Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
My imagined concern is another comparative. In cats, there is a feline coronavirus that is commonly caught. It manifests in the cat like a cold or the like. The cat recovers, but the virus lays dormant in the cat for life. What I recall is that stressors to the animal (aging, rehoming, other illnesses, etc) promote mutations in the virus. Certain mutations do not impact the animal a go undetected, but other mutations manifest as FIP which is essentially a fatal condition for the animal. I am sure there are much better explanations out there, but you can get the general idea. I am hoping that this COVID-19 virus does not share this trait.3 -
How weird to only come upon and read this thread now!
7 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211104-grave-concern-over-covid-in-europe-as-german-cases-soar
I never thought I would be reading this kind of headlines as we rush upon 2023.
Thankfully here in Kentucky USA currently there's no limits on gas and other fossil fuel purchases. Grocery stores are welstocked with no purchase limits. Death and hospitalizations had been on a steady decline but that may be about to change.
Huh...I didn't realize that vaccine resistance continues to be such a problem worldwide.
Yes and the reason among health care workers is in part due to the lack scientific data where the net value of COVID-19 vaccines will positive or negative for our health over the next 50-75 years.
In my case before my first Moderna vaccine shot the Covid-19 blood clots side effects almost ended my life.
If I am bitten by a deadly poisonous snake I hope someone breaks the speed limit trying to get me to a place where I can get a shot. I realize that would put me and the others at risk of dying in a car accident but a potential death is easier deal with mentally than a certain death.
Medically I understand long term Covid-19 vaccinations may harm me and shorten my life expectancy. Yet just getting COVID-19 may cause the same risk.
Being 70 and the kids being 24 I wouldn't want to be tying up a ventilator that might save a young person's life.
COVID-19 vaccines I know help manage this Pandemic in the short run so to hades with the long term What Ifs!
https://youtu.be/-SYL-iU0E9Q
This is some new research to me.
This Dr is spreading misinformation.
Are you trying to say the study is bad, or his commentary on the research?
I tried to listen to some of the video and read the paper. The paper is published in a journal run by a controversial publisher that has been criticized for shoddy peer review and predatory means of getting both studies and reviews, as well as far too many after-publishing corrections and retractions. The study is in vitro, and draws some pretty controversial conclusions. I couldn't really follow it, not sure if that's just my own lack of knowledge or an issue with the paper. I would want an active and experienced expert to explain it to me, if it's worthy of paying any attention to.
The you tuber has no discernible background in virology, immunology, or infectious disease, hasn't as far as I can tell practiced medicine in years and has no business taking an in vitro study just published by a controversial web site and "explaining" it to the general public as possibly showing that the vaccines may be harming people while presenting himself as a "doctor".18 -
My imagined concern is another comparative. In cats, there is a feline coronavirus that is commonly caught. It manifests in the cat like a cold or the like. The cat recovers, but the virus lays dormant in the cat for life. What I recall is that stressors to the animal (aging, rehoming, other illnesses, etc) promote mutations in the virus. Certain mutations do not impact the animal a go undetected, but other mutations manifest as FIP which is essentially a fatal condition for the animal. I am sure there are much better explanations out there, but you can get the general idea. I am hoping that this COVID-19 virus does not share this trait.
I think there's good news and bad news. There are lots of coronaviruses and it sounds to this layperson like they don't all behave the same, so it's just as likely 19 will be like the common cold, or not like any of them at all, as that.
BUT, they've mentioned on TWIV that there are a lot of animal species that seem able to get infected with covid-19 and this does "possibly" mean that it can hide in other species and re-emerge in the future. It's why they don't think we'll be able to eradicate it, I guess all the viruses we've eradicated were only ever found in humans.
If it helps, I've noticed the TWIV podcasts seem to be assuming that we are on the tail end of this thing. They were just poking fun at a NYT article that quoted a cardiologist who said we'll be masking for the rest of our lives. They wondered why anyone would ask a cardiologist about a pandemic and said it was a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously they are not perfect, but listening to experts who have seen other virus outbreaks and who work with viruses all the time, who are confident in our progress, is reassuring for me!11 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211104-grave-concern-over-covid-in-europe-as-german-cases-soar
I never thought I would be reading this kind of headlines as we rush upon 2023.
Thankfully here in Kentucky USA currently there's no limits on gas and other fossil fuel purchases. Grocery stores are welstocked with no purchase limits. Death and hospitalizations had been on a steady decline but that may be about to change.
Huh...I didn't realize that vaccine resistance continues to be such a problem worldwide.
Yes and the reason among health care workers is in part due to the lack scientific data where the net value of COVID-19 vaccines will positive or negative for our health over the next 50-75 years.
In my case before my first Moderna vaccine shot the Covid-19 blood clots side effects almost ended my life.
If I am bitten by a deadly poisonous snake I hope someone breaks the speed limit trying to get me to a place where I can get a shot. I realize that would put me and the others at risk of dying in a car accident but a potential death is easier deal with mentally than a certain death.
Medically I understand long term Covid-19 vaccinations may harm me and shorten my life expectancy. Yet just getting COVID-19 may cause the same risk.
Being 70 and the kids being 24 I wouldn't want to be tying up a ventilator that might save a young person's life.
COVID-19 vaccines I know help manage this Pandemic in the short run so to hades with the long term What Ifs!https://youtu.be/-SYL-iU0E9Q
This is some new research to me.
This Dr is spreading misinformation.
Are you trying to say the study is bad, or his commentary on the research?
I tried to listen to some of the video and read the paper. The paper is published in a journal run by a controversial publisher that has been criticized for shoddy peer review and predatory means of getting both studies and reviews, as well as far too many after-publishing corrections and retractions. The study is in vitro, and draws some pretty controversial conclusions. I couldn't really follow it, not sure if that's just my own lack of knowledge or an issue with the paper. I would want an active and experienced expert to explain it to me, if it's worthy of paying any attention to.
The you tuber has no discernible background in virology, immunology, or infectious disease, hasn't as far as I can tell practiced medicine in years and has no business taking an in vitro study just published by a controversial web site and "explaining" it to the general public as possibly showing that the vaccines may be harming people while presenting himself as a "doctor".
Thanks for this answer. I didn’t have the spoons to go into any depth.
7 -
Bad news from across the pond - Europe becomes COVID-19 epicenter again; world deaths down 5%Europe is once again at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, fueled by daily record deaths and cases in Russia, and surges in Ukraine, Poland and Germany.
The continent was the only one to post one-week increases: in deaths at 10% and cases at 9%.
Worldwide, cases increased 2% with 250,543,185 so far Sunday but deaths declined 5% with the toll 5,063,724, according to tracking by Worldometers.info.
Here's an interesting Korean study on how social distancing and mandatory masks reduced spread on mass transit. I'm glad we still have a mask mandate in my city.
Safe traveling in public transport amid COVID-19
7 -
Our little old state which used to be a forerunner in getting vaccinated, least infected, less deaths due to Covid, etc., etc., is now rising in Covid infections and deaths, etc.
People are not masking or staying home anymore, all those plastic thingies separating customers from cashiers are now gone. Disinfecting shopping carts? Pbbst. Keeping 6 ft. apart? Pbbst. People are assuming, just because they're vaccinated, the virus won't touch them. OR the people they touch.
People have either become too complacent or are assuming too much.16 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211104-grave-concern-over-covid-in-europe-as-german-cases-soar
I never thought I would be reading this kind of headlines as we rush upon 2023.
Thankfully here in Kentucky USA currently there's no limits on gas and other fossil fuel purchases. Grocery stores are welstocked with no purchase limits. Death and hospitalizations had been on a steady decline but that may be about to change.
Huh...I didn't realize that vaccine resistance continues to be such a problem worldwide.
Yes and the reason among health care workers is in part due to the lack scientific data where the net value of COVID-19 vaccines will positive or negative for our health over the next 50-75 years.
In my case before my first Moderna vaccine shot the Covid-19 blood clots side effects almost ended my life.
If I am bitten by a deadly poisonous snake I hope someone breaks the speed limit trying to get me to a place where I can get a shot. I realize that would put me and the others at risk of dying in a car accident but a potential death is easier deal with mentally than a certain death.
Medically I understand long term Covid-19 vaccinations may harm me and shorten my life expectancy. Yet just getting COVID-19 may cause the same risk.
Being 70 and the kids being 24 I wouldn't want to be tying up a ventilator that might save a young person's life.
COVID-19 vaccines I know help manage this Pandemic in the short run so to hades with the long term What Ifs!https://youtu.be/-SYL-iU0E9Q
This is some new research to me.
This Dr is spreading misinformation.
Are you trying to say the study is bad, or his commentary on the research?
I tried to listen to some of the video and read the paper. The paper is published in a journal run by a controversial publisher that has been criticized for shoddy peer review and predatory means of getting both studies and reviews, as well as far too many after-publishing corrections and retractions. The study is in vitro, and draws some pretty controversial conclusions. I couldn't really follow it, not sure if that's just my own lack of knowledge or an issue with the paper. I would want an active and experienced expert to explain it to me, if it's worthy of paying any attention to.
The you tuber has no discernible background in virology, immunology, or infectious disease, hasn't as far as I can tell practiced medicine in years and has no business taking an in vitro study just published by a controversial web site and "explaining" it to the general public as possibly showing that the vaccines may be harming people while presenting himself as a "doctor".
The focus should be on the study. Obvious bias is obvious.3 -
My imagined concern is another comparative. In cats, there is a feline coronavirus that is commonly caught. It manifests in the cat like a cold or the like. The cat recovers, but the virus lays dormant in the cat for life. What I recall is that stressors to the animal (aging, rehoming, other illnesses, etc) promote mutations in the virus. Certain mutations do not impact the animal a go undetected, but other mutations manifest as FIP which is essentially a fatal condition for the animal. I am sure there are much better explanations out there, but you can get the general idea. I am hoping that this COVID-19 virus does not share this trait.
I think there's good news and bad news. There are lots of coronaviruses and it sounds to this layperson like they don't all behave the same, so it's just as likely 19 will be like the common cold, or not like any of them at all, as that.
BUT, they've mentioned on TWIV that there are a lot of animal species that seem able to get infected with covid-19 and this does "possibly" mean that it can hide in other species and re-emerge in the future. It's why they don't think we'll be able to eradicate it, I guess all the viruses we've eradicated were only ever found in humans.
If it helps, I've noticed the TWIV podcasts seem to be assuming that we are on the tail end of this thing. They were just poking fun at a NYT article that quoted a cardiologist who said we'll be masking for the rest of our lives. They wondered why anyone would ask a cardiologist about a pandemic and said it was a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously they are not perfect, but listening to experts who have seen other virus outbreaks and who work with viruses all the time, who are confident in our progress, is reassuring for me!
I am a member of a professional medical organization. My day job is as a controller (head of accounting/finance), but I hold a niche professional-level medical certification. This is a niche organization and includes medical professionals from various areas. I was with a group with that organization this past weekend and the discussion of masks and how long they will be a thing came up. It was general consensus that they will be required in medical settings forever in the future. This group included a flight paramedic, ER doctor, radiologist, and several other medical backgrounds.
Perhaps the cardiologist was thinking about the use of masks in clinical settings?7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
My imagined concern is another comparative. In cats, there is a feline coronavirus that is commonly caught. It manifests in the cat like a cold or the like. The cat recovers, but the virus lays dormant in the cat for life. What I recall is that stressors to the animal (aging, rehoming, other illnesses, etc) promote mutations in the virus. Certain mutations do not impact the animal a go undetected, but other mutations manifest as FIP which is essentially a fatal condition for the animal. I am sure there are much better explanations out there, but you can get the general idea. I am hoping that this COVID-19 virus does not share this trait.
I think there's good news and bad news. There are lots of coronaviruses and it sounds to this layperson like they don't all behave the same, so it's just as likely 19 will be like the common cold, or not like any of them at all, as that.
BUT, they've mentioned on TWIV that there are a lot of animal species that seem able to get infected with covid-19 and this does "possibly" mean that it can hide in other species and re-emerge in the future. It's why they don't think we'll be able to eradicate it, I guess all the viruses we've eradicated were only ever found in humans.
If it helps, I've noticed the TWIV podcasts seem to be assuming that we are on the tail end of this thing. They were just poking fun at a NYT article that quoted a cardiologist who said we'll be masking for the rest of our lives. They wondered why anyone would ask a cardiologist about a pandemic and said it was a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously they are not perfect, but listening to experts who have seen other virus outbreaks and who work with viruses all the time, who are confident in our progress, is reassuring for me!
I am a member of a professional medical organization. My day job is as a controller (head of accounting/finance), but I hold a niche professional-level medical certification. This is a niche organization and includes medical professionals from various areas. I was with a group with that organization this past weekend and the discussion of masks and how long they will be a thing came up. It was general consensus that they will be required in medical settings forever in the future. This group included a flight paramedic, ER doctor, radiologist, and several other medical backgrounds.
Perhaps the cardiologist was thinking about the use of masks in clinical settings?
That's possible. Wouldn't be the first time an article framed a quote in a misleading way!8 -
**edit, I'll put it in the ongoing Pfizer for kids thread.0
-
My 9 and 11 year old are scheduled to get their vax next Monday. Exciting...19
-
2
-
It would be "lovely" if people who post video, podcast and other "appreciable time investment necessary to watch or read" links also include a short summary of what the link is about.
This is and remains a very informative thread.
And links that take quite a while to watch or read may well be of interest to many of us who went to benefit from the full nuanced discussion a link might present.
But I do feel that speculatively watching or reading every link is not something all of us are likely to do.
Going up thread a couple of pages how many hours worth of links do we find?17 -
It would be "lovely" if people who post video, podcast and other "appreciable time investment necessary to watch or read" links also include a short summary of what the link is about.
This is and remains a very informative thread.
And links that take quite a while to watch or read may well be of interest to many of us who went to benefit from the full nuanced discussion a link might present.
But I do feel that speculatively watching or reading every link is not something all of us are likely to do.
Going up thread a couple of pages how many hours worth of links do we find?
I agree. Also some links are to certain newspapers etc that you needs to subscribe to to read so a summary would be helpful so other know what it's about.4 -
WHY NATURAL IMMUNITY DOESN'T COUNT IN THE USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz7fZOfPf8M
My Summary:- CDC recommends vaccination even if you've had COVID due to the lack of data
- Israel study supports Natural Immunity alone is effective for relatively young and healthy people, but not those with comorbidities.
- Natural Immunity has higher variability in protection vs vaccination
- Combining past infection with vaccination appears to supercharge your immunity but it also increases the risk of side effects.
- Immunity from infection appears to be under recognized by public health officials
For discussion:- I support everyone getting vaccinated, but I would personally agree to allowing a exception to the vaxx mandate for people with natural immunity, if they so desired.
- I believe most with natural immunity will still choose to get vaccinated and forgoe requesting an exception.
- I think allowing an exception for people with some degree of natural immunity is a reasonable compromise in our drive for herd immunity.
7 -
WHY NATURAL IMMUNITY DOESN'T COUNT IN THE USAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz7fZOfPf8M
My Summary:- CDC recommends vaccination even if you've had COVID due to the lack of data
- Israel study supports Natural Immunity alone is effective for relatively young and healthy people, but not those with comorbidities.
- Natural Immunity has higher variability in protection vs vaccination
- Combining past infection with vaccination appears to supercharge your immunity but it also increases the risk of side effects.
- Immunity from infection appears to be under recognized by public health officials
For discussion:- I support everyone getting vaccinated, but I would personally agree to allowing a exception to the vaxx mandate for people with natural immunity, if they so desired.
- I believe most with natural immunity will still choose to get vaccinated and forgoe requesting an exception.
- I think allowing an exception for people with some degree of natural immunity is a reasonable compromise in our drive for herd immunity.
#1 explains away #2. There is a lack of data, meaning that one study is not enough. There is also some data (though again not enough) that suggests people can get symptomatic covid multiple times.
#3 doesn't count for much if the period of immunity after infection is not long lasting, which is still a question that needs answering.
Immunity from infection is "under recognized" by public health officials because there is not enough data yet to prove it's reliable.
FWIW the TWIV team says that based on the data they're seeing, they think immunity from infection provides strong protection for about 3 months, but that is their best determination so far, not a conclusion they've reached.
Another issue with allowing those who've had covid to remain unvaxxed is, how do you determine whose had it? If someone tests positive but has no symptoms, is that definitely an infection that is conferring immunity? A false positive? What about people who had symptoms but it was too inconvenient to get tested? Home tests aren't catalogued or confirmed by any agency. Do we ask people to carry around their positive test and trust it is actually there's?
What I hear over and over from virologists is that this pandemic will be ended by vaccinations, and strongly recommending everyone whose already had covid to get at least one shot. I can't imagine why we wouldn't listen to the vast majority of folks who have been studying viruses their entire lives unless or until they get conclusive data that changes their minds. Just my two cents, obviously.
ETA: Crap, I didn't realize another YT video was embedded in that post. Dr. Hong is a pharmacist. I'm sure he's well intentioned, but I don't have time to keep watching this stuff, and I prefer to get as much info as I can about viruses from professionals who actually work with viruses. My response is just to the post.9 -
There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.4
-
neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.12 -
neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.
Except when there is strong evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.
Except when there is strong evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†
“In silico”
Which is a computer model. Not in vivo.
It’s interesting. But it’s not “strong evidence”13 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.
Except when there is strong evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†
“In silico”
Which is a computer model. Not in vivo.
It’s interesting. But it’s not “strong evidence”
Of course they're different and really shouldn't need to be said. Using more than 1 methodology/strategy is just being thorough, can you imagine. Calling insilico not strong evidence is not understanding science in general. I would call your assessment confirmation bias which is very strong in this thread by some it appears.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.
Except when there is strong evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†
“In silico”
Which is a computer model. Not in vivo.
It’s interesting. But it’s not “strong evidence”
Of course they're different and really shouldn't need to be said. Using more than 1 methodology/strategy is just being thorough, can you imagine. Calling insilico not strong evidence is not understanding science in general. I would call your assessment confirmation bias which is very strong in this thread by some it appears.
I understand science just fine thanks much.
A computer model is interesting.
But it isn’t in vivo. Which is what I would call strong evidence.
10 -
neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.
Except when there is strong evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†
“In silico”
Which is a computer model. Not in vivo.
It’s interesting. But it’s not “strong evidence”
Of course they're different and really shouldn't need to be said. Using more than 1 methodology/strategy is just being thorough, can you imagine. Calling insilico not strong evidence is not understanding science in general. I would call your assessment confirmation bias which is very strong in this thread by some it appears.
I understand science just fine thanks much.
A computer model is interesting.
But it isn’t in vivo. Which is what I would call strong evidence.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†
Just for clarity: that meta-analysis includes the now-infamous Elgazzar study which was shown to include falsified data, and the primary author has had a recent article regarding the MATH+ protocol for COVID retracted as outcome data was falsified. see here. And has generally worked unscientifically during the pandemic to propose treatments for covid without adequate clinical evidence, including vitamin C and hydroxychloroquine, and now ivermectin. The shame is that the unscientific use of methylprednisolone (which he and other members of his group promulgated) was effective and has been borne out in later scientific trials.
Further, it includes a bunch of observational studies which are weak evidence of efficacy. More contemporary and well controlled trials have not shown the same effect (see here and here.)
Further: the article quotes a the rates of covid and mortality in large cities with and without distribution of ivermectin without adequately controlling for other factors which affect the nature of outbreaks in that area, or the reporting of covid incidence or mortality in the area. This is not evidence of clinical efficacy.
In general, the published trials into ivermectin efficacy (certainly those in the meta-analysis here, and the ones by Hill and Bryant (who directly thanks Kory in the acknowledgements, and rated the Elgazzar as reliable in their analysis)) are not of good quality and have relatively small numbers and heterogenous inclusion criteria and outcome assessments compared to those that are ongoing, or other trials which have shown good evidence of efficacy of other treatments or prophylaxis.
As for the modelling that suggests that ivermectin can bind various proteins of SARS-CoV2/human proteins involved in infection: this is weak evidence of an interaction on a structural level and no evidence of clinical efficacy at all. It is very straightforward to model an interaction like this, but evidence of a true physical interaction (a crystal structure by X-ray, or cryo-EM, evidence of interaction by SPR or even calorimetry) would be at least practical evidence, rather than purely modelled. But even then it would be essentially no evidence of either physiological effect in humans (which would require distribution of the drug into an appropriate body compartment to have an effect in sufficient quantities to actually affect the pathophysiology of the virus and under conditions that mimic that compartment).
There is a huge issue at the moment with preprints and small journals publishing material that would never have been accepted prior to the pandemic: trying to publish a purely computational model of a small molecule binding a protein would have very little traction without real-world data to back it up, and certainly would get mostly ignored in the structural biology community (in the absence of a clear reason why that interaction was relevant).
N.B. I am not ruling out that ivermectin has a significant effect in clinical use in the treatment of covid. This remains to be seen and will come out in due course with several large trials ongoing - although the together trial have stopped the ivermectin arm due to inefficacy, so it's not looking good. But there is nothing at the moment to support the widespread use that we have seen in some parts of the world.19 -
My imagined concern is another comparative. In cats, there is a feline coronavirus that is commonly caught. It manifests in the cat like a cold or the like. The cat recovers, but the virus lays dormant in the cat for life. What I recall is that stressors to the animal (aging, rehoming, other illnesses, etc) promote mutations in the virus. Certain mutations do not impact the animal a go undetected, but other mutations manifest as FIP which is essentially a fatal condition for the animal. I am sure there are much better explanations out there, but you can get the general idea. I am hoping that this COVID-19 virus does not share this trait.
I think there's good news and bad news. There are lots of coronaviruses and it sounds to this layperson like they don't all behave the same, so it's just as likely 19 will be like the common cold, or not like any of them at all, as that.
BUT, they've mentioned on TWIV that there are a lot of animal species that seem able to get infected with covid-19 and this does "possibly" mean that it can hide in other species and re-emerge in the future. It's why they don't think we'll be able to eradicate it, I guess all the viruses we've eradicated were only ever found in humans.
If it helps, I've noticed the TWIV podcasts seem to be assuming that we are on the tail end of this thing. They were just poking fun at a NYT article that quoted a cardiologist who said we'll be masking for the rest of our lives. They wondered why anyone would ask a cardiologist about a pandemic and said it was a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously they are not perfect, but listening to experts who have seen other virus outbreaks and who work with viruses all the time, who are confident in our progress, is reassuring for me!
slow response on my part. life is causing me to be hit or miss here atm.
i do certainly hope that that CV19 behaves like the majority of CVs, and like the common cold does not return in another form. with the scenario of chicken pox/shingles brought up already, I thought bringing up feline CV/FIP was pertinent to future possible concerns for CV19.2 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »There is a world where natural immunity is taken more seriously. The beautiful thing is that everything comes out in the wash when it's on a global stage......I'm getting my popcorn ready when we find out that the new oral drugs from the manufacturers are the same as ivermectin in how they work by blocking the 3CL protease. Which begs the question why hasn't ivermectin been studied and is that reason justified considering it could have been implemented in a home defense kit along with vit d for pennies and potentially saved thousands of lives. The plot thickens.
There is currently a controlled study going on with ivermectin, but it will be a while before we know the the results. The problem was that in the beginning we were desperate for treatments, and sometimes anecdotal evidence was given too much weight. So studies were done without adequate controls. We have to correct that now. I don't know how it will turn out, but there is no strong evidence for ivermectin now.
Except when there is strong evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
This was published on the 5th of October 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c
Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection†
“In silico”
Which is a computer model. Not in vivo.
It’s interesting. But it’s not “strong evidence”
Of course they're different and really shouldn't need to be said. Using more than 1 methodology/strategy is just being thorough, can you imagine. Calling insilico not strong evidence is not understanding science in general. I would call your assessment confirmation bias which is very strong in this thread by some it appears.
I understand science just fine thanks much.
A computer model is interesting.
But it isn’t in vivo. Which is what I would call strong evidence.
In silico uses real world data points, which is peer reviewed and then used to predict a more reliable analysis of end points and predictability and used mostly in the field of pharmacological research and pharmacokinetics which is basically the study of how drugs move around within the body. It's considered cutting edge technology.1 -
dealing with aging parent health issues/emergencies atm. parents will be moving into a respite care facility on friday. had an interesting convo with the patient care RN who was evaluating my mother's care needs. We discussed how things went in their facility during the initial COVID surge in Massachusetts. this facility, like many has a memory care wing as well as a general aging wing, and yes, they did have COVID invade the facility. BUT she stated that the area with the most infections was the memory care wing as the patients were incapable of remembering and following the instructions to mitigate transmission.8
-
My imagined concern is another comparative. In cats, there is a feline coronavirus that is commonly caught. It manifests in the cat like a cold or the like. The cat recovers, but the virus lays dormant in the cat for life. What I recall is that stressors to the animal (aging, rehoming, other illnesses, etc) promote mutations in the virus. Certain mutations do not impact the animal a go undetected, but other mutations manifest as FIP which is essentially a fatal condition for the animal. I am sure there are much better explanations out there, but you can get the general idea. I am hoping that this COVID-19 virus does not share this trait.
I think there's good news and bad news. There are lots of coronaviruses and it sounds to this layperson like they don't all behave the same, so it's just as likely 19 will be like the common cold, or not like any of them at all, as that.
BUT, they've mentioned on TWIV that there are a lot of animal species that seem able to get infected with covid-19 and this does "possibly" mean that it can hide in other species and re-emerge in the future. It's why they don't think we'll be able to eradicate it, I guess all the viruses we've eradicated were only ever found in humans.
If it helps, I've noticed the TWIV podcasts seem to be assuming that we are on the tail end of this thing. They were just poking fun at a NYT article that quoted a cardiologist who said we'll be masking for the rest of our lives. They wondered why anyone would ask a cardiologist about a pandemic and said it was a ridiculous thing to say. Obviously they are not perfect, but listening to experts who have seen other virus outbreaks and who work with viruses all the time, who are confident in our progress, is reassuring for me!
slow response on my part. life is causing me to be hit or miss here atm.
i do certainly hope that that CV19 behaves like the majority of CVs, and like the common cold does not return in another form. with the scenario of chicken pox/shingles brought up already, I thought bringing up feline CV/FIP was pertinent to future possible concerns for CV19.
Yes, I wasn't trying to disagree with you, sorry if that's the way it sounded! The primary reason I'm trying to not get infected for as long as I possibly can is the possibility of long term effects of even mild or asymptomatic infections that aren't clear yet.9 -
neanderthin wrote: »In silico uses real world data points, which is peer reviewed and then used to predict a more reliable analysis of end points and predictability and used mostly in the field of pharmacological research and pharmacokinetics which is basically the study of how drugs move around within the body. It's considered cutting edge technology.
In silico is just a dumb way of saying modelled by a computer, and has been done in all areas of biology since the advent of computers.
In this case the modelling of interactions of small molecules and proteins is not pharmacokinetics, but essentially structural biology.
Proteins are generally very complex molecules and their structure can be somewhat variable based on conditions: this means that modelling small molecule interactions is a very complex process and creates essentially a range of probabilities of interaction based on the specific amino acid sequences on the outer part of the protein at a given site, for a given conformation of the protein. Whether to call it a true interaction or not is essentially arbitrary and dependent on the modelling software used (and, in particular, the method by which the software models the interaction). Given the variability in these methods, it is not very informative to arbitrarily model a small molecule protein interaction in the absence of more substantive data about the interaction i.e. in vitro binding studies with purified protein and the molecule.
The issue is that the modelling seems compelling, but in the absence of real-world data regarding the interaction, is not hugely informative to even demonstrate an interaction, nevermind an interaction which is relevent. Bear in mind that the interaction, in order to be relevent, has to be so strong as to not be displaced by the other protein which is natively bound.
The spike/ACE receptor binging is quite robust and difficult to disrupt, and is likely supported by several other bonds created on a whole-virus level. See here for a paper about the interaction (which is a good example of a paper which has modelling as the initial result, which is then validated by experimental findings in purified proteins and then in living cells - a bare minimum for a paper like this to be interpretable).10
https://youtu.be/JwjJs5ZHKJI
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 451 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions