Coronavirus prep

1445446448450451498

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Theo166 wrote: »
    oocdc2 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.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    edited November 2021
    **edit, I'll put it in the ongoing Pfizer for kids thread.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    edited November 2021
    For any covid long haulers. Sorry couldn't reset to beginning.

    https://youtu.be/JwjJs5ZHKJI
  • mockchoc
    mockchoc Posts: 6,573 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    edited November 2021
    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    edited November 2021
    Dnarules 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†
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    Dnarules 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.
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,992 Member
    Dnarules 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.
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 3,098 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    ythannah wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    It's viruses that can hide in your body (like the chicken pox) and reemerge in a couple of decades to do more damage.

    Or just hang out in your body forever, like the herpes simplex virus, and reappear periodically to be annoying. Says the woman who currently has a cold sore.

    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    Dnarules 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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,217 Member
    autobahn66 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.

    Thanks for the detailed assessment. I have no doubt it won't be used in NA anytime soon even though many Dr.s are prescribing it. Apparently the CDC is gathering at speed more data on ivermectin, which is encouraging. Ivermectin is known to block 3CL main protease, which as you know is how the virus replicated itself. Pfizer's new molecule does the same but it's patented which will be a big money maker for the next 20 yrs....as opposed to ivermectin where the patent has expired and can be reproduced by anybody for pennies and it's not in the best interests to study a drug for a specific purpose because of the literal cost to performed such a study to then not make any money. Remdesivir for example made by Gilead is approved and has a low efficacy rating and costs I believe around 700.00 usd for a 5 day supply. Many countries have and are using it now. It cost pennies, has virtually no side effects and can be administered at home, it's just mind boggling it hasn't been done from the very outset of the pandemic, that's pretty much just basic medical science prevention along with vit d. it's not rocket surgery. imo
  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,371 Member

    This mirrors what I've heard from LTC facilities here, that infection was impossible to control in dementia patients without resorting to inhumane measures like imprisoning them in their rooms or restraining them. Many tend to be very restless and "wander" anyway, and preventing contact with other residents was a monumental challenge.

  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,992 Member

    Did I ask what “in silico” means?

    No. No, I did not.