Jump to content

Merk announces antiviral Molnupiravir.....this is important


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Not at all.  But there is a "gotcha"!

So in May 2020 you both posted directly applauding or referring favourably indirectly the efforts of the Whistle Blower from BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) - Dr Rick Bright.  Ostensibly you did so because he blew the whistle on Hydroxychloroquine.

He also happened to blow the whistle on EIDD-2801/Molnupiravir.

Hey dumbass, I'm not Raz'r

Nice "gotcha" though, I'm sure the RWNJ cheerleaders will applaud you for this.

The bottom line:

Hydroxychloroquine, touted as a miracle drug for covid by a former President of the USA and acclaimed by his followers, not shown to have any benefit whatever to covid patients and proven harmful in many cases.

Molnupiravir: proven effective in treating serious covid cases, provides significant and consistent benefit to the range of patients on which it's been tried.

If you study hard, I'm sure you can spot the difference between these two.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ivermectin   Description Ivermectin is an orally bioavailable macrocyclic lactone derived from Streptom

Nope.  Chuckle. Unlike the drug you are referring to, this is a genuine anti-viral not an anti-parasitic.  The trial size was compact but the results in a genuine blind placebo trial were statisticall

It’s patent expired in 1996  its a generic drug available globally for 1 $  

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Hey dumbass, I'm not Raz'r

Didn't say you were.  Just referred to your position last May which was similar to his.

9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nice "gotcha" though, I'm sure the RWNJ cheerleaders will applaud you for this.

I have no idea who RWNJ is so don't care.

9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Molnupiravir: proven effective in treating serious covid cases, provides significant and consistent benefit to the range of patients on which it's been tried.

If you study hard, I'm sure you can spot the difference between these two.

I'm questioning any differences however one has had extensive testing/trials and the other hasn't.  I don't disagree that Molnupiravir based on one small trial may have potential in reducing hospitalisations from 14% to 7% in at risk individuals.  But in terms of it being a "miracle drug" that can be used widely and safely my view is there isn't sufficient information to justify that.

Of course you didn't help Merck's cause by being the 3rd post in the Topic and asking if it treats worms!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Molnupiravir was tested on Covid positive individuals who were over 60 and at risk.  Therefore it is difficult to compare trials with other drugs that have had a wider population sample.  Yes Molnupiravir may have shown that statistically it helps reduce hospitalisations from 14% of 380 people to 7% in at risk individuals.  But that certainly isn't enough data to spruik it as a drug for wider application.

Who said anything about a wider application. Your imagination runs wild Kiwi-Mikey. Enjoy your stay at the Maga-Spa

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You're probably right.  The Fed's at $1.5b only pre-signed up for about 3 million doses.

That’s 1% of the population. So far indications are it works on the hospitalized, let’s hope we don’t need that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Not entirely true the way you have stated it.  They initially bought the rights from a University but hen not securing Government contracts they then sold the rights to Merck.  They still receive some payments however the Merck has all the power now.

I dont know where you got your information from regarding Ridgeback selling the rights to Merck.  Ridgeback funded phase 1 trials and co-funded phase3 with Merck.  Merck is clearly going to have significant economics from the drug , for co-funding phase 3 , manufacturing and distribution.  But make no mistake, Wayne and Wendy are prominently still associated with the drug over here in US.  They are tough to negotiate with and they stole a march on Merck. By the time Merck realized the significance of the drug and approached Emory , they found Ridgeback had already acquired it and started phase 1 trials.  Wayne is one of the smartest healthcare investors in the US and had already made a fortune before Ridgeback.  If you put Merck executives and the Holmans in a room together.....bet on Wendy!!!!!!  Oh and we are both U Penn alumnae.....   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So you consider Hydroxychloroquine to be "snake oil" and Molnupiravir not to be?

Hydroxychloroquine is a very well regarded treatment for Malaria. Are you suggesting it has any role to play in the safe and effective treatment of Covid 19?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Hydroxychloroquine is a very well regarded treatment for Malaria. Are you suggesting it has any role to play in the safe and effective treatment of Covid 19?

Well, it was. Except for North Africa, HCQ resistance is pretty much the norm now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, now that the DIY pharmacology morons have stopped panic buying Pepcid and Vitamin D, maybe they can wean off hydroxy stockpiling and go back to work. Oh wait, need jabs for jobs...time to cook up ivermectin in their former meth labs.

One reason I loathe the morons is I was paying triple for a medication I need, have used for years, and was the latest craze last year.  Some people who took it recovered! Well, so did some people who sacrificed roosters. Or goats. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IStream said:

Well, it was. Except for North Africa, HCQ resistance is pretty much the norm now.

My simple question to Kate was asking why it was brought up in a discussion about anti-virals for Covid 19.

I asked @Kate short for Bobif she is suggesting Hydroxychloroquine has any role to play in the safe and effective treatment of Covid 19?

No answer.

Maybe I am thankful, because there is no evidence that it has any relevance for covid 19.  But one of her posts seemed to question how someone could take Mvir seriously and dismiss Hydchlqne.

 

Anyway...lets just take it off the table.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion I draw is that prevention remains better than any cure.

The safest and most effective way to avoid the risks of Covid is by getting vaccinated.  There are and will continue to be people who catch covid, both unvaccinated and vaccinated. It is good that we are working on anti-virals and anitbody treatments .   But the vaccine will probably have a lower risk profile than treatment.

Nothing is a substitute for getting vaccinated IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

My simple question to Kate was asking why it was brought up in a discussion about anti-virals for Covid 19.

I asked @Kate short for Bobif she is suggesting Hydroxychloroquine has any role to play in the safe and effective treatment of Covid 19?

OK the answer was obvious when I first mentioned Hydroxychloroquine.

In was in reference to Dr Rick Brights whistle blowing stance which involved it AND the "wonder drug" that you are touting Molnupiravir.

It should be noted that in your promotion of the drug you neglected to mention that Merck has not released the full data set of the trials for peer review.

If you were providing an unbiased view of Molnupiravir you would also mention that the trials by Merck's partners in India have not produced the same "amazing" results.

Which isn't surprising when we are talking about a drug first identified in 1980 and early abandonedment because of its toxic and mutagenic properties.

Yet suddenly after some suspect dealing by a  number of different organisations it gets a Federal contract worth billions on the basis of very little new data.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

OK the answer was obvious when I first mentioned Hydroxychloroquine.

In was in reference to Dr Rick Brights whistle blowing stance which involved it AND the "wonder drug" that you are touting Molnupiravir.

It should be noted that in your promotion of the drug you neglected to mention that Merck has not released the full data set of the trials for peer review.

If you were providing an unbiased view of Molnupiravir you would also mention that the trials by Merck's partners in India have not produced the same "amazing" results.

Which isn't surprising when we are talking about a drug first identified in 1980 and early abandonedment because of its toxic and mutagenic properties.

Yet suddenly after some suspect dealing by a  number of different organisations it gets a Federal contract worth billions on the basis of very little new data.

"Wonder Drug" are your words not mine.

Merck's announcement was prompted by the recommendation of the independent monitoring committee and the FDA to stop recruitment into the trial. As a public company in the US, Merck is required to publish an announcement. Merck described it as "interim analysis" of phase 3 trials.  They are preparing an EUA and they will supply considerably more information at that time.  I have no idea if they will publish an article about the trials in a journal as you suggest. That is not as common as you seem to suggest......however it is important and topical so I suspect that several of the journals will offer a place for such an article. 

I am not "promoting" the drug. I drew our attention to the news and  my comments have been that an antiviral is important step, and the results have been the best thus far for an anti-viral in terms of reducing hospitalization for high risk patients.

It is no substitution for getting vaccinated and avoiding infection.bb

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

"Wonder Drug" are your words not mine.

Merck's announcement was prompted by the recommendation of the independent monitoring committee and the FDA to stop recruitment into the trial. As a public company in the US, Merck is required to publish an announcement. Merck described it as "interim analysis" of phase 3 trials.  They are preparing an EUA and they will supply considerably more information at that time.  I have no idea if they will publish an article about the trials in a journal as you suggest. That is not as common as you seem to suggest......however it is important and topical so I suspect that several of the journals will offer a place for such an article. 

I am not "promoting" the drug. I drew our attention to the news and  my comments have been that an antiviral is important step, and the results have been the best thus far for an anti-viral in terms of reducing hospitalization for high risk patients.

It is no substitution for getting vaccinated and avoiding infection.bb

Concerning natural immunity... any studies by the big drug companies ?  Dr Fauci ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BOI Guy said:

Quite a good commentary here, points to a few studies.

Natural Immunity

Molnupiravir trials were targeted at patients who already have covid.  It is an anti-viral, not a vaccine! 

Merck is not claiming that Mvir provides prolonged immunity, natural or otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NeedAClew said:

If you're getting Mvir your "natural immunity" didn't get the job done. 

Or.......if you're prescribed Mvir, you have a better chance of survival so that you can tell your redneck friends you acquired your immunity the hard way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Or.......if you're prescribed Mvir, you have a better chance of survival so that you can tell your redneck friends you acquired your immunity the hard way.

I thought the unpublished results said it reduced hospitalization from 14% to 7% of high risk individuals?  Didn't mention any significant results about mortality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

I have no idea if they will publish an article about the trials in a journal as you suggest. That is not as common as you seem to suggest...

Why wouldn't they?  They have published data for the trial in England of 100 people.

Surely they would publish the data and have it peer reviewed for a drug that has a dodgy history and mutagenic properties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

I am not "promoting" the drug. I drew our attention to the news and  my comments have been that an antiviral is important step, and the results have been the best thus far for an anti-viral in terms of reducing hospitalization for high risk patients.

Looks like promotion to me based on a press release by Merck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Molnupiravir trials were targeted at patients who already have covid.  It is an anti-viral, not a vaccine! 

Merck is not claiming that Mvir provides prolonged immunity, natural or otherwise.

Most of the world is unvaccinated 

precious vaccines must only be administered to those in need... not those with natural immunity 

is Mvir safe and useful for those with natural immunity 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Most of the world is unvaccinated 

precious vaccines must only be administered to those in need... not those with natural immunity 

is Mvir safe and useful for those with natural immunity 

That isn't really relevant yet with Molnupiravir because it hasn't been tested as a prophylactic.  It is unlikely to be tested for that either.

It has been tested on at risk individuals who have tested positive for Covid-19.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I thought the unpublished results said it reduced hospitalization from 14% to 7% of high risk individuals?  Didn't mention any significant results about mortality.

Control group had 8 deaths. Primary group had 0

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Control group had 8 deaths. Primary group had 0

The P-value was?  

So 775 participants.  380 receiving the drug.

178 locations signed up for the study.

Primary measure was "acute hospitalisations" for a period greater than 24 hours.  Admitting someone to hospital is a subjective process.  Therefore it is important to see the case data.  Did all the locations use the same criteria for admission?

What specific underlying pre-conditions did those that were hospitalised have?  What is the normal rate of hospitalisations for these conditions?  What were the ages of those hospitalised?

What is the normal rate of hospitalisation for mild to moderate cases of Covid-19 for those with each specific underlying condition or combination thereof?

What are the P-values for each of those subsets?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The P-value was?  

So 775 participants.  380 receiving the drug.

178 locations signed up for the study.

Primary measure was "acute hospitalisations" for a period greater than 24 hours.  Admitting someone to hospital is a subjective process.  Therefore it is important to see the case data.  Did all the locations use the same criteria for admission?

What specific underlying pre-conditions did those that were hospitalised have?  What is the normal rate of hospitalisations for these conditions?  What were the ages of those hospitalised?

What is the normal rate of hospitalisation for mild to moderate cases of Covid-19 for those with each specific underlying condition or combination thereof?

What are the P-values for each of those subsets?

 

 

What’s with the hate for real progress? I show up and am admitted, I want them to use drugs and protocols that are proven to save lives. Period.

take your Merck hate somewhere where someone cares. Maybe the “I’m a whiny bitch” sub-Reddit 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:
21 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The P-value was?  

So 775 participants.  380 receiving the drug.

178 locations signed up for the study.

Primary measure was "acute hospitalisations" for a period greater than 24 hours.  Admitting someone to hospital is a subjective process.  Therefore it is important to see the case data.  Did all the locations use the same criteria for admission?

What specific underlying pre-conditions did those that were hospitalised have?  What is the normal rate of hospitalisations for these conditions?  What were the ages of those hospitalised?

What is the normal rate of hospitalisation for mild to moderate cases of Covid-19 for those with each specific underlying condition or combination thereof?

What are the P-values for each of those subsets?

 

 

Expand  

Expand  

What’s with the hate for real progress? I show up and am admitted, I want them to use drugs and protocols that are proven to save lives. Period.

take your Merck hate somewhere where someone cares. Maybe the “I’m a whiny bitch” sub-Reddit 

I don't believe KSFB knows what a "P-value" is, although perhaps we should be impressed that he's seen the term somewhere associated with drug studies.

KSFB cannot handle high school algebra, and is kinda shaky on simple arithmetic. "P-value" ... hah!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

The P-value was?  

So 775 participants.  380 receiving the drug.

178 locations signed up for the study.

Primary measure was "acute hospitalisations" for a period greater than 24 hours.  Admitting someone to hospital is a subjective process.  Therefore it is important to see the case data.  Did all the locations use the same criteria for admission?

What specific underlying pre-conditions did those that were hospitalised have?  What is the normal rate of hospitalisations for these conditions?  What were the ages of those hospitalised?

What is the normal rate of hospitalisation for mild to moderate cases of Covid-19 for those with each specific underlying condition or combination thereof?

What are the P-values for each of those subsets?

 

 

Merck announcement is here   . Key word is "randomized".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Is it possible that the Independent Monitoring Committee has a better understanding of statistics, anti-virals and drug trials than @Kate short for Bob

I shudder at the thought.

 

So you exclude full release of the data for peer review?

53 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Merck announcement is here   . Key word is "randomized".  

Randomised?

Does that eliminate the bias and variation in assessment for hospitalisation amongst the 178 global locations?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't believe KSFB knows what a "P-value" is, although perhaps we should be impressed that he's seen the term somewhere associated with drug studies.

KSFB cannot handle high school algebra, and is kinda shaky on simple arithmetic. "P-value" ... hah!

- DSK

DSK - you started throwing P-values around like confetti not I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

Randomised?

Does that eliminate the bias and variation in assessment for hospitalisation amongst the 178 global locations?

 

You are a smart guy.....and can read up on how randomization works in drug trials to reduce confounding factors.

What do you think?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

Maybe the hon thinks no medicine actually is provably safe and effective. 

Not at all.  But you would understand that some drugs have a high toxicity for example those used in chemo therapy for cancer kill not only cancer cells but healthy cells and potential cause other cancers.  N4-hydroxycitidine the active in Molnupiravir is a mutagenic.  It mutates the genetic replication of the virus AND has been shown to affect healthy cells.

So for Merck to promote Molnupiravir as a drug for treating mild to moderate Covid-19 infection and others inferring that it would have widespread use is misleading.  Based on the evidence available to date (which isn't a lot) the only safe outcome would be for approval for use in very limited circumstances i.e. those who have moderate Covid-19 infection and high risk underlying conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't believe KSFB knows what a "P-value" is, although perhaps we should be impressed that he's seen the term somewhere associated with drug studies.

KSFB cannot handle high school algebra, and is kinda shaky on simple arithmetic. "P-value" ... hah!

- DSK

Kiwi-Mikey sure seems to have similar foibles to Fake-phd Mikey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Kiwi-Mikey sure seems to have similar foibles to Fake-phd Mikey.

Oh, Mikey definitely has a real Ph.D. However, a degree in Physics doesn't guarantee that you understand statistics or proper experiment design. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So you agree that there are subjective protocols that are used to admit someone hospital?

Dear God in heaven!

Randomized protocols + Placebo/Control Group + Blind trials.

Please think this through.......whether you are for or against progress in medicine, at least think before you shoot.

Why do you think that the staff at the hospitals have no idea who have had the drug or the placebo?

Why do you think that they have primary group and control group at each location?

Why do you think they randomize to reduce/eliminate confounding factors such as different standards of care at different locations?

Why do you think they measure blood oxygen levels as part of the trial?

 

 

Despite all you suspicions and paranoia, I am not advocating this as a "wonder drug".    I have shared my opinion that getting vaccinated is both more effective and safer than an anti-viral . I have also emphasized that I think the EUA will only be for "high risk" candidates.  But its the nonsense that comes out whenever a serious investigation of a drug or vaccine is reported that drives me to correct the misinformation.  

It almost appears that the more credible the work, the less you trust it.  Completely fraudulent studies on Invermectin with fake patients and questionable statistics are taken at face value , along with the ramblings of former nobel prize winners experimenting on LSD but god forbid some serious scientists do painstaking work.....

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Please think this through.......whether you are for or against progress in medicine, at least think before you shoot.

Why do you think that the staff at the hospitals have no idea who have had the drug or the placebo?

Why do you think that they have primary group and control group at each location?

You miss the point.  Blind randomised controls don't consider the fact that hospitalising someone is a subjective decision based on protocols that differ between locations (178 of them) and countries.

We don't even know yet if each location had a primary group AND a contol group.  Hardly likely given the number of participants versus the number of locations.

26 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

It almost appears that the more credible the work, the less you trust it.  Completely fraudulent studies on Invermectin

So you consider the recent Argentina study with a large number of participants and a 67% reduction in hospitalisations to be fraudulent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

But its the nonsense that comes out whenever a serious investigation of a drug or vaccine is reported that drives me to correct the misinformation.  

How can you correct misinformation when like the rest of us you do not have access to the full data set?  

All you are working off is a press release that was targeted more at financial markets than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 

So you consider the recent Argentina study with a large number of participants and a 67% reduction in hospitalisations to be fraudulent?

I consider the Egyptian study that was the backbone to several of the so-called meta studies to be a complete and utter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

 

 

I havent looked at any Argentinian trials ....but these guys have

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the Argentinian study, reportedly conducted at Hospital Dr. A. Eurnekian near Buenos Aires’ international airport, a group of healthcare workers wore personal protective equipment and took the experimental therapy — a drop of ivermectin plus sprays of carrageenan, a seaweed extract and thickening agent — five times a day, every day, for two weeks"

Ahhhh.....seaweed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

"In the Argentinian study, reportedly conducted at Hospital Dr. A. Eurnekian near Buenos Aires’ international airport, a group of healthcare workers wore personal protective equipment and took the experimental therapy — a drop of ivermectin plus sprays of carrageenan, a seaweed extract and thickening agent — five times a day, every day, for two weeks"

Ahhhh.....seaweed.

 

But not just any seaweed. It's hand picked, sun dried, and stored inside a crystal.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Leitragin is the first drug aimed to prevent and combat the cytokine storm caused by COVID-19. Clinical trials among 320 patients with moderate symptoms of COVID-19 have shown that there have been no deaths among the group and no cases of severe symptoms. Patients who took Leitragin recovered in about eight days, compared to 14 days of recovery for those receiving standard treatment."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BOI Guy said:

"Leitragin is the first drug aimed to prevent and combat the cytokine storm caused by COVID-19. Clinical trials among 320 patients with moderate symptoms of COVID-19 have shown that there have been no deaths among the group and no cases of severe symptoms. Patients who took Leitragin recovered in about eight days, compared to 14 days of recovery for those receiving standard treatment."

More good news. I suppose Doomsday Kate will be along to say Ivermectin is better, and you don't have to pay much for it. Just go to the feed store....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

More good news. I suppose Doomsday Kate will be along to say Ivermectin is better, and you don't have to pay much for it. Just go to the feed store....

Using Canada's case fatality rate of 0.0169, there should have been 5.4 deaths in that group of 320.   While this and the faster recoveries are encouraging, it seems like a larger study is needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google the drug, there are some good commentary on it. Its Russian so not likely to be promoted by cnn anytime soon. 

Worth keeping an eye on though. 

Can't buy shares in this one. 

Just a coincidence that merck has something almost as promising getting pushed now? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rain Man said:

Using Canada's case fatality rate of 0.0169, there should have been 5.4 deaths in that group of 320.   While this and the faster recoveries are encouraging, it seems like a larger study is needed.

They selected the participants, should have had plenty die but they didn't. More studies are underway. Same approach as merck by the looks of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2021 at 9:37 AM, llama said:

"Ivermectin may exerts its antiviral effect, including its potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), by binding to the importin (IMP) alpha/beta1 heterodimer, which is responsible for the nuclear import of viral proteins such as the integrase (IN) protein. This inhibits nuclear import of host and viral proteins and may inhibit viral replication."

Grammatical errors not withstanding, where does this information come from? Who creates the entries for the info in this database?

Also why is it specific about COVID in the description of its antiviral properties? But not specific about the various nematodes it controls? Seems a little suspect.

We use ivermectin in the industry I am in to control plant and tree diseases caused by nematodes, so I am familiar with the product. 

 

Merck is involved in the manufacture of Ivermectin, so If it was effective why would they be putting energy into this new pill?

What Merck says is that they do not recommend their own Ivermectin product for Covid or other viral infections.

They are working on a seemingly quit effective pill.  

Seems that they could make money with either product, but would prefer to sell one that could actually help? 

Whodathunkit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2021 at 4:59 AM, EYESAILOR said:

"In the Argentinian study, reportedly conducted at Hospital Dr. A. Eurnekian near Buenos Aires’ international airport, a group of healthcare workers wore personal protective equipment and took the experimental therapy — a drop of ivermectin plus sprays of carrageenan, a seaweed extract and thickening agent — five times a day, every day, for two weeks"

Ahhhh.....seaweed.

 

You are arrogant as hell

the rest of the world , outside your little paradise , is struggling to fight the disease  with whatever they have while you fucking chuckle and belittle them 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slug zitski said:

You are arrogant as hell

the rest of the world , outside your little paradise , is struggling to fight the disease  with whatever they have while you fucking chuckle and belittle them 

 

I was quoting an article that investigated the Argentinian study of Ivermectin. I provided link and source so that each of us can read  the entire article and draw their own conclusions.

I support fighting the disease with whatever we have and helping the ROW fight the disease with whatever we have, including vaccines and anti-virals (as and when they are proven safe and effective).

Cost is an issue for poorer parts of the world and I support finding ways to make vaccines available at lower cost and finding genuine low cost solutions.

Whatever we have, surely needs to include vaccines. This thread  looks at a potential anti-viral as an addition to the arsenal.....for high risk patients who have already contracted covid.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, slug zitski said:

You are arrogant as hell

the rest of the world , outside your little paradise , is struggling to fight the disease  with whatever they have while you fucking chuckle and belittle them 

 

You mean, like fighting a fire by squirting gasoline on it?

If shit doesn't work, those that try to "fight the disease" with it deserve to be mocked until they stop. This is one of the mechanisms by which human societies right themselves.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You still pumping Molnupiravir, smells like another remdesivir to me.

Quote

 

"She's not a great drug, unfortunately...

1. Its efficacy is related to the fact that it enters cells and as a nucleoside analogue it interferes with the viral replication by means of "lethal mutagenesis". Yes, this is a treatment that can actually change DNA - unlike an mRNA vaccine. So there are increasing concerns related to safety and it gets a lot of negative press, justified or not.

2. It's 4 pills 2x a day for 5 days = 40 pills. Which leaves huge potential for compliance issues w.r.t. patients taking the drug. Likely people will take the drug until they feel better, and not finish the course. This sets up a perfect occasion to encourage additional resistant variant evolution."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

was quoting an article that investigated the Argentinian study of Ivermectin

You were very selective in your choice of research from Argentina.

5 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Whatever we have, surely needs to include vaccines. This thread  looks at a potential anti-viral as an addition to the arsenal.....for high risk patients who have already contracted covid.

While ignoring the paucity of data regarding one particular drug that you are promoting.  Shouldn't it be subjected to the same level of peer review and scrutiny that is given to other drugs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BOI Guy said:

You still pumping Molnupiravir, smells like another remdesivir to me.

 

I'm sure when you get Covid and can't breathe, you'll be happy to turn down any medications that might be prescribed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

By the time that's done maybe covid will be over.  In the long run everyone dies anyway.

I'm sure these folks are putting their money where their fingers are, and refusing any treatments for Covid at any modern hospital. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm sure when you get Covid and can't breathe, you'll be happy to turn down any medications that might be prescribed.

Molnupiravir won't help in that situation anyway.  Like a number of treatments it has to be given within the first days of infection.  The EUA application is only for those that are at high risk with underlying other health issues and/or hospitalised.  

It wasn't trialled as a prophylactic.  The participants had to be at risk and have Covid-19.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Molnupiravir won't help in that situation anyway.  Like a number of treatments it has to be given within the first days of infection.  The EUA application is only for those that are at high risk with underlying other health issues and/or hospitalised.  

It wasn't trialled as a prophylactic.  The participants had to be at risk and have Covid-19.

Yes, and since you don't like the way these drugs are being tested, I'm sure you'll stay home and take you zinc if you get sick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Well I won't be eligible to take Molnupiravir as I'm not considered at risk.   

From what I can tell, you disagree with all of the treatment protocols. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

From what I can tell, you disagree with all of the treatment protocols. 

And will be begging for all those "dubious" protocols if hon or any of hon's loved ones are sick.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

From what I can tell, you disagree with all of the treatment protocols. 

Well you can't tell much can you.  But why does it worry you anyway?  You are fully vaccinated are you not?  Just waiting for your booster shot or have you had that too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Well you can't tell much can you.  But why does it worry you anyway?  You are fully vaccinated are you not?  Just waiting for your booster shot or have you had that too?

still a couple weeks away from my booster. I did however get my regular flu shot a couple weeks ago. Got the Shingles shot this year as well

DPT booster was last year. 

Gosh, it looks like getting regular vaccinations is like, a thing, you know? Boosters too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

still a couple weeks away from my booster. I did however get my regular flu shot a couple weeks ago. Got the Shingles shot this year as well

DPT booster was last year. 

Gosh, it looks like getting regular vaccinations is like, a thing, you know? Boosters too!

I guess you have given up drinking alcohol as you would leak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2021 at 2:13 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

I haven't glossed over anything involving children.  The "losing out" has been unnecessary and has been driven by political decisions not health decisions.  Sweden didn't close their schools.

As for being a "Granny Killer" - Granny could get her breakthrough infection from a vaccinated person.  Research has shown that she is very very unlikely to get infected from her grandchildren.  You only have to look at the research from Europe that shows Teachers were more likely to get infected from other teachers than children.

So why didn't the Government look at the "Total Cost/Benefits" of Lockdowns?

The issue with vaccinating under 12's is that the trial data only gives information on the short term safety not long term.  Also the risk of serious illness from Covid-19 needs to be weighed against the risk of the vaccine.  You are in denial if you think the vaccine has zero risk.  The argument is for the elderly and those with underlying health conditions that they are at greater risk from Covid-19 than the vaccine.

That doesn't hold true for children.

What you are inferring is that children should be vaccinated to protect the elderly even at a greater risk from the vaccine.

That's what I disagree with.  I've had private conversations with @EYESAILOR on this and I think it is fair to say she gets my point.  She is trained to evaluate risk/benefit on an individual basis.

Children are not at risk from Covid  

they don’t need emergency use vaccines 

at present the US and  developed countries have 3 billion excess vaccine doses 

Vulnerable people , emergency use vaccine qualified , in the rest of the world have no access to vaccines 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717.amp

 

DCF4C85B-3C56-4D63-B2B3-DD33EC31145D.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

This is a favorite RWNJ bit o'bullshit to sling.

Children are at LOWER risk (than a person of similar health characteristics but older, the "all else being equal" case which never is).

That's a very different thing from NO risk.

Would you send your child to play on the freeway, because they were at low risk of getting hit by a car?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

This is a favorite RWNJ bit o'bullshit to sling.

Children are at LOWER risk (than a person of similar health characteristics but older, the "all else being equal" case which never is).

That's a very different thing from NO risk.

Would you send your child to play on the freeway, because they were at low risk of getting hit by a car?

- DSK

But do children have a risk from vaccination?  Short, medium and long term?  Does the benefit of the vaccine to a child outweigh the risk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

... vaccination...  Does the benefit of the vaccine to a child outweigh the risk?

Judging from trials completed for ages 6 thru 12, benefit outweighs risk by a lot.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where is this data published?  

Where is the risk benefit analysis?  For that matter for those aged 12 to 16?

Do your own homework.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
44 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Where is this data published?  ...

Do your own homework.

It just wants to deny and obfuscate. My goal is to hold KSFB to ridicule, so that anybody who sees his stuff because they are looking for info and somehow stumble into it's posts, will realize that KSFB is another way to spell bullshit.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites