55 ms·

Well, given it's from Nature, I actually gave your link a fair shake to see what it's about. This is not a "details on how it works" article. It's an article th

by titzer 5y ago

Well, given it's from Nature, I actually gave your link a fair shake to see what it's about. This is not a "details on how it works" article. It's an article that is basically "brainstorming on how it might work". There is no epidemiological study, no controlled trial here, no proposed specific mode of action. A huge shotgunning of potential pathway interactions that might affect some portion of the virus's interaction with host cells. In fact, the conclusion from TFA itself: > Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, simultaneous detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention. This is their conclusion. Not a sample of their conclusion. Their entire conclusion. Not "It is effective." Not "It works like this." Not "Here are studies that show it works". This article is "hey, some drugs have crossover effects, we should look at them." I mean, they literally wrote that. I will repeat, again. Ivermectin is not an approved anti-viral medication. There are all kinds of things that have "anti-viral properties". Like UV light and bleach. These are not treatments for COVID. Meanwhile there is a fricking vaccine. It's a scientifically designed, as-close-to-perfectly engineered solution to active your own immune response to respond to exactly the spike protein, has been administered to billions of people worldwide and has overwhelming data that it fucking works. They're not even in the same league. People who are taking Ivermectin, and people who are advocating it widely can be dismissed without further evidence. Otherwise, just show up to a pharmacy and pick a random drug off a back shelf. Drugs do weird things, sometimes they interact with viruses! Ship it? No. Please do Science, not whatever the fuck is behind the Ivermectin craze right now. Should it be studied? I mean, sure. But it is so clearly not even a decent treatment, we should probably move on from it.

hunterb123 5y ago
> There are all kinds of things that have "anti-viral properties". Like UV light and bleach. From "TFA": In principle, a molecule can act as an anti-viral drug if it “inhibits some stage of the virus replication cycle, without being too toxic to the body’s cells [21].” Bleach doesn't quite meet that standard. Ivermectin helps according to the clinical trials, and that lines up according this study. It's not their opinion, it's backed by evidence. Yes we have the "fricking vaccine", but the spike protein is the problem as its toxic. Whether the vaccine's spike protein is toxic is up in the air, like Covid, the long term effects of mRNA "vaccines" are unknown entirely. If something works better that we've been putting in humans for a lot longer, why not look into it? Why dismiss it as dewormer? Calm down and stop running to the opposite side of the ring.
- robbiep 5y ago
  > the long term effects of mRNA "vaccines" are unknown entirely. This is just such an absurd scientific and immunologically ignorant answer that I see get trotted out again and again that I need to respond. The mRNA vaccine is literally a scientific miracle. We introduce a piece of RNA, which is basically in the form of the RNA that viruses use to hijack the protein generating machinery of our cells, in order to produce an antigen our immune system can respond to without the runaway potential of an actual infection. The mRNA is broken down, antigen production stops, and our immune system is primed against a new foreign and potentially deadly pathogen. There is no conceivable mechanism for long term effects (and here I am responding to claims around impotence, infertility, ‘changing your Genome’) - you’re literally just getting the immunological benefits of antigen stimulation without having to go through an infection. It’s Nobel prize winning. Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it isn’t highly well understood and characterised. It’s such an ignorant statement it literally hurts
  - platonis 5y ago
    If it was so simple there wouldn't be myocarditis
    - titzer 5y ago
      Some people have bad reactions to Tylenol.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Given that there has been at least one disastrous vaccination campaign, leading to super-hot variants with 100% death rate in unvaccinated poultry (thankfully poultry!), I would advise toning down the language a bit. Nobody has a crystal ball. We are running a vaccination campaign for a novel virus based on a novel technology and we'll only know the final outcome in a decade or two. Why does this matter? Perhaps it's not wise to mRNA vaccinate against every infectious disease under the Sun until the dust settles on the covid campaign. Hold that Nobel Prize for a while.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by titzer 5y ago

hunterb123 5y ago

> There are all kinds of things that have "anti-viral properties". Like UV light and bleach. From "TFA": In principle, a molecule can act as an anti-viral drug if it “inhibits some stage of the virus replication cycle, without being too toxic to the body’s cells [21].” Bleach doesn't quite meet that standard. Ivermectin helps according to the clinical trials, and that lines up according this study. It's not their opinion, it's backed by evidence. Yes we have the "fricking vaccine", but the spike protein is the problem as its toxic. Whether the vaccine's spike protein is toxic is up in the air, like Covid, the long term effects of mRNA "vaccines" are unknown entirely. If something works better that we've been putting in humans for a lot longer, why not look into it? Why dismiss it as dewormer? Calm down and stop running to the opposite side of the ring.

robbiep 5y ago
> the long term effects of mRNA "vaccines" are unknown entirely. This is just such an absurd scientific and immunologically ignorant answer that I see get trotted out again and again that I need to respond. The mRNA vaccine is literally a scientific miracle. We introduce a piece of RNA, which is basically in the form of the RNA that viruses use to hijack the protein generating machinery of our cells, in order to produce an antigen our immune system can respond to without the runaway potential of an actual infection. The mRNA is broken down, antigen production stops, and our immune system is primed against a new foreign and potentially deadly pathogen. There is no conceivable mechanism for long term effects (and here I am responding to claims around impotence, infertility, ‘changing your Genome’) - you’re literally just getting the immunological benefits of antigen stimulation without having to go through an infection. It’s Nobel prize winning. Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it isn’t highly well understood and characterised. It’s such an ignorant statement it literally hurts
- platonis 5y ago
  If it was so simple there wouldn't be myocarditis
  - titzer 5y ago
    Some people have bad reactions to Tylenol.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Given that there has been at least one disastrous vaccination campaign, leading to super-hot variants with 100% death rate in unvaccinated poultry (thankfully poultry!), I would advise toning down the language a bit. Nobody has a crystal ball. We are running a vaccination campaign for a novel virus based on a novel technology and we'll only know the final outcome in a decade or two. Why does this matter? Perhaps it's not wise to mRNA vaccinate against every infectious disease under the Sun until the dust settles on the covid campaign. Hold that Nobel Prize for a while.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]