoms

April 19, 2021

Using an ACTIV master protocol, the trial will focus on potential interventions for mild-to-moderate illness

The National Institutes of Health will fund a large, randomized, placebo controlled Phase 3 clinical trial to test several existing prescription and over-the-counter medications for people to self-administer to treat symptoms of COVID-19. Part of the Accelerating COVID 19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public–private partnership, the ACTIV-6 trial aims to provide evidence-based treatment options for the majority of adult patients with COVID-19 who have mild-to-moderate symptoms and are not sick enough to be hospitalized. NIH will provide an initial investment of $155 million in funding for the trial. . . . Enrollment is open to test the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin, fluvoxamine and fluticasone in treating mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms at home. Agent prioritization is ongoing, and additional study arms may open. For the latest information on the drugs being studied, visit the ACTIV website.<<<



>>>The ivermectin arm of the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE trial is "currently paused due to temporary supply issues," according to the trial's website.

The website does not offer any details on what caused the ivermectin supply difficulties in PRINCIPLE, which is investigating possible treatments for COVID-19 and being led by the University of Oxford in England. . . .Ivermectin manufacturer Merck did not directly comment on the supply issues affecting PRINCIPLE. However, as part of a longer statement on the drug provided to MedPage Today via email, the company said that it has "concluded that the probability of ivermectin providing a potentially safe and efficacious treatment option for SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and have prioritized internal efforts towards the development of alternate candidates that provide a higher probability of success for the treatment of COVID-19."

"If clinical data emerge providing definitive evidence for a positive benefit-risk assessment of the use of ivermectin in COVID-19, we stand ready to provide our expertise and resources as needed," Merck added.<<<


>>>“Insurers usually don’t cover ineffective treatments, or at least make patients pay for most of the cost,” said Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D., the health care researcher from U-M who led the study. “Our study suggests that they are treating ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19 differently. In doing so, they are reducing barriers to an ineffective drug that some are using as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination or evidence-based treatments.” . . . “To be clear, clinicians may still prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 and patients can choose to pay for these prescriptions themselves. Our point is simply that insurers shouldn’t cover these prescriptions unless ivermectin proves to be an effective COVID-19 treatment,” said Chua, a pediatrician at Michigan Medicine’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center. . . . The authors then estimated that all but 3,600 of the 88,000 ivermectin prescriptions filled in the week of August 13, 2021 were for COVID-19. Assuming that the study’s results generalized to these prescriptions, the authors estimated that private and Medicare plans paid $2.4 million for the prescriptions in this week alone.<<<

Some light on the supply issues.

by Jennifer Henderson, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today December 14, 2021

"The ivermectin arm of the U.K.'s PRINCIPLE trial is "currently paused due to temporary supply issues," according to the trial's website.
The website does not offer any details on what caused the ivermectin supply difficulties in PRINCIPLE, which is investigating possible treatments for COVID-19 and being led by the University of Oxford in England.
A full response from the trial's press team was promised, but had not reached MedPage Today by press time.

Ivermectin manufacturer Merck did not directly comment on the supply issues affecting PRINCIPLE. However, as part of a longer statement on the drug provided to MedPage Today via email, the company said that it has "concluded that the probability of ivermectin providing a potentially safe and efficacious treatment option for SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and have prioritized internal efforts towards the development of alternate candidates that provide a higher probability of success for the treatment of COVID-19."

Free Translation of the company's email. "We get a higher profit margin by developing and patenting new drugs than by manufacturing a generic one." Yeah, baby, yeah!
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
You're comment is well taken. Ethical and legal issues for doctors that do it.
That's why its paramount for these studies in progress to reach a conclusion one way or another and save lives.
By now the conclusion ought to be that it should not be prescribed for COVID treatment.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
That's the conclusion at this date in time before the studies are concluded.
Science demands that we always test, test and test.
If we didn't do this in the past we'd still be living in caves.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Quite. Unless you convince your doctor you have worms...
I must admit your last sentence could be interpreted in many ways.
To paraphrase Austin Powers, "Doesn't that make you horny?"
What I was trying to get at with transmissibility is how do you test such a thing?
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
That's the conclusion at this date in time before the studies are concluded.
Science demands that we always test, test and test.
If we didn't do this in the past we'd still be living in caves.
The conclusion is correct as ivermectin has not been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for COVID. If show to be so, that would be great, but unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Today, as I read through the recent developments in this thread, I've become alarmed. To be specific, all the posts (with one exception below) about ivermectin are wrong – far off the mark. I'm directing my comments to @Dude#1279435 , @SithZedi and @Danzilla31 among others. Your posts show that you misunderstand the nature of drug development, clinical trials, and the role of the FDA in this process. It's a highly regulated process that has been in place for many decades, supported by US Law, for very good reasons. Look up the early histories of the Salk polio vaccines and of thalidomide, and you'll see why.

Some of your comments make me wonder if you are simply making up stuff that fits preconceived conspiracy theories. But it's more likely that you are repeating what you've heard from highly questionable sources, such as Faux News or other sources with axes to grind.

Mr._Clark's summary is up to date and correct as far as I know. So far, there is no useful anti-viral activity for ivermectin. People are looking hard, but so far there ain't a hint of activity.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Today, as I read through the recent developments in this thread, I've become alarmed. To be specific, all the posts (with one exception below) about ivermectin are wrong – far off the mark. I'm directing my comments to @Dude#1279435 , @SithZedi and @Danzilla31 among others. Your posts show that you misunderstand the nature of drug development, clinical trials, and the role of the FDA in this process. It's a highly regulated process that has been in place for many decades, supported by US Law, for very good reasons. Look up the early histories of the Salk polio vaccines and of thalidomide, and you'll see why.

Some of your comments make me wonder if you are simply making up stuff that fits preconceived conspiracy theories. But it's more likely that you are repeating what you've heard from highly questionable sources, such as Faux News or other sources with axes to grind.

Mr._Clark's summary is up to date and correct as far as I know. So far, there is no useful anti-viral activity for ivermectin. People are looking hard, but so far there ain't a hint of activity.
Ummmm where have I posted anything about Ivermectin? In fact where have I posted anything on this particular thread recently? I've listened I've replied with the button in spots where I find something informative but that's it

I don't know enough about Ivermectin to have an opinion about it one way or the other. I'm open to learn and I'm willing to listen to other points of view. That's not a crime

Before you drag my name into this make sure I'm guilty of the accusation your accusing me off.

Even in the thread covid politics we never went into this in detail. That thread is a different animal it has nothing to do with the science which is why it was opened up to keep them seperate but even there I mentioned nothing about Ivermectin.

I'm sick and tired of you trying to police everyone on what to say or think or feel. We're all able to think for ourselves here. Just because I'm open to hearing what other people have to say doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly go do what they say.

It's called having a discussion.

But if we're going to have this discussion make sure I'm guilty of what you just accused me off before you put my name out there

Sound fair to you? Now in respect to the thread which is about science and scientific inquiry I'll leave it at that

I apologize about needing to say this but @Swerd with all due respect

I won't sit back and have you put my name out there on something I didn't say.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai



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.

The pathology of COVID-19 is characterized by the rapid replication of SARS-CoV-2, triggering an amplified immune response that may lead to cytokine storm, which frequently induces a severe inflammatory pulmonary response [15]. Disease progression may result in progressive respiratory failure arising from alveolar damage, and can lead to death [16]. Moreover, the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) in patients with severe disease indicates higher loads, as well as greater viral persistence [[16], [17], [18], [19]].

In addition to the indication for antiviral therapy, anti-inflammatory intervention may also be necessary to prevent acute lung injury in SARS-CoV-2 infection. With regard to its anti-inflammatory properties, ivermectin have been shown to mitigate skin inflammation [20]. Importantly, ivermectin significantly diminished the recruitment of immune cells and cytokine production in BALF assessed in a murine model of asthma [21]. A study evaluating the ability of ivermectin to inhibit lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation revealed significantly decreased production of TNF-alpha, IL-1ss and IL-6 in vivo and in vitro [22]. Further studies may establish the role of ivermectin on inflammatory response caused by SARS-CoV-2, whether besides the antiviral activity ivermectin could play a supportive adjuvant role facing the hostile infection microenvironment.

With regard to investigations into potential drug treatments against COVID-19, ivermectin has received particular attention. Indeed, a number of clinical studies have been conducted in various countries such as USA, India and Egypt, as registered on the repository of data ClinicalTrials.gov. Table 1 shows a compilation of these studies, with patients receiving monotherapy or combination therapy, using different approaches of ivermectin dosing. In Spain, the SAINT clinical trial is currently underway and aims to determine the efficacy of a single dose of ivermectin, administered to low risk, non-severe COVID-19 patients [23]. Despite the fact that ivermectin has been shown to be effective in vitro against Sars-Cov-2, it is possible that the necessary inhibitory concentration may only be achieved via high dosage regimes in humans. The enthusiasm surrounding ivermectin use is restrained by a lack of appropriate formulations capable of providing improved pharmacokinetics and drug delivery targeting mechanisms. Although patients could be treated using systemic therapy, high-dose antiviral therapy could lead to severe adverse effects. Regardless, no commercially available injectable forms of ivermectin are available for human use. In COVID-19 patients, the rapid evolution of disease requires prompt treatment, as therapeutic intervention must be introduced within a narrow window of time. Considering that the respiratory tract has been shown to be a primary site of infection, the delivery of ivermectin by pulmonary route would provide high drug deposition in the airways and lungs to mitigate the high viral loads seen in these sites. It is worth noting that inhalation therapy has been reported to be the most effective treatment for respiratory infections due to increased drug bioavailability [24,25]. Indeed, pulmonary and nasal administration bypasses the first-pass metabolism observed in oral administration and the lungs and nasal cavity are known to be low drug-metabolizing environments [26]. In severe cases of SARS-CoV-2-induced pneumonia, antiviral aerosol formulations could be delivered by inhalation to patients on mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients presenting mild symptoms of COVID-19 could benefit from being treated with antiviral aerosol formulations at earlier stages of disease. Importantly, Gilead Sciences recently announced human trials of an inhaled version of its antiviral drug remdesivir for non-hospitalized patients [27].

Despite its promising antiviral and preliminary anti-inflammatory potential, the development of ivermectin formulations presents challenges, primarily due to its property of poor water solubility. Consequently, ivermectin's oral bioavailability remains low [28]. In addition, its pharmacokinetic profile may be affected by specific formulations, and minor differences in formulation design can modify plasma kinetics, biodistribution, and, consequentially, efficacy. For instance, ivermectin does not achieve adequate concentration levels in the human bloodstream necessary for treatment efficacy against ZIKV [29]. Therefore, novel delivery strategies are needed to optimize ivermectin bioavailability. Micro-and nanocarriers offer several advantages in drug delivery, namely: specific targeting, high metabolic stability, high membrane permeability, improved bioavailability, controlled release and long-lasting action [30]. In light of these attributes, some studies have formulated ivermectin in micro- and nanoparticles, either using lipid nanocapsules [31], chitosan-alginate nanoparticles [32] or poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) micro- and nanoparticles [33,34]. For antiviral purposes, ivermectin has been formulated in liposomes [35] and PLGA nanoparticles [29]. The latter ivermectin nanoformulation was shown to cross the intestinal epithelial barrier when administered via oral route, with considerable concentrations detected in the blood, enabling its potential application in ZIKV therapy.

Appropriate drug formulations must address inherent limitations, including poor water-solubility and difficulty in drug delivering to desired target areas, notably the pulmonary environment. As previously mentioned, micro-and nanocarriers have been investigated in an effort to optimize ivermectin bioavailability. In the context of pulmonary delivery, these drug delivery systems can be modified to attend suitable aerodynamic size ranges for the airways and alveolar deposition. Smaller particles achieve a greater deposition in the lungs compared to larger particles. Particles smaller than 5 μm follow the airflow beyond the retro-pharynx and reach the trachea. Particles with an aerodynamic diameter of about 2 to 5 μm are deposited in the upper respiratory tract at the level of the trachea and tracheal bifurcation. Particles smaller than 2 μm deposit in the lower airway and alveolar epithelia [36,37]. Nanoparticulate systems, upon release in aerosol, form aggregates in the micrometer size range. These aggregates are believed to have sufficient mass to be deposited in the bronchiolar region and remain for an extended period, hence achieving the desired effect [38]. It follows that ivermectin formulations produced at the desired particle sizes will allow for particle deposition in either the lower airway or alveolar epithelia, which will then trigger rapid drug release, accelerating the onset of therapeutic activity.

We hypothesize that micro- and nanotechnology-based systems for the pulmonary delivery of ivermectin may offer opportunities for accelerating the clinical re-purposing of this “enigmatic drug” in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as recent advances in pharmaceutical technology and nanomaterials can be applied to the treatment of pulmonary infections [[24], [25], [26],[36], [37], [38], [39], [40]]. Despite the challenges faced in developing these drug delivery carriers, and uncertainty with regard to the efficacy of ivermectin, it indeed presents promising potential. In an optimistic scenario, new drug dosage forms may not only contribute to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also be effective against other emerging viral diseases.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Before you cite a paper, be sure to read & understand it. That paper's introduction made it clear that there are many unanswered questions about ivermectin, that must be answered before useful conclusions can be made from any clinical trial. The FDA rightly insists that these questions (and more) be answered to it's satisfaction before they approve of any experiments in humans.
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.
Before any clinical trial can be done, the FDA requires that there be convincing evidence from both cells in dishes (in vitro data) and animal models of viral infection (in vivo data).
… 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.
The in vitro data from a single cell line, unrelated to pulmonary tissue, may be irrelevant. It will take data from a number of different human (not monkey) cell lines before any of this begins to be interesting. And the reduction in RNA levels of the virus has to be clearly shown to lead to decreased infectious virus titers, that is decreased production of infectious virus particles.
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].
The concentration of 5 µM (five micromolar) needed for ivermectin treatment of cells grown in lab dishes was 35-fold higher that what is achieved in humans receiving oral doses to treat parasitic worms. This is probably a show-stopper. Is a concentration of 5 µM ivermectin even achievable in human blood? If it were, what toxicities might be involved? None of these questions were answered in that paper.

This is not evidence that ivermectin might work as an anti-viral medication against SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans. The paper does suggest how much work has yet to be done before clinical trials even have a chance to show efficacy in virus infected humans.
 
Last edited:
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Today, as I read through the recent developments in this thread, I've become alarmed. To be specific, all the posts (with one exception below) about ivermectin are wrong – far off the mark. I'm directing my comments to @Dude#1279435 , @SithZedi and @Danzilla31 among others. Your posts show that you misunderstand the nature of drug development, clinical trials, and the role of the FDA in this process. It's a highly regulated process that has been in place for many decades, supported by US Law, for very good reasons. Look up the early histories of the Salk polio vaccines and of thalidomide, and you'll see why.

Some of your comments make me wonder if you are simply making up stuff that fits preconceived conspiracy theories. But it's more likely that you are repeating what you've heard from highly questionable sources, such as Faux News or other sources with axes to grind.

Mr._Clark's summary is up to date and correct as far as I know. So far, there is no useful anti-viral activity for ivermectin. People are looking hard, but so far there ain't a hint of activity.
For the alarm! that you express towards the political direction of this thread I comment:
What is wrong with looking for answers to unanswered questions?
We should be alarmed by all of the deaths, pain and suffering that has taken place while we wait on studies to conclude.

You defend a "highly regulated process in place for many decades" and you are right to do so.
Minimally drugs take many years to develop and test properly yet the vaccines that millions are now taking were rushed through how quickly?

Shouldn't we be carefully monitoring any side effects of the vaccines so they can be altered to improve them?

Are you really calling and dismissing the hard work that other countries are undertaking iro of COVID /Ivermectin to save lives, preconceived conspiracy theories or highly questionable sources?

Is asking a question political to you?
I don't think I have seen one reference to Fox News by anyone in recent discussions. (Faux, really? Recent French lessons or are we taking a freshman polysci class)?

I agree with your first sentence Mr. Clark's summary is up to date and I was happy to read it. The second sentence not so much and I addressed it in an earlier post after reading the report.

Below are the sentences from the conclusion of said report.


Unfortunately, inadequate and improperly conducted studies of this drug have added to confusion both inside and outside of the medical community. "

"These reports indicate that despite its absence from NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines and lack of United States Food and Drug Administration approval, off-label use of ivermectin by lay people and physicians has continued throughout the pandemic.58 It is possible that inconclusive ivermectin studies and meta-analyses contributed to this activity."

"Ultimately, imperfect studies need to be replaced by larger, adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, with meta-analyses, ideally using IPD, based on these studies."
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Ummmm where have I posted anything about Ivermectin? In fact where have I posted anything on this particular thread recently? I've listened I've replied with the button in spots where I find something informative but that's it

I don't know enough about Ivermectin to have an opinion about it one way or the other. I'm open to learn and I'm willing to listen to other points of view. That's not a crime

Before you drag my name into this make sure I'm guilty of the accusation your accusing me off.
There were so many recent posts on ivermectin that I didn't take the time to track down who posted what. I read the general gist of those posts as "Hey, ivermectin might actually work – despite what those scientists say". If I missed where you disagreed with that, I'm sorry.

Until there is credible data to resurrect it, ivermectin as an anti-viral medication is a dead subject. The only recent references to it are old (the paper @Dude#1279435 cited is from a year ago), debunked, or from unreliable sources such as Faux News.
Even in the thread covid politics we never went into this in detail. That thread is a different animal it has nothing to do with the science which is why it was opened up to keep them seperate but even there I mentioned nothing about Ivermectin.
Stop right there. It has everything to do with science & medicine. Political opinions that oppose science & medicine have the effect of turning public opinion against medical practices known to be effective. That's been the issue all along with SARS-Cov-2, Covid-19, and the vaccines. That's why I'm speaking up here.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
There were so many recent posts on ivermectin that I didn't take the time to track down who posted what. I read the general gist of those posts as "Hey, ivermectin might actually work – despite what those scientists say". If I missed where you disagreed with that, I'm sorry.

Until there is credible data to resurrect it, ivermectin as an anti-viral medication is a dead subject. The only recent references to it are old (the paper @Dude#1279435 cited is from a year ago), debunked, or from unreliable sources such as Faux News.
Stop right there. It has everything to do with science & medicine. Political opinions that oppose science & medicine have the effect of turning public opinion against medical practices known to be effective. That's been the issue all along with SARS-Cov-2, Covid-19, and the vaccines. That's why I'm speaking up here.
No worries miscommunication happens sometimes

Politics should be kept seperate from this thread Im not disagreeing with you that they don't matter

But even then Ivermectin wasn't brought up as some kind of magical cure all

But it's water under the bridge I appreciate all your expertise sometimes if I do chime in I'm not always advocating something I want feedback from members with more expertise

I do psych nursing I have some medical background but it's very limited compared to you and others on this thread
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Stop right there. It has everything to do with science & medicine. Political opinions that oppose science & medicine have the effect of turning public opinion against medical practices known to be effective. That's been the issue all along with SARS-Cov-2, Covid-19, and the vaccines. That's why I'm speaking up here.
And this is part of why this thread continues to be informative and useful. Please continue with speaking up despite what some other members thinks about that.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Before you cite a paper, be sure to read & understand it. That paper's introduction made it clear that there are many unanswered questions about ivermectin, that must be answered before useful conclusions can be made from any clinical trial. The FDA rightly insists that these questions (and more) be answered to it's satisfaction before they approve of any experiments in humans.
Before any clinical trial can be done, the FDA requires that there be convincing evidence from both cells in dishes (in vitro data) and animal models of viral infection (in vivo data).
The in vitro data from a single cell line, unrelated to pulmonary tissue, may be irrelevant. It will take data from a number of different human (not monkey) cell lines before any of this begins to be interesting. And the reduction in RNA levels of the virus has to be clearly shown to lead to decreased infectious virus titers, that is decreased production of infectious virus particles.
The concentration of 5 µM (five micromolar) needed for ivermectin treatment of cells grown in lab dishes was 35-fold higher that what is achieved in humans receiving oral doses to treat parasitic worms. This is probably a show-stopper. Is a concentration of 5 µM ivermectin even achievable in human blood? If it were, what toxicities might be involved? None of these questions were answered in that paper.

This is not evidence that ivermectin might work as an anti-viral medication against SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans. The paper does suggest how much work has yet to be done before clinical trials even have a chance to show efficacy in virus infected humans.
I've heard overdosage but don't know the variables. Why has India had success? Didn't report the side effects? In America, ODing with the horse version? Just asking. I mean that was kinda the point of the previous post. Let the smart people debunk it. Is it a matter of syntheses? Does the zinc and can't remember D3 (?) play a role with ivermectin?
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Since we're asking questions here, the one that comes to mind is why is everyone so interested in ivermectin? There are numerous trials involving inexpensive repurposed medicines and I have yet to see why ivermectin stands out for so many people?

Also, a quick google search revealed numerous lists of doctors who are purportedly willing to prescribe ivermectin (I did not actually try to get a prescription from one of these doctors so I'm not sure how easy it is to actually get a prescription). For those who believe in ivermectin, it appears to me you can go get a prescription for it and be on your merry way.

Here's one example of a cheap drug that seems to have some promise (I'm not saying this drug is completely proven, but if I was to pick a non-FDA approved drug to champion, ivermectin wouldn't be my first choice).

>>>An inexpensive repurposed drug called fluvoxamine can save the lives of COVID-19 patients and cut hospital admissions by up to 30 per cent, says a study co-led by McMaster University.<<<


>>>In this preliminary study, adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 treated with fluvoxamine, compared with placebo, had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days; however, determination of clinical efficacy would require larger randomized trials with more definitive outcome measures.<<<


Overall, I'd pick Paxlovid if I had a choice of treatments. As of right now, I'm not aware of anything else that's even close in terms of treating someone with COVID.

>>>The primary data supporting this EUA for Paxlovid are from EPIC-HR, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial studying Paxlovid for the treatment of non-hospitalized symptomatic adults with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were adults 18 years of age and older with a prespecified risk factor for progression to severe disease or were 60 years and older regardless of prespecified chronic medical conditions. All patients had not received a COVID-19 vaccine and had not been previously infected with COVID-19. The main outcome measured in the trial was the proportion of people who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 or died due to any cause during 28 days of follow-up. Paxlovid significantly reduced the proportion of people with COVID-19 related hospitalization or death from any cause by 88% compared to placebo among patients treated within five days of symptom onset and who did not receive COVID-19 therapeutic monoclonal antibody treatment. In this analysis, 1,039 patients had received Paxlovid, and 1,046 patients had received placebo and among these patients, 0.8% who received Paxlovid were hospitalized or died during 28 days of follow-up compared to 6% of the patients who received placebo. The safety and effectiveness of Paxlovid for the treatment of COVID-19 continue to be evaluated.<<<

 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Thanks Mr. Clark. Look forward to reading these. I had read that somewhere, think NY, that Paxlovid taken with a drug called ritonavir? was going to be deployed.
Hopefully you will never need it!
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
This is quackery (if prescribed for COVID) and I would not like to be treated by such a medical doctor, and is just as bad as homeopathy.
Have you seen anything like the points and attributions in this link?


As much as T said a lot of crazy crap, Lysol does kill viruses, including this one. I wouldn't recommend drinking of injecting it, but as a topical disinfectant, it does work.

Now go and align your chakras, mister!
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top