Ivermectin, for the interested

[Rewulf]

No one is saying that information has been deliberately suppressed for years while millions of people have died!

Dr Campbell has a subtle way with words, also the way he emphasises the cost difference between the 2 drugs.

As I said a few weeks ago, its becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the glaring inconsistencies in the 'consensus'
Although the new 'high cost' antivirals that are being pushed to bridge the vaccine inefficiencies , have a different formula , the old cheap as chips one works in exactly the same way.
Quite how they are going to explain that one away is any ones guess ?

 

[mchughcb]

That is very interesting.

 

[johndeere]

That is very interesting.

Interesting to see if YouTube censors remove this video?

 

[Fair Hill]

Professor Alistar Nichol is to start testing ivermectin on covid patients in 5 Irish hospitals soon in an effort to discover if it is actually the miracle drug some claim it to be.

Ivermectin: Irish trial of Ivermectin to test ‘miracle cure’ claims made by Covid sceptics

A new trial of Ivermectin on Covid-19 patients in Irish hospitals aims to address once and for all contentious claims of it being a wonder drug that holds the solution to the pandemic.

www.independent.ie

 

[Rewulf]

Professor Alistar Nichol is to start testing ivermectin on covid patients in 5 Irish hospitals soon in an effort to discover if it is actually the miracle drug some claim it to be.

Surely he will be up on multiple murder charges soon then

That is very interesting.

He does simplify the action of the antivirals , otherwise us mere mortals would never make it to the end of the video, but what it does establish (which many of the doubters simply would not accept) is ivermectin is a PROVEN antiviral, its not a poison, or 'deadly dangerous' or only for horses/cattle.
Once you can accept this , THEN at least we can accept it probably can help in fighting covid, as many countries , and doctors have already found out.

 

[mchughcb]

You'll get used to it with that particular poster and his conjecture.

Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open.

 

[Fair Hill]

Surely he will be up on multiple murder charges soon then

He does simplify the action of the antivirals , otherwise us mere mortals would never make it to the end of the video, but what it does establish (which many of the doubters simply would not accept) is ivermectin is a PROVEN antiviral, its not a poison, or 'deadly dangerous' or only for horses/cattle.
Once you can accept this , THEN at least we can accept it probably can help in fighting covid, as many countries , and doctors have already found out.

He's a properly qualified person doing this as part of the first international clinical trial.

Just thought ye guys might be interested.

 

[finnbear270]

Now I watched and learned here, IF he is quoting accurately, & I was interested to the point of wishing my schoolteachers had simplified stuff when I was attending (sometimes), If this guy is correct we are being taken for a ride whilst having smoke blown up our keesters.

 

[Rewulf]

He's a properly qualified person doing this as part of the first international clinical trial.

Lets just examine this.
WHY is this the first international clinical trial (if it actually is ) ?
I was under the impression , other , PEER reviewed clinical trials had found results 'inconclusive' or 'no benefit' ?
So what is the point , its conclusive , ivermectin DEFINITELY doesnt work on covid. Or does it ?

Just thought ye guys might be interested.

I am interested, this is what this thread is all about, are you interested , you seem to have changed your tune somewhat ?
What will you say if these trials come back positive I wonder , will you apologise for all the bile youve spat ?

 

[Rewulf]

Now I watched and learned here, IF he is quoting accurately, & I was interested to the point of wishing my schoolteachers had simplified stuff when I was attending (sometimes), If this guy is correct we are being taken for a ride whilst having smoke blown up our keesters.

Well done for watching it all the way through with an open mind.

As Ive said several times, its all about the money, it always has been.

 

[Dalua]

Lets just examine this.
WHY is this the first international clinical trial (if it actually is ) ?
I was under the impression , other , PEER reviewed clinical trials had found results 'inconclusive' or 'no benefit' ?
So what is the point , its conclusive , ivermectin DEFINITELY doesnt work on covid. Or does it ?

I am interested, this is what this thread is all about, are you interested , you seem to have changed your tune somewhat ?
What will you say if these trials come back positive I wonder , will you apologise for all the bile youve spat ?

I think this sort of commentary serves well to show that it is not so easy as it might seem to understand the meaning of the results of clinical trials.

 

[plonker]

Well done for watching it all the way through with an open mind.

As Ive said several times, its all about the money, it always has been.

Big pharma exist for one reason and one reason only!
Make money!!
I remember watching a louis theroux series on pharma in America and how its was the aim of these companies to have people taking drugs every day of their lives even if nothing was wrong.
Preventative drugs

 

[Rewulf]

I think this sort of commentary serves well to show that it is not so easy as it might seem to understand the meaning of the results of clinical trials.

I think this sort of commentary shows the contempt some people show for those trying to understand things better.

Do the previous clinical trials not show inconclusive results, or no benefit results, did you not say yourself , in your opinion ivermectin has no proven use in treating covid ?
What will you say if it does indeed prove otherwise ?

If , and its a big if , its proven that antivirals are the way forward in treating covid, and ivermectin plays a part (as it already is in some countries) what faith will have been lost in the pharma and medical testing establishment ?
Has testing data been suppressed , ignored , tampered with, will we ever get the truth anyway, of where covid came from, and why we floundered in effective treatment ?

 

[Feugh]

I have no skin in this game - I don't know whether ivermectin is beneficial against covid or not, and I can't be bothered reading all 40 pages of this thread. However, I stumbled across the attached youtube clip the other day (it's presented by someone who I have real reservations about because of some of the things he has said in the past, but he presents evidence throughout the clip. I watched it with an open mind) which shows that, for whatever reason, CNN has an anti-ivermectin agenda. This is not simply to save people from their own stupidity, there's something more here. It's worth a few minutes of your time to watch (and since you're on page 40, you must have plenty of time on your hands anyway ):

 

[Dalua]

I think this sort of commentary shows the contempt some people show for those trying to understand things better.

There's nothing contemptible about trying to understand things better - but that is exactly what this thread seems stubbornly to be avoiding!

Do the previous clinical trials not show inconclusive results, or no benefit results, did you not say yourself , in your opinion ivermectin has no proven use in treating covid ?
What will you say if it does indeed prove otherwise ?

I would probably have said that based on the results of trials to date, there are no grounds for thinking that ivermectin had any use for treatment or prophylaxis of covid 19.
If proper trials show it does, then I (along with the makers and suppliers of ivermectin) will be delighted.

I don't think there's anything controversial or unscientific about my position.

 

[Rewulf]

There's nothing contemptible about trying to understand things better - but that is exactly what this thread seems stubbornly to be avoiding!

What you really mean is , we are not trying to understand things the way YOU see them.
You have automatically assumed that you are correct, yet your view is not your own , its the view of others that you have sided with, that you no doubt respect.
How will you feel if those you respected are wrong ?
What if the medical community suddenly decides , 'Hey , guess what guys , ivermectin does work after all , I dont know what happened with all those peer reviewed studies that said it didnt ! '

But then it wouldnt be the first time.

 

[Dalua]

What you really mean is , we are not trying to understand things the way YOU see them.

No. What I mean is that you are not trying to understand the evidence in the way that evidence of that that kind is meant to be understood if that understanding is expected to have any general credibility.
It's a sort of thing which I have some degree-level training and professional practice at doing - so I am happy I can, with a bit of help, tease out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to clinical trials - or at least, understand why some trials are less-likely to be considered reliable than others.

Alternatively, perhaps I'm just following in a sheep-like manner the majority of the other folk who have training and professional practice in understanding this kind of thing.

As an aside, I don't think anyone has done any studies to show it doesn't work - though there are plenty which don't show that it does in any meaningful sense.

 

[User00053]

all very interesting, but I would like know what professional qualifications, do you have which directly apply to the subject, also any positions held and when and where held. Proof of who you actually are, would help many of us make a conclusion. Facts only please.

 

[Rewulf]

It's a sort of thing which I have some degree-level training and professional practice at doing - so I am happy I can, with a bit of help, tease out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to clinical trials - or at least, understand why some trials are less-likely to be considered reliable than others.

A bit like the recent trials for Pfizers new antiviral ?
You know, the one a bit like Molnupirivir, the other rather expensive rushed through testing, emergency licenced antiviral ?
But of course they are perfectly safe to use , and highly effective against covid , and nothing like that horse worming one that costs 4 pence a tablet, that absolutely , definitely DOES NOT work.
Except in India and Africa, and South America, but you cant believe all those backward countries can you , I bet theyre not even proper doctors

As an aside, I don't think anyone has done any studies to show it doesn't work - though there are plenty which don't show that it does in any meaningful sense.

You can thank Fair hill for his link on this very subject.

'A new trial of Ivermectin on Covid-19 patients in Irish hospitals aims to address once and for all contentious claims of it being a wonder drug that holds the solution to the pandemic.

The veterinary drug — a parasite treatment primarily for animals but also humans — is being touted by conspiracy theorists and Covid-sceptics as a ‘miracle’ cure for the virus, even though it is not an approved treatment in Europe because of the lack of convincing scientific evidence.

Professor Alistair Nichol, the clinical investigator who is leading the international trial, hopes the findings will dispel uncertainty.'

Now , you could read that in a few ways, but to me it doesnt exactly look like an unbiased approach.
Rather a way to prove 'once and for all' that ivermectin does not work on treating covid, in any 'meaningful sense'

 

[J@son]

It is clear that this issue stirs up a lot of passion particularly among those who see it as a good example of Big Pharma / Big Government / Big Something Else pushing an agenda that isn't in the public interest.

I don't see it in these terms.

Dr Campbell does a good job with his sellotape and scissors of explaining in simple terms how protease inhibitors prevent a virus replication. But this is largely because, expressed in such simple terms, this idea is not difficult to understand. To be honest, I'm not really sure he needed the sellotape or scissors.

Dr Campbell is focusing on what is easy to understand. And that is the problem. This video entirely fails to address the complexity of the trials it refers to. It blurs the distinctions between in silico, in vitro and in vivo trials. And, in so far as Dr Campbell knows what he is talking about, it is hard to believe that he doesn't know that he is doing this.

The following is the conclusion (complete and verbtim) from the second trial referred to by Dr Campbell in his video:

By using blind docking and extensive MD simulations, we have unraveled, at a molecular and atomic resolution, the physicochemical of ivermectin with key human and viral protein targets active in the SARS-CoV-2 infection cycle. The flexibility induced by the fused rings of the drug, in combination with the multiple polar groups, such as alcohols and esters, allow efficient non-covalent interactions with some parts of the protein targets, especially of hydrogen bonding type. In particular, we have evidenced the establishment of favorable and rather persistent interactions with the human ACE2 receptor. In some cases, these interactions have been shown to take place at the interface used by the viral RBD unit to recognize ACE2, inducing a non-negligible destabilization of the complex that could point to a possible antiviral mechanism exploitable in future drug design strategies. The interactions of ivermectin with the main viral proteases are less stable. Such interactions could, on the one hand, inhibit the enzymatic activity by occupying the catalytic site, and, on the other hand, interfere with the ubiquitination site of PLpro enzyme. Finally, the study of the interaction of ivermectin with the SUD protein, involved in the sequestration of messenger RNA in a G-quadruplex form, reveal high mobility and non- specific interactions, limiting the capacity of ivermectin to hamper G4/SUD complexation. With all data in hand, we expect ivermectin to be most suitable in blocking the ACE2/RBD complex formation, i.e., the SARS-CoV-2 entry path into the human body, whereas the binding efficacy toward the other viral targets is clearly more limited. The non-covalent binding of a drug with a protein target does not explain pharmacological activity per se and other factors must be evaluated to fully assess the in vivo or in vitro relevance of the proposed mechanisms. These should be fully taken into account by rigorous experimental protocols, considering not only the molecular bases of these interactions but also all the cross-talks at play in the organisms, as well as the drug bioavailability and potential side effects. Nonetheless, our study offers an important perspective in highlighting key interactions that can be exploited in drug-design or drug-repurposing strategies, especially in the case of SARS-related infections.

This piece of research is an in silico trial. That is to say, its results are the results of a computer simulation. Its findings should be regarded in the most tentative terms. As the authors, themselves point out, The non-covalent binding of a drug with a protein target does not explain pharmacological activity per se and other factors must be evaluated to fully assess the in vivo or in vitro relevance of the proposed mechanisms.

There's a thread circulating on the forum at the moment titled "A little knowledge is dangerous...". Within it, people have posted a number of interesting and conflicting perspectives about lead-free ammo and ballistics. This is something on which the members of this forum can claim some expertise - and yet still perspectives differ.

The same cannot be said of Ivermectin and CV19. This issue is a profoundly complex one and one about which most contributors to this forum know next to nothing.

However, the fact remains that - as things stand - there is no evidence from widely regarded RCT's to support the view that Ivermectin is an effective prophylactic/treatment in relation to CV19. And the none of the world's leading medical authorities (including the WHO, EMA, BMJ, NICE, FDA and NIH) recommend taking Ivermectin in relation to CV19.

Dr Campbell is referring the results of computer simulations - results that the trial's authors caveat in clear terms. This is a very (very) long way from being a fact about anything at all - and it certainly is a very (very) long way from demonstrating Ivermectin's effectiveness in relation to CV19. One has to assume that those who claim otherwise either don't understand what they are looking at or are trying to pass something off for something it is not.