IVERMECTIN - Do NOT be these people!

[mamajos]

https://thepostmillennial.com/rolli...-on-ivermectin-falls-apart?utm_campaign=64474

 

[Brooks_]

https://thepostmillennial.com/rolli...-on-ivermectin-falls-apart?utm_campaign=64474

404

 

[mamajos]

Link works for me. You can search it on the web.

 

[Brooks_]

Link works for me. You can search it on the web.

came up this time. IDK what happened before.

 

[EmmaDonovan]

The web site for Northeastern Health System - Sequoyah has this statement:

Message from the administration of Northeastern Health System - Sequoyah:

Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room.

With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.

NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.

All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.

We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.

 

[Beer can]

If you are talking about the pre-publication meta analysis, it merely bundles a bunch of extremely small studies, of different doasages, looking for differing outcomes, in differing trials, under differing conditions and tries to make some broad claims. Worse, many of those studies involved combined therapies, which can make no claims about the effectiveness of Ivermectin directly.

It is a falacy to believe that one can select a large number of individually unreliable studies and derive reliable data from it. You **may** come to the correct solution. Or not.

Personally, I'm not rejecting Ivermectin treatment out of hand, but reliable clinical evidence as to its effectiveness against COVID-19 is somewhere between scant and lacking. Even CS KOW, who did an early meta-analysis suggesting it was worth exploring (back in Feb/Mar) has subsequently printed a new paper indicating the past data was unreliable. There have been a number of very public retractions as well, including (perhaps most famously at present) the Elgazzar study which accounted for a large portion of the beneficial effect reported in later meta-studies. Indead, Chaccour (whose TINY and statistically irrelevant study is cited approvingly below) is interviewed in the link provided, and he doesn't support Ivermectin use, only more investigation.

The Lopez-Medina study is also cited approvingly in this meta-analysis, but its been flagged as problematic as well. The numbers don't add up. Nor were its protocols followed - including mixing dosages of ivermectin and the placebo. A large number of the other studies here are retrospective, greatly increasing the chances of cherry picking a subset of data.

View attachment 2821214

Can you tell me the difference between Ivermectin and Molnupiravir ?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Can you tell me the difference between Ivermectin and Molnupiravir ?

Superficially? Sure. Beyond that, I'm no Dr. and I'm certainly not a specialist in medications.

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, whose actual method of operation is open to a bit of debate. It appears to work by binding some proteins that certain roundworms (the things Ivermectin is designed to treat) release to prevent their hosts from recognizing the invasion, so the host's immune system will attack them.

Molnupiravir is an anti-viral drug (experimental) intended to treat varieties of "the flu"/influenza. What we regularly refer to as the "flu" is caused by one of two groups of Virii, loosely Influenza A group and Influenza B group - each group has LOTS of variants. The annual flu shots work (to the extent they do work) because roughly a year before they are needed, people decide which variants are most likely to be circulating around next season (either two from group A and one from group B or two from each, depending on whether you get the trivalent (3) or quadrivalent (4) flu vaccine).

If they guess badly, the vaccine's variants may not closely match the version of the flu you are exposed to, and thus may not provide much protection. Personally, whether I get the flu vaccine in any given year is a decision I make based on what I'm doing/where I'm working (that is, what's my likely exposure?) and how well they guessed at which variants would be most prevalent "in the wild" (that is, how effective is it likely to be?). Some years I get it, some I don't.

Molnupiravir, on the other hand, is not a vaccine, it doesn't prime your body to recognize and fight off particular influenza variants. Rather when the influenza variant you've caught tries to replicate itself, the Molnupiravir acts to cause it to make transcription errors - essentially "bad copies" of itself - until it can't successfully replicate any more. If you are old enough to remember photocopying photocopies, until, like a game of telephone, the message is completely unrecognizable? Same theory, only with the viruses RNA...

Last I heard, it was in a Phase II investigational Study, back in June.

Typically, three phases in a new drug research study.

Phase 1 (really small, usually healthy volunteers - is it Safe, does it have immediate side effects?)
Phase 2 (pretty small, I think Molnu... only had about 200 people - what's the best dosage?)
Phase 3 (much larger group, often in the thousands, "blind" and with a placebo or similar control - does it work? are there longer term side effects?)

Beyond that? I don't know much, and will defer to those with greater expertise - as long as they publish their datasets.

/edit and it looks like they are just starting Phase III trials - expect months before there are preliminary results about its effectiveness, and months further of FDA review, assuming it gets that far, before approval. ALSO, it looks like they are testing it (based on design of the study as described in the link) as a prophylactic, NOT as a cure.

//further edit see the far superior description of how this two drugs work posted here. Thank you @saysfaa

 

[addctd2plnts]

Seems like this might be the best place to put this, but I'm not sure. Anyway...,

With Covid seeming to run rampant and having care and concern for all of us on this site, I felt like this might be a timely post.

It seems there are some that believe that taking Ivermectin to treat Covid is a good idea, so it might be worth your time to read this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...reated-a-doctor-says/ar-AAO38Tm?ocid=msedgntp

We've all seen the news and made up our minds with our own free will. Doctors, and hubby and I are both doctors, know more than the media. Stop stirring up trouble. This is a site for POULTRY, NOT POLITICS! By stirring up trouble, you show your true nature. Either post about poultry or LEAVE!

 

[Beer can]

We've all seen the news and made up our minds with our own free will. Doctors, and hubby and I are both doctors, know more than the media. Stop stirring up trouble. This is a site for POULTRY, NOT POLITICS! By stirring up trouble, you show your true nature. Either post about poultry or LEAVE!

Poultry brings us together, politics divide us, covid is not politics discussing what is going on with covid is not politics. BYC moderators will shut down threads and or remove posts that do not comply with the rules of no politics allowed all you have to do is flag the post/thread all you have to do is flag it.
I don't see why you think that post is political though.

 

[Beer can]

Superficially? Sure. Beyond that, I'm no Dr. and I'm certainly not a specialist in medications.

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, whose actual method of operation is open to a bit of debate. It appears to work by binding some proteins that certain roundworms (the things Ivermectin is designed to treat) release to prevent their hosts from recognizing the invasion, so the host's immune system will attack them.

Molnupiravir is an anti-viral drug (experimental) intended to treat varieties of "the flu"/influenza. What we regularly refer to as the "flu" is caused by one of two groups of Virii, loosely Influenza A group and Influenza B group - each group has LOTS of variants. The annual flu shots work (to the extent they do work) because roughly a year before they are needed, people decide which variants are most likely to be circulating around next season (either two from group A and one from group B or two from each, depending on whether you get the trivalent (3) or quadrivalent (4) flu vaccine).

If they guess badly, the vaccine's variants may not closely match the version of the flu you are exposed to, and thus may not provide much protection. Personally, whether I get the flu vaccine in any given year is a decision I make based on what I'm doing/where I'm working (that is, what's my likely exposure?) and how well they guessed at which variants would be most prevalent "in the wild" (that is, how effective is it likely to be?). Some years I get it, some I don't.

Molnupiravir, on the other hand, is not a vaccine, it doesn't prime your body to recognize and fight off particular influenza variants. Rather when the influenza variant you've caught tries to replicate itself, the Molnupiravir acts to cause it to make transcription errors - essentially "bad copies" of itself - until it can't successfully replicate any more. If you are old enough to remember photocopying photocopies, until, like a game of telephone, the message is completely unrecognizable? Same theory, only with the viruses RNA...

Last I heard, it was in a Phase II investigational Study, back in June.

Typically, three phases in a new drug research study.

Phase 1 (really small, usually healthy volunteers - is it Safe, does it have immediate side effects?)
Phase 2 (pretty small, I think Molnu... only had about 200 people - what's the best dosage?)
Phase 3 (much larger group, often in the thousands, "blind" and with a placebo or similar control - does it work? are there longer term side effects?)

Beyond that? I don't know much, and will defer to those with greater expertise - as long as they publish their datasets.

/edit and it looks like they are just starting Phase III trials - expect months before there are preliminary results about its effectiveness, and months further of FDA review, assuming it gets that far, before approval. ALSO, it looks like they are testing it (based on design of the study as described in the link) as a prophylactic, NOT as a cure.

Thank you. Haven't had anyone answer me yet on the question besides saying one is a wormer other a antiviral....
What I really want to know is if there is a big difference between the two as far as chemical composition.
Keep hearing Merck couldn't make $ off ivermectin because a generic cheap drug now so they developed a new patented drug that's pretty close to the same.
??
Read this;

"Merck rejects ivermectin for COVID treatment and gets a $1.2 billion government contract for its expensive, unproven drug. And, the drug, molnupiravir, contains some of the same molecular qualities as ivermectin.

Dr. Syed Mobeen "it seems that molnupiravir is a copy of one of Ivermectin's mechanisms."

"This mechanism is to disrupt the SARS-COV-2 virus' RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme," said Dr. Mobeen, who runs a medical education center. "Copying this mechanism will give Merck a way to earn from an existing cheap drug's action by relabeling it; however, I believe that molnupiravir will continue to be less effective as studies show that ivermectin has more mechanisms to disrupt the SARS-COV-2 replication and spread. Hence, ivermectin will continue to be a superior choice over molnupirivir or other RdRp disrupters."