FDA Authorizes First Pill To Treat Covid-19 (cnn.com) 128
The US Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday authorized Pfizer's antiviral pill, Paxlovid, to treat Covid-19. From a report: This is the first antiviral Covid-19 pill authorized for ill people to take at home, before they get sick enough to be hospitalized. High-risk individuals age 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds and have a positive SARS-CoV-2 test are eligible for this treatment and will need to have it prescribed by a doctor. The pill "should be initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis of Covid-19 and within five days of symptom onset," according to an FDA statement. Paxlovid combines a new antiviral drug named nirmatrelvir and an older one called ritonavir and is administered as three pills given twice a day for five days.
I'm sorry but this will not do (Score:2, Funny)
I refuse to take any medication that isn't proven to not track me through 5G GPS by internet experts, that an orange buffoon isn't convinced will work, and isn't meant to deworm farm animals or disinfect the kitchen floor. I'm serious about my health!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I refuse to take any medication that isn't proven to not track me through 5G ...
Then Good News, this is only designed to use 4G. :-)
Noooo (Score:3, Funny)
Just when the battle to end horse to human transmission of sexually transmitted diseases among Republicans was to be won thanks to widespread Ivermectin use.
88 pounds ... (Score:2)
I know a US pound is not a German pound, but somehow imaging seeing a 12 year old weighting 88 pounds is frightening me.
Re: (Score:2)
From https://www.healthline.com/hea... [healthline.com]:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a 12-year-old boy’s weight usually falls between 67 and 130 pounds, and the 50th percentile weight for boys is 89 pounds.
Does seeing average children typically frighten you?
Re: (Score:1)
130 pounds? most certainly.
And if you can not get a joke, I would suggest some therapy.
89 pounds is actually extremely heavy. Are they just fat? That would be bad. Or tall? That would be acceptable, 130 pounds for a 12 year old is only acceptable if he is 2 yards tall.
Do you actually have some idea what 80 pounds are? Or are you a fat couch potato, too?
Re: (Score:2)
According to this https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/... [www.rki.de], the 50th percentile weight for a 12 year old boy in Germany is 43kg, or about 95 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting paper, but I find nothing regarding your point.
And: I made a joke, that should have been obvious.
Nevertheless 43kg "as average" (is that what your 50 percentils is meaning?) is quite a lot. My weight is 65kg, and I'm a full grown adult. My 15 year old little brother weights less, but he is extremely slim.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a graph on page 20, and a chart on page 22 with the data. 50th percentile means half of the children are at that weight or below (median). The chart shows that for 12 year old boys, 3 percent weigh 30kg or less, 10 percent weigh 34 kg or less, 25 percent weigh 38kg or less, 50 percent weigh 43kg or less, 75 percent weigh 50kg or less, 90 percent weigh 60kg or less, and 97 percent weigh 71kg or less.
Your 65kg weight is average for a 15 year old boy.
Nobody got your 'joke' because it makes no sense.
Just a reminder this is a treatment (Score:3)
Point is, don't use this as an excuse to avoid getting your shots. Which I'm sure more than a few trolls here on
Re: Just a reminder this is a treatment (Score:1)
Let's try a smell test (hehe):
If 1/3 of covid cases result in "long covid" wtf that means, then given the 50 million covid cases to date in the US would mean about 17 million people debilitated with long covid.
One would notice such a thing. It wouldn't be hovering on the fringes of medical recognition and its center of mass wouldn't be in the boilerplate scare bait one finds in the opinion and newspinion section of the MSM.
Therefor your 33% number is incorrect.
You don't notice it because in our society (Score:2)
Re: You don't notice it because in our society (Score:1)
Avout one out of every 20 people is 17 out of 330. I live in the northeast. I know many people who had covid. 1/3 of them, not even 1/30th of them appear to be incapacitated in any way.
Your number is bullshit. Or at best is severly out of context.
Re: (Score:1)
Avout one out of every 20 people is 17 out of 330. I live in the northeast. I know many people who had covid. 1/3 of them, not even 1/30th of them appear to be incapacitated in any way.
Your number is bullshit. Or at best is severly out of context.
The key phrase is 'appear to be.' Heart damage can be asymptomatic; other medical issues might be debilitating to the sufferer but not obvious to acquaintances.
Re: You don't notice it because in our society (Score:1)
Yes. We're all secretly dead inside. This is venturing into unfalsifiable territory. There are demons everywhere. You can't see them because they're invisible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems you didn't read what he wrote, if you get severe Covid there's a 1/3 chance you will also get some form of long Covid which means the number is entirely correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it appears you did not read what he wrote. He wrote "you can still get very very sick from covid" and then went into his diatribe of nonsense about 'long-covid' which by all indications does not really exist outside of the people who did get severely ill in the first place.
rsilvergun is a propagandist. He will mislead and post in anyway he can in service of gaslighting others into surrendering their rights and maintain the oppression of minority groups which if you read between the lines he views
Re: (Score:2)
I actually did read what he wrote, did you? Here's a quote: While it's highly effective you can still get very very sick from covid up to and including death. And don't forget even if you survive you will probably have long-lasting complications
Now, is there a difference in "very very sick" and "severely ill"? It's different words describing the same thing which makes you calling long-covid for "nonsense" and then say it can happen to people who got very ill
And in regards of your statement "long-covid whic
Re: (Score:2)
It's also very expensive.
I'm amused because I suspect (Score:2)
I'm amused by this as I strongly suspect there will be a whole host of people who end up talking this drug who didn't get vaccinated because the vaccines are too new and "untested"
Phizermectin (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
By tweaked, you mean a completely different molecule containing different elements? Hell of a tweak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Ivermectin is not antiviral outside of test tube (Score:3, Informative)
In mammals like human beings, or the horses whose medicine is being consumed by humans Ivermectin has no anti-viral efficacy in clinical trials.
It is anti-parasitic, not antiviral.
Ivermectin is a horse and livestock dewormer. My dog takes Ivermectin. She does not have covid, but is keeping heart worms away.
There is nothing political about the fact that you are completely fucking wrong.
Except of course that your specific ignorance on this topic was created by the republican party's deadly covid misinformatio
Re:Ivermectin is not antiviral outside of test tub (Score:4, Informative)
I look to the manufacturer (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.merck.com/news/mer... [merck.com]
And Merck says:
Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
Re: (Score:2)
Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19; from pre-clinical studies.
No scientific basis? Interesting...
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease
This is a circular argument. If you don't do the work to find out you'll never know.
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
40 years, billions of doses administered.. no safety data. hmmm.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
Ivermectin is off patent, mass produced worldwide for peanuts and Merck is actively developing a competing drug. At the very least there is a direct conflict of interest in "looking to the manufacturer" for answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Merck is not more the manufacturer of ivermectin than kodak is the manufacturer of cameras. Their patent experied a long time ago, and currently hold next to nothing of the current market. They have nothing to gain on the success of ivermectin. However they have invested big in some patentable covid therapeutics. I would hardly consider them a authorative source on this.
Re: (Score:3)
That's essentially just sneering at political opponents.
Not just political opponents. Sneering at morons who'd rather take Ivermectin than get a vaccine.
That's just moronic.
No. (Score:2)
Second the majority of idiots taking ivermectin were taking horse dewormer. That's because no doctor was going to prescribe it for a reason as dumb as they had and only really well to do people can doctor shop until they can find somebody who will just say yes. It's similar to how poor people will buy a z-pa
Re: Ivermectin is not antiviral outside of test tu (Score:1)
Newsflash: many medicines are used in both humans and in livestock, often for similar purposes.
Dogs take ritalin. Humans take ivermectin.
Scapegoating rarely works.
Re: (Score:2)
"My dog takes Ivermectin. She does not have covid" - bit trollent ( 824666 )
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly, drinking water is curative of ARDS (COVID-19). The proof is that persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who are not given any water died within 14 days -- without exception. Persons that drank water (or recieved intravenous fluids) had a 99.3% survival rate.
This is interesting because drinking water is the leading cause of death. Everyone who is dead drank at least one glass of water.
Re: Ivermectin is not antiviral outside of test tu (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Try again, Ivermectin is an anti-viral (Score:4, Insightful)
SuperKendall would be first in line for the UV-C suppository treatment.
Re: (Score:1)
UV-C has "expected antiviral activity against COVID-19". Doesn't mean you'd swallow a UV-C lightbulb.
This is total bullshit! UV-C has absolutely ZERO effect on persons suffering from ARDS.
UV-C does "kill" the SARS-CoV-2 virus, however. It should be noted that UV-C has the same effect on all biologicals (that is, it is a viricide and also a bacteriacide -- and in high enough doses it is a humanicide and even a whaleicide).
Re: (Score:2)
This is total bullshit! UV-C has absolutely ZERO effect on persons suffering from ARDS.
Well, I've never made that claim that it had, so...
You are wrong in the 1st paragraph of your link (Score:5, Informative)
Despite this promise, the antiviral activity of ivermectin has not been consistently proven in vivo....
Test tubes aren't people or horses. There is a reason Ivermectin is not used to treat viruses in horses, only parasites.
But fine.. tell you what.. you show us all how you aren't a sheep by taking livestock medicine.
Originally developed for humans? Sure, but human doctors don't prescribe anti-parasitic drugs to treat viruses...
I'll stick with the vaccine and with drugs which have demonstrated effectiveness against Covid-19 in humans.
Re: (Score:1)
Colchicine, for example, was approved for the treatment of gout but has also been used to treat pericarditis. Modafinil was indicated for treatment of sleep disorders but has found off label use in the treatment of depression. Fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) has h
Re: (Score:3)
The study was from October 2020. Fast forward 14 months later: [fda.gov]
Re: Ivermectin is not antiviral outside of test tu (Score:4, Informative)
India whose reporting is so scattershot it may be underreported by possibly 10x.
https://www.npr.org/sections/g... [npr.org]
Those high death counts may explain why the ICMR dropped HCQ and ivermectin from treatment protocols months ago.
https://www.financialexpress.c... [financialexpress.com]
India had also administered over a billion vaccines months ago, much higher now. It's clear they know what treatment actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
Read your sentences before you type them, they just might make more sense then.
Re: Finally! (Score:2)
While it is true that ivermectin can help improve outcomes in certain patients (specifically those with intestinal worm, since the worms already compromise you health AND they thrive under the steroids that are often used to treat COVID) you do know that you don't have to wait to get COVID to deworm yourself, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What actually happened with both HCQ and ivermectin was unfortunate; the degree to which it became politicized was really unhelpful on both ends of the political spectrum. There was a point where every left-wing forum had people crowing about every study showing HCQ not working, and every right-wing forum crowing about each showing it working. The same thing happened then for ivermectin. And I've gotten yelled at for both being a right-wing troll and a left-wing troll for trying to explain to people that t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a reasonable and judicious comment. Wish I had mod points.
Yes, the insane politicization of COVID treatments has had a very bad effect on science. It's unfortunate that there are people that want to grab onto the next great thing and hype it way out of proportion before the research is ready to say whether it actually works. Indeed, there had been good reasons to think that hydroxychloroquine was a good candidate to look at for an effective treatment; turns out it wasn't, but all the hype about it, and
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
. There are some high quality studies in developing countries which seem to show it helping against covid.
No there aren't. The two studies that showed benefit, the first was withdrawn due 'irregularities', the second was likely false negatives (and reduced false positives) due to the protocol used. The treatment group was ivermectin and seaweed extract in a nasal saline solution multiple times a day. Saline solution triggers nasal mucus and rinses out the nasal cavity. So after that protocol, a nasal swab to detect COVID-19 wouldn't detect anything because those infected - the concentration of virus wouldn't have accumulated again yet; and the high level of false positives from high levels of amplification would be eliminated also (a few particles of dead virus are present in nasal passages of most hospital workers).
The article you link, the author doesn't even understand what a meta-analysis is and why the site he is using didn't qualify as a meta-analysis. (Only quite similar studies can be clustered in a meta-analysis - drastically different protocols of dose, frequency, cotreatment, etc. can't be grouped).
Also he apparently doesn't understand that papers with positive results that don't reach significance are fairly meaningless. False positives showing benefit are quite common in extremely small studies for medicines where there is enormous variability in outcomes among normal standard of care treated patients.
Re: (Score:2)
The two studies that showed benefit, the first was withdrawn due 'irregularities', the second was likely false negatives (and reduced false positives) due to the protocol used. The treatment group was ivermectin and seaweed extract in a nasal saline solution multiple times a day. Saline solution triggers nasal mucus and rinses out the nasal cavity. So after that protocol, a nasal swab to detect COVID-19 wouldn't detect anything because those infected - the concentration of virus wouldn't have accumulated again yet; and the high level of false positives from high levels of amplification would be eliminated also (a few particles of dead virus are present in nasal passages of most hospital workers).
It sounds like you are talking about the Carvalo studies, one of which did use that sort of approach and was retracted. If you read the piece I linked to, he explicitly notes that the Carvalo study was retracted and doesn't count it. He says "I can’t tell if this is a different version of that study, a pilot study for that study, or a different study by the same guy. Anyway, it’s too confusing to interpret, shows implausible results, and is by a known fraudster, so I feel okay about ignoring th
Ivermectin was very helpful for one side (Score:3, Insightful)
There's another name for it, which is Smash and Grab. When you're in charge you grab as much money and powe
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My party is extremely conservative (Score:3)
So no, at no time did anyone in my party think or even want a mandate to transform society.
The Republicans? They act like they have that mandate even when they're the minority party. They're about to over turn Roe v Wade and declare abortion legally murder (opening the floodgates for prosecution). They've got over 400 bills either passed or in the works
Re: (Score:2)
Your 1st sentence (Score:2)
Remember, left/right and conservative/radical are *different* things. The right wing likes to hide their radical agenda by calling themselves "conservative" instead of "right wing".
Think
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to do proper analysis you have to consider two axis - libertarian -- authoritative and progressive -- conservative. De
Is that the danger? (Score:1)
One is already seeing some right-wing ivermectin proponents in the US dissing on paxlovid. The danger seems to then be the other direction.
So is that the danger? Or is potential danger a bit more substantial in nature? [theblaze.com]
Enjoy your remdesivir 2.0!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even so ...
This is an in vitro study on primate cell cultures.
It is a long way from testing in a full organism, let alone humans.
Invermectin didn't work [Re:Finally!] (Score:5, Informative)
Paxlovid works using the same mechanism Ivermectin does to cure COVID,
Except invermectin has no effect [forbes.com] on COVID-19. The studies that suggested it did were badly flawed, and some of the most prominent of these studies were retracted [medpagetoday.com]. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
https://www.bbc.com/news/healt... [bbc.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/au... [theguardian.com]
The fact that invermectin doesn't work, however, is not evidence that no treatment will work.
it is likely that Pfizer literally took the formula for Ivermectin and made a very tiny tweak and then patented and rebranded it.
Seems unlikely, since invermectin doesn't do anything.
Incorrect, proof is that it helps (Score:1, Informative)
All of your links are old, here's one from July/August 2021 saying Ivermectin does help treat Covid [lww.com].
In fact one of the greatest political crimes of our times is so many news organizations (as you cited) throwing science out the window to claim Ivermectin cannot help those in need.
It has to be taken at the start of infection - just like the new Pfizer pill
Sorry you bought into the lies, but as I said at last now there is a pill that does the same thing, that you can take while remaining ideologically pure...
Retracted studies [Re:Incorrect, proof is that...] (Score:5, Informative)
All of your links are old, here's one from July/August 2021
Um, the very first link I gave was dated Nov 1, 2021. I'm not sure how you think November 2021 is "old", but cite a paper published July/August 2021 that "isn't old".
The problem with the link you give is that it's a meta study that included the results from bad studies that have been retracted.
I suggest you read some of the links. The research suggesting the invermectin is effective against COVID-19 was poorly done science (at best) and fraudulent science pushed by anti-vaxxers (at worst).
Re: Incorrect, proof is that it helps (Score:2)
That paper which is preprint and not a direct study but a meta analysis of smaller and pretty low quality studies done by proponents of ivermectin who did not disclose their possible conflict of interest, cites Pierre Kory as "the expert in the field" and uses the retracted Egypt study as a main point of reference.
If that's the best piece of evidence ivermectin has it's no wonder it seems like the world and even quite a few of the conspiracy diehards have dropped it entirely.
Just face it, it's over for iver
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anywhere in your link that any of the studies controlled for whether or not the patients had parasites in addition to covid. Why aren't there any studies from the US or most of Europe (places where parasites aren't as common) included ?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that is a really good catch. I noticed that it didn't have any studies from the US or Europe, but it didn't occur to me that what was really happening is that the doctors were curing the patients' parasite problems, which helped them get better. The study doesn't even mention that as a possible mechanism of action. It might be that in those places of the world, an anti-parasite drug might really improve patient outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact one of the greatest political crimes of our times is so many news organizations (as you cited) throwing science out the window to claim Ivermectin cannot help those in need... Sorry you bought into the lies...
No, YOU just committed the political crime. You just cherry-picked one super-weak study and are acting like this proves everyone wrong.
The report you linked to is interesting and valuable, but it is pretty weak. There's a gzillion meta-studies like this. One cannot objectively read that study and conclude that the entire world of science has been lying about Ivermectin. The study merely shows that there may be value in testing it. The best conclusion really is that they don't think it killed anyone - t
Re: (Score:2)
Except invermectin has no effect on COVID-19. The studies that suggested it did were badly flawed, and some of the most prominent of these studies were retracted. See:
The fact that invermectin doesn't work, however, is not evidence that no treatment will work.
The people writing these stories have no background on the topics they are reporting. Their conclusions carry no weight. The relevance would be in any citations offered in the articles. If you intend on establishing Ivermectin has no effect it is best to cite evidence establishing this directly.
The guardian article is basically all Elgazzar which needs no introduction.
The Forbes articles is an unsubstantiated declaration by the author full of references to Elgazzar and horses. It draws the conclusion I
Re: (Score:2)
If you intend on establishing Ivermectin has no effect it is best to cite evidence establishing this directly.
Nature [nature.com] isn't good enough for you?
When the site publishing the paper [researchsquare.com] that claims invermectin works decide to withdraw the paper with words like:
"EDITORIAL NOTE:
Research Square withdrew this preprint on 14 July, 2021 due to an expression of concern communicated directly to our staff. These concerns are now under formal investigation.
(note updated 19 July, 2021)
Research Square has withdrawn this preprint."
I, personally, think that little credibility should be given to the results.
Your mileage may va
Re: (Score:2)
Nature isn't good enough for you?
When the site publishing the paper that claims invermectin works decide to withdraw the paper with words like:
I, personally, think that little credibility should be given to the results.
Your mileage may vary.
The details of the criticism can be found here: https://grftr.news/why-was-a-m [grftr.news]...
To establish Ivermectin does not work you can't just cherry pick flawed and crap papers. You actually have to provide affirmative evidence to support the proposition it does not work.
Burden of proof [Re:Invermectin didn't work] (Score:2)
To establish Ivermectin does not work you can't just cherry pick flawed and crap papers. You actually have to provide affirmative evidence to support the proposition it does not work.
Sorry, you misunderstand burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the affirmative: the people asserting that it works need to show evidence for it. Otherwise I could assert (for example) "eating horse manure cures covid" and when you disagree, say "it's up to you to prove it doesn't!"
In any case, when the papers saying it works are (in your words) "flawed and crap", the remaining papers -- which show no effect-- win by default. Reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
The largest ivermectin study so fa
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you misunderstand burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the affirmative: the people asserting that it works need to show evidence for it.
You flat out said "invermectin doesn't do anything" and "invermectin has no effect". This is your assertion *NOT* mine. Do you stand by it or not? Can you support it or not?
Whether you are asserting a null result or a positive one makes no difference. The burden of proof is still on the person making the assertion.
Otherwise I could assert (for example) "eating horse manure cures covid" and when you disagree, say "it's up to you to prove it doesn't!"
If you said eating "horse manure cures covid" or "horse manure does not cure covid" and you don't provide evidence to support your assertion don't expect anyone who cares about the question to
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you misunderstand burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the affirmative: the people asserting that it works need to show evidence for it.
You flat out said "invermectin doesn't do anything" and "invermectin has no effect". This is your assertion *NOT* mine.
As I said, you don't understand burden of proof. Burden of proof is on the affirmative. The burden is to falsify the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is: it does nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, you don't understand burden of proof. Burden of proof is on the affirmative. The burden is to falsify the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is: it does nothing.
You made an affirmative claim.
You affirmatively support it.
It is no more complicated than that.
Your commentary above is classic argument from ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you google "falsify the null hypothesis."
It's how science is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you google "falsify the null hypothesis."
It's how science is done.
A null hypothesis is merely an assumption one goes about disproving. Either ivermectin works or ivermectin does not work can be used as a "null hypothesis".
When you "do science" you make a falsifiable assumption and go about seeking contradictory evidence to falsify the assumption. This is what falsifying a null hypothesis means. It doesn't mean you get to hide behind your favorite preferred outcome.
There is no inherently correct by default assumption you get to stake for free without evidence that you
Re: (Score:2)
You are basically saying "the opposite of the null hypothesis could also be phrased as being the null hypothesis", which in some abstract sense is true, but that's simply not how science works.
The people claiming the ivermectin works-- and there are many of them-- are framing a hypothesis. It is their burden of proof to show it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you just assume it works with no evidence?
I would think of the assumption as more of a stipulation if that makes more sense. It isn't something you take for granted for no reason. It's an idea you are seeking to refute in an effort to gain knowledge. Falsification is simply a tool to obtain evidence / confidence that a given assumption or stipulation is correct or incorrect.
In this case it makes little difference what you use for null hypothesis because the process for falsifying leads to properly controlled trials of sufficient size to have con
Re: (Score:2)
You are basically saying "the opposite of the null hypothesis could also be phrased as being the null hypothesis"
A null hypothesis is whatever the falsifiable assertion the person doing the investigation stipulates. There is no such thing as a universal default hypothesis.
but that's simply not how science works.
Why is that?
The people claiming the ivermectin works-- and there are many of them-- are framing a hypothesis. It is their burden of proof to show it.
Absolutely. And you know what else?
The people claiming the ivermectin does not work-- and there are many of them-- are framing a hypothesis. It is their burden of proof to show it.
Re: (Score:2)
This conversation really isn't going anywhere.
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
This conversation really isn't going anywhere.
Just asserting the rules don't apply to you because nonresponses like "that's simply not how science works" with no explanation as to why is non constructive.
You have to be able to justify your position objectively not simply assert your position is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are citing well known scientific sources such as forbes, the guardian and the bbc.
Now, let me present some lesser sources contradicting your argument.
Based on the findings from the present study, a single weight-based dose (0.2 mg/kg) of ivermectin could improve important clinical symptoms in patients with COVID-19, such as dyspnea, cough, and lymphopenia. This drug was well tolerated, with a good tolerability profile and few adverse events with oral administration.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Ivermectin is a drug with antiviral properties against a few viral infections. Owing to its considerable accessibility due to its low total cost, it has become an alternative treatment for patients with COVID-19. Studies have shown a reduction in mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who received the drug.23 30 Another study indicated that early administration of ivermectin resulted in earlier clearance of the virus compared with placebo, assessed over a 5-day course, suggesting that early intervention with ivermectin may limit viral replication in the host.31
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
There were 9 RCTs comprising of 1788 patients included in this meta-analysis. Ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality (RR 0.39 [95% 0.20–0.74], p = 0.004; I2: 58.2%, p = 0.051). Subgroup analysis in patients with severe COVID-19 showed borderline statistical significance towards mortality reduction (RR 0.42 [95% 0.18–1.00], p = 0.052; I2: 68.3, p = 0.013).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
We have summarized published results on the inhibition of multiple viral and host targets that could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 replication and the disease COVID-19.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
And there are more.
But hey, its horse paste, you wouldn't take the horse paste.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are citing well known scientific sources such as forbes, the guardian and the bbc.
Now, let me present some lesser sources contradicting your argument.
"Lesser sources" is correct. Many of these sources that have been criticized as too poorly reported to be useful. For example, in your first citation, the study was criticized in that the raw data showed that the patients given the placebo had much lower levels of oxygen in their blood before the trial started than those given ivermectin: the sickest patients were put in the control group, and the least sick patients in the study group.
I listed popular sources because this is an internet forum and these are
Re: (Score:2)
just in case you are not a troll:
there is a concept of a filter pass-band and how sharp the cutoff or slopes are.
imagine a wideband solution that targets too many things. not good.
imagine such a narrow band that was meant for A but can knock out B. down side is: the distance from the effective pass-band is so far (attenuated) that you just need so much more to get the desired atten effects, that the dose would kill you.
do you realize that or are you just a troll?
for those that aren't trolls, this is the a
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, let's see.
Ivermectin: C48H74O14
Paxlovid: C23H32F3N5O4
Looks like more than a 'very tiny tweak' to me.
Re: (Score:3)
I have the feeling you confused him in the middle part.
Especially some of the numbers a re a little bit too big!
Re: (Score:2)
You are retarded:
Here is what the Ivermectin molecule looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Here is what the Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir) molecule looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Do they look the same to you, or are you retarded? Ivermection binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels whereas nirmatrelvir is a 3CL protease inhibitor. None of that makes any sense to you does it? Uneducated fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they look the same to you, or are you retarded? Ivermection binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels whereas nirmatrelvir is a 3CL protease inhibitor.
While they are obviously not the same molecules they are both 3CL protease inhibitors. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmatrelvir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iv
Re: (Score:2)
it is likely that Pfizer literally took the formula for Ivermectin and made a very tiny tweak and then patented and rebranded it.
This is a diagram of ivermectin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#/media/File:Ivermectin_skeletal.svg [wikipedia.org]. This is the molecule in paxlovid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PF-07321332.svg [wikipedia.org]. Please note that they do not look remotely similar. This is not a tweaked version of ivermectin.
Re: (Score:2)
Omicron symptoms are not very different from cold. The set of symptoms which could not be mistaken is now gone. As a result you can get what you think is a Cold and then it can hit you full long Covid 10 days later.
So No. You still have to be vaccinated and you still have to test yourself even if it looks like a cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Masks (as in respirators) work. Crappy masks (of the kind the proletariat are wearing) are useless.
Re: So are we finally done with masks now? (Score:1)
Sorry, but this response seems to be reflexive nonsense. OP says nothing about bucking the need to vaccinate, merely that therapeutics now exist, and asks if we can finally stop the mask charade. Yet here you are immediately demanding more virtue signaling nonsense. ffs⦠Please stop trying to protect fictitious people that arenâ(TM)t asking for your protection - adults are quite capable of saving themselves. If you feel that isnâ(TM)t true, please do enjoy locking yourself in your basem