- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:31 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
No proper punctuation, and a fondness for teenager acronyms. I bet you will be throwing poop emojis at me before long.
Dude you post on this website 26 times a day on average, laugh my fricking arse off. Your previous alter was prob a even higher number. What do you do all day, everyday?
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:32 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
laugh my fricking arse off.
You're doing better.
You still haven't said anything, though.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:32 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Good job copy/pasting.
Thanks bro! I appreciate it alot!
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:33 pm to Abstract Queso Dip
quote:This doesn’t have much to do with whether or not it’s effective, but I think the rebuttal to this is that they were awarded a government contract to study the production of an anti-covid pill, and the skeptics believe that it will be molecularly similar to ivermectin but would have a new patent and thus provide them with a good financial incentive to discourage ivermectin (off-label) use.
why hasn't Merck, the makers been lobbying for it as a cure or therapeutic purposes? They have profit inventive and aren't producing a vaccine
Merck press release
This post was edited on 7/29/21 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:33 pm to Bmath
See edit below.
The reason why I accept the Ivermectin "theory" is due to its antiviral mechanism. Ivermectin acts as an ionophore (HCQ acts in a similar fashion). Ivermectin enters cell ectoplasm and slightly raises the pH relative to the pH across the cell wall. This pH gradient allows for the transfer of ions, specifically positive ions. When you have a higher pH environment there are more -OH than H+ ions. Negative attracts positive. The positive ions that are needed is Zn2+ from the blood stream. Without a pH gradient the Zn2+ cannot enter the ectoplasm. Once in the ectoplasm, Zn2+ neutralizes RNA polymerase. RNA polymerase is the enzyme that synthesizes RNA from a DNA template. Viruses also use the same RNA polymerase to replicate. Without RNA polymerase the virus cannot replicate.
The thing that can be confusing is I'm not talking in absolute terms. I'm speaking in terms of rates. Ivermectin following this mechanism should slow the rate of viral transcription thus giving your bodies own immune system time to catch up.
ETA: what I describe here is for HCQ, not ivermectin. I was corrected by bmath who provided a link stating that ivermectin blocks ACE-2 which prevents COVID from entering the cell wall.
The reason why I accept the Ivermectin "theory" is due to its antiviral mechanism. Ivermectin acts as an ionophore (HCQ acts in a similar fashion). Ivermectin enters cell ectoplasm and slightly raises the pH relative to the pH across the cell wall. This pH gradient allows for the transfer of ions, specifically positive ions. When you have a higher pH environment there are more -OH than H+ ions. Negative attracts positive. The positive ions that are needed is Zn2+ from the blood stream. Without a pH gradient the Zn2+ cannot enter the ectoplasm. Once in the ectoplasm, Zn2+ neutralizes RNA polymerase. RNA polymerase is the enzyme that synthesizes RNA from a DNA template. Viruses also use the same RNA polymerase to replicate. Without RNA polymerase the virus cannot replicate.
The thing that can be confusing is I'm not talking in absolute terms. I'm speaking in terms of rates. Ivermectin following this mechanism should slow the rate of viral transcription thus giving your bodies own immune system time to catch up.
ETA: what I describe here is for HCQ, not ivermectin. I was corrected by bmath who provided a link stating that ivermectin blocks ACE-2 which prevents COVID from entering the cell wall.
This post was edited on 7/29/21 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:40 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Its an opinion article written by two economists lol
Lol, always follow the money. Always. It's rarely about doing what's rt.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:42 pm to GumboPot
They are attacking it bc you can buy it online outside of their regulatory purview. 95% percent of it sold in this country (pre Covid) was for heart worm prevention in four legged mammals ( mainly equine and bovine ).
You do not need to see a Vet to purchase it. Can buy it any co-op,pet supply store, or Amazon.
You do not need to see a Vet to purchase it. Can buy it any co-op,pet supply store, or Amazon.
This post was edited on 7/29/21 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:42 pm to Centinel
Read the rest of the paragraph genius. Antiparasitics aren't like the Tylenol you grab off the shelf.
Pharmacists deny scripts for lesser reasons all the time.
Pharmacists deny scripts for lesser reasons all the time.
This post was edited on 7/29/21 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:42 pm to dgnx6
quote:
always follow the money.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:48 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The reason why I accept the Ivermectin "theory" is due to its antiviral mechanism. Ivermectin acts as an ionophore (HCQ acts in a similar fashion).
Where are you seeing this? There is evidence that Ivermectin may be able to prevent COVID from entering ACE-2 receptors, and thus blocking disease progression.
Also, if it wipes out RNA polymerase, then wouldn't this be like chemotherapy and be causing adverse effectors to your own cells?
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:50 pm to hubertcumberdale
The points they make are not advice. The studies they present come from the scientific community. You don’t trust the science?
This post was edited on 7/29/21 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:52 pm to BRUNNIN4
quote:
Pfizer tweeted yesterday that they are developing a new antiviral to pair with their vaccine. This gravy train won't ever stop.
Guess what. It's based on a suspiciously similar function to ivermectin, but it isn't less than 5 dollars per treatment.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:53 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
my original point.
What point? You stated an opinion. Or do you not know how burden or proof works either? Keep digging that hole kiddo.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:55 pm to ell_13
quote:
The points they make are not advice. The studies they present come from the scientific community. You don’t trust the science?
From the article
quote:
Correction
This article has been edited to remove a reference to a study of 200 healthcare workers by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt. Messrs. Henderson and Hooper relied on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. They learned after publication that this study has been retracted because of charges of data manipulation.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 1:58 pm to When in Rome
That is a great rebuttal. My followup rebuttal to that would be TEVA nor Galdarma is claiming it is effective... they are manufacturers of the generic version of the drug.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 2:00 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:Yeah, that Medium article gives a good summary of the issues with that big study (which heavily influenced the pro-Ivermectin meta analysis studies).
Correction
This article has been edited to remove a reference to a study of 200 healthcare workers by Ahmed Elgazzar of Benha University in Egypt. Messrs. Henderson and Hooper relied on a summary of studies published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. They learned after publication that this study has been retracted because of charges of data manipulation.
Medium link again
quote:
The authors used the wrong statistical tests for some of their results — for technical people, they report chi-squared values for continuous numeric data — and their methodology is filled with holes. They don’t report any allocation concealment, there are questions over whether there was an intention-to-treat protocol or people were shifted between groups, and the randomization information is woefully inadequate. As a study, it looks very likely to be biased, making the results quite hard to trust.
quote:
The issues with the paper start at the protocol, but they certainly don’t end there. In what is a truly spectacular story, a British Masters student called Jack Lawrence was reading this article and noticed something odd — the entire introduction appears to be plagiarized. Indeed, it’s very easy to confirm this — I copy+pasted a few phrases from different paragraphs into Google and it is immediately apparent that most of the introduction has been lifted from elsewhere online without attribution or acknowledgement.
quote:
For example, there are numbers that are incredibly unlikely, verging on impossible. In table 4, the study shows mean, standard deviation, and ranges for recovery time in patients within the study. The issue is that with a reported range of 9–25 days, a mean of 18 and a standard deviation of 8 there are very few configurations of numbers that would leave you with this result. You can even calculate this yourself using the SPRITE tool developed by the clever fraud detectives James Heathers, Nick Brown, Jordan Anaya, and Tim Van Der Zee — to have a mean of 18 days consistent with the other values, the majority of the patients in this group would have to have stayed in the hospital for either 9 or 25 days exactly. Now that might not be entirely impossible, but it’s so odd that it raises very serious questions about the results of the trial itself.
quote:
Somehow, it gets even worse. It turns out that the authors uploaded the actual data they used for the study onto an online repository. While the data is locked, our hero Jack managed to guess the password to the file — 1234 — and get access to the anonymous patient-level information that the authors used to put this paper together.
quote:
The data file is still online, and you can download it for $9 (+tax) US to peruse yourself. I’ve got a copy, and it’s amazing how obvious the flaws are even at a casual glance. For example, the study reports getting ethical approval and beginning on the 8th of June, 2020, but in the data file uploaded by the authors onto the website of the preprint fully 1/3 of the people who died from COVID-19 were already dead when the researchers started to recruit their patients. Unless they were getting dead people to consent to participate in the trial, that’s not really possible.
quote:
Moreover, about 25% of the entire group of patients who were recruited for this supposedly prospective randomized trial appear to have been hospitalized before the study even started, which is either a mind-boggling breach of ethics or a very bad sign of potential fraud. Even worse, if you look at the values for different patients, it appears that most of group 4 are simply clones of each other, with the same or largely similar initials, comorbidities, lymphocyte scores, etc.
quote:
The problem is, if you look at those large, aggregate models, and remove just this single study, ivermectin loses almost all of its purported benefit. Take the recent meta-analysis by Bryant et al. that has been all over the news — they found a 62% reduction in risk of death for people who were treated with ivermectin compared to controls when combining randomized trials.
However, if you remove the Elgazzar paper from their model, and rerun it, the benefit goes from 62% to 52%, and largely loses its statistical significance. There’s no benefit seen whatsoever for people who have severe COVID-19, and the confidence intervals for people with mild and moderate disease become extremely wide.
Posted on 7/29/21 at 2:01 pm to GumboPot
1. Big Pharm owns the FDA.
2. Big Government doesn't want this to actually go away.
3. Literally nothing the government does has any signs of reason
2. Big Government doesn't want this to actually go away.
3. Literally nothing the government does has any signs of reason
Posted on 7/29/21 at 2:03 pm to Bmath
quote:
Where are you seeing this?
Repeating the research I've done on my own and parroting research MDs on the subject from memory. I'll try to find some links. ETA: I did an explainer on HCQ ionophore last year in this thread. Same applies to ivermectin.
quote:
There is evidence that Ivermectin may be able to prevent COVID from entering ACE-2 receptors
I have not read anything on Ivermectin blocking COVID from entering the ACE receptors. My understanding COVID enters but cannot replicate at a sufficient enough rate because there is not enough RNA polymerase available.
quote:
Also, if it wipes out RNA polymerase, then wouldn't this be like chemotherapy and be causing adverse effectors to your own cells?
Yes. I would agree. But remember we are talking about rates here. The rate to transcribe your RNA from DNA to replace damaged proteins is much slower than the rate for viral transcription. Based on this logic I don't believe long term use of Ivermectin is recommended at least not for me. Short term? Yes. Long term? No.
This post was edited on 7/29/21 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 7/29/21 at 2:04 pm to STEVED00
quote:
I was called every name in the book today for recommending that everyone who chooses not to get vaccinated, consider stashing Ivermectin for the day that their number is called.
Jerk!
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News