India Covid Situation - Big Improvement

[Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants]

Wrong.
0.2mg/kg is the recommended dose for preventing covid... once a week.
0.2-0.4mg/kg once a day for treating covid.

The government in india have a big problem with people taking animal grade Ivermectin which isn’t approved for use in humans. Giving out weak doses gets around that problem.

until there is a study of quality that is both large and controlled, use of IVM shouldn’t really be happening. It’s currently no different to HCQ which was ploughed down peoples throat and was utterly useless.

On a side note, What makes me laugh is anti vaxxers pushing IVM but then trying to convince them that the vaccine is bad/untested/still under trial.

 

[smogontherhine]

I'm confused by the 'big pharma doesn't want you to know this' line.

Ivermectin was produced by Merck & since the late 80's they've been giving it to countries to try & eradicate river blindness caused by parasites. The two people responsible for this have won the Nobel prize essentially for their humanitarian work.

If there was evidence that it helped & didn't cause dangerous side-effects, why wouldn't they/Merck be happy that their discovery was able to help with Covid?

Big pharma driven by philanthropy... I like the idea

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I actually think there potentially *could* be something in the ivermectin stuff, but it needs to be assessed properly. The Dr who did the metanalysis on the Dr John Campbell video seems credible enough to think there could be something there. But it really needs properly looking into. It’s frustrating that a proper, full gold standard trial hasn’t been set up before now, to rule one way or the other, so it can either be used to help or discounted and moved on from.

But if it is found to be of significant help, (which I hope it is, because we still need all the weapons against this virus that we can find) it’ll get there DESPITE the antivax/conspiracy theory crowd who cause a lot of people to switch off from the debate and not take it seriously as a proposed treatment/prophylactic.
They undermine *potentially* credible voices (such as Dr Tess and Dr Pierre Kory) raising the prospect of it being a useful tool, by constantly banging on about it, from a medically and scientifically uninformed perspective, and twisting the words of any potentially credible voice on the subject - Social media is littered with stories twisting Kory’s words into a ‘No need to get vaccinated because this drug works just as well’ narrative that just completely undermines him.
You only have to look at the accounts on Twitter who bang the ivermectin drum repeatedly, to see why credible scientists and medical professionals are sceptical and turned off by the debate.

Anyway, hopefully somebody, somewhere can organise a proper trial so we can see if it is a useful weapon or not.
If it is, the crowd will be screaming ‘told you so’ despite not ever really having sufficient, acceptably valid evidence to know....
And if it’s not, the people who screamed hydoxychlooquine and then ivermectin will move onto something else.
I personally hope it’s the former, but just wish they’d get on with establishing the truth once and for all.

 

[Andy_W]

But if it is found to be of significant help it’ll get there DESPITE the antivax/conspiracy theory crowd who cause a lot of people to switch off from the debate and not take it seriously as a proposed treatment/prophylactic.

Great point.

There's been that much nonsense posted from the deniers/ anti-vaxers/ anti-maskers/ miracle curers, that anything legitimate could just get lost amongst their nonsense, it's like the boy who cried wolf. It could actually be doing some things a disservice, but these people are always going to hold humanity back, luckily they're in limited numbers.

 

[Andy_W]

Weird how so many would argue against all vaccines (about 20 of them) but then also argue for various random drugs (designed for other purposes), which haven't had controlled trials to the same standards as the vaccines, and certainly not from respect/ known countries. It literally makes zero sense.

I get that some of these other random drugs have been around a while, so the side effects are known (to a degree), but they're not known how these side effects transpire along with covid, which is basically the point in the trials. But, this can't really be much of a point anyway, as there are loads of drugs currently in use far worse than any risk of the vaccines we have approved, and people eat/ drink/ inhale things that will do far worse long term damage (I do this also, but I'm not against any vaccines/ controls).

Some people treat everything as a conspiracy, think everyone is evil, or think it's bad to actually make money and employ people by doing things that are actually good. Big pharma gets so much bad press, yet companies that make "defence" equipment get next to nothing, I don't get it. If these "big pharma" companies never existed the world would have been screwed a long time ago.

I see the phrase "question everything" written a lot peoples twitter profiles, from people who seemingly do not have a good history of providing correct answers. Seems to me like it's the wrong people asking the wrong questions, and they wouldn't even understand an in-depth correct answer anyway.

I wonder if you labelled a vaccine up as some old random drug that nobody had heard of, that you would get the anti-vaxers to take it, I think some are just scared of the word, or needles.

 

[SmallTown]

Weird how so many would argue against all vaccines (about 20 of them) but then also argue for various random drugs (designed for other purposes), which haven't had controlled trials to the same standards as the vaccines, and certainly not from respect/ known countries. It literally makes zero sense.

I get that some of these other random drugs have been around a while, so the side effects are known (to a degree), but they're not known how these side effects transpire along with covid, which is basically the point in the trials. But, this can't really be much of a point anyway, as there are loads of drugs currently in use far worse than any risk of the vaccines we have approved, and people eat/ drink/ inhale things that will do far worse long term damage (I do this also, but I'm not against any vaccines/ controls).

Some people treat everything as a conspiracy, think everyone is evil, or think it's bad to actually make money and employ people by doing things that are actually good. Big pharma gets so much bad press, yet companies that make "defence" equipment get next to nothing, I don't get it. If these "big pharma" companies never existed the world would have been screwed a long time ago.

I see the phrase "question everything" written a lot peoples twitter profiles, from people who seemingly do not have a good history of providing correct answers. Seems to me like it's the wrong people asking the wrong questions, and they wouldn't even understand an in-depth correct answer anyway.

I wonder if you labelled a vaccine up as some old random drug that nobody had heard of, that you would get the anti-vaxers to take it, I think some are just scared of the word, or needles.

That was my thinking too. How can it be possible that an anti vexer will then argue against an untested drug? It's an illogical hypocrisy.

 

[smogontherhine]

Firstly, Ivermectin has been used against viruses for about 10 years, not just against parasites.
Secondly, don't get me started on the military industrial complex.
Thirdly, most of the loudest voices for Ivermectin are not ant-vaxxers, they may well be anti-covid-vaccine but slurring them with the term anti-vaxxer is not helping... would you call that Dr. Campbell an anti-vaxxer since he supports Ivermectin ?

 

[SmallTown]

Firstly, Ivermectin has been used against viruses for about 10 years, not just against parasites.
Secondly, don't get me started on the military industrial complex.
Thirdly, most of the loudest voices for Ivermectin are not ant-vaxxers, they may well be anti-covid-vaccine but slurring them with the term anti-vaxxer is not helping... would you call that Dr. Campbell an anti-vaxxer since he supports Ivermectin ?

anti covid vaccine/ anti vaxxer potato/potato

 

[Andy_W]

Firstly, Ivermectin has been used against viruses for about 10 years, not just against parasites.
Secondly, don't get me started on the military industrial complex.
Thirdly, most of the loudest voices for Ivermectin are not ant-vaxxers, they may well be anti-covid-vaccine but slurring them with the term anti-vaxxer is not helping... would you call that Dr. Campbell an anti-vaxxer since he supports Ivermectin ?

But it's not had a large scale reputable trial for Covid (unlike all of the approved vaccines the UK/ EMA is using)? Ivermectin talk is different does, different virus, different timeframes, so previous "knowledge" on side effects could be limited.
Most of the Ivermectin noise seems to come from what I would call conspiracy theory, against the norm or against the largest and most respect health organisations and authorities in the world.

John's channel is good, he's a good talker, and has some interesting guests, but he's certainly not an authority on this, and he himself could get misled.
He's also got a lot wrong (largely from being misled), like assuming lower IFR's, he trusted Yeadon and numerical analysis is not one of his strong points.
He's also not a medical doctor, he's a doctor of philosophy, but is talking about specialist medical/ immunology/ epidemiology using a Dr title, which can mislead some who have not watched a lot of his vids. He was a nurse teacher, and now fills in as a nurse I think. That's not to say he doesn't know what he's on about, as he does, but don't treat it as gospel, it's youtube/ the internet.

He also doesn't seem to "support" Ivermectin, he's got an open mind on it based on a meta-analysis from someone who is largely unknown, who has a deferring opinion to that of the EMA, WHO among many others.

John's channel does seem to attract a lot of people looking for "alternatives" to the logic, largely on the videos that contain the latest controversial titles/ subjects.

I've got an open mind on it (Ivermectin), but if the WHO, EMA and others won't approve it until it's had a large scale reputable trial (like vaccines), then it is what it is. It may have been more likely to have more interest/ larger trials last year when we were expecting vaccines to not come till 22/23, but the vaccines have largely solved the problem (about 20 of them), quite cheaply, they just need to be made, and the cases/ model needs to be managed.

 

[smogontherhine]

anti covid vaccine/ anti vaxxer potato/potato

Exactly, the latter two for you.

 

[smogontherhine]

But it's not had a large scale reputable trial for Covid (unlike all of the approved vaccines the UK/ EMA is using)? Ivermectin talk is different does, different virus, different timeframes, so previous "knowledge" on side effects could be limited.
Most of the Ivermectin noise seems to come from what I would call conspiracy theory, against the norm or against the largest and most respect health organisations and authorities in the world.

John's channel is good, he's a good talker, and has some interesting guests, but he's certainly not an authority on this, and he himself could get misled.
He's also got a lot wrong (largely from being misled), like assuming lower IFR's, he trusted Yeadon and numerical analysis is not one of his strong points.
He's also not a medical doctor, he's a doctor of philosophy, but is talking about specialist medical/ immunology/ epidemiology using a Dr title, which can mislead some who have not watched a lot of his vids. He was a nurse teacher, and now fills in as a nurse I think. That's not to say he doesn't know what he's on about, as he does, but don't treat it as gospel, it's youtube/ the internet.

He also doesn't seem to "support" Ivermectin, he's got an open mind on it based on a meta-analysis from someone who is largely unknown, who has a deferring opinion to that of the EMA, WHO among many others.

John's channel does seem to attract a lot of people looking for "alternatives" to the logic, largely on the videos that contain the latest controversial titles/ subjects.

I've got an open mind on it (Ivermectin), but if the WHO, EMA and others won't approve it until it's had a large scale reputable trial (like vaccines), then it is what it is. It may have been more likely to have more interest/ larger trials last year when we were expecting vaccines to not come till 22/23, but the vaccines have largely solved the problem (about 20 of them), quite cheaply, they just need to be made, and the cases/ model needs to be managed.

If you believe in the independence of the WHO then some of that makes sense.

 

[bear66]

But it's not had a large scale reputable trial for Covid (unlike all of the approved vaccines the UK/ EMA is using)? Ivermectin talk is different does, different virus, different timeframes, so previous "knowledge" on side effects could be limited.
Most of the Ivermectin noise seems to come from what I would call conspiracy theory, against the norm or against the largest and most respect health organisations and authorities in the world.

John's channel is good, he's a good talker, and has some interesting guests, but he's certainly not an authority on this, and he himself could get misled.
He's also got a lot wrong (largely from being misled), like assuming lower IFR's, he trusted Yeadon and numerical analysis is not one of his strong points.
He's also not a medical doctor, he's a doctor of philosophy, but is talking about specialist medical/ immunology/ epidemiology using a Dr title, which can mislead some who have not watched a lot of his vids. He was a nurse teacher, and now fills in as a nurse I think. That's not to say he doesn't know what he's on about, as he does, but don't treat it as gospel, it's youtube/ the internet.

He also doesn't seem to "support" Ivermectin, he's got an open mind on it based on a meta-analysis from someone who is largely unknown, who has a deferring opinion to that of the EMA, WHO among many others.

John's channel does seem to attract a lot of people looking for "alternatives" to the logic, largely on the videos that contain the latest controversial titles/ subjects.

I've got an open mind on it (Ivermectin), but if the WHO, EMA and others won't approve it until it's had a large scale reputable trial (like vaccines), then it is what it is. It may have been more likely to have more interest/ larger trials last year when we were expecting vaccines to not come till 22/23, but the vaccines have largely solved the problem (about 20 of them), quite cheaply, they just need to be made, and the cases/ model needs to be managed.

Quite an interesting review on research as an antiviral here

The conclusion (it should be noted it was poor in dealing with the Newcastle virus as well):

As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin. The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20–80 ng/ml range [44], while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture is in the microgram range. Ivermectin is administered orally or topically. If safe formulations or analogs can be derived that can be administered to achieve therapeutic concentrations, ivermectin could be useful as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent.

 

[smogontherhine]

Quite an interesting review on research as an antiviral here

The conclusion (it should be noted it was poor in dealing with the Newcastle virus as well):

As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin. The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20–80 ng/ml range [44], while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture is in the microgram range. Ivermectin is administered orally or topically. If safe formulations or analogs can be derived that can be administered to achieve therapeutic concentrations, ivermectin could be useful as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent.

Well chosen... what about some of the other viruses it did work on that are referenced in this paper ?
Including coronavirus

 

[bear66]

Well chosen... what about some of the other viruses it did work on that are referenced in this paper ?
Including coronavirus

Which ones has it worked on? You said it had been used for 10 years treating viruses. Which ones?

 

[Andy_W]

If you believe in the independence of the WHO then some of that makes sense.

So, you've countered zero of what I've just posted and raised a point about nothing that I posted.

Let's try this then:
Do you genuinely think the WHO (and other agencies who listen to it) do not have world health interests at heart?

 

[Randy]

In 17 days none of all this matters anyways.

 

[Andy_W]

In 17 days none of all this matters anyways.

Why? This is going to go on for a couple of years, or are you only thinking about yourself?

You might have to wait a couple of weeks on fully opening up on the 17th mind, or if we do open up on the 17th then we may get hit with an increase on restrictions towards the end of summer, albeit probably not for long.

Pfizer has just been approved by 12-15 years olds in the UK too now though, which is absolutely massive news, and will greatly help with preventing any future issues, and decrease the peak of any third wave, if it materialises.

 

[smogontherhine]

Which ones has it worked on? You said it had been used for 10 years treating viruses. Which ones?

Shall we do them one at a time ?

How about Yellow Fever Virus (from 2012)....

Ivermectin is a potent inhibitor of flavivirus replication specifically targeting NS3 helicase activity: new prospects for an old drug

Infection with yellow fever virus (YFV), the prototypic mosquito-borne flavivirus, causes severe febrile disease with haemorrhage, multi-organ failure and a high mortality. Moreover, in recent years the Flavivirus genus has gained further attention due ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[smogontherhine]

So, you've countered zero of what I've just posted and raised a point about nothing that I posted.

Let's try this then:
Do you genuinely think the WHO (and other agencies who listen to it) do not have world health interests at heart?

I used to when (like I mentioned on another thread) I believed that the WHO was wholly funded by governments.
Now that I know it's not.

 

[bear66]

Shall we do them one at a time ?

How about Yellow Fever Virus (from 2012)....

Ivermectin is a potent inhibitor of flavivirus replication specifically targeting NS3 helicase activity: new prospects for an old drug

Infection with yellow fever virus (YFV), the prototypic mosquito-borne flavivirus, causes severe febrile disease with haemorrhage, multi-organ failure and a high mortality. Moreover, in recent years the Flavivirus genus has gained further attention due ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

View attachment 19488

That's one that isn't being used. Next?