On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > On 18/09/2020 01:22, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > > On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote: > > > > Also, search 'covid ivermectin' > > > > > > Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the > > > same > > > people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally. > > > > > > Why do you say that "[ivermectin] doesn't seem to work, or at least not > > very well" ?? > > It is far easier to investigate drugs in cell cultures than in whole humans, > so researchers try many drugs in cell cultures to see if they work. > > That doesn't mean they will work in humans (or not work in humans, you can > miss potential treatments too), but it is fairly easy to do and gives some > hints about what may work. > > You can also try a lot more different drugs in cultures than you could try in > humans.
>From your readings, is this with or without the Zinc, and with or without >doxycycline to be taken with Ivermectin, to pump that virus killing zinc into >the cells? (I ask this because -exactly- the same "problem" was raised re HCQ - the doses required for efficacy were too high, but when combined with Zinc, worked a treat, and you are so far not providing any links.) > Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit COVID replication in cell culture. It is > very effective at doing this. But only at levels which are too high for use in > humans. > So, the theory goes, give it a try in humans at the highest sustainable doses > and see if it works. A bit of a hail-mary, but it costs very little and the > drug is already medically and legally characterised as safe, so you don't have > to do safety testing and the trials are even cheaper and easier and quicker. Have you checked any of the human-prescribed samples doing the rounds? If so, please provide the references with links, so we can check what you are saying. > Unfortunately politics has gotten involved, and politicians have invested > political capital in the effectiveness of ivermectin. This complicates > matters. I have seen, in the media, the exact opposite, so these two sentences sound remarkably like "MSM spin" to me... not so dissimilar too the Democrats now blaming Biden's mental deterioration on ... Russian hackers. > Scientists have methods to find out whether a drug is safe and effective but > they take time (and cost lives). When politics (or finance, or reputation) > become involved that process is disrupted, and answers become nebulous, at > least temporarily. In certain cases. In cases where a decades old FDA "essential" drug is at issue, extrapolation of limited tests/trials against a new disease (e.g. Covid-19) can be much quicker than with some brand new, previously untested drug. > Clinical trials of ivermectin have begun. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you are referring to the overly narrow "strict double blind" type of studies strictly in relation to Covid-19. If they're anything like the HCQ "studies", they will target frail people, without the required associated drug (doxycycline) and the required associated mineral Zinc (required in order to be effective, at safe human doses, to eliminate Covid-19). The dastardly crap that has been shovelled down our throats in relation to Covid-19, and e.g. HCQ, is abhorrent. So far, you have not addressed these dastardly issues. By failing thus, you deign to cloak yourself in the high sanctity of "science" whilst setting aside pragmatism, actual and stunningly efficacious results, and all the whilst "unknowingly" (if we give the most generous possible interpretation) falling into the very trap of "politics" which you yourself named above. > Afaik no real big trials have > completed, but early reports are not encouraging - I don't mean they are > discouraging, but if it worked spectacularly we would have heard the trials > people going yeah yeah yeah by now. Once again you continue in handwaving, not linking to any of this "glorious science" you seem to be so reliant on (and so in love with). How are we to verify your words? > If you do search for 'covid ivermectin' in google, on the first page you won't > find any positive reports from the trials people of its use in humans. [1] Since you seem to have searched, and found, the obvious and courteous step is to include your link. > It might still work a little: though I doubt it personally, that is still > possible. I hope it does. But it isn't a spectacular success, unlike > dexamethasone and conjecturally [2] vitamin D, because if it was by now the > trials people would be doing handstands and cartwheels - and they aren't. > > > BTW this is almost the same story of chloroquine in COVID. Works well at > too-high-for-humans doses in cell culture, is perhaps over-enthusiastically > reported by the cell-culture guys, gets picked up by politicians, but, as > expected, doesn't work well, or possibly at all, in humans. You hand wave consistently. Your hand waving is hand waving, because you fail to get specific and link/cite. AND you fail to address the controversy, except with more hand waving of alleged "political motives". Thus, the bulk of your words are the exact "politics" you proclaim to decry. > I say "as expected" because both were hail-mary's, we pretty much knew from > the start they were unlikely to work in humans at tolerable doses. If you read > the papers carefully you will see that, but perhaps you have to read them > carefully and know how such papers are written. > > As to the cell-culture-guy / political-pickup issue, the cell culture guys > were excited not only by a vague hope of a treatment but also because they > were learning things about how the virus works. In a > hit-it-and-see-if-it-breaks kind of way, but sometimes that can be > illuminating. > > As to the politicians, I guess they either don't have real science advisors or > they ignored them. Here's some politics in science: Ivermectin and COVID-19 https://www.nps.org.au/news/ivermectin-and-covid-19-for-hps ... The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) are currently investigating ‘promotion’ of an ivermectin-based regimen for COVID-19, by gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody. Professor Borody, who developed triple-therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection, has recommended that GPs prescribe a triple therapy protocol using ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc. However, some of his comments are being investigated by the TGA as they potentially breach the ban on advertising COVID-19 treatments.18 ... Yep ... what doctors are even allowed to say, such as "I just ran this regimen on over 1000 people, and the result is 100% elimination of Covid-19", potentially breaches the TGA's politics on what doctors are allowed to say or not - in other words, politics. FairBigBrother indeed.... > Peter Fairbrother > > [1] There was a positive report by Prof Mehra etc, but it was widely > disbelieved and has been withdrawn. As has his chloroquine paper. It looks > like he, or the statistics company, just made stuff up - scientists can be > mistaken and even lie too, though that is (supposed to be) the cardinal sin. > > There have been other positive reports, especially from Australia, Florida and > Utah, but these have been mostly anecdotal. Hey if people can say COVID > doesn't exist, other people can also say that x or y cures it. Doesn't make > them right. > > If you look carefully you may find that quite a few the people who once said > ivermectin cures 100% are now saying, well, maybe it helps. > > There are reasons why we do double-blind trials, even though they may cost > lives. Anecdotal reports are unreliable. > > > > > [2] We know that people who lack vitamin D are more likely to die from COVID, > but we don't actually know that giving people who lack it vitamin D will make > them have a higher survival rate. It seems likely, and I assume so, but > correlation does not imply causation, and we just don't know for sure. It is > just an assumption. > > > OT: Have you noticed, the "we expect that politicians lie" meme has grown to > the extent that politicians now use the expectation to get away with > outrageous lies and similar behaviours? > > "Hey, I'm a politician, you expect me to lie".
