Here’s 2 rather great news videos from Dr. John Campbell. The first one comes after the second one (which it references) but IMHO is important enough to watch first (just in case EwTube decides it has too much actual science and evidence in it and so must be banned with all the other Banned Truths…)
It compares Pfizermectin mode of action with Ivermectin modes of action and finds that (as far as we know) they share one mode (blocking of 3CL-Protease) while Ivermectin also blocks the Spike Protein, the ACE2 receptor site, and a few other things the virus needs. IMHO a “must watch” for anyone seeking therapeutics or considering what to take. It does look like Pfizermectin will work, so I’d not refuse it were it the drug on offer.
Has interesting “denial of what happened to say just what happened” in a place or two ;-)
The text from the video with links to references. Note that I’ve removed the EwTube redirect tracking junk from these links, but IFF I’ve messed one up, you can try the “track me” link in the video text:
Dr. John Campbell
1.28M subscribers
New Pfizer antiviral and ivermectin, a pharmacodynamic analysisNew Pfizer antiviral, PF-07321332, C₂₃H₃₂F₃N₅O₄
PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease,
So, what is a protease?
So what is a protease inhibitor?
And, what is 3CL?
Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CL main protease, or 3CL Mpro)
Identification of SARS-CoV‑2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening (3rd September 2020)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00108#
The activity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 viral infection was confirmed in 7 of 23 compounds
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
the strength and persistency of the interaction between IVE and the binding site of 3CLpro indicate that a partial inhibition of the catalytic activity could have place as the drug interacts with the main subdomains that define the enzyme binding pocket:
Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x
as shown in Fig. 4, out of 13 OTDs only ivermectin completely blocked ( more than 80%) the 3CLpro activity at 50 µM concentration.
Development, validation, and approval of COVID-19 specific drugs takes years. Therefore, the idea of drug repositioning, also known as repurposing, is an important strategy to control the sudden outbreak of life-threatening infectious agents that spread rapidly.
Ilimaquinone (marine sponge metabolite) as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ra/d0ra06379g
From the docking analysis, ivermectin showed the highest docking score with an average energy of −8.5 kcal mol−1 among all the compounds. Remdesivir showed the lowest binding energy and highest docking score of −9.9 kcal mol−1
(Only works in the U.K. and redirects to a nag link for me, so to see it be in the UK – E.M.S.)
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/remdesivir.html
Ritonavir, C37H48N6O5S2
Ivermectin, C48H74O14
Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
We have documented an intense binding of both ivermectin B1a and B1b isomer to the main protease with subsequent energy (ETot-) values of -384.56 and -408.6.
PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease,
Risk of virus developing resistance to PF-07321332
Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full
With SARS-CoV-2 S Spike protein
Ivermectin showed high binding affinity to the viral S protein as well as the human cell surface receptors ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.
In agreement to our findings, ivermectin was found to be docked between the viral spike and the ACE2 receptor
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human TMPRSS2 Protein (ACE2 protein)
The docking results revealed that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −174.971) and protein–ligand interactions
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human ACE-2 Protein
that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −159.754) and protein–ligand interactions
With SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein
Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein
With SARS-CoV-2 Nsp14 Protein
ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity (MolDock score −212.265) and protein–ligand interactions
Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With SARS-CoV-2 PLpro
Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein (MolDock score −180.765) and protein–ligand interactions
A brief message to world leaders
Come on ya all
This second video is from the day before the top one, and is largely just the announcement of Pfizermectin and the Pfizer Hype about how great it is. It likely IS good at blocking the 3CL Protease enzyme as they were likely able to “tune it up” for just that mode. But in the context of the above studies you can see what they gave up for that enhanced single mode. It also covers several other drugs and compares their effectiveness:
Highly effective new antiviral
313,490 viewsNov 7, 2021Dr. John Campbell
1.28M subscribersProtectors from hospitalization, the story so far. Link to free download John’s 2 textbooks
http://159.69.48.3/Oral meds than can be prescribed from home with onset of symptoms
Molnupiravir, approved by MHRA
The antiviral was found to be safe and effective following a stringent review of the available evidence.
Public domain data, Merck press release
$ 700 per 5-day course
Under 50% reduction in deterioration
Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine
Together Trial group
Public domain data, Peer reviewed trial in the Lancet
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04727424
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext
Adults with a risk factor
$4 for a 10-day course
32% protection against hospitalization
32% protection against death
Fluvoxamine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an antidepressant
Doctors already can prescribe it off-label — using their clinical judgment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2021/10/28/antidepressant-fluvoxamine-coronavirus-lancet/(This one also only works in the U.K. and redirects to a nag link for me, so to see it be in the UK – E.M.S.)
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/fluvoxamine-maleate.html
https://www.togethertrial.com/
Ivermectin, Together trial results not yet released
PFIZER’S NOVEL COVID-19 ORAL ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT CANDIDATE REDUCED RISK OF HOSPITALIZATION OR DEATH BY 89% IN INTERIM ANALYSIS OF PHASE 2/3 EPIC-HR STUDY
Public domain data, Pfizer press release
PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332; ritonavir)
Found to reduce the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%
Compared to placebo in non-hospitalized high-risk adults with COVID-19
Through Day 28
PAXLOVID group
No deaths
Placebo group
10 deaths
Pfizer plans to submit the data as part of its ongoing rolling submission to the U.S. FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) as soon as possible
Phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients)
Randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19,
who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness
Scheduled interim analysis
89% reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo
In patients treated within 3 days of symptom onset
PAXLOVID group
0.8% of patients hospitalized
3/389 hospitalized with no deaths
Placebo group
7.0% of patients hospitalized or died
27/385 hospitalized
with 7 subsequent deaths
(p less than 0.0001) 1 in 10,000 chance
In patients treated within 5 days of symptom onset
PAXLOVID group
1.0% of patients hospitalized
6/607 hospitalized with no deaths
Placebo group
6. 7% of patients hospitalized or died
41/612 hospitalized,
with 10 subsequent deaths
p less than 0.0001
At the recommendation of an independent Data Monitoring Committee and in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer will cease further enrollment into the study
due to the overwhelming efficacy demonstrated in these results
About the Phase 2/3 EPIC-HR Study Interim Analysis
1,219 adults enrolled out of 3,000 planned
North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia
Enrolled individuals had a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection
Mild to moderate symptoms
At least one characteristic or underlying medical condition
Randomized (1:1) to receive PAXLOVID™ or placebo orally every 12 hours for five days
About the Phase 2/3 EPIC-HR Study Safety Data
Safety data, n = 1881
Treatment-emergent adverse events
PAXLOVID™group
19%
Placebo group
21%
Most of which were mild in intensity
Fewer serious adverse events
PAXLOVID™group
1.7%
Placebo group
6.6%
Discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events
PAXLOVID™group
2.1%
Placebo group
4.1%
Pharmacology
Specifically designed SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease inhibitor,
an enzyme that the coronavirus needs to replicate
Co-administration with a low dose of ritonavir helps slow the metabolism of PF-07321332
PF-07321332 inhibits viral replication at a stage known as proteolysis,
which occurs before viral RNA replication
In preclinical studies, PF-07321332 did not demonstrate evidence of mutagenic DNA interactions.
EPIC-SR includes a cohort of vaccinated patients who have an acute breakthrough symptomatic COVID-19 infection and who have risk factors for severe illness.
Musings from the Chiefio 
Related article:
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/pfizer-s-oral-covid-19-antiviral-cuts-hospitalization-death-by-85-sending-team-barreling-to
I want to see the study on Ivermectin on “patients who were treated within three days of symptom onset” (instead of the crap studies where they only give it after virus replication is completed and you are hospitalized in the cytokine storm phase…)
We are about to see some leftard heads explode :) That’s a good thing.
Good to see them working on other therapeutics. Bad for them to bad-mouth others that have been around for so long. (Wish I could add sarcasm)
From https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/09/bad-math-covid-treatment-paper-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results/
Due to mistakes, a study of Ivermectin has been retracted.
Bad MATH+? Covid treatment paper by Pierre Kory retracted for flawed results
The article has been retracted after the journal received notice from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia (“Sentara”) raising concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 hospital mortality data reported in the article pertaining to Sentara. Sentara’s notice included the following statements:
‘The data from Sentara Norfolk General Hospital were presented in Table 2, which lists in-hospital or 28-day mortality rates at the 2 MATH+ centers as compared to 10 published single-center and multicenter reports. The mortality rate among 191 patients at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital as of July 20, 2020 was reported as 6.1%, as compared to mortality rates reported in the literature ranging from 15.6% to 32%. The authors state that these data
Compelling video by Dr Campbell- analysis of Ivermectin studies, high docking of Covid Virus using the scissor analogy and 3cl protease. It’s main problem remains that it is too cheap to appeal to Big Pharma of course.
Good video. risqué for YT.
From a comment there:
3CL protease inhibition is a tidy way of tying ivm to a “legit” treatment discussion
After I sent a link to my brother to the Dr. Campbell “Interesting Video” where he goes over all the studies showing IVM efficacy, my brother pointed out that all of the studies were published between about 8-14 months ago. As my brother said, “Maddening.”
tom0mason says: 9 November 2021 at 11:31 pm
Apparently they did not include patient’s deaths when they died after the end of the study period.
They also stated that not all the patients were actually using the study protocol, so who informed them that they were?
“If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorization granted to covid-19 vaccines. One of the basic conditions for the emergency use authorization granted to the vaccines currently being used against covid is that there are no alternative treatments available for the disease. As such, if ivermectin or some other promising medicine such as fluvoxamine were approved as an effective early treatment for Covid-19, the vaccines could be stripped of authorization.” Prescription Politics exposed!
“Do I help thee? Let me count the ways!”
“How many mechanisms do you need? Ivermectin protects us from Covid in 20 ways”
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/11/how-many-mechanisms-do-you-need-ivermectin-protects-us-from-covid-in-20-different-ways/
More on that – retracted BUT in comments!
“red edwards
November 12, 2021 at 5:08 am · Reply
Well, the Editor-in-Chief has retracted the article.
” Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2.”
However. . .
“None of the authors agreed to the retraction.”
Reads like somebody decided this was TMI (too Much Information) and should be muzzled. Who did the leaning on the Editor-In-Chief is left to the reader’s digression. . . .”
AND
“Just being courteous, Jo; from one old Microbiologist to another.
The phrasing of the retraction sounds like the editor didn’t really want to retract it, but was required to. One doesn’t normally say the data/work is good, but, but the cited sources weren’t acceptable. Usually the work itself is described as inadequate in some manner, in a retraction, and usually the authors themselves request the retraction.
Make of it what you will. . .”
FWIW
“Via Conservative Beaver
Wife of Pfizer’s CEO dies after complications from the vaccine.
https://www.conservativebeaver.com/2021/11/10/the-wife-of-pfizers-ceo-dies-from-complications-from-the-vaccine/ ”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2021/11/12/november-12-2021-reader-tips/#comment-1532168
And subsequent comments re confirmationj
Ian, apparently untrue, beaver are accused of making stuff up.
There are kernels of truth to what Campbell says, but the conclusion that Ivermectin is effective against Covid is baseless. The fact that ivm and the paxlovid are protease inhibitors and effect the same targets is interesting but irrelevant. I am posting a link below to a discussion of these two medicines by a person who has far more knowledge of this subject than Campbell.
The problem with ivm is its bioavaility. In order to block 50% of Covid replication you have to take lethal doses. By lethal, I mean that it will likely destroy your liver if taken in doses that will significantly stop Covid replication.
I do not understand why ivm’s extremely poor bioavailability as an anti-viral is not common knowledge. The information is readily available and links can be found in the article linked to below. Why Campbell ignores this fact and promotes dangerous half truths is a question that deeply concerns me given that his half baked information is (and probably has) gotten people killed. The original in vitro study of ivm for Covid concluded as much and said that the pharmacokinetics needed to be studied to determine if the the the same effects could be produced without taking lethal dosages.
Paxlovid is bioavailable and will not kill you when taken with the recommended protocol. Ivm at the doses needed to stop Covid will likely damage your liver and you will wind up with a liver transplant if you are lucky.
Here is a link to the in depth discussion of ivm vs paxlovid. If you disagree with the author, take it up with him. But I am fairly certain that you will find his assessment unassailable which cannot be said for Campbell. In fact, Campbell will wind up getting people killed – and that is why I am compelled to share this information with you. I hope you will see the light and stop this ivm foolishness.
Here is the link. https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/22/paxlovid-is-not-pfizermectin/
I just stumble on this blog and the misinformation here disturbed me. Hopefully it will help some of you to avoid a liver transplant should you be considering taking large dosages of ivm.
R. Duran:
Bull Shit. Period.
I’ll rarely call B.S. on something, but your assertions deserve it.
First off, the “in vitro” study was a first step, not an end point. The dose used was incredibly high and FAR FAR beyond anything needed for effective dose in humans. That you ignore this is nearly criminal. Actual clinical trials with human appropriate doses work FINE and have NO RISK. This is in the published literature and has been cited here many times.
How do I know? Well, for one thing, I’ve been using it for 2 years now as a prophylactic (in accordance with the FLCCC iMASK protocol) with perfect success.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/
That’s 2 years of somewhere around 4 or 5 coast to coast driving trips (frequent stops, shopping, and sit down meals in restaurants) with a couple of flying and mingling with a few hundred thousand of my “closest strangers” largely with no mask or other preventative efforts. Trips were a minimum of 8 States in the shortest trip and one including a swing through Chicago (picking up the Mid-West) plus one up the East Coast for that set of States. I’ve been exposed to folks all across the nation. I’m not the only one. So can you say “Existence Proof”?
Ivermectin does far more than just protease inhibition. Most importantly, it binds to both the spike protein and the receptor site. So you attack it based on the most minor mode of action it has and ignore the other major modes (it has about 5 or 6 modes of action). Lying by omission.
Then there’s the repeated history of Indian States and other whole countries (Japan, Peru) allowing it to be used with GREAT success. Peru being particularly interesting in that they allowed it and got a 16 x REDUCTION then banned it and got a 16 X INCREASE again. Doing “the forbidden experiment” of removing a working treatment. Again, “Existence Proof” writ large. Country large.
Asserting the effective dose is liver toxic or “lethal” is, at best, gross “Fear Porn”. It is no such thing. The doses approved and used in MANY nations (with good effect) and by the FLCCC are the same as those prescribed a few BILLION times to humans. Either you did not bother to check that, or are a troll ignoring it for effect. Lazy or malicious is about as nice a label as can be applied to those two poles.
Then there’s the big Fear Porn Whopper: Liver death. Just flat out B.S. Quoting from my PDR (yes I have my own Physician’s Desk Reference) it says, under “Overdosage”:
Note that the HUMAN dose is 200 MICRO-grams/kg. Or 0.2 mg/kg. Or about 100 TIMES LESS. Also note that these symptoms are NOT liver failure. They are neurological. IVM in some species can cross the Blood Brain Barrier and influence the CNS. That you have the mode of toxicity at extreme dosing wrong AND the pharmacokinetics wrong is, er, distressing.
Further on overdose:
Note again, these are largely neurological symptoms, not liver failure. No mention of jaundice or metabolic failures of the liver. This is in toxic dose levels of exposure. Your claim is, simply, bunk.
It goes on:
That’s IT. The whole thing. NO mention of the liver at all. Just support for CNS and respiratory depression and giving fluids to keep the kidneys washing it out, along with emptying of the stomach if swallowed.
That’s in the case where a MASSIVE OVERDOSE was received. Orders of magnitude above the therapeutic dose that has been used to very good effect in millions of people world wide and essentially HALTED the Covid-19 pandemic in a few countries (the most spectacular one to date being Japan, though there is the spectacular comparison of 2 States in India where one used it and ended problems while the other did not and accounted for most of the Indian cases after other States followed the first one and used Ivermectin).
So then we come to your link. Frankly, it reads like a Pfizer Fear Porn and Marketing Push written by a Party Advocate. ANY text that includes terms like “antivaxxer” (in the pejorative) and “conspiracy theorists” is highly suspect at the outset. Such as: “Unsurprisingly, COVID-19 conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers were not pleased.” That’s a propaganda framing, not a scientific exploration.
So that leads to the last possible: You are just a paid shill of Pfizer (or related players) pushing their marketing dogma / counter-strike article pushing fear porn.
So clean up your act, post stuff that’s got BALANCE and cites actual clinical practice (NOT marketing hit pieces from Pfizer or “attack articles” from folks with less clue than the PDR) or you will not be well received.
UPDATE:
Just a “side bar” on style as indicator. Any “attack piece” that indulges in “insults to the person” is immediately suspect of being trash or trolls. It’s a VERY Effective Indicator. I do NOT allow “insult to the person” and prefer that citations not indulge in a lot of insults either. As soon as I see “insult to the person” or “insult to the group” or, really, any kind of “attack to the person or persons”, the article is flagged as most certainly laden with crap and highly likely to be either Propaganda or Fear Porn, or at a minimum Trollish. So skip the insults or end up in the “inspect fully” bucket.
“Attacks on the person” are a technique of propaganda and not a technique for finding truth. It really is that simple. I don’t care who the person is, what they have done that was “bad”, as long as their logic and data are clean. But “attack on the person” does flag the “user” of it as morally flawed and suspect. An example of subtle exception?
“Bill Gates is a Greedy Evil Bastard” is an “insult to the person”.
While:
“In My Opinion, Bill Gates is a GEB” or “Bill Gates is, per the evidence, responsible for sterilization vaccine trials in Nicaragua on young women”
is, in the first case a statement of personal opinion, of which we all can have one no matter how smelly, and the second case supported by reasonable evidence (including him on video advocating for sterilizing vaccines).
So unsupported slander is not acceptable. Personal opinions and evidence based observation of evil actions is acceptable.
So “antivaxxers” is a pejorative applied for Propaganda Framing to folks advocating for THERAPEUTICS against Chinese Wuhan Covid. That’s use is a lie for effect and “insult to the person”. I’m PRO-Vaccine (had all my shots, kids had theirs), as is Dr. John Campbell. I’m ANTI-Experimental Gene Therapy and FORCED MEDICAL PROCEDURES in violation of the Nuremberg Protocols.
That the Vexxine has failed in the two primary purposes for it (preventing infection and preventing spread) is evidenced by all the folks who took the shot and got the disease. Including a friend of mine (fully shot up with Pfizer) who got Covid-19 from 2 fully vexxinated friends of his (one of whom died from the disease). That pretty much says it is NOT an effective vaccine at all, even allowing for the mRNA mode of action. It is an experimental gene therapy that has failed in actual use. Calling me an “antivaxxer” for observing that objective reality is not just dumb, but willful ignorance for Propaganda Framing.
Observed Propaganda Framing Devices also flag postings and links in them as “Highly Suspect”.
E.M Smith,
You dismissed the linked article as Pharma propaganda. Yet it is the most thorough discussion on the internet that is not a technical paper. As for me I am in no way naive about the damage that big Pharma has inflicted because of greed. But suppression of Ivermectin is not one of its sins. Further, ask yourself why virtually every country in the world that has a non profit medical system would suppress Ivermectin if it worked. Maybe your conspiracy has some convoluted answer, but no matter what the explanation, it is ridiculous.
For those of you inclined to lap up the stuff Wilson is serving, read this excellent article first. If you still want to die on Ivermectin Conspiracy Hill go for it.
R Duran: “I am posting a link below to a discussion of these two medicines by a person who has far more knowledge of this subject than Campbell.”
Hmmm, who is this knowledgable person? The linked article is unsigned, not a good start, scientifically speaking. It’s on the “Respectful Insolence” blog. Cute name. “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.” The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, and pseudoscience (and anything else that interests him). Okay, it’s a blog. And he calls himself ORAC. https://respectfulinsolence.com/who-is-orac/
Orac is the nom de blog of a humble MD/PhD cancer surgeon and researcher who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent’s posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon/scientist is otherwise known as David Gorski.
Okay, it’s a blog. But who is David Gorski?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
and he even has a Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski
He is an outspoken skeptic, and a critic of alternative medicine and the anti-vaccination movement.
A bit of a dig, but he has the certificates on the wall. That said, his self-description quoted above is about right: “researcher who has an ego just big enough to delude himself”
Besides research he has found himself a productive niche: railing against alternative and non-research-based medicine. So it is clear why he would be out to debunk IVM.
Gorski has criticized popularization of pseudoscience by the media and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey,[49] Bill Maher,[50] Ann Coulter,[51] and The Huffington Post.[52] In June 2013 Gorski said he supported healthcare professionals speaking out against poor medical practices and the sale of unproven treatments.
So, I am willing to read his stuff with an open mind, something that he himself does not have.
Paxlovid is a protease inhibitor, and may very well work (at a high price). IVM also acts as a protease inhibitor, one mechanism among several others that Paxlovid is not claimed to have.
Gorski is a guy capable of blinding you with The Science. And he may also have blinded himself.
There is enough evidence coming from the field (as opposed to from the labs) that IVM works.
It evidently works well enough that Big Pharma has to suppress it at all costs.
We don’t need no stinking badges. We don’t need no stinking RCTs.
EM Wilson:
The author of that link is a researcher who spends some of his time his time debunking bad science and conspiracy theories. He is not writing a technical paper. He is just expressing his exasperation with dangerous fools and is entitled to vent using whatever language he sees fit. John Campbell would wilt in a face to face with this man who is every bit the expert that you and Campbell are not. If you can refute his arguments, not his rhetoric I would be happy to listen. But good luck with that, because unlike Campbell this guy knows what he is talking about.
So, R Duran, you cherry pick this one guy??? Really?
Here is the most comprehensive and authoritative collection of actual studies on Ivermectin. Your guy doesn’t seem to have a study. Why in the heck would you give a damn what he says?
Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 136 studies, 88 peer reviewed, 71 with results comparing treatment and control groups. FLCCC provides treatment recommendations. Recently added: Jamir Kerr Behl. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 23 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations). Submit updates/corrections.
https://c19ivermectin.com/
So which of the 88 peer reviewed studies do you no believe R Duran? Do you think all these authors are conspiring to push ivermectin on an unsuspecting public? Cite your evidence why they are wrong, then!!!
@R Duran, I had not heard of that researcher before, just as you seem to have not heard of “Campbell” before. I’m not sure why you disparage Dr. Campbell so much. Is it just because Orac says he is wrong?
As for clarity of presentations to the general public, compare these two.
versus
“New Pfizer drug and ivermectin”
I am not going to try to change your mind. I would like to change the minds of those who wear white lab coats or suit and tie, be it in hospitals, government agencies, or social media platforms, who have to censor every good word said about Ivermectin. They clearly have an agenda: that “IVM does not work” and that “IVM is not safe”. Can we trust them, just because they claim to know? Experience shows that this leads to bad places. The only thing to do is have a free and uncensored flow of information. All information, to all people. And hope that reason prevails. And do not censor that bad news about vaccines either. It seems that there is a rash of young healthy people getting heart attacks. I don’t claim to know why, but it is not from IVM.
YMMV
You have only attacked Gorski’s style and ignored the substantive argument he makes against the Ivermectin lunacy. You cite anecdotes that it works and that is good enough for you – while ignoring countless stories in the Herman Cain Awards Reddit of people who though that ivermectin would save them only to be crying out in fear and agony as they died the horrible death that Covid dispenses. So whose anecdotes are to be believed? That is why rigorous science is necessary. So far there is no study that make any case for ivermectin. Nor is there biochemical reason to suppose that it would be effective. Ivermectin madness is another of the horrid children birthed by social media and unfortunately you guys have bought in to the narrative. As with all cult behavior it is almost impossible to recover you guys once you have bought in.
Again, argue with the substance of the article if you can. I’d be interested to see what you come up with. But I’ll bet there is no counter argument. It is all about bioavailability and you and Campbell refuse to take on that issue because it completely undermines your fiction.
R Duran. What is that? Willful ignorance? What about the 88 peer reviewed studies?
https://c19ivermectin.com/
I know of Campbell from friends who are in his thrall. I have written to him about retracting his video in which he cited and championed Ivermectin based on a thoroughly debunked meta-analysis coordinated by Tess Lowry. The fact that he will not acknowledge his horrible mistake after cursorily glossing over the garbage studies that weighted the meta-analysis makes him a huckster who is monetizing the internet with a vast following of dupes. Throwing his weight behind Ivermectin just poured gas on the fire.
So I won’t deal with the fraud that Campbell is. But I am anxious for you to refute a single point that Gorski makes in his debunking of Ivermectin.
R Duran. OK, so it’s becoming very apparent you are obsessed with Dr. Campbell. You have some kind of agenda that is preventing you from reading the 88 peer reviewed studies concerning ivermectin. Of course, Campbell didn’t write those, so apparently you don’t care about the science. All you care about is dissing Dr. Campbell. You have been exposed!
@R Duran, “You have only attacked Gorski’s style”
Be precise, I did not attack his style. I said something about a few quotes being cute. Big insult?
And I was just looking into who Dr. Gorski is and assessing how much respect he deserves.
I would prefer to talk about what IVM does and does not do, and what vaccines do and do not do. The point you make here is interesting and deserves discussion. Here is a good place to do that. It’s not so much about science as it is about belief, whether it is in a cult or in Science.
“Be it resolved that IVM must be banned and censored because there are those who would believe that it works better than the vaccines and will therefore refuse to take the vaccines”
Before this gets too hot, let me state my position. Vaccines do work, to some extent, but probably much less well than we were led to believe. And they do have very serious side effects for some.
IVM does work, but it is not clear yet exactly how well or why. Vaccines have protected individuals from serious Covid to some extent, but they have failed to protect the population. IVM does seem to have protected populations, but it remains unstudied as to how much it protects individuals. Therefore, my answer to all those willing to take the (mostly unknown) risks, is to do both. With the caveat that you should get a non-mRNA non-spike-protein vaccine. (good luck with that).
It is a Maginot Line question, for those who know war history. Build the best wall ever, only to watch the enemy go around it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
Oh, and about IVM lab tests not working on lung tissue, you will like this video from a pharmocology point of view.
“Ivermectin Deserves more..Commentary on Dr John Campbell’s Ivermectin video | What else we can learn”
“The bottom line is that science is always about raising questions, generating hypothesis, and rigorously testing the hypothesis to prove or disprove that”
Never trust anybody who says they have The Answer, The Science, because the science is not settled yet.
Do you have the expertise to determine the quality of these studies? I doubt it. I have a masters in statics and have some knowledge of the power of studies and meta-analysis. I will say that not one of them give compelling evidence and some are outright fraudulent. Here is an article from The Guardian that exposes some of the fraud. Get out of your bubble and read real science and journalism. The study referred to in The Guardian was the one that Campbell put his weight behind. If you still want to believe this nonsense, then god help you. I’m out.
Here is the link:
theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
R Duran – unbelievable. You are given the evidence you asked for and all you can do is tuck tail and run. Oh well. You must be a shill of some sort. You have no support for your ravings.
@R. Duran:
Who is “Wilson”?
@R. Duran:
Oh, and I don’t Do requests for “Let’s You and Him Fight!”. It is a nice ploy, but a waste of my time. He’s just a guy with a blog. M.D. or not. I’ve spent the last 2 years researching (yes, paper research, but actual real peer reviewed papers) ivermectin and a lot more. I’ve got no “chip on my shoulder”, he does. I just wanted to find the best way to keep “me and mine” safe and healthy, and it works a champ for that. As it does for all the M.D.’s at the FLCCC. You want a “Me and Him fight”? Have him go take on the FLCCC.
You also slam Dr. John Campbell with an ad hominem attack. Useless. Perhaps less than useless. All Dr. John Campbell does is cite peer reviewed papers and report their contents. Watch his stuff, he is incredibly careful about that point. It is NOT his “POV” or “position”. It is published research. Please get this point firmly into your mind: Attacks “to the person” flag you strongly as a TROLL. If all you have is “go fight with someone else” (i.e. you have nothing but are trolling traffic for another site) and “insults to the person” (i.e. ad hominem logic fails) your time here will be short.
Have a point YOU want to make that is supported by evidence (and that is particular papers for a particular point, not “oh some guy has a lot of links”) then make it. If you want to push “go fish” and insults, leave.
(Helping the spouse with P.T. at the moment so my responses to your comments will come in bits as I have a minute or two for the next one).
@R. Duran:
Um, we’ve posted numerous links on the biochemistry of Ivermectin, including from Dr. Been and others with M.D.s going over the mechanisms as the molecular level AND in clinical trial. I’m not going to re-hash and re-post 2 years worth of stuff. Search on Ivermectin in the search box and it all ought to show up. “Bioavailablity” was not a concern in ANY of them simply because it isn’t a problem. You have ONE GUY saying it matters due to ONE IN VITRO lab check of gross action that was wildly over dosed and ONLY to show “it does something”, then use that dosage level to assert it is the valid dose when it is NOT. So the whole “bioavailablity” argument fails on that assumption. End of story, end of case.
It is clearly “bioavailable” enough to work, since it DOES work in all those cited (published papers btw) cases where a study was done and in all the NATIONS where it works. And it us used at a very different dose than in the Stupid Case of in-vitro at overdose levels.
So you want me to waste my time tilting at that mindless pointless ill considered windmill? Um, no. That is yet another Troll Tactic. (After a decade plus of this, I have seen them all…)
“Bioavailablity” is a dog that just won’t hunt as it is based on a broken assumption.
Then you continue with the “insults to the person” with things like “cult members” and insults to intelligence. Sorry, again “DOES NOT WORK”. First off, what defines me (and several others here) is a profound INDIVIDUALITY. I am not interested in “joining groups” or “taking the consensus position”. That’s what the Anti-IVM pro-mRNA and Global Warming crowd do. I only care about EVIDENCE and FACTS and I’ll make up my own mind. Always. Oh, and I’ll spare you the details but my I.Q. has been tested several times and I’m 99.9+ percentile and qualified for Mensa (though I’ve never joined… it’s that not-a-group-guy thing…). Also NASA certified sane and a nice guy who has it together, so other insults along those lines fail spectacularly too.
So you get three warnings then the ratchet to “exit” and / or “ban” starts:
STOP INSULTS OR YOU WILL BE BANNED.
Can I make it any more clear than that?
If you have no facts, data, citations of published papers, etc. and just want to play the Troll Insult Game, you will be tossed in the waste bin with all the other insult mongers. You will be simply a WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE.
(Capitals as Trolls often only skim responses and don’t read all of it, just picking out the Big Words so this will assure M. Troll gets the message).
“Heard of him” from “friends” but not watched his stuff, eh? “Fraud that is Campbell” based on not actually watching his stuff or reading his cited papers.
OK, you are fooling yourself (or doing it deliberately for effect) and, as you put it, “in thrall” of one guy with a blog that, as you put it, “makes him a huckster who is monetizing the internet “.
See the problem with insults like that? They work both ways equally well and have no basis in fact either direction. Please stop it. It just makes you look the fool.
Dr. John Campbell is one of the most careful and well studied YouTubers I’ve ever encountered (and I’ve watched a LOT of stuff from trash to treasure). He’s a very careful treasure. That you resort to Slander without Experience shows you to be a very un-careful sort and increases your Troll Factor Count. See, we’ve experienced Dr. John Campbell’s videos. Followed the links to his cited papers ( I’ve put up postings with his video, then excerpts of the cited papers below it for folks not interested in watching the video). He is very careful about what he cites, it is NOT his personal opinion (he often says “That’s not my opinion, that’s what it says in the paper” and “What I think doesn’t matter, this is what the paper shows.”
So once again you indulge in the Stupid Ploy of an “attack to the person” when he has gone out of his way to remove himself as “the person” in his citations. Just a daft tactic.
I remind you once again: IF all you have is attack to the person and insults, don’t bother. It is meaningless here. It will NOT raise any emotions as there are none to raise. Facts. Data. OK?
@R Duran:
What is a “masters in statics” and how does that relate to medical experience?
(FWIW I’ve had a load of biochem, bacteriology, genetics, etc. and also Statistics and a load of computer science as is needed to understand the computational aspects of many studies. Furthermore, I’ve got 2 years now of focused study on Covid and medications related to it. So yeah, I DO have the needed skill to understand the cited studies. But really, it isn’t hard to understand how many of the “does not work” studies are flawed (often, it seems, deliberately). Things like giving a viral replication inhibitor AFTER viral replication is complete or a zinc ionophore without the needed zinc. Statistics will not illuminate those errors.)
@Jim2:
He’s just following the usual under-experienced Troll Play Book. Repeatedly toss insults to the person, cite “slam pieces” that make assertions and toss more insults but NOT the actual underlying facts, data, published papers, etc. Refuses to engage in points raised by The Other Side. Tries to promote the targeted site to increase traffic. Avoids at all costs human interactions. Refuses to respect blog rules. Can not show his own thinking process or logic chain (as there isn’t one, just “go read this”… be it a paid promotion campaign or a personal “swallowed whole”…)
We’ve seen this all before in the pattern of “whatzisname”… That Troll that I tolerated way too long… never could stop with the insults to the person. Golly, what a relief, I’ve finally forgotten him!
I found this bit particularly humorous:
“Get out of your bubble and read real science and journalism. The study referred to in The Guardian”
All I do is “read real science”. Hours of it each week. Sometimes hours each day. Then I put up an article with the more interesting bits cited. Dr. John Campbell does the same. Each video has a list of links in the discussion block to ALL the papers he cites. He reads excerpts on his video and asks those interested to go read the rest AND provides the links.
Then there’s the “and journalism”… Someone needs to inform Dear Duran that “Journalism”, real “Journalism”, has died a horrible death in the last couple of decades. From the absurdities of the “Russia Russia Russia!!!” Hoax promoted endlessly for years, only to go up in the flames of proof that it was a fraud, to the constant din of “All Hail Saint Fauci!!!” and “ONLY the VAX will stop transmission” (followed by stories of massive transmission among the vaxxinated…). Anyone with half a brain functioning has long ago spotted that Journalism is pretty much a propaganda operation now. (That’s why I’ve moved as much as possible to primary sources. I’ll still use the Yellow Stream Media for ideas and sometimes links to papers, but even that has become painful. More often now I’ll do directed Duck Duck Go searches to technical papers).
Then, he astoundingly, cites The Guardian! Just OMG! Apparently has not noticed that The Guardian has a reputation so tattered that it is used as a Running Joke! Almost as bad as CNN (who has had viewers drop to lower than many popular one-man podcasts! Under 1 million in prime time!) Folks eventually notice the “Always Wrong” for clicks “click bait” and go somewhere else.
Damn. “Serioso”… I thought it might bubble up from the archives of the brain…
Read the Guardian article that I linked to. Also read this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ Do not respond until you have digested the fact that they found NO credible studies that indicate Ivermectin use for Covid.
“ Authors’ conclusions: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.”
Many of the studys in this review can be found on the nut job website c19ivermectin that you linked to. I do not have the time or energy to debunk all of this. Just open up your mind to the possibility that you are somewhere down the rabbit hole. Read the Wikipedia article “Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic”. It is a litany of debunking of the misinformation that you poor folks are consuming. Otherwise read Gorski if you can handle the hard science. He is mentioned in the Wikipedia article BTW. I feel bad for you guys. I happen to live in a community of Ivermectin believers and I am the odd man out. It is a tough position to be in because The people in my community recite the gospel of Ivermectin just like you guys, same memes, same bad sources, same bad information. I have done my duty to inform and am moving on.
Please get away from your conspiracy sites for half a minute and consider the alternative universe of real science. Your haplessness is tiresome. I have two idiot neighbors who have been taking ivermectin prophylacticly for over six months. One guy looks like death warmed over. But he will not be disabuse of this idiocy.
@R Duran, [there is a retired boxer by that name, he was even in the movies]
Do you have the expertise to determine the quality of these studies? I doubt it.
I do, but you will have to trust me; I am not going to compare papers.
I have a masters in statics and have some knowledge of the power of studies and meta-analysis.
Good for you, kid. But that is just a start. Now you have to go out and learn way more stuff.
I will say that not one of them give compelling evidence and some are outright fraudulent.
In general, many published papers are junk. Bad methods, bad stats, especially in medicine. Look it up, sad but true. And Big Pharma is not exempt.
The evidence for IVM is disputed, for sure, but overall it is safe to say that it has some promise, that it deserves more investigation, and that it is safe. Funny, I don’t recall any scientific papers saying that it is not safe. So why am I prohibited from buying it? Why are people in hospital with no other hope at all prohibited from using it? When they are already dying? Do we need an RCT for that?
Here is an article from The Guardian that exposes some of the fraud.
Whoa! Not the big guns! The Guardian!
Get out of your bubble and read real science and journalism.
I actually do read lots of real science. Journalism? Ouch that hurt.
But I do prefer to read science unfiltered by journalists.
But I am anxious for you to refute a single point that Gorski makes in his debunking of Ivermectin.
Sorry, I am not going to do your homework for you.
Maybe Serioso has an evil twin? Really, you have to ask yourself, why does a person like R Duran feel so strongly about this? If someone wants to believe everything Wikipedia or the Guardian says, I don’t care. If someone wants to eat dog food, I don’t campaign to have it banned. But if a troll doesn’t respect the community and disrupts it, I vote to exile him/her/they/it/whatever. If my friends have a different “religion”, I am not going to try to convert them.
Read https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/12/28/1625498/-Anti-vaxx-Chronicles-Pure-blood-gunslinger-dies-family-member-threatens-hospital-with-violence
I dare you. This is what your conspiracy theories are begetting. It is terrifying. And there are thousands of similar stories. Read sorryantivaxxer.com and weep. I left the USA a year ago because I can’t deal with this insanity anymore.
As for my homework, I did it by bothering to turn you on to this information. It is your homework to digest it and form a cogent response. Oh wait, that doesn’t comport with your alternate universe so now what?
[Reply: Seems Duran can’t even spell his own name reliably. Found this in “pending” as the name was messed up. So can’t reliably type his name, nor get his degree area right, nor explain who “Wilson” is? I’m not impressed with the level of skill and care exhibited… -E.M.S.]
Read https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/12/28/1625498/-Anti-vaxx-Chronicles-Pure-blood-gunslinger-dies-family-member-threatens-hospital-with-violence
I dare you. This is what your conspiracy theories are begetting. It is terrifying. And there are thousands of similar stories. Read sorryantivaxxer.com and weep. I left the USA a year ago because I can’t deal with this insanity anymore.
As for my homework, I did it by bothering to turn you on to this information. It is your homework to digest it and form a cogent response. Oh wait, that doesn’t comport with your alternate universe so now what?
So,,, lemme see what happens to Civid when a country releases therapeutics to the populous in a pandemic. Lets look at Mexico, Brazil, no, how about a formal 1st world country.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/
Can any one ID the Misanthrope in the discussions.
@EM, I autocorrected covid in my last post. Maybe its better that way :-)
“The mechanisms of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2—an extensive review | The Journal of Antibiotics”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6#additional-information
And a video to explain this and other papers. On Odysee because YouTube knows what’s good for you and it’s for your own good (they say) .
https://odysee.com/@DrMobeenSyed:1/Ivermectin-and-omicron:e
“Ivermectin and Omicron Study By Asia Zaidi MD and Puya Dehgani Mobaraki MD”
Dailykos is even worse than the Guardian. And I didn’t see anything substantive concerning ivermectin, either. Also, you make a lot of assumptions about what we here do or do not read. Your ASSumptions are showing.
R Duran. It can’t get any better than this. One of the articles dissed by your paper states:
At 24 h, there was a 93% reduction in viral RNA present in the supernatant of samples treated with ivermectin compared to the vehicle DMSO. Similarly, a 99.8% reduction in cell-associated viral RNA was observed with ivermectin treatment. By 48h this effect increased to an ~5000-fold reduction of viral RNA in ivermectin-treated compared to control samples, indicating that ivermectin treatment resulted in the effective loss of essentially all viral material by 48 h.
Looks like it works to me :)
http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=44373&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2020/06/025960
I won’t waste any more time on this. I’ve already done my research.
This asinine attack on ivermectin studie is disingenuous and just sooooo stupid. The majority of drug studies are NOT the gold standard clinical trial. (And is the government, Pfizer, or Merck going to do a clinical trial on it anyway?) Clinical trials are very expensive.
No, most drug studies are conducted on cell cultures or animals. This in no way, shape, or form means the information thus obtained is useless. I would say the same about anecdotal evidence. When you stand back and look at the sheer number of positive studies and anecdotal cases, ivermectin has been demonstrated to work!
@R. Duran:
Still waiting for answers to:
Who is “Wilson”? You cited the name, who is it?
What is “statics”? You claim a Masters in it, what is it?
I pointed you to the PDR showing “liver damage” is not an ivermectin overdose symptom. You ignored that and failed to address your (near hysterical hype) claim about “liver failure”. Why? Do you still hold that erroneous and fanciful position on the liver? Do you care about medical references used by practicing physicians?
The FLCCC (Doctors who actually treat Covid patients and are exposed to it daily) cite a nearly 100% effective prophylaxis result after two years (and moving from a 97% or so effective rate with every two week dosing to a once a week dosing with 100% prevention). You ignore that real world experience from practicing M.D.s, so why is that?
You are the one tossing insults and having histrionics. Why is that? Citing “hit pieces” and articles full of emotional clap trap is not evidence of anything but Journalistic Malfeasance. So where is any Real Evidence that Ivermectin did not plummet cases in Japan, Uttar Pradesh and Peru? How about when, after cases dropped by 16 x in Peru, it was then withdrawn and cases went UP by 16 x? That’s called an existence proof. You have ignored THREE large country scale existence proofs: Why?
Frankly, you FAIL to address ANY of the evidence presented to you. You do nothing at all to engage, but are (so it seems) enraged when folks decline to engage with your popular press articles from questionable sources with reputations for far left wing bias. Why is that?
In short, you behave exactly like a Paid Troll. (Though “true believer troll” is also possible). Which are you?
Please answer these questions. IF all you do is cite more clap trap and refuse to answer these questions, you will hit the bit bucket. I don’t need trolls here. Tossing crap and running is not fruitful discussion. This site exists as my personal notebook and for fruitful discussion with folks willing to engage. It does not exist for trolling, click bait, or emotional geysers.
So demonstrate the ability to ENGAGE without insults and with actual answers to questions put to you.
OK, despite my better judgement, read the Daily Kos article. A bunch of emotional clap trap of near zero content.
Some Guy (doesn’t matter if he liked guns, wore a cowboy hat or whatever) got Covid and went to the hospital. No mention of ivermectin that I saw other than one guy in comments tossing insults. Once in hospital, he has a feeding tube and that gets aspirated into his lungs? Something like that. Hard to work it out from the disjoint “posted snips” design of the page. Looks like a simple Hospital F-Up to me. Again, nothing to do with covid.
Also despite all the vitriol about “purebloods”, not really relevant to the question of the vexxine. So this guy was not vexxinated. As I pointed out, a personal knowledge of a couple (both with full up Pfizer + boosted) had the wife die after hospitalization she caught from another person also so jabbed. MY Friend got covid from them (he, too, being fully jabbed & boosted).
So the only conclusion I can come to is that the article is Fear Porn designed as Click Bait.
The only logical conclusion one can draw from the (little) actual information in it is this:
People get covid-19 (vexxinated or not…) and if you end up hospitalized, have a (small) chance of dying, but medical incompetence can make that much worse.
The article has zero relevance to “get the jab or not” given the number of jabbed getting covid.
The article has zero relevance to Ivermectin, period, as it says nothing at all about it.
So what’s the point of the Fear Porn?
OK, read the
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
cited pubmed article. Not an actual study, just a meta-study of a bunch of other studies. Mostly finds that they are not completed yet or that they didn’t find much. But as we all know: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, so they conclude that mostly they can’t conclude much.
Oh, and the seem to toss out a lot of studies in their up front selection criteria.
First, their conclusions:
In other words, OF THE STUDIES THEY LOOKED AT, most were not clear or were not done yet. As a result, they could not conclude anything.
Gosh, what a solid proof! /sarc; (i.e. it is a complete basket of “got nothing”).
Since almost no RTCs have been done and less completed, that cuts out all the observational studies and similar that have shown great efficacy as a prophylaxis and during early stages of replication. Nice way to limit yourself to studies of people already in the hospital with severe cases and comorbidities…
Since pretty much NOTHING has had any “proven efficacy” during the first year (perhaps even 1.5 years) of this Covid Circus, that will exclude most of the A vs B studies done and with time to complete and write up to date. Nice way to cut your completed study pool back to near nothing.
Also note that a major mode of action of Ivermectin is to block the binding sites and the spike protein. This means it will be MOST EFFECTIVE if given EARLY. (This has been demonstrated in observational studies, BTW). Many of the studies that find “little evidence” for effectiveness tried to give it as a last ditch treatment. During the post replication hyper immune response stage. In that stage, things that block replication would be expected to have little effect. WHAT the study is trying to do with the drug matters. Prevent replication vs try to recover a morbid patient in a cytokine storm. Ivermectin works in the first, does not stop a cytokine storm. (That is from the “Well Duh!” department of critical thinking… btw…)
So another pointless link to time wasting non-information.
So far, batting 1000 on useless links, Duran.
Oh, and note that Wikipedia is not a source. It is a load of hyper-partisan drek, most of the time. The junk there is lousy with P.C. Bias and largely not trustworthy. It is littered with personal opinions of the page moderators.
My apologies in advance to Duran. Save it till the morning after. >
Looking at the “insolence” link:
Starts off with biased language and an snarky attitude. Indicative of being biased and unlikely to be objective:
“Hint: Antivaxxers…exaggerate. And distort.” ANYONE using antivaxxers as a pejorative is biased and has not looked at the facts that a) mRNA is not a vaccine, it is a gene therapy and an experimental one at that. b) Most of the folks objecting to it are FINE with traditional vaccines and have had their shots (me among them). c) Is prone to “insult to the person” so suspect on the face of it. Then the Insults To The Person “exaggerate” “distort”. Zero evidence.
“unlike the “miracle cures” (primarily hydroxychloroquine in 2020 and ivermectin this year) ”
so already has a strong bias against therapeutics that have been shown to work in clinical practice. (Hint: Most of the “studies” showing they didn’t work were done as Very Late Stage “hail Mary” tests during the Cytokine Storm stage, well after viral replication was over and done.) “Talking Dirt” about a preventative of Viral Replication when used after Viral Replication is over is a sign that the folks are low on Clue. Or deliberately trying to fail the test drug. Then the use of “miracle cure” as a pejorative. Again with the insults Moriarity?…
“One announcement was about Pfizer’s new drug Paxlovid, which in its clinical trials was 89% effective in preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19 if taken soon after symptoms develop. ”
Gee, prevents 89% of hospitalizations when about 11 percent of folks get hospitalized with no treatment at all. Gosh that’s effective. /snark. Also note the “taken soon” note. So take IT as fast as possible but test the other anti-replication drugs as late as possible? Yeah. It’s called “cheating”. (Or, more accurately, Medical Fraud.)
“conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers”.. “how silly they are”
So a bunch of self aggrandizement mingled with some slurs. Essentially devoid of useful content.
The “silly thing” he’s upset about and insulting?
Just states known facts. There’s a collection of protease inhibitors used in HIV treatment (some of them tested early against Covid with some showing success to various degrees). This is just Medical and Pharmacological FACT. Since there are no numbers on relative effectiveness, you can’t say which one is better (especially as such numbers may not exist yet. Studies take a while to complete and Pfizer has been caught cooking the books a few times now.)
So stating accurate if non-numeric facts is “silly”? OK… Not finding much in this posting of any use so far.
Another one presented is likely the one that caused Duran to get panties in a twist. It cites the Dr. John Campbell video:
Watched the Dr. John Campbell video some time ago, BTW. It was fair and balanced in looking at the two drugs, noting where they are similar and exploring where they are different. Lists links to peer reviewed papers. Did a good job. IIRC, he was not anti-paxlovid. IIRC, welcomed it as another potential drug to try in clinical use. Did note that IVM will be much more available in 3rd World Countries that had no hope of paying the ~$20 / pop price of Paxlovid on $2 / day of income.
Note the reference to Uttar Pradesh where IVM has done a spectacular job of ending Covid as a problem. Hey, Duran! Care to address that? It is, in fact, a statement of provable fact.
Note the reference to Vaccine Escape and that the present variants are quite happy to infect the jabbed and boosted. Also provable facts. Mute on that one too, Duran?
Skipping a few similar:
“You get the idea behind the conspiracy theory.”
Um, I didn’t see any “conspiracy theory”. Just a couple of simple facts stated clearly. So we have a “pejorative insult for effect” but no real information (other than that the author of the article is a bit rude and loves to insult and imagine “things not in evidence”).
“It’s pretty simple. Both ivermectin and the Pfizer drug are protease inhibitors, but ivermectin is being “suppressed” because Pfizer wants to make huge profits from its drug Paxlovid and ivermectin is a cheap competitor.”
Well, there’s truth in that, too. But only a little. Ivermectin is mostly being suppressed due to eliminating the need for the mRNA Experimental Gene Therapy pretending to be a vaccine. This is clearly a fact when you can’t even mention it on Facebook, Youtube, and other social media sites without getting banned, de-monetized, or getting “guideline strikes”. That there IS “suppression” is obvious. Don’t think so? Put up a posting on those sites saying it works great as a prophylactic… then see what happens.
He then wanders through a long boring review of protease inhibitors (possibly useful for folks who don’t already know about them), does recognize that HIV /AIDs treatments use them, and more background we can skip as we already have gone over it here.
Oh, and there is a bald assertion that IVM can’t reach therapeutic level due to (something not made clear…)
Next comes another long segment on virus replication and how a protease inhibitor can stop it (oddly highly similar to the review Dr. John Campbell did in his video… ) and how Paxlovid works (also highly similar to the Dr. John Campbell video). Mostly this just leaves me wondering why he doesn’t like the Dr. John Campbell presentation since his looks largely like a crib of it…
Finally, pages on, he gets to Ivermectin:
“So where does the claim that Paxlovid is just “repackaged ivermectin” designed to increase pharma profits come from?”
Um, Straw Man Alert! That is NOT what folks claim. They claim it is SIMILAR to Ivermectin and coined a term to poke fun at it “Pfizermectin”. And it IS similar. Relative effectiveness TBD, and costs clearly about 20 times more expensive. ANY drug a Big Pharma company researches and makes is “designed to increase pharma profits”, so no idea why he’d dispute that. It’s just good business. So a bit of hyperbole there…
Then here’s where he gets lazy and goes off the rails a ways:
“Again, it reminds me a lot of how ivermectin came to be thought of as a “miracle cure” for COVID-19 based mainly on in vitro studies”
Nope. Not at all. He spends a while exploring ancient history of the INITIAL study that used a massive dose in vitro to find out “Does it work at all” and found it did. He then ASSUMES that’s the dose needed for human treatment and says you can’t absorb it. Well, that’s just wrong.
First off, the dose actually used in observational studies (and given to about 3 BILLION folks for parasites and other diseases) is a few orders of magnitude lower and still works. Second, the delivery system I’ve been using is “absorb through the skin” and it works just fine. This is also the mode of “overdose” cited in the PDR reference above, so clearly getting it into the body is just not a problem nor a barrier.
From that point on down he just ignores the real world results that have been achieved.
He also NEVER EVER mentions the other modes of action of Ivermectin. In particular that it tightly binds to both the ACE2 receptor and the Spike Protein preventing virus entry into the cell in the first place.
Essentially, protease inhibiting effects are a nice “2nd order” action of some interest, but the primary mode is infection prevention up front. (IIRC, there are 3 or 4 other modes of action as well. Cited the link for that some months back but don’t care to make this response longer)
On the basis of those faulty assumptions the author asserts Ivermectin doesn’t work and can’t work and wraps it up in some references to old papers (one from Pfizer).
OK… not seeing anything here that matters.
Yes, Pfizermectin is not Ivermectin. It’s a “cute term” to poke fun at Pfizer.
Yes, it is possible, (perhaps even probable) that it is a better protease inhibitor.
No, that does not mean Ivermectin does not work, as it has 4 or 5 other modes of action and protease inhibition is only one of the minor modes (but helpful non-the-less.)
Overall, my assessment of the article and it’s links is that it’s a Partisan Hit Piece with BIAS a plenty. Uses lots of insults and snark for no good reason. Is “selective with it’s facts”. And generally I don’t see much reason to read there as filtering out the bias and insults is tiring.
But yes, Paxlovid might actually work. I think it could be very helpful in middle to later stage virus replication as an adjunct to Ivermectin. Ivermectin being best at blocking the viral cell entry to begin with, but once enough cells are cranking out virus particles, upping the protease inhibition to higher levels could be helpful. Belt AND suspenders.
Me? I’m sticking with Ivermectin Prophylaxis in accordance with the FLCCC as I’ve got a 2 year history of 100% success despite tens to hundreds of thousands of “my closest strangers” sharing air with me, unmasked.
OK, Duran, I’ve read it. There’s my assessment.
Now: Answer the Damn Questions put to you. No answers, no more play time.
“No, that does not mean Ivermectin does not work, as it has 4 or 5 other modes of action”
Dr Been explained 5 or 6 mechanisms of action in a video a while back, now removed by YouTube no doubt. But probably available on Odysee. See the more recent link I posted about eight posts up. The IVM mechanisms of action are now up to twenty!
I have human IVM on hand, direct from India, and also have access to horse and sheep IVM.
But I have the big guns in reserve. I rely on my known high levels of Vit-D, supplemented by D3 and K2 and C and Zn and a bunch of other vitamins. I take Melatonin sometimes and I also have Quercetin. I hear Black Seed (Cumin) is good too, from the MedCram guy. So that is also going into my arsenal. I am not worried. Rule #1, treat your immune system good; it is what will protect you. Rule #2 is avoid hospitals which care more about their political considerations than about your health.
The point is that there are many things besides IVM that may be useful against Covid. But did the GEB guys Francis Collins and Fauci ever tell you about those either? No, they would rather let millions die until they could get their pet vaccine projects ready. Criminal. Worse.
My that was exciting ! Wonder who set that troll’s tail on fire ? IT certainly expended a lot of effort to insult our well studied investigations about this corona virus since it first appeared in China in late 2019 as well as the C.O.V.I.D.-19 project initiated to deal with it. The MRNA treatment is obviously not working as an vaccination that prevents the spread of this virus, which only leaves Herd immunity to save us in the long run. We know of a number of treatments that will minimize the effects of an infection encountered on the way to that immunity.
My judgement is to avoid the MRNA injection and all other C.O.V.I.D.-19 protocols by using other means that I find less dangerous to me…pg
I just added Ivermectin to my stores for veterinarian uses on my livestock.
Here is a must-read. It is a letter addressed to “all governments, public health officials, doctors, and healthcare workers” signed by 220 doctors (listed).
https://vitamindforall.org/letter.html
Aside: It doesn’t mention it in the letter, but Vitamin D is a hormone and it important for many things.
https://www.hormone.org/your-health-and-hormones/glands-and-hormones-a-to-z/hormones/vitamin-d
For the most anti-Covid bang for the buck, Vitamin D is the winner.
For a video with a couple of the people behind this letter:
@YMMV – As I recall, when FauXi’s Flu first hit, no-one knew nuttin’, and Dr’s were trying all sorts of treatments that were known to help fight other corona viruses.
I recall one doctor who was just using high doses of vitamin D to treat his Kung Flu patients and was having excellent results compared to the standard protocols that weren’t doing a darn thing.
If I had to choose one line of defense and treatment – thankfully, I don’t – it would be vitamin D, lots of fresh air, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching my face. (It doesn’t hurt if one caught every bug that came along in childhood and survived them all.)
A flurry of comments here after R. Daneel’s appearance…. One thing to note is that it seems a large proportion of the people I know seem to believe that the current Covid vaccines do the same thing as the vaccines for other diseases and that if enough people get jabbed with them then the Covid problem will be solved. Similarly they believe that human CO2 emissions are cooking the Earth and that this is an existential crisis that we can fix by reducing (or totally cutting) our use of fossil fuels. Given the degree of propaganda they hear every day, that should be expected for the arty types (a large proportion) but it also applies to a lot of the scientists among them that I’d expected to look at the data and make their own minds up. However, it seems that what a person believes to be true acts as a filter to the input data so they reject evidence that goes against their beliefs, and only accept data that matches what they already believe to be true.
It’s thus quite possible that R. Duran actually believes what it’s saying. Maybe Serioso (who also mis-spelt its tag at times which implies that instead of relying on the browser cookies to fill in the name it typed the tag in each time) also believed in what it was saying. Even if it wasn’t a robot, it will ignore any evidence that it is mistaken. The mis-spelt tag implies a (fallible) human on the keyboard, though, and not a bot.
The “replication crisis” where less than half of the published medical studies are reliable according to the Lancet, and where papers in other sciences are also unreliable in that replications of the experiment by someone else comes up with a different answer, means that we need to take all scientific reports as maybe true, maybe not, until enough people have done the same thing and got the same answers within experimental error. As the Royal Society’s motto says, take no-one’s word for it. I tend to run a modified version of that, in that if someone has a good track record of being right (such as our host) I’m far more inclined to accept it especially when I can see the work.
Since the main action of Ivermectin is to stop replication of the virus by blocking some pathways, and also binds to both the spike proteins and the ACE2 receptors and thus mops up loose spike protein, theoretically it ought to reduce illness. There’s a lot of evidence it works in practice, so I’m happy to accept that it’s going to be useful in reducing the severity of illness. It’s not a complete fix in itself, and some people will likely have bad outcomes if all they do is to take Ivermectin (but then again, there are still bad outcomes from vaccines). However, we’ve also discussed the link between bad outcomes and vitamin D status, and over at Jo Nova’s blog today there’s also a link with vitamin A status and other deficiencies. In medical stuff, there’s rarely one answer to a problem because each person has a different DNA and life choices, so one answer won’t fit all cases and the best we can do is to reduce the chances of a bad outcome. On the other hand, it does appear that if we make sure we have adequate vitamin and mineral levels in our diet and lifestyle, and take IVM when indicated (by having a scratchy throat), then the chances of getting ill go down by a dramatic amount.
The efficacy proof for HCQ was in the Swiss data for last year, where deaths rose when HCQ was banned from being used for a period, and then fell again when that ordinance was removed and doctors could again use HCQ without fear of losing their licence. Obviously not quite as safe as IVM, but in practice it worked well enough and was useful. There are some known problems after extended usage of HCQ (of the order of 5 years use) but those mostly don’t apply to usage for a few weeks. For IVM, as far as I could tell from the data the adverse effects were largely a result of too many dead parasites decaying inside the person’s body rather than any problem from the IVM itself. No problems with liver or kidney (perhaps R. Duran was thinking of Remdesivir which causes those problems in around 20% of patients).
The main downside of IVM is that over here in France you can no longer get the stuff. I’ve looked. I also checked Amazon and found that it’s disappeared from the suppliers.
The cost of running a full RCT runs into millions. No commercial company is going to put that investment into testing a medicine that they can’t make a profit from because it’s already out of patent. Any such tests would need to be done by government, as a public service, and it’s obviously pretty easy for the pharma companies to nudge the parameters of such a test to make it show ineffectiveness (as EM said above, either use a Zinc ionophore without adding Zinc, or by using the medicine at a late stage after the virus has done all the replication it’s going to do so something that inhibits replication won’t show benefits). Given that a majority of doctors were taught that there are no medicines against a virus, and that the only useful medicines are palliative (reducing fever by paracetamol/Tylenol), it’s probably easy to convince doctors that the effort of an RCT for something that their theory says has no chance of working would not be warranted. Has as much chance of success as a placebo trial or homoeopathy. Incidentally, there were some trials of placebo from Harvard a while back, and they worked pretty well – if you give a person a pill and say it will fix a problem, then largely it will work. That’s maybe one benefit for using veterinary medicines – AFAIK there’s no placebo effect there and you know it actually is the medicine that’s doing what is expected. Maybe eating hay that’s been sprinkled with Ivermectin is going a bit far, though….
Here in France, the delay before you can get your next booster shot has now been reduced to 3 months. It’s known that the efficacy of the Pfizer shots deteriorates pretty fast, and that after 10-12 weeks it’s down to around 40% against becoming symptomatic. After 6 months, almost no protection left, so the vaccine passports become officially invalid after that time (even though they are actually pretty useless long before that since they do not stop people becoming infectious, especially with Omicron). Some indications that being vaccinated might make you more susceptible to Omicron than the unvaccinated.
Back to beliefs, and how such beliefs make people simply not see the data for what it is. It was obvious with Delta that vaccinated people were spreading the disease. For the UK, seems that around 95% of people have (blood) antibodies against Covid, so the R number would need to be around 20 before it could beat herd immunity. With Omicron, whether vaccinated or not you’ll catch it and spread it onwards – unless you have antibodies in your airways from a natural recovery, that is. With an injected (and leaky) vaccine you simply cannot achieve herd immunity to a respiratory disease. The most the vaccine can do is to stop a person getting ill, and since the leaky vaccine produces selection pressure for a variant that evades the vaccine then such a vaccine makes it more likely for such a variant to emerge. Thus the pandemic will continue until enough people have had it and recovered, and that probably means that at least 90% of us will catch it (whether or not vaccinated).
Anecdote: I somehow caught Covid back in March 2021 despite being masked up for my weekly visit to the supermarket and being careful to maintain distances. At the time, it was largely Alpha variant around here, with Delta just starting to make inroads, but I’d suspect I got Delta. Not that bad at the time, though some longer-term effects on energy levels. A couple of times since I’ve noticed an incipient sore throat which lasted half a day or so which implies I picked up a virus that was probably Covid, and my immune system beat it pretty fast. Again, I follow the official masking guidelines (and experimentally they make bugger-all difference). Yesterday I had a fairly sore throat and slight diarrhoea which isn’t quite gone away today, so I suspect I’m currently getting over Omicron. In normal years, I just don’t get sore throats at all, and have never been vaccinated against ‘flu either. I have had a ‘flu once back in ’98 at a period of very high stress, but normally never get sick but just the occasional sniffles that are more of a nuisance than anything. Still, point here is that it looks like Omicron can be caught by people who have recovered from Delta, but it’s not going to really cause a problem if your immune system is running normally.
For Ivermectin, the risks are lower than Aspirin and there are enough indications that it has a positive effect on reducing the replication rate of the virus enough that a functional immune system can deal with it effectively. Seems to me a no-brainer to try it. It annoys me that it’s it is being suppressed. Similarly, I’m annoyed that the information about the links between bad outcomes and vitamin deficiencies is being suppressed, given that it shouldn’t even be contentious. It’s logical that if your body doesn’t have the materials to manufacture antibodies and the other cells that fight diseases, then it can’t fight as well. If this was about health, then suppressing information about how people can improve their own health and improve their chances against getting ill seems crazy. Similarly, it’s scientifically impossible to achieve herd immunity by injecting people with a leaky vaccine against an RNA-based respiratory virus, so why is that being pushed as the only solution to the pandemic?
Also, why are people paid to convince us that the medicines that obviously work don’t work?
[Reply: I think it was the mention of “he who shall be forgotten” serio… that dumped it to moderation. -E.M.Smith]
First time I’ve had “awaiting moderation” for a long time. Maybe my IP address has changed. My ISP has been having a lot of problems over the last few months, though seems to have fixed things for the last few days.
@Simon:
I noted it in the comment as I approved it, but I’ll put it here, too:
I think it was using the name of “He who shall be forgotten”, you know, serio… that dumped it to moderation via my custom filter for just that special someone ;-)
another ian, in the Christmas Eve WOOD, linked to a SDA posting which gave these links:
“Current Issues in Molecular Biology- Protective Effect of Melatonin Administration against SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review”
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/1/3
I’ve been interested in Melatonin ever since someone (MedCram?) said that that is what bats use to avoid being affected by bat viruses. Melatonin is associated with sleep, but it is much more than that.
“Journal of Clinical & Medical Images- Loratadine syrup is successfully used to fix COVID-19 induced respiratory distress and chest pain”
link: https://jcmimagescasereports.org/article/JCM-V1-1016.pdf
Loratadine (Claritin) is an antihistamine.
There is a reputable doctor in India who claims to have treated 7000 Covid patients with antihistamines and that not one of them died. Odd that antihistamines do not get mentioned much in relation to Covid.
Some further links which show benefit from antihistamines:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7833340/
https://ufhealth.org/news/2020/existing-antihistamine-drugs-show-effectiveness-against-covid-19-virus-cell-testing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7470786/
This is good news. As you have heard Omicron is more transmissible but less serious. Why is that and where did it suddenly come from? Where has it been? This new paper gives evidence that it has been hanging out in mice since early 2020, and it has evolved to fit that environment. Not ours.
I think it is fair to call it a Christmas miracle. The end of the pandemic, what more could you want for Christmas? And it had nothing to do with humans trying to end the pandemic. All that vaccine research, blind-sided!