Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

5 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Well that wouldn't be surprising would it given that is all Merck applied for!

Ahhh  im glad that you also think it will get an EUA.   we do not actually know precisely when Merck will apply and what definition they will seek for "at risk". News black out during the process because it is a public company.

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

Ahhh  im glad that you also think it will get an EUA.   we do not actually know precisely when Merck will apply and what definition they will seek for "at risk". News black out during the process because it is a public company.

It probably will get an EUA.  But in my opinion it shouldn't.  Like a number of drugs that have been tested their efficacy is dependent upon early detection of Covid infection and administering the drug within the first four days.  The treatment protocol will be interesting to identify mild or moderately cases of Covid in high risk patients within four days of infection.  Presumably they will be unvaccinated patients as the trials haven't been included vaccinated breakthrough cases.

I'm not surprised that you are not up with the play as we DO know precisely when Merck will apply.  

They applied 11 October 2021.  The FDA press release on 14 October mentions what is being sought - in adults who have tested positive for COVID-19, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.  As for the News Black Out well it appears a public hearing will be part of the process.

October 11, 2021 6:00 am ET

If Authorized, Molnupiravir Could Be the First Oral Antiviral Medicine for the Treatment of COVID-19

Submissions to Regulatory Agencies Worldwide Underway

KENILWORTH, N.J. & MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics today announced that Merck has submitted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for molnupiravir

For Immediate Release:
October 14, 2021

 

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is announcing an upcoming meeting of its Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee (AMDAC) to discuss Merck and Ridgeback’s request for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for molnupiravir, an investigational antiviral drug to treat COVID-19.

On Nov. 30, the advisory committee will meet to discuss the available data supporting the use of molnupiravir to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults who have tested positive for COVID-19, and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.

"The FDA is evaluating the safety and effectiveness data submitted by Merck and Ridgeback in their emergency use authorization request for molnupiravir, a new oral treatment for high-risk individuals with a newly diagnosed COVID-19 infection. We believe that, in this instance, a public discussion of these data with the agency’s advisory committee will help ensure clear understanding of the scientific data and information that the FDA is evaluating to make a decision about whether to authorize this treatment for emergency use,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

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

It probably will get an EUA.  But in my opinion it shouldn't.  Like a number of drugs that have been tested their efficacy is dependent upon early detection of Covid infection and administering the drug within the first four days.  The treatment protocol will be interesting to identify mild or moderately cases of Covid in high risk patients within four days of infection.  Presumably they will be unvaccinated patients as the trials haven't been included vaccinated breakthrough cases.

 

1.  I differ slightly in that Im guessing the EUA will not be limited to unvaccinated patients.  We shall see.

2. Fortunately your opinion and your approach to science in general counts for naught in the process of drug development and approval.

3. FWIW, most anti-virals are more effective if they are administered early in the disease's progress. In this case, the raison d'etre of the drug is early treatment to prevent hospitalization. 

Again, we have seen outline results for the trial. Let's wait on more information before either dampening hopes or raising hopes about the exact capabilities for this drug.

Fingers crossed.

Although, why do I sense that you hope this drug and others are not successful at treating covid? 

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

1.  I differ slightly in that Im guessing the EUA will not be limited to unvaccinated patients.  We shall see.

But that it hasn't been tested on anyone else but unvaccinated patients.

6 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

2. Fortunately your opinion and your approach to science in general counts for naught in the process of drug development and approval.

Yes as much as yours.

6 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

3. FWIW, most anti-virals are more effective if they are administered early in the disease's progress. In this case, the raison d'etre of the drug is early treatment to prevent hospitalization. 

Therefore it is critical that cases are diagnosed within 4 days of infection.

7 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Again, we have seen outline results for the trial. Let's wait on more information before either dampening hopes or raising hopes about the exact capabilities for this drug.

Hopefully the full data set will be released BEFORE 30 November.

7 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Although, why do I sense that you hope this drug and others are not successful at treating covid? 

Why would I be biased towards that outcome?  I do have serious concerns about Molnupiravir as do a number of more suitably qualified people.  I'd argue in different times this drug would have no chance of approval.

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

...  I do have serious concerns about Molnupiravir as do a number of more suitably qualified people.  I'd argue in different times this drug would have no chance of approval.

Yeah, because drugs that cut the fatality of a disease in half are so rarely approved. I'm sure you could invent a MUCH better drug if you tried.

- DSK

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

Yeah, because drugs that cut the fatality of a disease in half are so rarely approved. I'm sure you could invent a MUCH better drug if you tried.

- DSK

Well you wouldn't have a chance as you stated sole role in life is to ridicule.  A great career choice.

BTW the 50% reduction was in relation to hospitalisation rate from 14% to 7%.

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

Well you wouldn't have a chance as you stated sole role in life is to ridicule.  A great career choice.   ...

This isn't about me. It's about you and your ridiculous anti-vax covid-denying bullshit.

 

31 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:
46 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah, because drugs that cut the fatality of a disease in half are so rarely approved. I'm sure you could invent a MUCH better drug if you tried.

... BTW the 50% reduction was in relation to hospitalisation rate from 14% to 7%.

Uh huh. And the people who lived who would otherwise have died certainly applaud your math skills.

Doesn't change the facts

- DSK

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

Well you wouldn't have a chance as you stated sole role in life is to ridicule.  A great career choice.

BTW the 50% reduction was in relation to hospitalisation rate from 14% to 7%.

Reduction in hospitalization was 50%

The reduction in mortality was greater than 50% . 2.3% to 0%.

 

 

 

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

Why would I be biased towards that outcome? 

I dont know. You tell us.

I cannot tell if you have a generalized bias against progress in medical science or a specific bias against discovering treatments  or vaccines for Covid 19. 

I detect a distrust of medical researchers and scientists. You also seem to particularly distrust bio-tech and genomics.

I do have serious concerns about Molnupiravir as do a number of more suitably qualified people. A first year chemistry undergraduate is more suitably qualified than you so that is really not a very high bar  Fortunately for Americans we have well qualified research scientists at the FDA and on independent monitoring committees who are paid to be seriously concerned about every drug that is submitted for EUA or approval. If the kiwis want to designate you to review drug approvals, god bless!

I'd argue in different times this drug would have no chance of approval.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2021 at 5:08 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

The ignorant call it a horse dewormer.  Fauci being one of them.

Okay KSFB, I am going to call you out on this.

You accuse people of false narratives or meaningless contributions to the debate.

This statement qualifies as both.  You accuse Dr. Fauci of being ignorant and calling Ivermectin a horse dewormer.

Ivermectin is actually widely used with large doses to deworm horses but interestingly, Fauci has not called it a horse dewormer. That is an entirely false narrative spread by people like you.

He has been asked in interviews about ivermectin for horses being taken by humans and has advised "Dont do it"  because a dose of that size could be toxic for humans and there is no clinical evidence thus far that it is effective as an anti-viral vs Covid.   But he did not call the drug a "horse dewormer" .

Support your accusation with a credible source!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2021 at 7:01 AM, Raz'r said:
On 10/2/2021 at 6:59 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

Because Merck isn't the sole producer of Ivermectin.

Except Merck is still running Ivermectin trials. Why is that?

 

Satoshi Omura who won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin asked Merk to be involved  with a trial in a Japanese university using Ivermectin for covid. Merk didn't want to do it.

I call bullshit on Merk doing ivermectin trial they were given about $350 million by US government for this new pill about 6 weeks before they publicly said Ivermectin doesn't work. Anyone have a link to this trial?

Theresa Lawrie said several trials on Ivermectin were stopped because placebo group wasn't doing well so they gave them Ivermectin something about it being unethical to continue she cited Helsinki Declaration.

We have this if you go to home it gives info on other drugs NIH has approved  as well. https://ivmmeta.com/

Ivermectin is one of 3 drugs approved by NIH for Covid i think the FDA has only approved Remdesivir.

Quote

Table 2e. Characteristics of Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19

Last Updated: July 08, 2021

Remdesivir

Ivermectin

Nitazoxanide

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Ivermectin is one of 3 drugs approved by NIH for Covid i think the FDA has only approved Remdesivir.

Fact Check # 1

The NIH does not "approve" drugs.  The NIH provides treatment guidelines. 

With regard to Invermectin, the NIH describes Ivermectin as "an antiparasitic drug that is being evaluated to treat Covid 19" 

They go on to explain why they conclude that "There is insufficient evidence ....to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.b"

Conclusion:  Checking shows MBL's statement to be false and misleading information.

Fact Check #2

6 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Satoshi Omura who won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin asked Merk to be involved  with a trial in a Japanese university using Ivermectin for covid. Merk didn't want to do it.

I call bullshit on Merk doing ivermectin trial ...Anyone have a link to this trial?

MBL does not cite any source for this statement, nor provide any links, nor is he able to name the university.

1. I am not aware of any trials conducted by Merck on the effectiveness of Ivermectin for Covid.  Merck state that "Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19"

2. Four professors from Kitasato University published an article in the March 2021 edition of the Japan Journal of Antibiotics where they state that Kisato University asked Merck & Co., Inc. to conduct
clinical trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Japan and that Merck confirmed they were not conducting clinical trials on Ivermectin. One of the cited authors of the article was Satoshi Omura.

Conclusion: MBL is correct to call BS on posts claiming that Merck has conducted such trials.

Merck stated that having analyzed all the trials that have been conducted by 3rd parties thus far there is

No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact- The NIH has listed Ivermectin as approved or under evaluation for covid since July 8 2021

Fact - Merk received $356 million from Government for new pill for covid about 6 weeks before they said ivermectin doesn't work, why would they support something that costs $1 per day compared to how much for Molnupiravir?

https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/industrynews/2020/merck-inks-356m-deal-with-u-s-for-investigational-covid-19-therapy/

 

Most of the studies that have been done on Ivermectin are clinical trials funded by doctors nobody else has funded them. Theresa Lawrie one of the authors of this paper used gofundme and donated their own time to do it. this gofundme is mentioned if you read details.

Quote

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Conclusions: 

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

 

 

This Israeli doctor ran his own Ivermectin study.

Quote

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day

Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

 

The study was peer reviewed it appears the only problem was changing trial parameter after trial was registered by adding PCR test with CT> 35 to exclude a few people who were included in trial who might have had a false positive. One person thought these people who were negative for covid should have been included in final numbers i think they were irrelevant as study wasn't about people who didn't have covid. The patients were also in quarantine not sure if negative test would allow them to leave.

Quote

The study, which is a pre-print available to read on the medRxiv pre-print repository, concluded that it had identified "significantly lower viral loads and viable cultures" in a group of people treated with ivermectin compared to a placebo group. It has since been cited by several news outlets.

But Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a chronic disease researcher and science journalist, criticized the study in a series of Twitter posts on Tuesday.

 

He said that there is a discrepancy between the final study and what the study authors said they would do in pre-registration. The study's pre-registration can be found here.

Meyerowitz-Katz said the discrepancy involves people who were excluded from the study based on what is known as the patients' CT value—simply, a measure of how much virus someone has in their system.

In response to the criticisms, two of the study's authors, doctors Asaf Biber and Eli Schwartz at The Center for Geographic Medicine and Tropical Diseases at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel, told Newsweek the criticisms had "missed the point."

They said in a joint statement: "As our target population was non-hospitalized patients who were sent to dedicated hotels for isolation due to their proven cases, we were not expecting to encounter patients who were already negative for COVID-19 upon recruitment, which was done up to 48 hours after admission to the hotel.

 

We became aware of this phenomenon during the study—we presume it occurred either from a mistaken diagnosis at the community level or due to a fast recovery before entering the hotels.

"Subsequently when we became aware of the situation, these patients were excluded from the study, still while being blinded to the group, and we added more patients.

"Our results regarding the viral load and pace in which patients became non-infectious are encouraging, demonstrating the favorable impact of ivermectin."

https://www.newsweek.com/ivermectin-covid-treatment-study-flawed-scientists-1627109

 

 

Most of these studies have been personally funded by doctors and clinics as nobody else has offered to fund them.

Theresa Lawrie and her team did their analysis without being paid they contacted all the people involved in tests to verify data

There is an interview with Theresa Lawrie she said several trials were halted because Ivermectin group was doing much better than placebo group doctors considered it unethical to continue trial placebo group were given Ivermectin. She cited  Helsinki-

Quote

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

 5. In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf

I think it's good doctors and clinics have run trials showing Ivermectin works it's a cheap drug cost them money financial motivation had nothing to do with it. 

In Australia our TGA advise doctors to give covid patients nothing after positive test they're told to go home and isolate if it gets bad then go to hospital.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Fact- The NIH has listed Ivermectin as approved or under evaluation for covid since July 8 2021

 

Mohammed,

Again.......

The NIH does not approve or disapprove drugs .

The NIH has never listed Invermectin as approved for the treatment of Covid.

The NIH lists Ivermectin as a drug under evaluation for the treatment of covid, which I think we can all agree on.....it is being evaluated.  Please refer to the links I posted.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Theresa Lawrie and her team did their analysis without being paid they contacted all the people involved in tests to verify data

There is an interview with Theresa Lawrie she said several trials were halted because Ivermectin group was doing much better than placebo group doctors considered it unethical to continue trial placebo group were given Ivermectin.

My personal opinion is that Tess Lawrie, a former Ob-Gyn doctor is not credible. You are free to believe what you read. My opinion is based on

  • One of the major sources of data in her purported meta-study on Ivermectin has been shown to contain fraudulent & falsified data. It has been withdrawn from publication due to ethical concerns.
  • Other studies she has cited have been found to be riddled with poor protocols, imprecise definitions and lack of control groups.  Furthermore, I dont see why a meta study is any substitute for a well conducted clinical trial in this kind of situation. For example the Together trial being supervised by the Canadian McMaster University
  • When the vaccines were rolled out she wrote a public letter to the British government urging them to cease vaccination immediately based on her data which showed that the vaccines were extremely dangerous . The fatalities which she  she forecast did not occur.
  • Finally when I listen to her speak and read interviews, I find her language to be vague, generalized, improbable,dogmatic and not at all like the precise words I would expect from a skilled physician or research scientist. She comes across as someone more interested in her anti-scientific establishment agenda and her fund raising than in the science itself.  I find myself skeptical of her motives.

That is just a personal opinion on Tess L.  You can form your own opinion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Ivermectin which has popped up (perhaps inevitably) in a thread about an anti-viral, I have been following the Together Trial supervised by McMaster University which is a well funded and rigorous trial devoted to investigating repurposed existing therapies for the treatment of Covid.

Ivermectin fans will be thrilled to know that Ivermectin was included in the trial, with a trial of 1,355 patients (median age of 52).  The trial was rigorous with a placebo/control group, clearly defined outcomes and conducted across 10 clinical sites in one region under one  supervisory team. The manuscript has not been published yet, but we can expect it soon.

In the meantime, the drug with the most interesting results from the Together Trial has been Fluvoxamine, the serotonin inhibitor used to treat obsessive compulsive disorders and depression in horses (jest kidding about the horses!) . A 10 day treatment with Fluvoxamine costs $4!

 

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

Regarding Ivermectin which has popped up (perhaps inevitably) in a thread about an anti-viral, I have been following the Together Trial supervised by McMaster University which is a well funded and rigorous trial devoted to investigating repurposed existing therapies for the treatment of Covid.

 

I assume you "have been following" the critique of the methodology of this "well funded and rigorous trial"?

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

Just to make it clear for everyone - what is your definition of an "anti-viral"?

A drug that kills a virus or that suppresses its ability to replicate and thus, inhibits its capability to multiply in the body and cause disease.

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

Fluvoxamine

Harder endpoints didn't differ significantly between the groups; 2.3% of the fluvoxamine group died compared with 3.3% of the placebo group, but that difference, while encouraging, is consistent with a chance finding

Indeed, the success of the drug was driven primarily by the fact that fewer fluvoxamine patients had a prolonged stay in the ED. The difference in hospitalization full stop was not as profound.

Also, I feel obliged to remind everyone that fluvoxamine is not an entirely benign drug. Like all SSRIs, side effects include gastrointestinal problems, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.

Is fluvoxamine a game changer? No

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/958266

Got any more drugs you want to pump there EYE?

Its a sellers market for old drugs that might make a little bit of difference short term.

 

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

Harder endpoints didn't differ significantly between the groups; 2.3% of the fluvoxamine group died compared with 3.3% of the placebo group, but that difference, while encouraging, is consistent with a chance finding

Indeed, the success of the drug was driven primarily by the fact that fewer fluvoxamine patients had a prolonged stay in the ED. The difference in hospitalization full stop was not as profound.

Also, I feel obliged to remind everyone that fluvoxamine is not an entirely benign drug. Like all SSRIs, side effects include gastrointestinal problems, weight gain, and sexual dysfunction.

Is fluvoxamine a game changer? No

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/958266

Got any more drugs you want to pump there EYE?

Its a sellers market for old drugs that might make a little bit of difference short term.

 

I dont disagree with your conclusion BOI.   But you gotta try and give the anti-everythingers something and they wont take anything discovered in the last 3 years. At least this might help them with their obsessive compulsive disorders and depression.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Just to make it clear for everyone - what is your definition of an "anti-viral"?

Ive answered. What is your definition?

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

If hon doesn't like definition it can  go fight with Wikipedia editors and get schooled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug

Strictly speaking, in the narrow sense of the definition....and the definition that I gave.....a Vaccine is not an anti-viral. An anti-viral is used to treat a virus infection, a vaccine is used to prevent an infection or reduce its impact prophylactic.

But I am splitting hairs.....while research continues on vaccines....the gap in our arsenal at the moment remains drugs that can be used to treat covid once someone (unvaccinated or vaccinated) has been infected.  By then it is too late for a vaccine.  

Currently we have:

Casirivimab and Imdevimab administered together (monoclonal anti bodies)

Remdesivir

We may also have Mvir, depending on FDA review.

All three have various specific drawbacks, but the commonality  is that all three need to be administered when the disease is "mild to moderate". By the time you enter the ICU, we have to turn to very expensive protocols which are not available to everyone.

By the way this is not unusual in disease. Most diseases are easier to cure if we catch them early. Did I mention the value of regular checks ups?

So research continues. Viruses are difficult beasts to tame and getting a high percentage of the population vaccinated is still the best defense.

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

You aren't hon, @EYESAILOR

Was hoping hon (that is a Ballimer term cut I think hon is a Rockville/Bethesda wannabemore) would find new source of trollspunk

I realized I am not "hon".   I was really just commenting on the wiki definition. I quite like my definition BUT I am not a virologist.

But the bottom line is that finding an effective treatment for covid is going to be tricky. Even the current leading contenders merely "reduce the probability" of serious hospitalization.  Viruses are particularly hard to treat because :

1. They are so bloody small compared to bacteria or parasites. Any therapy is looking for a minuscule protein molecule with a simple piece of RNA...so there are less options to attack. It is very difficult to kill a virus, because a virus lacks the basic components of a living organism. We cannot develop a drug that attacks a virus metabolism because a virus doesnt have a metabolism. A virus is a molecule that carries instructions for the host cell

2. Viruses hide inside our body's own cells and instruct the host cell to replicate the virus inside the cell. So it is not enough for a therapy to recognize the virus they have to recognize changes to our own cells which have been infected by the virus.

3. Viruses mutate and the mutations that are immune to a therapy are the successful mutations.

Incidentally this is why researchers talk so often about T cells as well as antibodies when examining  the effectiveness of vaccines.

It is also why vaccination is always going to be the most effective way to combat covid.

 

 

 

neuraminidase inhibitors

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

A drug that kills a virus or that suppresses its ability to replicate and thus, inhibits its capability to multiply in the body and cause disease.

So that could cover any number of drugs and some not in the same mutagenic class as Molnuvirapir.

For the moment I'll avoid falling into the Ivermectin rabid hole diversion and get back to Molnupiravir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@eyesailor are the following facts relating to Molnupirivir:

Yes/No.

  1. The active is a prodrug of N(4)-Hydroxycitidine which was first synthesised in 1980;
  2. It is a mutagenic that has shown non-specific anit-bacterial and anti-viral properties;
  3. It has a high toxicity and its mode of operation is to destructively interrupt RNA and DNA processes thus preventing replication;
  4. It has been tested in vivo and in vitro for decades;
  5. Trialled and tested against HepC, Venezuelan Encephalitis and Ebola but not approve for general release;
  6. Abandoned by some researchers because of high toxicity.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^hon if you can ask such specific questions you know the answer. Why not state simple declarative sentences constructing a paragraph thought train with a conclusion? 

Why expect somebody to say yes or no?

Hon, do the following facts pertain to you

Yes/No

1. You crave attention

2. You want to be regarded as making correct statements

3. You want your information to be authoritative 

4. You can't stop posting about covid topics 

5. You exploit the attention paid you by some of the people who respond to you especially people with "formal" training 

6. You get gratification from debunking those you perceive as having advanced training, credentials, positions of authority or power 

7. You and you spew are a honking great waste of time 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

Why expect somebody to say yes or no?

 

Just using @EYESAILOR's modus operandi.

The answer to all the questions I posted is Yes.

As for craving attention - I assure you I don't well at least no more than any other poster here.  What does concern me is the one-sided spruiking of Molnupiravir.  There are serious questions that should be asked about it. 

  • You may have absolute confidence in the FDA approving a drug that has been only short term tested in less than 500 people.  I don't.
  • I'm suspicious when a limited number of individuals are about to make an inordinate amount of money from a Government contract based on very little published scientific data.

Further the key people involved have had as their primary focus not health outcomes but the pursuit of profit.

Wayne Holman - primary focus has been hedge fund management and has duck dived weaved on the edge of one of the biggest securities frauds in the last 20 years;

Wendy Commins Holman - a degree in Economics - the CEO of Ridgeback Labs - a company that didn't actually have a working lab when they acquired substantial funding;

Wendy Painter - Chief Medical Officer of Ridgeback has been spending her recent years as a Pharmaceutical "Consultant".  

They have acquired over $100m in Government funding and secured a $1.5 billion contract (a key Federal Official blew the whistle on his doubts about this).  They will charge $700 for a course of Molnupiravir when it is being produced in India for $17.  Incidentally India stopped concurrent trials of Molnupiravir (still looking for data on that).

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes" to your questions and the ones I posed? Cool. 

12 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

 

Hon, do the following facts pertain to you

Yes/No

1. You crave attention

2. You want to be regarded as making correct statements

3. You want your information to be authoritative 

4. You can't stop posting about covid topics 

5. You exploit the attention paid you by some of the people who respond to you especially people with "formal" training 

6. You get gratification from debunking those you perceive as having advanced training, credentials, positions of authority or power 

7. You and you spew are a honking great waste of time 

 

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

"Yes" to your questions and the ones I posed? Cool. 

37 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

Why would I respond to an ad hominem attack of no substance?  Is your prime reason for existence to ridicule others?  

Surely it is in your interests to hear both sides of the debate?

Contrary to your assertion I am not anti-vax nor pro-Ivermectin or HydroxyQ.  Nor anti-Molnupiravir - however I have considerable doubt about it.  My own country has just spent millions on a pre-approval contract for it with a total cost of $60m which I find absurd based on the paucity of data that is available.  They have been quick off the block for this but delayed for months on a vaccine!  Go figure!

Further they have not approved ANY other vaccine for use or recognition in NZ.  For example if someone has had the AstraZeneca vaccine they cannot get a vaccine certificate in NZ!  Although the approval authority is working on that this week.

 

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

All three have various specific drawbacks, but the commonality  is that all three need to be administered when the disease is "mild to moderate". By the time you enter the ICU, we have to turn to very expensive protocols which are not available to everyone.

Exactly.  

For Molnupiravir to be effective the following has to happen:

  • early identification of at risk non-vaccinated individuals (has yet to be tested on vaccinated);
  • early identification of infection - it works best when administered within four days of infection;
  • mild to moderate infection level identified.

Now all that is understandable because of the mode of operation of the pro-drug is it causes mutation of the mRNA that prevents replication of the virus.  However it also attaches to key cells with the body including those involved in the transport of oxygen.  Which explains why it wouldn't be particularly helpful to someone who had a severe case of Covid.

So what does the Government actually get for $1.5 billion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2021 at 8:26 AM, EYESAILOR said:

Regarding Ivermectin which has popped up (perhaps inevitably) in a thread about an anti-viral, I have been following the Together Trial supervised by McMaster University which is a well funded and rigorous trial devoted to investigating repurposed existing therapies for the treatment of Covid.

Ivermectin fans will be thrilled to know that Ivermectin was included in the trial, with a trial of 1,355 patients (median age of 52).  The trial was rigorous with a placebo/control group, clearly defined outcomes and conducted across 10 clinical sites in one region under one  supervisory team. The manuscript has not been published yet, but we can expect it soon.

But are they comparing apples with oranges?  Hasn't the alleged success of Ivermectin been based on it being used as a prophylactic and in very early treatment infection? e.g. in Uttar Pradesh and Indonesia.  

The candidates in the Together Trial are selected on the following basis - over 18 years of age, already infected with Covid (positive antigen test), have an indication for high risk of disease severity, including co-morbidities, older age, or high body mass index.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hon, but you are responding.

My prime reason to ridicule you is the desire to scroll less to see interesting or useful posts, which yours and your codependent enablers' stopped being some hundreds ago.  Their amusement value is low. 

No, I don't need to hear any of what you call debate.

Your country, if indeed it is NZ not Maryland area in the US, is dumb to buy all those drugs.  Guess they don't want to be accused of making the same mistake twice, but actually it's a different mistake. 

 

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

@eyesailor are the following facts relating to Molnupirivir:

Yes/No.

  1. The active is a prodrug of N(4)-Hydroxycitidine which was first synthesised in 1980;
  2. It is a mutagenic that has shown non-specific anit-bacterial and anti-viral properties;
  3. It has a high toxicity and its mode of operation is to destructively interrupt RNA and DNA processes thus preventing replication;
  4. It has been tested in vivo and in vitro for decades;
  5. Trialled and tested against HepC, Venezuelan Encephalitis and Ebola but not approve for general release;
  6. Abandoned by some researchers because of high toxicity.

 

 

I'm going to go with No to all 6 questions.

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

But are they comparing apples with oranges?  Hasn't the alleged success of Ivermectin been based on it being used as a prophylactic and in very early treatment infection? e.g. in Uttar Pradesh and Indonesia.  

The candidates in the Together Trial are selected on the following basis - over 18 years of age, already infected with Covid (positive antigen test), have an indication for high risk of disease severity, including co-morbidities, older age, or high body mass index.

The trial compared apples and apples. Unlike some of the questionable trials, the control group had the same characteristics as the primary group

No Ivermectin is not being tested as a prophylactic. The advocates of Ivermectin are claiming it is a treatment and refer to trials as such. I realize the fringe are taking it as a prophylactic but there has not been any trial that I am aware of that contemplates a sample size as a prophylactic. As you are aware vaccines and prophylactics require much larger sample sizes to have any kind of statistical significance. If you have dropped Ivermectin as a proposed treatment and only now consider it a possible prophylactic...I suppose that is scientific progress of sorts. As a prophylactic, I am reasonably confident that Ivermectin will never get close to the efficacy of the vaccines

Finally, the reason that the reputable trials for anti-virals and therapies use higher risk cohorts is twofold.

They need the higher risk population to acquire statistical significance and see if the drug actually works for the patients that actually need it.  Testing a Covid anti-viral against a population group between 16 and 25 with no comorbidities and discovering that nobody got hospitalized is about as useful as chewing gum in the fight against covid. The average age of the Together Trial was 51.

Remdesivvir and Molnupiravir were also tested on higher risk cohorts who had tested positive for covid.

Secondly you are going to have the devils own challenges trying to assemble low risk candidates for a trial without making questionable and unethical statements to the candidates.  Thus far I dont know anyone free of cancer who has volunteered for a novel cancer treatment.   But the 1st reason is the main one.  You need statistically significant results and you want a patient population that actually reflects the patienst you are likely to administer.

 

I am not referring to the Together trial specifically but I hope that helps you answer some questions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 6:11 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

 

Why would I be biased towards that outcome?  I do have serious concerns about Molnupiravir as do a number of more suitably qualified people.  I'd argue in different times this drug would have no chance of approval.

Most drugs have negative side effects in certain cases. Doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable.

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

@eyesailor are the following facts relating to Molnupirivir:

Yes/No.

  1. The active is a prodrug of N(4)-Hydroxycitidine which was first synthesised in 1980;
  2. It is a mutagenic that has shown non-specific anit-bacterial and anti-viral properties;
  3. It has a high toxicity and its mode of operation is to destructively interrupt RNA and DNA processes thus preventing replication;
  4. It has been tested in vivo and in vitro for decades;
  5. Trialled and tested against HepC, Venezuelan Encephalitis and Ebola but not approve for general release;
  6. Abandoned by some researchers because of high toxicity.

 

 

So just to be crystal clear:

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

6. No

Hope that was helpful.

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

So just to be crystal clear:

1. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. No

6. No

Hope that was helpful.

1.  Wrong.  

N4-Hydroxyctidine, or EIDD-1931, is a ribonucleoside analog which induces mutations in RNA virions. N4-hydroxycytidine was first described in the literature in 1980 as a potent mutagen of bacteria and phage.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/N_4_-Hydroxycytidine

Paper from Wendy and Wayne Holman:

https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-021-05538-5

Molnupiravir is the orally bioavailable 5′-isobutyrate prodrug of a direct-acting antiviral ribonucleoside analog, β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, or EIDD-1931.

2.  Wrong.  Refer 1.  It is mutagenic by definition as its mode of operation is to disrupt by mutation the replication of the Covid RNA.

3.  Wrong.  Although there is ongoing research.  One paper below - there are others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961695/

β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Through Lethal Mutagenesis But Is Also Mutagenic To Mammalian Cells.

4.  Wrong.  Many trials have occurred in vivo and in vitro testing against HepC, VEEV, Ebola.

Paper dated 1980:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0027510780902183

5.  Where was it approved for general treatment of the diseases mentioned?

6.  Refer Pharmasset.

 

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

1.  Wrong.  

N4-Hydroxyctidine, or EIDD-1931, is a ribonucleoside analog which induces mutations in RNA virions. N4-hydroxycytidine was first described in the literature in 1980 as a potent mutagen of bacteria and phage.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/N_4_-Hydroxycytidine

Paper from Wendy and Wayne Holman:

https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-021-05538-5

Molnupiravir is the orally bioavailable 5′-isobutyrate prodrug of a direct-acting antiviral ribonucleoside analog, β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, or EIDD-1931.

2.  Wrong.  Refer 1.  It is mutagenic by definition as its mode of operation is to disrupt by mutation the replication of the Covid RNA.

3.  Wrong.  Although there is ongoing research.  One paper below - there are others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961695/

β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Through Lethal Mutagenesis But Is Also Mutagenic To Mammalian Cells.

4.  Wrong.  Many trials have occurred in vivo and in vitro testing against HepC, VEEV, Ebola.

Paper dated 1980:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0027510780902183

5.  Where was it approved for general treatment of the diseases mentioned?

6.  Refer Pharmasset.

 

And too much Tylenol will kill you.

but in the right dose, is great for a headache.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

And too much Tylenol will kill you.

but in the right dose, is great for a headache.

Doesn't fix Covid though, but lots of people take it anyway.

Molnupiravir will fit right in, Tylenol might help with the side effects.

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

1.  Wrong.  

N4-Hydroxyctidine, or EIDD-1931, is a ribonucleoside analog which induces mutations in RNA virions. N4-hydroxycytidine was first described in the literature in 1980 as a potent mutagen of bacteria and phage.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/N_4_-Hydroxycytidine

Paper from Wendy and Wayne Holman:

https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-021-05538-5

Molnupiravir is the orally bioavailable 5′-isobutyrate prodrug of a direct-acting antiviral ribonucleoside analog, β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, or EIDD-1931.

2.  Wrong.  Refer 1.  It is mutagenic by definition as its mode of operation is to disrupt by mutation the replication of the Covid RNA.

3.  Wrong.  Although there is ongoing research.  One paper below - there are others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961695/

β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Through Lethal Mutagenesis But Is Also Mutagenic To Mammalian Cells.

4.  Wrong.  Many trials have occurred in vivo and in vitro testing against HepC, VEEV, Ebola.

Paper dated 1980:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0027510780902183

5.  Where was it approved for general treatment of the diseases mentioned?

6.  Refer Pharmasset.

 

It’s possible that emergency use medicines will always have serious side effects 

this is why they are emergency use only 

the problem arises when the profit margins for big pharma and the healthcare  industrial complex require media talking heads and paid consultants  to insist that even kids can take the magic brew 

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

1.  Wrong.  

N4-Hydroxyctidine, or EIDD-1931, is a ribonucleoside analog which induces mutations in RNA virions. N4-hydroxycytidine was first described in the literature in 1980 as a potent mutagen of bacteria and phage.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/N_4_-Hydroxycytidine

Paper from Wendy and Wayne Holman:

https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-021-05538-5

Molnupiravir is the orally bioavailable 5′-isobutyrate prodrug of a direct-acting antiviral ribonucleoside analog, β-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, or EIDD-1931.

2.  Wrong.  Refer 1.  It is mutagenic by definition as its mode of operation is to disrupt by mutation the replication of the Covid RNA.

3.  Wrong.  Although there is ongoing research.  One paper below - there are others.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961695/

β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Through Lethal Mutagenesis But Is Also Mutagenic To Mammalian Cells.

4.  Wrong.  Many trials have occurred in vivo and in vitro testing against HepC, VEEV, Ebola.

Paper dated 1980:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0027510780902183

5.  Where was it approved for general treatment of the diseases mentioned?

6.  Refer Pharmasset.

 

1.  Molnupiravir , EIDD 2801 was first synthesized in 2014.

It is a prodrug of EIDD 1931 and overcame some significant challenges presented by EIDD 1931 .   So no, Molnupiravir was not 1st synthesized in 1980.

2.   No,  I am not aware of any studies that show Molnupiravir's ( EIDD 2801), effectiveness vs Bacteria.

Is it possible/probable that it is active vs bacteria? yes  and if there is a study demonstrating effectiveness vs bacteria, i will revise my answer. 

3. No, Molnupiravir (EIDD 2801) has not demonstrated high toxicity. Please refer to the results of the phase 3 clinical trial.

Yes, its mode of operation is to interrupt the replication process of a virus. It does this by confusing the polmerase enzyme that is critical for the replication of an RNA (not DNA) virus. It is called an "error catastrophe", so you correctly understand that but to your specific statement....the correct answer was no.

4.  Simple No. There was no in vivo or in vitro testing of Molnupiravir prior to 2014.

5.  No, EIDD 2801 (Molnupiravir) has not been used in clinical trials for the diseases you list. Molnupiravir has been used in trials vs 2 viruses. Influenza and Covid.

Molnupiravir was discovered and developed by a research team that had recieved a government grant to look for a therapy for Venezuelan Encephalitis (feared as a potential bio weapon).  While screening small molecules, they came across EIDD 1931 and intrigued by its properties they determined to see if they could develop a prodrug .  They decided to trial their novel drug first against influenza. During this trial, the covid pandemic broke out and they pivoted to covid.

6. Simple No.  I am aware of the early work that Phamasset did on NCH.  No research on EIDD2801 has been abandoned.

You asked for simple Yes or No answers regarding your rhetorical statements of facts "relating to Molnupiravir".   So you got a simple yes or no.

I think the FDA will be acutely conscious of the mechanism of a mutagenic and examine the safety data carefully.  If they grant an EUA they will limit any initial EUA to a higher risk population, and ask for detailed safety data as a follow up as the drug is used.

EIDD 2801 metabolizes in the body into 2 forms of NCH, cytidine and uridine, which when presented simultaneously to the Viral enzyme confuse the virus and cause it to replicate ineffective (mutated) virus molcules.Although both cytidine and uridine occur naturally in living tissue, the FDA will want to make sure that EIDD 2801 does not impact other enzymes in the body.

FWIW, Remdesivir works by attacking the same enzyme and thus far the side effects have been tolerable and it has not shown any "high toxicity".

We should be under no illusions about novel drugs.  For every successful therapy, dozens fall by the wayside. That does not stop me keeping my fingers crossed for Molnupiravir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slug zitski said:

It’s possible that emergency use medicines will always have serious side effects 

this is why they are emergency use only 

the problem arises when the profit margins for big pharma and the healthcare  industrial complex require media talking heads and paid consultants  to insist that even kids can take the magic brew 

Yes Slug you are correct about the EUA.

Hopefully Molnupiravir will not be authorized for young kids except in the most dire circumstances.  I guess if I had a 10 year old with a condition where CV19 would be fatal, I would try almost anything (although I cannot think of a specific example). They would probably use the compassion loophole.

But the real point I wanted to pick up on is the money. Molnupiravir has most likely cost more than $200 million to develop, possibly considerably more than that.  The problem with novel drugs is that so many do not meet their endpoints. If a pharma company has a 1 in 4 success rate, they need a whopping margin on their successful drugs to earn a return on their overall investment.  What makes Wayne Holman so unusual is that he has a success rate that way exceeds the pharma industry average, across a wide range of unrelated therapies.  As a consultant to hedge funds, he had a knack for identifying which drugs were going to be successful and which were not. When SAC were asked how they had  made a series of successful trades, they initially claimed that they had based their decisions on Wayne's research. Unfortunately for SAC, they didnt always follow Watne's reserach and it turned out that they had access to inside information directly from the trials or pharma companies....which is both illegal and rather repugnant.

Wayne's obsessive research on what is going on in medical and drug development has made him a very wealthy man.....he transitioned from investing in the companies that developed molecules into investing directly in the molecules themselves.

But make no mistake, Wayne and Wendy are in this to make money.....and they possibly pushed and shoved with more energy than a large drug company.  Merck approached Emory directly to acquire the rights to EIDd 2801 , only to find that the Holmans had stolen a march on them .   I am in two minds whether it is a good thing or bad thing that the holmans led this charge.  if it turns out to be a really successful and safe drug then I think that it arrived sooner because of them. if corners were cut then I hope and believe the FDA will spot that.   Fingers crossed, because I am hoping for the former.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2021 at 8:54 AM, EYESAILOR said:

Kate,

My sole motive in starting this thread was to share the news of the successful trial of Molnupiravir and perhaps even discuss it.

1. What other motivation do you attribute to me?  What reason can you articulate such that we  "have" to question my motive?   Seriously, I would like an answer to this question. Your posts on M'vir bother me in some intrinsic way. Please dont duck the question.

2. What are the antivirals that are equally worthy to Molnupravir in the treatment of covid ?  This is by far the most important progress in an antiviral for covid by far. Might there be others in the future?  Maybe. Hopefully. But at this moment in time, I cannot for the earth of me think what you are referring to.

You cannot be referring to Remdesivir.  That has to be delivered intravenously. It has a narrow band of effectiveness in early stage of hospitalization.  M'vir is a simple relatively low dosage pill that can be taken as soon as you test positive and for "high risk" patients reduces the risk of hospitalization by 50% and had 0 deaths.....again that is for high risk patients.

You cannot be referring to Ivermectin. Ivermectin is a wonderful drug which has transformed the lives of millions in Africa and elsewhere as an anti-parasitic. There is ongoing research into its anti-viral properties.  It has shown anti-viral attributes in laboratory petri dishes at very high doses.  It has been trialed against several viruses over the years and failed to be effective in practice.  There is ongoing research into its effectiveness at safe dosages for covid.  Do I hope it turns out to be safe and effective? Yes, of course, that would be wonderful.  However it as suffered a lot of reputational setbacks due to a number of trials that turned out to be fraudulent. This means that it now needs a trial that is above reproach.  Thus far, there is not a credible trial that has been submitted to any agency anywhere in the world for the treatment of covid. By now, I would have expected something so I am not wildly optimistic.....but work is ongoing by some reputable folks.  

What are these long list of antivirals that are equally worthy and close to an FDA submission?      

3.  Why are you so down on good news and anti-progress?  It seems that you attack every new development in medical science in the fight against covid.  What is your motive for this?  The more tools we have in the arsenal the better.  The vaccines are doing great work.....but there are going to be break through infections and it is wonderful news that we have an antiviral that is so promising as a treatment for covid.   So , again, what is your motive for questioning and attacking the news on M'vir? Seriously I would like an answer.

While many people on this thread resort to ad hominem attacks, I have no doubt that your goal and motivation for discussing the new therapeutic is the interest of ending this pandemic and the benefit of humanity (regardless of how much money Merck stands to make).

However, I think you should admit that the non-scientific lies told about Ivermectin by many in the medical establishment undermine the trust and credibility of those "professionals."  Here is Sanjay Gupta smirking and calling it "snarky" that the FDA sent out a tweet implying that Invermectin is not a human drug.  Despite the fact that he is well aware that it is a human drug with some antiviral properties. 

The only intellectually honest thing anyone should say about Ivermectin is that, while we know it is very safe at the doses that hundreds of millions of people currently take it, we don't know how effective it is against COVID-19  (which also includes the negative conclusion that we don't conclusively know that it is NOT effective as a therapeutic or prophylactic)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

While many people on this thread resort to ad hominem attacks, I have no doubt that your goal and motivation for discussing the new therapeutic is the interest of ending this pandemic and the benefit of humanity (regardless of how much money Merck stands to make).

However, I think you should admit that the non-scientific lies told about Ivermectin by many in the medical establishment undermine the trust and credibility of those "professionals."  Here is Sanjay Gupta smirking and calling it "snarky" that the FDA sent out a tweet implying that Invermectin is not a human drug.  Despite the fact that he is well aware that it is a human drug with some antiviral properties. 

The only intellectually honest thing anyone should say about Ivermectin is that, while we know it is very safe at the doses that hundreds of millions of people currently take it, we don't know how effective it is against COVID-19  (which also includes the negative conclusion that we don't conclusively know that it is NOT effective as a therapeutic or prophylactic)

 

Yah 

 

The big pharma / Healthcare industrial complex wants you to believe that the  “animal medicine”  is not safe for humans 

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

It is a prodrug of EIDD 1931 and overcame some significant challenges presented by EIDD 1931 .   So no, Molnupiravir was not 1st synthesized in 1980.

Why are you being so misleading?  Yes Molnupiravir EIDD-2801 is a prodrug of EIDD-1931.  BUT what you neglect to mention is that a Prodrug is a drug that when administered undergoes an intermediary process and metabolises.

In EIDD-2801's case it is EIDD-1931 (N4-Hydoxycitidine or NHC) with an ester attached.  That ester is cleaved (split) in plasma to leave EIDD-1931 or N4-Hydoxycitidine!!!!!

The rest of your response refers to EIDD-2801 and not the active metabolite EIDD-1931.  Essentially you are splitting hairs over the delivery mechanism vs the active!  

11 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

Molnupiravir was discovered and developed by a research team that had recieved a government grant to look for a therapy for Venezuelan Encephalitis (feared as a potential bio weapon).  While screening small molecules, they came across EIDD 1931 and intrigued by its properties they determined to see if they could develop a prodrug .  They decided to trial their novel drug first against influenza. During this trial, the covid pandemic broke out and they pivoted to covid.

That statement is just plain wrong.  Who is feeding you this information?  EIDD-1931 was happened upon when testing Molnupiravir!!!!  It was first synthesised in 1980!!!  The fact that it came BEFORE Molnupiravir is clearly evident in the nomenclature - EIDD-1931 is less than EIDD-2801!!!

From Ridgeback's own Clinical Study Protocol dated April 2020:

image.png.c9b2c405b2a6dbd9165d6f111f6e7349.png

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

EIDD 2801 metabolizes in the body into 2 forms of NCH, cytidine and uridine,

NO.  EIDD-2801 first metabolises into N4-Hydroxycitidine (NHC) which is the active.  It later metabolises to cytidine and uridine however it is the NHC phase that is mutagenic and disrupts Covid-19 replication.

You could draw a corollary with mRNA vaccines.  mRNA as a vaccine mechanism has been around for decades.  The active in mRNA vaccines is the mRNA (believe it or not!) but the key constraint has been developing a delivery mechanism that gets the mRNA into cells so it can replicate the spike protein and thus elicit a specific immune response.  The breakthrough has been relatively recent with the discovery of ways to encapsulate the mRNA in cationically charged nano-lipids and molecules that enable safe delivery of the mRNA into cells that ensure replication.

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

But the real point I wanted to pick up on is the money. Molnupiravir has most likely cost more than $200 million to develop, possibly considerably more than that. 

That's absolute rubbish in this instance.  You are presumably basing that statement on the cost of developing entirely new novel pharmaceuticals from scratch.  In this instance they weren't starting from scratch as they were starting with EIDD-1931.  EIDD is an acronym for the Emory Institute of Drug Development (EIDD) an adjunct of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.  EIDD-2801 (Molnupirivir) was developed by EIDD with Government funding BEFORE any involvement by Ridgeback or Merck.

The irony is the USA taxpayer paid for the drugs development, funded 10's of millions to a company that didn't even have a lab (Ridgeback) and is now buying the drug back from Merck at 40x the cost of production!

The lead on this drugs development at Emory was the EIDD's President and CEO George Painter who presumably is the husband of Wendy Painter who is now the Chief Medical Officer at Ridgeback!!!!!

George Painter, the CEO of the Emory Institute for Drug Development, and Ridgeback cofounder Wendy Holman sought a contract first from ASPR Next and then from BARDA to develop EIDD-2801 for $100 million, and they personally lobbied the authority to get more financial aid. BARDA denied the request due to a lack of adequate documentation for the request. Even before 2020, Bright had been reluctant to give BARDA funding to EIDD-2801, saying they already had $30 million of support from NIAID and the Department of Defense.

The first clinical trial of EIDD-2801 was April 2020 - how much development occurred in the month that Ridgeback owned the rights?

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

While many people on this thread resort to ad hominem attacks, I have no doubt that your goal and motivation for discussing the new therapeutic is the interest of ending this pandemic and the benefit of humanity (regardless of how much money Merck stands to make).

However, I think you should admit that the non-scientific lies told about Ivermectin by many in the medical establishment undermine the trust and credibility of those "professionals."  Here is Sanjay Gupta smirking and calling it "snarky" that the FDA sent out a tweet implying that Invermectin is not a human drug.  Despite the fact that he is well aware that it is a human drug with some antiviral properties. 

The only intellectually honest thing anyone should say about Ivermectin is that, while we know it is very safe at the doses that hundreds of millions of people currently take it, we don't know how effective it is against COVID-19  (which also includes the negative conclusion that we don't conclusively know that it is NOT effective as a therapeutic or prophylactic)

 

Good summary of current research into Ivermectin here:  

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/ivermectin-convalescent-plasma-and-hydroxychloroquine-one-year-rotten-apples

Conclusions:  the current research shows ivermectin is only effective against covid in vitro and at doses orders of magnitude greater than dosages currently approved for humans.  The studies with some scientific validity and larger sample sizes showed no significant improvement.  The drug has side effects.  

Bottom Line: This drug has not reached the point where there is any indication that taking it is going to do something against covid.  If you decide to take it anyway, stick to the recommended dose.

The article sums it up well: 

For ivermectin, there are too many uncertainties to cleanly rule one way or the other, although knowing how infrequently in vitro benefits translate to a safe and effective drug in humans does make me pessimistic.

 

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

Yah 

 

The big pharma / Healthcare industrial complex wants you to believe that the  “animal medicine”  is not safe for humans 

Bullshit.

It's given to humans by real doctors

Just not for covid.

Because guess what, it's been tried. No indication that it helps. Take it if you want, but it's not smart to take medicine that you don't need.

 

2 hours ago, Rain Man said:

...

Conclusions:  the current research shows ivermectin is only effective against covid in vitro...

ie in the test tube, not in sick people.

- DSK

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

EIDD-1931 was happened upon when testing Molnupiravir!!!!  It was first synthesised in 1980!!! 

You are the only person who writes this version of history.

EIDD- 1931 was a molecule that screened well when they were screening molecules for for Venezuelan Encephalitis as part of a government funded research project. They liked some of its properties but  it had some challenges so they worked on developing a prodrug. The prodrug, EIDD 2801, was called Molupiravir .   They did not discover EIID-1931 when testing EIDD-2801.....but never mind. 

EIDD 2801 was first synthesized in 2014. You made these rhetorical statements and wanted a simple yes/no vs an intelligent discussion so I decided to be pedantic and only say yes top statements that were 100% factually correct. None of them were....so they all got No's.

I know what a prodrug is and your confusing explanation is a cut and paste.  You would do better to explain how the prodrug works and how the location it differs from the action of the original drug. 

 

This also got a No,

On 10/17/2021 at 3:42 PM, Kate short for Bob said:

the following facts relating to Molnupirivir:

Yes/No.

3. It has a high toxicity and its mode of operation is to destructively interrupt RNA and DNA processes thus preventing replication;

 

 Thus far Molnupiravir has not demonstrated high toxicity .....so although you are basically correct on how it worlks (although Covid virus has no DNA it is a single strand RNA) I had to answer NO.

One small point, This sentence does not make sense

"N4-Hydroxycitidine (NHC) which is the active.  It later metabolises to cytidine and uridine however it is the NHC phase that is mutagenic and disrupts Covid-19 replication. "

 

 

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

Yah 

 

The big pharma / Healthcare industrial complex wants you to believe that the  “animal medicine”  is not safe for humans 

There’s a difference between not effective and dangerous…

and if you take the horse sized dose, well, Mr Ed might have something to say about it.

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

You are the only person who writes this version of history.

 

I've posted the references FFS!!!!

54 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

They did not discover EIID-1931 when testing EIDD-2801.....but never mind. 

I know they didn't discover EIDD-1931 when testing EIDD-2801 as the former was first synthesised in 1980!

55 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I know what a prodrug is and your confusing explanation is a cut and paste.  You would do better to explain how the prodrug works and how the location it differs from the action of the original drug. 

I quoted exactly what a Prodrug is and I copied an extract from Ridgebacks UK Clinical Trial protocol explaining it.  The Prodrug EIDD-2801 metabolises to EIDD-1931  which is the active!!  I even explained how that is done by the cleavage of the added ester in plasma.

58 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

 Thus far Molnupiravir has not demonstrated high toxicity .....so although you are basically correct on how it worlks (although Covid virus has no DNA it is a single strand RNA) I had to answer NO.

But its primary metabolite EIDD-1931 has shown both RNA AND mammalian DNA toxicity!!!!  

 

59 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

"N4-Hydroxycitidine (NHC) which is the active.  It later metabolises to cytidine and uridine however it is the NHC phase that is mutagenic and disrupts Covid-19 replication. "

It makes perfect sense.  Cytidine and Uridine are metabolites of EIDD-1931!  Do you want the full organic pathway detailed?

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

Fuck me sideways, how many knocks to the head do you need to believe teh bullshit KSFB, MBL and co are smoking?

India withdrew from the trial with Molnupiravir can you tell us why?

Quote

Merck drug less effective against moderate COVID -India regulatory source

NEW DELHI, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Merck & Co's (MRK.N) experimental antiviral drug molnupiravir has not shown "significant efficacy" against moderate COVID-19, a source with the Drug Controller General of India said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/merck-drug-less-effective-against-moderate-covid-india-regulatory-source-2021-10-08/

 

Do you think anyone will mention Indian trial with new Merk pill or will they pretend it didn't happen?

India probably prefer this pill

Quote

Indian State Of 241 Million People Declared COVID-Free After Government Promotes Ivermectin

 

September 21, 2021
 

The state of Uttar Pradesh in India which has equivalent of two-thirds of the United States population, has been declared COVID-Free, the state government announced last week.

There are no more active cases of coronavirus in the 33 districts of Uttar Pradesh, which has a population of 241 million people. Hindustan news reported, “Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while positivity rate came down to less than 0.01%. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7%.”

The answer to the recovery is likely because the government’s early use and distribution of Ivermectin to its citizens. Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was then observed that none of them developed COVID-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus.

Based on the findings, the state government sanctioned the use of Ivermectin as prophylactic for all contacts of Covid patients and later cleared the administration of therapeutic doses for the treatment of such patients. Hence due to that timely introduction of Ivermectin since the first wave, it has helped the state to maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high density.

https://english.lematinal.media/indian-state-of-241-million-people-declared-covid-free-after-government-promotes-ivermectin/

For some reason India had a massive decline in cases when full vaccination rate was around 8% i wonder what caused it.

Source for meme- https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/05/11/indian-state-will-offer-ivermectin-to-entire-adult-population---even-as-who-warns-against-its-use-as-covid-19-treatment/?sh=2b67b6dd6d9f

India 1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2021 at 6:06 AM, EYESAILOR said:

My personal opinion is that Tess Lawrie, a former Ob-Gyn doctor is not credible. You are free to believe what you read. My opinion is based on

Tess isn't the only author named on that paper.

My opinion is most of what comes from the US on this isn't reliable because medicine is for profit unlike other parts of the world.

The insurance companies tell doctors what treatments they will fund then you have big pharma trying to fleece insurance companies with the doctor dealing with patient getting the least say in the matter.

Here is Dr John Campbell interviewing Tess they are both from the UK where insurance companies and big pharma don't have the same influence.She goes through data showing what happens when studies are removed etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYF8bnmdQfY

Interesting that Doctors were funding PCR tests from their own pockets to do these Ivermectin studies while they were working full time treating patients. I can't see any motivation for profit doing these studies everyone claims are flawed.

Here is Dr Campbell comparing Ivermectin to Molnupiravir- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKa3EZqofNo

I should add Dr Campbell is pro vax he makes this very clear.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tharsheblows said:

 

However, I think you should admit that the non-scientific lies told about Ivermectin by many in the medical establishment undermine the trust and credibility of those "professionals."  Here is Sanjay Gupta smirking and calling it "snarky" that the FDA sent out a tweet implying that Invermectin is not a human drug.  Despite the fact that he is well aware that it is a human drug with some antiviral properties. 

The only intellectually honest thing anyone should say about Ivermectin is that, while we know it is very safe at the doses that hundreds of millions of people currently take it, we don't know how effective it is against COVID-19  (which also includes the negative conclusion that we don't conclusively know that it is NOT effective as a therapeutic or prophylactic)

 

I think that there is a fair amount of misleading phrasing from both sides of the Ivermectin debate and in some cases some outright misinformation (lies).

I didnt see Sanjay Gupta saying anything misleading in this interview.  He found the FDA statement snarky ...and he was being critical of the FDA .  He  explained that Ivermectin had been safely used by hundreds of million of people and was also a veterinary drug . I thought he was polite and good humored .

Here is what is certain about Ivermectin:

1. It is the largest veterinary drug in the world, used as an anti parasitic  for hundreds of millions of livestock.

2. It is an effective anti-parasitic for certain human parasitic diseases, has been administered safely to hundreds of millions of people and saved millions of lives.

Both as a veterinary drug, where it has helped farmers protect their livestock and as a human drug, it has had a profoundly beneficial impact on the planet.

3. In invitro tests on cell cultures, at levels that far exceed any current approved human doses, it has been observed to have anti-viral properties.  However, in clinical trials, on viruses (not covid) that were responsive under the in vitro trials, Ivermectin proved to be ineffective as a clinical treatment.  More recently a similar in vitro test vs the covid virus demonstrated similar anti-viral properties 

After that it gets uncertain

1. Ivermectin has been tested in vivo in mice against Mouse Hepatitis Virus.  

2. There have been various clinical trials of varying standards and quality of Ivermectin as treatment for Covid 19.

3. A number of people have been taking Ivermectin to treat themselves for Covid.  Some (hopefully a relatively small number) have been taking veterinary sized dosages and there have been some non systematic reports of adverse effects from thebse large dosages.  

There has not been a conclusive clinical trial that I am aware of that demonstrates that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid 19.    

So I agree with your conclusion. At human dosages, it is a reasonably safe drug.  We simply do not know (or do not have evidence ) if it is effective clinical treatment for Covid. 

 

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

EIDD-1931 was happened upon when testing Molnupiravir!!!! 

 

7 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I know they didn't discover EIDD-1931 when testing EIDD-2801 as the former was first synthesised in 1980!

EIDD 2801 is Molnupiravir.

Anyway, why dont we wait and see if it gets an EUA, and also collectively hope that it turns out to be both safe and effective.  

The FDA will be acutely aware of the potential risk that EIDD2801 might be active (mutagenic) vs other enzymes and I am sure they will monitor closely for adverse effects.

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

....

So I agree with your conclusion. At human dosages, it is a reasonably safe drug.  We simply do not know (or do not have evidence ) if it is effective clinical treatment for Covid. 

 

There is less evidence that Ivermectin works for Covid infection that there is for UFOs

The Trumpette brigade want to tap dance around the facts and pretend there is some leftist conspiracy to discredit hydroxychloroquine Ivermectin, then when cornered they say "it's approved medicine" skipping the part about whether it actually helps treat covid. They were screeching that India and Brazil used hydroxychloroquine Ivermectin cheaply to avoid covid disaster, when it turned out that both countries had massive waves of death they forgot all about it and pretended they never said any such thing.

It's literally an example of how you can fool some of the people ALL the time, and they're angry at those of us who don't fall for it.

- DSK

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

There is less evidence that Ivermectin works for Covid infection that there is for UFOs

 

I think that comment would be called "snarky"  by Sanjay Gupta :) 

I did like it that he was calm and objective..  Ivermectin has shown anti-viral attributes in tests in cell cultures in the laboratory.  Thus far it has not demonstrated itself as an effective treatment for Covid in a credible clinical trial that I am aware of.

I agree that similar sounding claims were made for hydroxychloroquine but that is a very different drug where it is widely accepted now that it has no beneficial effect in the treatment of Covid, and has some  known adverse effects  (heart rhythm problems,  lymph system disorders, kidney and liver problems.) However it is worth remembering that the FDA briefly issued an EUA for  hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic and then reversed that decision as the data became clear. Decisions will be made in good faith and the key is to be positive about reversing those decisions . 

As to Ivermectin, IMO, it is a distraction. Many of the Ivermectin advocates (notable exception is the drama queen Tess Lawrie) advocate Ivermectin as an adjunct to vaccine.  It is a relatively safe  drug. I will not take it for covid nor recommend it, but provided it is taken in human dosages in conjunction with the vaccine, it is not going to kill a lot of people.  Looking on the bright side, the incidence of head lice in Southern rural communities in the USA is probably at an all time low!

The danger of distractions like Ivermectin is that higher risk patients may try and self diagnose and self treat when really they should be seeing their doctor. 

The important thing is that medical science is continuing to search for treatments , and even additional vaccines for  Covid.   A safe, genuinely effective, and easy to administer anti-viral is the therapy that doctors are wanting and that scientists are searching for. I dont know if we will ever find it but I know that we will never give up looking. 

And on a somewhat patriotic note, despite all the horseshit you throw at our healthcare system, we are a cradle of innovation and very determined when it comes to medical research.  The other country that punches above ts weight when it comes to medical research is the UK.

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

 

So I agree with your conclusion. At human dosages, it is a reasonably safe drug.  We simply do not know (or do not have evidence ) if it is effective clinical treatment for Covid. 

 

Thank you for that, but I would extend and say, given the large trials happening in many places, the lack of evidence of effectiveness pretty much leads us to conclude that it is NOT effective. Placebo effect at best. 

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

Why not talk about unnecessary drugs that have risks and that there is no real reason to take?

Sildenafil (loss of vision sounds bad to me)

https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a699015.html

Tadalafil (more loss of vision)

https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a604008.html

Fuck and go blind, no worries. 

 

Maybe someone could start a rumor that the little blue pills fights off the COVID...

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

I think that comment would be called "snarky"  by Sanjay Gupta :) 

...

Sorry! But it happens to be true, there are photos and video of UFOs

31 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

...

I agree that similar sounding claims were made for hydroxychloroquine but that is a very different drug where it is widely accepted now that it has no beneficial effect in the treatment of Covid....

It's last year's Trumpian snake-oil. My comparing them is on the basis that Ivermectin is the new snake-oil, which they need because the old snake-oil very publicly and provably did not work.

 

33 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

...However it is worth remembering that the FDA briefly issued an EUA for  hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic and then reversed that decision as the data became clear. Decisions will be made in good faith and the key is to be positive about reversing those decisions .   ...

And this is an important counter to the constant whining of the RWNJs that Big Pharma or Big Science or that mean ol' Dr. Fauci is stomping on their snake-oil.

57 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

....

As to Ivermectin, IMO, it is a distraction. Many of the Ivermectin advocates (notable exception is the drama queen Tess Lawrie) advocate Ivermectin as an adjunct to vaccine.  It is a relatively safe  drug. I will not take it for covid nor recommend it, but provided it is taken in human dosages in conjunction with the vaccine, it is not going to kill a lot of people.  Looking on the bright side, the incidence of head lice in Southern rural communities in the USA is probably at an all time low!

...

There's a big plus! :lol: Doesn't it kill ringworm, too? Although that is less of a problem since more Southerners wear shoes, nowadays.

 

59 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

....

The important thing is that medical science is continuing to search for treatments , and even additional vaccines for  Covid.   A safe, genuinely effective, and easy to administer anti-viral is the therapy that doctors are wanting and that scientists are searching for. I dont know if we will ever find it but I know that we will never give up looking. 

....

^ This, yes! ^

And I wanted to show that I hold no ill intent in chopping up your quote. Pretty much agree with all of it including that snarkiness is not productive.

- DSK

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

 

 

And I wanted to show that I hold no ill intent in chopping up your quote. Pretty much agree with all of it including that snarkiness is not productive.

- DSK

Of course....perfectly okay to parse my comments for clarity.

Snarky can be true....and entertaining.....but rarely productive.   

More worryingly, misleading can be true ......but never productive.

 

 

"   

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

I think that comment would be called "snarky"  by Sanjay Gupta :) 

I did like it that he was calm and objective..  Ivermectin has shown anti-viral attributes in tests in cell cultures in the laboratory.  Thus far it has not demonstrated itself as an effective treatment for Covid in a credible clinical trial that I am aware of.

I agree that similar sounding claims were made for hydroxychloroquine but that is a very different drug where it is widely accepted now that it has no beneficial effect in the treatment of Covid, and has some  known adverse effects  (heart rhythm problems,  lymph system disorders, kidney and liver problems.) However it is worth remembering that the FDA briefly issued an EUA for  hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic and then reversed that decision as the data became clear. Decisions will be made in good faith and the key is to be positive about reversing those decisions . 

As to Ivermectin, IMO, it is a distraction. Many of the Ivermectin advocates (notable exception is the drama queen Tess Lawrie) advocate Ivermectin as an adjunct to vaccine.  It is a relatively safe  drug. I will not take it for covid nor recommend it, but provided it is taken in human dosages in conjunction with the vaccine, it is not going to kill a lot of people.  Looking on the bright side, the incidence of head lice in Southern rural communities in the USA is probably at an all time low!

The danger of distractions like Ivermectin is that higher risk patients may try and self diagnose and self treat when really they should be seeing their doctor. 

The important thing is that medical science is continuing to search for treatments , and even additional vaccines for  Covid.   A safe, genuinely effective, and easy to administer anti-viral is the therapy that doctors are wanting and that scientists are searching for. I dont know if we will ever find it but I know that we will never give up looking. 

And on a somewhat patriotic note, despite all the horseshit you throw at our healthcare system, we are a cradle of innovation and very determined when it comes to medical research.  The other country that punches above ts weight when it comes to medical research is the UK.

These comments all make good scientific sense.

However, I would like to add that the "danger" of people self administering Ivermectin (which implies improper dosage) or worse (using the veterinary version of the drug) skyrockets when lay people catch medical professionals (and news organizations) telling outright lies about the drug.  Their lies may be routed in a well-meaning attempt to discourage people's interest in a drug but the effect is to erode people's trust in the professionals.  A more productive approach to a patient asking for the drug might be "It might not help you very much or possibly not at all but if taken at the recommended dose it almost certainly wont hurt you ...so if you want to try it, sure go for it!" 

Or even "I won't prescribe the drug because I don't think it is effective but there are plenty of doctors that will." (and then don't screw with those doctors)

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

... the "danger" of people self administering Ivermectin (which implies improper dosage) or worse (using the veterinary version of the drug) skyrockets when lay people catch medical professionals (and news organizations) telling outright lies about the drug...

Such as??

- DSK

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

Such as??

- DSK

Apparently you didn't watch the Joe Rogan clip.  CNN flat out lied and said Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer while their respected medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta stays silent.  This coupled with the FDA website showing a horse when you look up Invermectin on their website and is tweeting about you "not being a horse or cow."

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

If I look up antibiotics such as amoxicillin there isn't a picture of a farm animal or a dog.  Why?  because while amoxicillin is given to many animals it is very much a  human drug...just like Ivermectin.

 

If the medical professionals want to be respected as honest purveyors of medical information, they could tweet something like "While it is unclear whether Ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, it is very safe for humans at the recommended dose and can be obtained from your doctor.  Please don't use veterinary versions"

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Apparently you didn't watch the Joe Rogan clip.  CNN flat out lied and said Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer while their respected medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta stays silent.  This coupled with the FDA website showing a horse when you look up Invermectin on their website and is tweeting about you "not being a horse or cow."

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

If I look up antibiotics such as amoxicillin there isn't a picture of a farm animal or a dog.  Why?  because while amoxicillin is given to many animals it is very much a  human drug...just like Ivermectin.

 

If the medical professionals want to be respected as honest purveyors of medical information, they could tweet something like "While it is unclear whether Ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, it is very safe for humans at the recommended dose and can be obtained from your doctor.  Please don't use veterinary versions"

ok Karen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

ok Karen.

Make fun of it all you want but when you ask "Why don't people trust the FDA, CDC, NIH," etc...  its because they have been caught promoting lies.

No matter who you are, the more often you get caught promoting lies, the less credibility you have.  Serious scientific professionals will recognize that their reputation for honesty and integrity is paramount, whereas political hacks and grifters have a very casual relationship with the truth.  Whatever you choose, people eventually figure it out.

I would prefer an FDA with integrity and that could be trusted as an honest purveyor of the best science.  Perhaps we disagree on that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Make fun of it all you want but when you ask "Why don't people trust the FDA, CDC, NIH," etc...  its because they have been caught promoting lies.  ...

Bullshit, it's because you listen to a bunch of RWNJ media hooey.

For example, Dr. Fauci never lied to the public. Dr. Redfern never lied to the public. Dr. Birx never lied to the public, although she was the most complicit of the three in standing by  while President Trump spewed ridiculous bullshit about bleach and light bulbs.

Complaining that -you- don't believe in the FDC, the CDC, the NIH (which I bet you don't actually know what they do), and you ALSO don't trust CNN or AP or Reuters etc etc, because a group of liars have told you that all the others are lying... sorry

Bye

- DSK

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

These comments all make good scientific sense.

However, I would like to add that the "danger" of people self administering Ivermectin (which implies improper dosage) or worse (using the veterinary version of the drug) skyrockets when lay people catch medical professionals (and news organizations) telling outright lies about the drug.  Their lies may be routed in a well-meaning attempt to discourage people's interest in a drug but the effect is to erode people's trust in the professionals.  A more productive approach to a patient asking for the drug might be "It might not help you very much or possibly not at all but if taken at the recommended dose it almost certainly wont hurt you ...so if you want to try it, sure go for it!" 

Or even "I won't prescribe the drug because I don't think it is effective but there are plenty of doctors that will." (and then don't screw with those doctors)

Hello Tharsheblows,

I agree that honesty, integrity and a basic duty to share and explain information in a forthright  manner is all- important 

I am not an internal medicine doc or a virologist so I am unlikely to be asked to prescribe Ivermectin 

One comment:

No one will never get the best medical care if they come in and tell their doctor what to do.  Like any profession, people do their best work if you let them do their best work, A good doctor will explain her/his diagnosis and describe options and a treatment plan. A good doctor will encourage you to ask questions and will be forthright about any uncertainties in the diagnosis. Above all, a good doctor will not be offended if you want a second opinion ,...and will not dismiss your questions about alternative treatments as "stupid". If you have a doctor who does, take your business elsewhere!   However while  a good doctor might offer you a couple of options, and adjust your treatment to take account of personal idiosyncrasies  they will only embark on a treatment plan that they believe in. If a doctor is happy to give any patient anything they want, then you should certainly take your business elsewhere.   You want a physician who feels responsible for the outcome.  

If I was an internist and had a patient diagnosed with Covid, I would not prescribe Ivermectin.  However I would not be offended if a Patient wanted to ask about Ivermectin.  If it is something they strongly wanted to do, I would happily suggest a second opinion but I would doubt I would make a referral 

I have had patients who have declined a particular surgery option for personal reasons but I will only offer alternatives I believe in......because when I am there , in the zone, under the lights I only want to be doing my very best work.  

And I dont ever want a malpractice suit :( 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Tharsheblows said:

Apparently you didn't watch the Joe Rogan clip.  CNN flat out lied and said Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer while their respected medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta stays silent.

I watched the whole clip. I enjoy the occasional Joe Rogan podcast. He has interesting guests.  i thought that Sanjay was very fair and balanced in what he said.....if there was any silence, it was because Joe would interrupt and talk over him incessantly....but Joe is Joe.  

Sanjay was clear that he thought the FDA tweet was unprofessional....in fact it was sanjay that brought it up but i dont think Joe was paying close attention.

Regarding the FDA, they are perhaps less skilled in PR than they should be but I think their intentions are honorable. They dont seem to know how to handle this Ivermectin outburst and are floundering around. You are right that the most important message is that humans should not be taking veterinary preparations for a whole host of good reasons.

If somebody wants to slather themselves up with a modest amount of topical ivermectin and be rid of the head lice at the same time, who am I to discourage them. I am a bit concerned about hijacking and redirecting the world supply of oral Ivermectin because there are people in Africa whose lives literally depend on Ivermectin treatment....there were shortages but I read that the generics are catching up with supply (and making a lot of money) Merck has donated millions of doses (Damn big pharma! :) ) So that concern is probably addressed.  I just hope higher risk people see their doctor and dont use Ivermectin as the self administered alternative to more proven protocols.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites