[Puffer Fish]

The big pharmaceutical company Pfizer is now developing a Covid pill that is meant to be taken alongside the Covid vaccines that have already made the company a staggering amount of money. The new pill is expected to be released by the end of the year and will be required to be taken twice per day.

https://nationalfile.com/pfizer-is-now- ... -vaccines/


Pfizer's pill is based on an older anti-viral technology, using something called a protease inhibitor.
These type of protease inhibitor pills have been used for many years to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

source here:
Pfizer taps HIV, hep C antiviral research for COVID-19 pill trial | FierceBiotech
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/p ... pill-trial


Interestingly, the mechanism of action of ivermectin against Covid is also as a protease inhibitor.
Ivermectin is the so-called "de-wormer" that the Progressive Left media ridicules Conservatives for supporting as an alternative treatment for Covid.

source here: Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents | Communications Biology (nature.com)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x

Some of you may not know this, but it's very common for pharmaceutical companies to take something that they think works, and then develop an alternate version of it that they are able to patent. It takes a tremendous investment of money to get it to pass all the clinical tests. So often the natural or older medications are simply ignored for new treatments, because there is no way to secure a patent on them.

Ivermectin was discovered in the late 1970s and Merck's patent on it expired in 1996.

[MistyTiger]

But see, people who have taken Ivermectin have been rushed to the hospital. The center that handles poisoning incidents (forget the name) has reported an uptick in poisonings lately. This is not good. So Democrats have justification for ridiculing the ingesting of dewormer...it is not good for human consumption. What can be digested by horses and cows is not suitable for humans. It goes without saying that the human stomach is not very similar to the stomach of a horse or cow.

[Godstud]

They are assholes for trying to make dumb people happy. This'll make Phizer more money than silly vaccines, though, but at the expense of gullible, stupid people, looking for magical cures and preventatives.

Thinking of trying ivermectin for COVID? Here’s what can happen with this controversial drug
So far, there is no clinical evidence it works to treat or prevent COVID-19.And there is widespread consensus people should not take ivermectin at home for COVID-19.

Organisations that recommend against it include: the World Health Organization, Australia’s National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce and NPS Medicinewise, the United State’s Food and Drug Administration, and the Cochrane Library.
https://theconversation.com/thinking-of ... rug-167178

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).

Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed.

Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.

The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.

There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong.

Even the levels of ivermectin for approved uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19



Phizer vaccine $19.50 per dose.

Ivermectin ....20 tablets $80.00.

So you want to take a magical treatment so that Big Pharma doesn't make money. Explain how that works? The math sure doesn't.

[XogGyux]

I like when people engage in science, reading. I do. But coming up with the conclusion and then having this post-hoc urge to find loose associations for a haphazard conspiracy theory is becoming really annoying, and quite frankly it is very dangerous. Did you even bother reading what you just linked?

Let's point out the irony first. In-silico studies... this is basically computer simulation. This is coming from the anti-vaxxer croud... the vaccines tested in humans, given already to MILLIONS of actual living humans are not safe... but let's get some horse ivermectin because someone on a computer simulation says ivermectin might work...

Let's go through a few points:
The paper is using a computational analysis for screening for possible pre-existing meds. This is akin of having a large database of how the proteins look like, and then having a computer algorithm search for molecules on another database that have the correct size and approximate correct polarity to infer some sort of interaction (such as blocking a receptor). As you can imagine, this sort of approach is going to be highly dependent on the sort of algorithm used for the modeling and it is limited to how precise we can "emulate" the conditions of the body/cell and the chemistry/physics of such interactions. Given that we are talking about one of the most complex topics ever, Molecular biology, as you could infer, this is OK for a very rough screening, but it is certainly not going to be the answer. The authors of the paper actually aknowledge the limitations of this:

However, the potential for false positives with computational modeling is one of the most common limitations of docking studies18.

Now, after you "screen" the possible molecules. The next step would be to test if this actually works. Usually, this would be in some sort of in-vitro experiment.
The authors go further to address this issue:

In the current study, we did not find any correlation between the in vitro results of selected drugs and their computational inhibition constants. Even though, computational studies are being widely used to predict the initial protein-drug interactions, in vitro screening of the drugs is necessary to confirm the inhibitory activities of the drugs.

In the discussion of this paper:

Further, preclinical studies need to be established to validate the in vivo inhibitory activity and IC50 values of ivermectin.

In other words, this paper is not supporting the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for covid. This study is simply stating that on computer simulations "that ivermectin inhibits the enzymatic activity of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and thus may potentially inhibit the replication of RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-2"

As for Ivermectin on ACTUAL living patients (aka, not computer simulations or invitro -tests tubes-) here:
These people reviewed multiple studies from different parts of the world and different settings:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
Now. Im quite certain you won't read that, specially since I highly doubt you read the ones that you posted yourself. I'll spare you the work and quote their conclusions:

Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

Now... with regards to the conspiratory "well, there is no money on finding out that an old drug works, we only want to know that a new one works" is nonsense. For one, we did studies on dexamethasome and use dexamethasome routinely in the hospital for COVID patients, this is an old, cheap drug. Also... there are plenty of studies checking ivermectin. The issue is, these studies are either bad, poorly designed and/or do not show any benefit what so ever for ivermectin. For instance:
For "mild disease"
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2777389

Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.

[XogGyux]

Also.
Could not agree with this guy anymore. Thumbs up.

[Puffer Fish]

Israel is kind of the data mecca for COVID trials right now and there is double blinded study that suggests it may be significantly helpful.

[Godstud]

Yes, @Puffer Fish, you will always find some nutbar hoping to cash in on momentary fame, and for money.

Cunts like this guy are the reason why real science gets a bad name. His study wouldn't pass the most basic qualifications for peer review.

[XogGyux]

Israel is kind of the data mecca for COVID trials right now and there is double blinded study that suggests it may be significantly helpful.

Let's first take a second to admire the contradictions that you people find yourselves in all the time.
The first post, seems to imply that there is some sort of "big pharma don't like old drugs so nobody looks at them" but apparently you have a lot of studies to be showing off. So which one is it? They are suppressing the information or we do in fact have so much information? It must hurt to live inside the paradox machine.

This is the study.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21258081v1

For one second, let's take it 100% at it's face value. The study apparently is a pre-print and has not undergo peer review yet. That being said, I watched the video, I read the face page. Let's for a second assume there is nothing wrong with the methodology and/or nothing funny else, that the statistics are clean, etc. What do you have? A study that seems to indicate a lower CT level via nasopharyngeal swab on people with covid 19.
What is Ct levels? Well, the way PCR works is that you put a tiny "undetectable" level of DNA on a machine, you put some primers, a buffer solution and enzymes and you throw this cocktail in a machine that is going to perform "thermal cycles". The enzymes in the cocktail work best at certain temperatures, and other temperatures make it so that the DNA/RNA strands separate (anneal). In other words, each "cycle" corresponds to a copy of the DNA in your sample. If you start with 1 strand of DNA, after 1 cycle, you end up with 2, after 2 cycles with 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc. This number grows fast. For instance, 2 to the power 30 (3 cycles) = 1,073,741,824. This also means you can quantify the amount of initial DNA in your sample working backwards. If you detect COVID 19 genetic material after just 10 cycles, you have more genetic material than if it takes 20 cycles to detect it.
So this is what they are testing. Notice that in no part I mentioned anything about patient's oxygenation, or patient's likelyhood of dying from the disease... They simply did not test anything regarding those outcomes.
The only thing they tested was if there was or not genetic material on patient's noses and the relative amount of it.
One could take this to mean that perhaps it is shortening the duration of viral shedding and/or transmission. However, it is difficult to ascertain completely just based on this. It is entirely possible to have this outcome come forth due to other properties. For instance... perhaps the drug interferes with normal secretions (e.i more runny nose?) and this is merely an artificial finding. Let's remind everyone, we treat patients, not laboratory numbers. We treat human beings, not "Ct" levels.
Now. Even if we ignore all those issue and for the sake of argument agree that indeed it lowers the time of shedding. At best, this could have epidemiological implications for source control if you have a robust system of testing (it seems this is only relevant if you can detect the disease in the first 48-72h, after all, at 10 days both groups are the same based on this study).
This study does not look at likelihood of hospitalization, likelihood of progression to severe disease, likelihood of respiratory failure and/or multiorgan dysfunction and death. It does not deal with patients with severe disease either.
Listen. If you want to be a conspiracist theorist, at least put some heart and effort and do proper research, just copy-pasting whatever you find in google with "covid hydroxycholoquine" or "covid ivermectin" or "covid UV light in my ass" is just poor sportmanship

Cunts like this guy are the reason why real science gets a bad name. His study wouldn't pass the most basic qualifications for peer review.

Why you say that?
I didn't see any obvious red flag, not saying that if you look deeper you won't find it, but on the surface this does not look terribly off-field. It just simply does not support any of the silly points the OP is making, he is just misinterpreting science.

[colliric]

Phizer vaccine $19.50 per dose.

Ivermectin ....20 tablets $80.00.

So you want to take a magical treatment so that Big Pharma doesn't make money. Explain how that works? The math sure doesn't.

The vaccine costs you $19.50 per dose, but Pfizer mass produces it which drives the cost per dose down.

Since Ivermectin is not mass produced, it's costs are currently higher. However production will of course ramp up if approved, and Pfizer won't have to issue as many vaccines, so could downsize it's vaccine program. Pills are cheaper to make and always will be.

Higher production rate = lower drug cost to the patient.

Pain killers were expensive when they were first invented.

[XogGyux]

The vaccine costs you $19.50 per dose, but Pfizer mass produces it which drives the cost per dose down.

Since Ivermectin is not mass produced, it's costs are currently higher. However production will of course ramp up if approved, and Pfizer won't have to issue as many vaccines, so could downsize it's vaccine program. Pills are cheaper to make and always will be.

Higher production rate = lower drug cost to the patient.

Pain killers were expensive when they were first invented.

Even then, it does not matter if it is cheaper if it does not work. Tic tacs are cheaper, for 1 buck you get like a hundred of them, even cheaper if you buy the 6 pack... I guess we could start treating COVID with tic tacs and give the middle finger to big pharma.
You guys are ridiculous.

[XogGyux]

[colliric]

Even then, it does not matter if it is cheaper if it does not work. Tic tacs are cheaper, for 1 buck you get like a hundred of them, even cheaper if you buy the 6 pack... I guess we could start treating COVID with tic tacs and give the middle finger to big pharma.
You guys are ridiculous.

It is inevitable that a prescription medication for this disease will be developed, rendering Vaccination less important. I'm simply being realistic in expecting they will succeed developing one. They certainly have to test this one.

The idiots are simply taking the one developed for horses. There's a reason we call it Ethanol and Alcohol. So that these same idiotic morons don't drink the fucken paint thinner. Maybe they should start doing that more often with drugs. Call the human version a different damn name.

[XogGyux]

It is inevitable that a prescription medication for this disease will be developed, rendering Vaccination less important. I'm simply being realistic in expecting they will succeed developing one. They certainly have to test this one.

And you think that such medication will be cheaper, safer and more convenient than a vaccine? Have you lost your mind?

The idiots are simply taking the one developed for horses.

So you think that is the only problem? How about taking something that has not been shown to be beneficial?

There's a reason we call it Ethanol and Alcohol. So that these same idiotic morons don't drink the fucken paint thinner.

Another deficiency of yours. Ethanol, is in fact an alcohol. Ethanol is the actual alcohol present in alcoholic beverages.
Paint thinner, on the other hand, is often some sort of oil solvents such as toluene, acetone or turpentine.

Call the human version a different damn name.

These morons shouldn't be taking the human version either. It has not been shown to be helpful.
Also, there is no fucking need. It is the same medication, no need to call it many names just circumvent the morons. How do you think these morons learned about ivermectin in the first place? Do you think they were performing their own back-yard RCTs? No... some smarty pants on the internet started posting crap and the morons just followed the herd like the sheep that they are. What makes you think that if they were calling horse's iverectin "horsemectin" the same moronic troll that started the whole thing would not have posted "and btw guys, horsemectin is just ivermectin but the FDA and Fauci does not want you to know because they want to inject you with the 5G microchip to have bill gates and hillary clinton track you and find where you live to steal your kids for sex traffickin". Geez man, wake up, polish your tinhat.

[colliric]

Another deficiency of yours. Ethanol, is in fact an alcohol. Ethanol is the actual alcohol present in alcoholic beverages.
Paint thinner, on the other hand, is often some sort of oil solvents such as toluene, acetone or turpentine.

That's my point. It is not technically legal to call it Ethanol on the ingredients label of a Beer, and it is not legal to call it Alcohol on the ingredients label of methylated spirits. For good reason here in Australia. Alcoholics have be known to drink that shit in desperation. If they saw the word alcohol, they'd fucking drink that poisonous shit.

It can be and frequently is used as Paint thinner, especially by acrylic artists.

[XogGyux]

That's my point. It is not technically legal to call it Ethanol on the ingredients label of a Beer, and it is not legal to call it Alcohol on the ingredients label of methylated spirits. For good reason here in Australia. Alcoholics have be known to drink that shit in desperation. If they saw the word alcohol, they'd fucking drink that poisonous shit.

It can be and frequently is used as Paint thinner, especially by acrylic artists.

No COVID treatment use? Perhaps as an enema or something?