Please explain Ivermectin
Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Please explain Ivermectin
- This topic has 160 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by Lostspark.
September 1, 2021 2:26 pm at 2:26 pm #2005051
I’m going to put aside the politics and vitriol (just for a minute). Can someone please explain the pharmacological basis for the claim that Ivermectin is a valid medication for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19? Not anecdotal cases. The actual, chemical and biochemical reactions that take place that combat COVID-19.
And unless you have an advanced degree in biological sciences (that you can point to), please cite your source.
This is your big chance to shut up a harsh critic of the snake-oil market.September 1, 2021 3:32 pm at 3:32 pm #2005115
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I’m not sure how relevant that is. There are lots of medications regarding which we are not sure the exact mechanism. If the data supports them working then they work and if not not.
Tylenol (acetinominophen) is one of the most widely used drugs out there, yet its exact mechanism of action is unknown. I don’t think that is an argument not to use it .
One thing that bugs be though is the incessant description of Ivermectin as a “horse pill” It is FDA approved for humans (though not for Covid-19) It shouldn’t be used because data doesn’t support its use not because it is a “horse pill”
(Of course horse doses and formulations are “horse pills”)September 1, 2021 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #2005130Reb EliezerParticipant
See the American Journal of Therapeutics Volume 28, Issue 4 July/August 21 by googleing IvermectinSeptember 1, 2021 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #2005135
Ubiq -“I don’t know the answer to your question, but I’m not sure how relevant that is. There are lots of medications regarding which we are not sure the exact mechanism. If the data supports them working then they work and if not not.”
That’s because you waste your time Fighting with Cons on YWN CR.September 1, 2021 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #2005139
Actually we know pretty well how acetaminophen works. From Tufts University professor of anesthesiology: ” Commonly known by its brand name of Tylenol, acetaminophen belongs to a class of painkillers known as non-opioid analgesics. This class of drugs also includes aspirin, traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen and naproxen, and the newer COX-2 inhibitors like celecoxib—popularly known as Celebrex.
Non-opioid analgesics work by inhibiting an enzyme known as cyclooxygenase (COX). COX is a catalyst for the conversion of a fatty acid contained in cell walls—arachidonic acid—to substances known as prostaglandins.
Prostaglandins serve a number of protective functions in the body, but they can also produce pain, inflammation and fever. They cause pain and inflammation after cell injury by a number of mechanisms, primarily at the site of the injury in the peripheral nervous system, that is, nerves outside the brain and spinal cord, but also in the central nervous system. They elevate body temperature by affecting the heat regulating center of a region of the brain known as the hypothalamus.
By blocking COX and, therefore, the subsequent production of prostaglandins in the central and peripheral nervous systems, non-opioid analgesics reduce both fever and inflammation.”
We know how vaccines work, and that’s how we know they’ll be effective. We know how regeneron works, and we know why it’s effective. So what’s the medical basis for a human-dose of Ivermectin being clinically useful.
Correlation is not causation. As I mentioned in another post, see “Simpsons Tiger Rock.” People have been saying on here that there are scientific studies proving Ivermectin’s effectiveness. The truth, of course, is that there was one study, and it was withdrawn because the author admitted the data was fabricated.
For a drug to be so widely touted in one segment of the media, and to have such a strong following here, there must be SOME scientific basis for it (meaning chemistry, and not “so-and-so took it and got better”). Because for every person that got better, there are dozens that took it and (G-d forbid) died.
So please, show me the science behind it. And I will absolutely keep an open mind.September 1, 2021 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #2005151Yserbius123Participant
I am not a scientist, but here is what one research paper presumes:
The exact mechanism to which this effect can be attributed to is yet to be validated, but the speculated method is inhibition of importin α/β1 mediated transport of viral proteins in and out of the nucleus.4 Importins, a type of karyopherins, exemplify a major class of soluble transport receptors which are involved in nucleo-cytoplasmic transit of various substrates (Fig. 1).5 The speculated inhibitory action of ivermectin on importin α/β mediated transport system
First off, ivermectin is perfectly safe for humans. It’s been used around the world since the 1970s as an anti-parasitic medicine. It’s not just for cattle. Preliminary studies showed that ivermectin has some benefit in preventing some of the really bad COVID symptoms.
Now for the kicker. Unfortunately, no double-blind large scales studies have shown any significant benefits for taking ivermectin to prevent hospitalization or death from COVID.September 1, 2021 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #2005157
OD -“Can someone please explain the pharmacological basis for the claim that Ivermectin is a valid medication for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19?”
I really can’t teach you medicine.
I use Zinc & Quercitin for Covid 19.
The Genocidal Government doesn’t approve of Ivermectin.
But I’ll tell you there are a lot of practictioners that use it.
I’ll tell you why.
Simply for a Layman:
Viruses need to replicate.
They do that by attaching themselves into Human cells.
They take over the cells in order to replicate themselves.
What if something is in the cell already?
That’s where Ivermectin comes in.
They have the ability to enter Human cells.
Therefore, when the virus enters, the Drug prevents it from taking over the cell.September 1, 2021 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #2005171jackkParticipant
People are also using the paste solution made for horses.September 1, 2021 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #2005184GadolhadorahParticipant
Like the Zelenko protocols (don’t forget the Zinc)( and the Trumpkopf clorRX, this snake oil miracle drug is straight from the horse’s mouth into your veins.September 1, 2021 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #2005185
Reb Eliezer – I appreciate you bringing an actual citation. The specific article you cite is not a scientific, peer reviewed study, but a proposal on how a study of Ivermectin would be done. Fair enough. But it does not answer the scientific question of how it would work on COVID.
In the same issue of that journal, there is an article touting Ivermectin’s efficacy. But it was written primarily by a statistician who used correlation as a basis for including Ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Meaning… doing exactly what has been said before… there is a percentage of mortality reduction among patients who took Ivermectin. But no chemical explanation as to why and how Ivermectin attacks the virus.
Here I’ll give you some more inside info… the “study” (it wasn’t a study, it was a statistical gathering of data) was funding by “gofundme.” Not a university, hospital, governmental organization, charity, or any normal source of funding for scientific research. That’s the first red flag.
The American Journal of Therapeutics sounds very prestigious. But in the scientific world… it’s not (to be nice). All scientific journals are given an “impact factor” every year by the global scientific community based on the reliability of the material published and how often the articles are cited in other studies. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine has an impact factor of 91.245. Lancet’s impact factor is 79.321. Nature (where my wife is published) is 42.6 or so. Only about 1.5% of journals exceed an impact factor of 10. This journal has an impact factor of 2.688. So we’re not exactly dealing with the most rigorous or respected science (if this even involved science).September 1, 2021 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #2005189
1. Whether or not tylenol is a good example of a medication which we don’t know the mechanism of action is not the point.
2. You are not an honest person.
Your post surprised me since it’s a nonsensical cholent. You write that acetaminophen is a non opiate pain reliever (true), and explain how a different class of non opiate pain reliever (nsaids) work
But hey if a tufts professor said that, I was excited to learn sonething new. So I looked up the post you cited.
The OPENING SENTENCE is “The short answer to this question is that we don’t fully understand how acetaminophen works.”
Did you not think I would look it up?
It’s hard to believe you missed the opening sentenceSeptember 1, 2021 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #2005196
Yserbius – Thank you for posting some actual science. But I went to the source. And I do understand what it says. This clip is from an article published by 3 Indian doctors (people who live in India) on the NIH website. Their findings are also not based on observation of chemical reactions, but speculation on how is MIGHT work. “Since the conditions in which the virus replicates and infects the cells in vivo and in vitro differs, a decisive comment about how ivermectin may prove to be beneficial to the patients cannot be constructed yet. Similarly, any disparity in the pharmacokinetic properties of this drug and the unidentified drug interactions which may occur under such conditions are yet to be recognized and remarked on.” This is from the article. And it was published in mid-2020. Much more is known about the virus and effective treatments.
In short, the authors argue that Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (it’s an anti-parasitic), but if it kills parasite bodies maybe it could kill virus bodies. They cite correlational studies with other viruses (like Zika) and that there may be statistical evidence of effectiveness. But… they don’t know why or how. COVID-19, they say, is not the same kind of virus, but it’s a virus and the stuff is cheap and available, so give it a shot!
Again, we get to the basis being speculation and statistics, not observation or known biochemistry. A scientific study would say, “we see X attacking Y at Z point and killing/weakening Y.”September 1, 2021 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #2005208
Health – I could sell you a rock that does exactly the same for COVID that zinc and quercitin can do. Though zinc is a mineral that may help boost the immune system in general. I’ll give you that. But no studies or science back up what you’re saying.
Which practitioners did you visit that gave you that explanation? I’d find some new doctors. If something else is occupying all of a person’s lung and heart cells and blood cells, then that person is dead. That sounds more like cancer. I mean… that’s 9th grade biology. You took 9th grade biology, right?
The argument for ivermectin is that its anti-parasitic capabilities might also be anti-viral, meaning they kill the virus (not occupy health human cells… YIKES!). As I showed above, no doctor or researcher has been able to provide this biochemically or even statistically. They propose more research.September 1, 2021 5:57 pm at 5:57 pm #2005210
ubiquitin – I read that part of the article. Taken together, the professor says… we don’t fully understand, but here’s how it works, as far as we know with decades of research. Meaning there is a proven mechanism, though the author says there may be more (read the whole thing). Which, as I’ve shown, there is not for Ivermectin and COVID.September 1, 2021 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #2005219
That’s not what he says. He does bait and switch. If tylenol inhibits cox 2 is not at all clear there are tons of papers in both directions. (Kind of my point).
And why’d you leave thst sentence off? It’s not like you were limited by characters you pasted almost the entire thing but left off the very first sentence.
And again thsts but one example there are other medications whose moa is not exactly knownSeptember 1, 2021 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #2005215
For those saying that that government won’t allow this to be studied, I direct you to clinicaltrials . gov (can’t post a link). There are clinical trials going on. None are being conducted by reputable labs, universities, organizations, or companies. One is being done by a medical billing company. They expect results in March 2022.
Why is no one seriously studying this? Because it’s like using a band-aid to treat cancer. One has nothing to do with the other. Band-aids are a valid treatment for certain things. And there may be some tiny percentage of COVID patients that survive more often with the band-aid. But, as all of the scientific literature that has been cited in this group has said, the statistical improvement could also be related to increased mask use, social distancing, other treatments, and better care in hospitals based on learned skills (between March 2020 and August 2021).
I found this to be a very enlightening discussion. And I appreciate the actual research you’ve done to defend the position.
But in the end, it’s still horse paste that has some limited applications in far lower doses for human parasitic conditions. I’ll say “neigh.”September 1, 2021 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #2005218ackParticipant
I recommend this website- https://covid19criticalcare. com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
This is from their website (under FAQ)
More recently, profound anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties of ivermectin have been identified. In COVID-19 specifically, studies show that one of its several anti-viral properties is that it strongly binds to the spike protein, keeping the virus from entering the cell. These effects, along with its multiple abilities to control inflammation, both explain the markedly positive trial results already reported…September 1, 2021 9:42 pm at 9:42 pm #2005226commonsaychelParticipant
“But in the end, it’s still horse paste that has some limited applications in far lower doses for human parasitic conditions. I’ll say “neigh.””
Why didnt you write this at the begining instead of pretending that you were really seeking into.
Besides you live in Israel why do you care what the CDC doesSeptember 1, 2021 9:42 pm at 9:42 pm #2005225
OD -“But no studies or science back up what you’re saying”
Unfortunately, you have been misguided by the Genocidal Government, or s/o else.
I actually just had this discussion in the CR topic called “World’s Failure”.
Check out page 2 in that topic:
“So what happened was Medscape was quoting a different webpage.
Here it is:
If you click on HCQ it brings you to c19hcq .com & it does that for all Drugs.
I’m Not going to quote the whole webpage.
Etc…”September 1, 2021 9:46 pm at 9:46 pm #2005179provaxxParticipant
In the July/August issue of American Journal of Therapeutics there is a meta-analysis of 24 randomized controlled studies (3,406 patients) of ivermectin vs no ivermectin and found “moderate-certainty” evidence of reduction of death. https://journals. lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
The drug is considered extremely safe at dose 0.2-0.4 mg/kg.
This article discusses possible mechanisms of action.September 1, 2021 11:40 pm at 11:40 pm #2005289FrumStatisticianParticipant
A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it is using. If the studies are bad, then the meta-anlysis is also bad. If you look at that paper, it includes the paper that was retracted due to fraudulent data and since that paper had the strongest effects, the meta-analysis would need to be completely re-run. Indeed, the authors of another meta-analysis published around the same time in Open Forum Infectious Diseases have already retracted their paper and plan to reanalyze the data excluding the fraudulent studies.
More recently the ivermectin arm of the “Together Trial” in Brazil (I think 1,300 patients) was halted due to it not working and the patients were reassigned to other arms of the study. This was a very large scale trial done by researchers at a number of universities in Canada and Brazil. Admittedly it was tested on already sick patients so it does not tell us anything about prophylactic use, but it still shows that is is definitely not some magic bullet. The study did find that Fluvoxamine – an antidepressant which is cheaper than ivermectin and considered to be safer too – did have a significant effect, though I would wait until another high quality large size study of it comes out before jumping on that bandwagon either (there are couple such studies on Fluvoxamine currently underway).September 1, 2021 11:43 pm at 11:43 pm #2005287appdevParticipant
regarding the American Journal of Therapeutics, that study was retracted after,
“[t]he paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.”
See the original study and the retraction here https://www.researchsquare . com/article/rs-100956/v4September 2, 2021 7:33 am at 7:33 am #2005331philosopherParticipant
Talking about “unreliable studies”, the FDA approves drugs based on drug manufacturers own findings so I don’t think that is very reliable either. The recently FDA approved Pfizer vaccine was approved without any adverse effects studies done and only in 2025 and 2027 does Pfizer have two submit these studies on I already forgot what (and I’m too lazy to look it up now). But the point I want to make is that in these times it is usually the obscure labs that have the honest and accurate studies while prestiges labs are full of corruption with eye on the money and prestige.September 2, 2021 7:33 am at 7:33 am #2005335Todros GimpelParticipant
One of more common symptoms of Covid seems to be causing every Zelig that knows how to use Google to believe they are a scientist, virologist and general know-it-all doctor.September 2, 2021 7:44 am at 7:44 am #2005339Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant
OrechDin, this journal is not high there, but it is a valid academic publication, and gofundme should be OK for the current emergency. this is not a time for writing NIH proposals. I see above that an underlying study was a fraud, that’s an issue.
Also, they have maybe 10 different questions and only one of them (an important one, though) has moderate confidence, all the rest are low confidence. if you look at overall multi-test statistics – a chance to have one moderate out of 10 tests – would indicate low confidence inthe overall result. It is as if you throw dice 10 times, then select the highest value out of 10 and say that your “average” is 10 out of 12.
that said, it is a valid strategy to search through existing medicines to see if any of them would help. The benefit is that safety is already known and manufacturing exists. So, if there is a way to improve outcome even by a small number (as these tests seem to indicate), it is worth trying.
There may be some hidden correlations that help in some cases. For example, it is possible that extra vitamins are very helpful in places with deficiency of that vitamin, but less in othersSeptember 2, 2021 7:51 am at 7:51 am #2005376besalelParticipant
Orech, osteopathic medicine believes you can treat one part of the body to heal another. The discipline has been at “war” with pharmaceutical medicine about your very question over the past 150 years. It will not be resolved by a bunch of us dummies here in the coffee room.September 2, 2021 11:16 am at 11:16 am #2005420GadolhadorahParticipant
Joe Rogan just announced he is postponing his “Clown Tour” (no joke…tickets went on sale last week) because he was diagnosed with Covid. If you believe in contrarian indicators, he is on something that looks like a variation of the Zelenko protocol with Zinc, Trump antibodies and this horse medicationSeptember 2, 2021 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #2005496philosopherParticipant
Todros Gimpel, it is well documented that approximately 251,000 lives are claimed each year due to medical error in the US. That is the third largest cause of death in the US. So good for anyone who does not follow medical opinion blindly but is informed and involved.September 2, 2021 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #2005501
FS -“A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it is using. If the studies are bad, then the meta-anlysis is also bad. If you look at that paper, it includes the paper that was retracted due to fraudulent data and since that paper had the strongest effects, the meta-analysis would need to be completely re-run. Indeed, the authors of another meta-analysis published around the same time in Open Forum Infectious Diseases have already retracted their paper and plan to reanalyze the data excluding the fraudulent studies.”
Are you part of the Genocidal Government?
If you go to the site I provided -“c19early. com”, you’ll see plenty of RCT on the efficacy of Ivermectin.
Stop letting people Die!September 2, 2021 11:11 pm at 11:11 pm #2005590FrumStatisticianParticipant
Most of the RCT’s on that website for ivermectin have extremely small samples and/or data quality issues. There is also an issue that most of those studies come from less well known researchers in third world countries who face major publication bias issues (this is the issue that it is harder to get a paper showing no effect published). While it is sometimes possible to combine a number of smaller studies, various data issues preclude that for most of these studies. These reasons are why the two meta-analysis mentioned above used only a small portion of these studies, and the authors of at least one of those two meta-analysis have retracted their paper pending a re-analysis excluding the paper with fraudulent data.
Just because a study is an “RCT” does not mean it is a good or useful study. Indeed, a small sample size RCT is often worse than a much larger observational study with a large and high quality sample. A properly designed and handled large scale RCT will (almost) always be better than a observational study, but the key points are properly designed and handled large scale RCT.September 3, 2021 12:56 am at 12:56 am #2005685
FS -“Most of the RCT’s on that website for ivermectin have extremely small samples and/or data quality issues.”
I really don’t know what your purpose of your post is.
That’s why I call Fauci and the rest of the government Genocidal!
Let me explain you something – these vaccines are Not the solution.
I think it’s a start – I’m not against them.
There are many other Drugs that are useful for treating Covid 19.
Eg. – Zinc & Quercitin.
That’s how you practice medicine.
Eg. – If one antibiotic isn’t working, you try another. It helps if you do a C & S.
That’s with Bacteria, Covid is a Virus.
If you go to the site I provided -“c19early. com” – click on Ivermectin.
I’m not gonna post the whole site, but this portion on Ivermectin:
“All studies 58% 63studies 92.1% 1 in 1 trillion 68% improvement – RR 0.32 [0.25‑0.40] p < ”
So does other therapies that are posted on http://www.c19early.com.September 3, 2021 12:59 am at 12:59 am #2005687rightwriterParticipant
Just like they called
Hydroxychloroquin=Fish tank cleaner
So is lettuce rabbit food?
Is corn pig food?
Is tuna cat food?
Is meat dog food?
Such twisted narratives at this point I think most people are realizing this but it’s too late to do anything it seemsSeptember 3, 2021 9:43 am at 9:43 am #2005703avreichamshlomoParticipant
Dude, Pfizer wasn’t double blind either.
Go to the FDA’s website, read the packet insert. it was a single blind, and the fda literally says, a. We don’t know how long you will be protected by using this vaccine, and B. We don’t know if this vaccine will protect you from covid.
Its absolute insanity.
Meanwhile, since forever, whenever you tell doctor’s that you take a supplement, their response is usually, “supplements don’t have studies to show their effectiveness. They might not work.”
And then the genius doctor proscribes vitamin d for vitamin d deficiency. Contradicting themselves מניה וביהSeptember 3, 2021 10:16 am at 10:16 am #2005748
“for vitamin d deficiency. Contradicting themselves ”
Here to help.
You are comparing “supplements ” to treating deficiencies. These are not at all the same
There is no question that vitamin deffincies are bad. Scurvy for example is due to vit c defficency this is very rare however. So for most people taking extra vitamin c doesn’t help anything..
Except vitamin D deff which is quite commonSeptember 3, 2021 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #2005788
AM -“Meanwhile, since forever, whenever you tell doctor’s that you take a supplement, their response is usually, “supplements don’t have studies to show their effectiveness. They might not work.””
Nowadays the medical professionals include Supplements in their practice.
This is the way they are taught nowadays.
The old timers haven’t been trained in the New way of thinking!September 3, 2021 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #2005794Always_Ask_QuestionsParticipant
FrusStat> A properly designed and handled large scale RCT will (almost) always be better than a observational study, but the key points are properly designed and handled large scale RCT.
I am more fun of observational studies (also, “properly performed” of course). Even large-scale RCT run out of all variations: do you give medicine early/late, doses, with something else, to what kind of people, etc. Observational studies let you find potential candidates to be confirmed with RCTs.
Back to meta-studies. These quoted sites look a little strange. They may or may not be malicious, but they seem to be a pre-processing step – they automatically include all kind of studies and, seemingly, weight them equally, whether they have 10 or 10000 cases.
I thought Cochrane Review is a gold standard for properly designed meta-studies. could someone find anything on these medicines in Cochrane?September 5, 2021 1:07 pm at 1:07 pm #2005998
The list and explanations for the mechanisms of action was written by Daniel Horowitz (I meant to lead off the post with this acknowledgement), not myself.September 5, 2021 4:57 pm at 4:57 pm #2005987
Mechanisms of action of #ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2:
1. Inhibits binding at ACE2 an TMPRSS2 keeping the virus from entering our cells
2. Blocks alpha/beta importin (the virus cell taxi) keeping it from gettin to the nucleus
3. Blocks the viral replicase zipper (RdRp)
4. 3-Chimotrypsin protease inhibition (keeps the virus from assembling)
5. Ivermectin strengthens our natural antiviral cell activity by increasing our natural interferon
production (this Counters SARSCOV2 activity which inhibits cellular interferon)
6. Decreases IL-6 and other inflammatory cytokines through NF Kappa Beta downregulation,
taking the patient from a cytokine storm to calm.
7. Binds NSP14 necessary for viral replication and blocks it (equals less virus).
8. Most important mechanism is inhibiting binding to CD147 receptor on red cells, platelets,
lung and blood cell lining. Ivermectin keeps the virus from binding here and decreases
Now for more detail on each of the mechanisms:
1) “Ivermectin hinders binding of SARS-COV2 spike protein at the ACE2 receptor . Ivermectin
binds not only to the virus spike, but also to the ACE2 receptor (yes, more strongly than
remdesivir). ..”This is the primary receptor on our cell surface where the virus binds and then
gets gulped into the cell. If the virus can’t bind, it can’t get in. If it can’t get in, it can’t
replicate. Both the key and the lock are altered and don’t work together in the presence of
IVM.” “We have heard much about ACE2 but TMPRSS2 is a serine protease that is needed on the
cell surface to prime the Spike protein. Ivermectin inhibits this.”
https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/32871846/
2) “It binds to the alpha/beta importing and saturates it. This is the “taxi/uber” the virus
uses to ride into the cell to arrive at the area where it would replicate.”
“So ivermectin essentially takes up that “taxi/uber” seats so the virus has trouble getting a ride in to where it needs to be to copy itself.
3)Alpha/Beta importin ivermectin mechanism information we have known for almost a decade”
“Ivm binds and inhibits the viral RdRp (RNA dependent RNA polymerase). Basically
this is an enzyme the virus needs to activate to replicate itself, essentially zippering back and
forth. So ivermectin ends up being that annoying piece of fabric stuck in that zippering
4) After the virus copies itself into its long form of all of its protein parts, enzymes clip it so
those proteins can assemble into new virions. “There are 11 sites on this long protein string that
are clipped by the enzyme 3-Chimotrypsin protease. Ivermectin inhibits this protease by
85-100% forcing the virus replication to halt, because it cannot become its constituent building
5)”As important is the viral inhibitory mechanisms, are the immune modulation mechanisms. As
mentioned in 2 above, the virus rides into the cell on alpha/beta, arrives in the nucleus and
shuts down our interferon production.”
“Interferon of many types are produced by our body. SARS-COV2 selectively shuts down this interferon pathway and allows itself to replicate and highjack the body’s mechanisms more quickly. As in #2, ivermectin blocks the virus from getting to this point.” It does this for countless other viruses as well.
6) “[Regarding] the cytokine storm, Ivermectin inhibits many inflammatory cytokines including the
prominent one IL-6. Also IL-1B, IL-10. Anti inflammatory effect by down regulating the nuclear
transcription factor Kappa-B and mitogen activated protein kinase activation pathway.” “this means it tunes down inflammatory cytokines such is IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha.” “In a nut shell it calms the immune system and decrease the cytokine storm in acute Covid patients but also shows effect in long haul patients suffering from a cytokine “trickle”.
7) “Binds to NSP14 (non structural viral protein 14) ribonuclease which is necessary and critical
for SARS1 and 2 and MERS to replicate.” “….Ivermectin has a much stronger binding to this site
than remdesivir and inhibits viral replication.”
8) CD147 is a receptor found on our red blood cell, platelets and blood cell lining, as well as
lung cell. SARS COV2 has a strong predilection for binding to this receptor. This causes
clumping and clotting. COVID is a clotting disease!!
please, no outside linksSeptember 5, 2021 8:27 pm at 8:27 pm #2006089
Sorry. On Duckduckgo, search the following: “The Gross misapplication of evidentiary standards how rigid evidentiary formulas defy common sense and corrupt science ashmedai substack” re ivermectin evidence baseSeptember 5, 2021 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #2006091
TU -“1) “Ivermectin hinders binding of SARS-COV2 spike protein at the ACE2 receptor . Ivermectin
binds not only to the virus spike, but also to the ACE2 receptor (yes, more strongly than
That’s very nice, but it isn’t a cure. Nothing is!
Remdesivir is a joke.
I already posted one of 2 reasons why the Government & Fauci approved it.
Either they got a Kickback or they want to Depopulate the World!
That’s all in-vitro, not in-vivo.
If you would have gone to the site I posted -“c19early. com” – you’d see it’s less than Quercitin.
For the Umteenth Time:
Etc.”September 5, 2021 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm #2006143
@ Health, as a general rule, a clinical study will not capture the entire potential effect of a treatment. This is because a study, by its very nature, is a rigid one-size-fits-all (in order to reduce the potential of confounding variables) – everyone gets the exact same dose of the exact same drugs and does not get any other treatments whatsoever. A practicing doctor, on the other hand, has the flexibility to tailor a treatment to a specific patient. Clinical expertise also yields additional specific knowledge not often fleshed out by a study as to what factors are the cause of discrepancies between the majority for whom a treatment is successful versus those for whom it is not, which then further informs the clinician’s subsequent treatment protocols. The upshot of this is that Ivermectin is even more effective than the already extreme efficacy exhibited by the aforementioned studies when prescribed by a trained clinician who understands its use and can tailor the dosage and complementary drug protocols to the specific patient.
I have been on zoom meetings with doctors that have collectively used Ivermectin to treat, literally, tens of thousands of covid patients, in addition to providing consultation to doctors worldwide who using their protocols and knowhow triumphantly saved hundreds of thousands – if not millions – more. Many of these patients had significant risk factors or were already in the throes of severe covid disease. These doctors/clinicians are not only unimpeachably credentialed, but are among the pantheon of medical revolutionaries who already were responsible for transformative medical breakthroughs. (You can look them up on the FLCCC website.) Various doctors representing a wide array of countries have collaborated to develop and refine different multi-drug protocols centered on Ivermectin (such as I-MASK+, I-RECOVER, and MATH+) through the (formerly ubiquitous) tried-and-true process of trial and error, which they shared with colleagues and physicians around the world who were able to replicate their results.September 5, 2021 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm #2006144
Health — look at the substack article I mentioned to search for in duckduckgo.September 5, 2021 11:30 pm at 11:30 pm #2006145
I have no idea where you got the idea “that isn’t a cure! nothing is”. I know of many, many docs who used Ivermectin for >year, most haven’t lost a single patient. Countries that distribute Ivermectin always have immediate tightly correlated & reproducible vaporization of “the curve”. If that’s not a cure, I don’t know what is.September 8, 2021 10:43 pm at 10:43 pm #2006277
TU -“This is because a study, by its very nature, is a rigid one-size-fits-all (in order to reduce the potential of confounding variables) – everyone gets the exact same dose of the exact same drugs and does not get any other treatments whatsoever. ”
You simply Don’t know what you’re talking about!
Go to that website and see the studies on Ivermectin.
The studies have different doses. Some are the same dose, but very few.
And some are retroactive.
A lot of them have combined other therapies
“I know of many, many docs who used Ivermectin for >year, most haven’t lost a single patient.”
That’s great – did they do a Study?
Do you actually practice medicine, or you just have degrees, or None of the Above?!?
Nothing is a Cure for Covid 19.
I hate repeating myself.
You’re like the Government – all you need is Vaccines and you’ll be fine.
Or like the Anti-Vaxxers – Covid 19 is Not worse than a Cold!
The Truth is – you need a lot of therapies.
Randomized Controlled Trials – Early treatment 31 studies – they found a 64% (avg. total) improvement.”September 10, 2021 8:09 am at 8:09 am #2006664
OD -“So what’s the medical basis for a human-dose of Ivermectin being clinically useful.”
I just was listening to a video that had Dr. Malik on from the FLCCC.
I previously posted a question here – why they approved Redemsivir and Not Other therapies that work better?
He was talking about Ivermectin.
He said both the US Surgeon General, NIH, FDA, & the WHO came out against Ivermectin.
He gave the answer, that makes sense, Ivermectin can be obtained from the WHO for around 2-3 cents a pill.
While Redemsivir costs about 2 – 3 grand per pt. per full treatment.
So it comes out – Not just the US Government is into Genocide, but also the WHO!
I should have thought of the Chazal that says Goyim are Choshet on Rezicha.September 10, 2021 10:53 am at 10:53 am #2006700
At this time there is no high-quality data to support Ivermectin, which may be a reason to why it is not approved at this time.
Should that change, and there would be data to support what you and others are advocating for, I am sure that a lot of practitioners would be thrilled to have more options available for their patients.
The one larger study was done by Elgazzar that showed promising results has been retracted for fraudulent data issues (this is why studies are peer-reviewed, to prevent studies like Elgazzars study from being used as a reference).
Most other studies do not meet the basic criteria of being accepted as quality studies.
So at this point, more data is needed to demonstrate if Ivermectin is effective or not.
Calling people and government agencies derogatory names does not give your position any additional credibility.September 10, 2021 10:57 am at 10:57 am #2006701
“why they approved Redemsivir and Not Other therapies that work better?”
ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT04280705
Initial trial indicating a quicker recovery for those with Redemsivir, the data was significant which is probably why they approved it.
Other therapies, what are you referring to?
Take a look at https://doi. org/10.7326/M20-4207
Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19
A Randomized Trial
Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.
thank you!September 10, 2021 11:43 am at 11:43 am #2006718
Why did I deserve to be thanked?
Was it because my other unapproved post had a link or anything else that prevented it from being posted? Or your just being nice.
Yes to both 😊. But mostly for breaking the links and preventing the holdup. Thanks again.September 10, 2021 1:03 pm at 1:03 pm #2006539
A decent place to get a better look at current data is http://www.health. gov.z a/covid-19-rapid-reviews/
As synthesized in the Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis, the current evidence for the use of ivermectin in
COVID-19 does not suggest any clear benefits in either inpatients or outpatients with respect to mortality, clinical
improvement, or viral clearance. All domains were assessed as being of low or very low quality evidence. The included RCTs
for the most part have very small sample sizes and suffer from considerable heterogeneity with respect to ivermectin dosing
strategy and outcome measures. They also have several methodological limitations, including a lack of allocation
concealment, subjective and poorly defined endpoints and patient severity allocations, and baseline imbalances between
the various trial arms in co-administered medications and in patients with risk factors for poor outcomes. Many of the trials
included have not yet been peer-reviewed, which adds further uncertainty to the evidence base. Lastly, the potential for
publication bias cannot be excluded; several trials were only added to trial registries after their completion.
Together, these significant limitations limit the confidence in any conclusions with respect to ivermectin, and thus there is
insufficient evidence to recommend ivermectin’s use in any patient population outside a clinical trial. Further data from
large, well-designed RCTs is needed.September 10, 2021 1:16 pm at 1:16 pm #2006740
2scents -“The one larger study was done by Elgazzar that showed promising results has been retracted for fraudulent data issues (this is why studies are peer-reviewed, to prevent studies like Elgazzars study from being used as a reference).”
So exclude that one!
“Most other studies do not meet the basic criteria of being accepted as quality studies.
So at this point, more data is needed to demonstrate if Ivermectin is effective or not.”
Yes, I stand by all my posts!
It’s obvious to me that you believe everything the Government says.
Stop believing them.
You really got to go to c19early.com, before you come back here to post.
From that site on Ivermectin:
From a lot of Studies – it’s called a Meta-analysis.
Treatment – 52/2,599
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.