Trump promoted anti-vaxxing messaging (even before the pandemic) downplayed the severity of COVID, encouraged people to take treatments that were unproven. All of these added to the confusion and mistrust. These are facts. If you refuse to acknowledge what was actually said by Trump then you are the one with the extreme partisan bias.
Trump promoted anti-vaxxing messaging (even before the pandemic) downplayed the severity of COVID, encouraged people to take treatments that were unproven. All of these added to the confusion and mistrust. These are facts. If you refuse to acknowledge what was actually said by Trump then you are the one with the extreme partisan bias.
I often told others when Covid began & the vax first came out: "Look... we're all on the SS-Covid Titanic. We only have 2 choices: Jump or go down with the ship... Taking a new vaccine that was created at lightning speed was a little scary... -- (plus many assumed it was a "sterilizing" vax=you'd be 99% protected from getting Covid/spreading/etc.) -- but what other choices did we have? We either "Jumped/got vaxed" or "went down with the ship/risked Covid death, long Covid and/or the long-term consequences of viral 'hibernation' in the body... like Chicken Pox or Epstein-Barr virus... What enraged me had to do with those who were "upset/angry" that I had the 'audacity' to wear a mask to protect my own life!
The crazy thing was that I was listening to some reputable podcasts that actually explained what the data meant and that there was no way to tell it was 'sterilizing' based on the data. It's sad because seriously getting a 95% effective vaccine was REALLY REALLY Good news, it just wasn't the complete get out of jail free card people wanted.
Great point. also, people failed to understand that you might still get COVID even though you were vaccinated, and that the point of vaccination was to diminish the severity and impact of COVID, not physically prevent its transmission. Too subtle for people who feel entitled to simple answers and what they want when they want it. Grown ups welcome.
I still wear a mask at times. It is an Airgame mask which is no longer available but is very distinctive. If someone asks me why I am wearing a mask I tell them it is to prevent them from getting my "Europa" stain of Covid. I hope if they Google it they will realize it is none of their business why I wear the mask.
" (plus many assumed it was a "sterilizing" vax=you'd be 99% protected from getting Covid/spreading/etc.) -- but what other choices did we have?"
And there we some voices arguing that mass vaccination with a non sterilizing vaccine in the middle of a pandemic could put extreme evolutionary pressure on the virus, but they were shouted down, silenced, and canceled. And then came the Omicron variant which was suspected of either escaping from a lab or having mutated in an immune compromised person who had received the vaccine.
Please note, the argument was against MASS vaccination, not against vaccinating those at high or elevated risk.
So you are saying it would have been better to allow people to die instead of mass vaccination? And how would we know about who has elevated risk and who does not when it was a novel virus? Maybe if it were more like a hemorrhagic virus (Ebola), people would have dropped their ignorant ape-egos because they fear the sight of blood? lol... The spread of other unknown zoonotic diseases will just be a repeat lesson for the human-apes until we either go extinct or grow some brains to understand "If one person isn't safe, then nobody is safe..." That's the law of disease that is contagious when a deadly virus is only a plane ride away...
You do realize that a sterilizing vaccine is almost a completely unralistic scenario, correct? And for a coronavirus, it's virtually impossible. As Paul Offit recently observed, a respiratory virus with a very short incubation period is unlikely to be successfully eradicated by a vaccine.
I maintain, however, that we had an extremely brief window during the initial phases of mass vaccination to have gotten enough people at least in the US vaccinated that we might have made progress toward shutting down the pandemic. It couldn't last because other countries had poor access to the very successful (against the ancestral strain) mRNA vaccines, but it could well have provided a breathing space we could have used to our advantage, and if at least 85% had been vaccinated in the first 7-8 weeks, we'd have seen a significantly different outcome.
(DISCLOSURE: The percentage needed to vaccinate fully, and time period were based on my own calculations at the time.)
Since we started seeing significant anti-vaccine messaging almost immediately, and without cause, save some unknown malign intent, we never saw anything near achieving that level of coverage. And, indeed, Trump and his surrogates, especially on talk radio and online social media did significant damage in this regard. One of Trump's biggest accomplishments was certainly funding Warp Speed. That said, he questioned the utility of vaccination, and of the validity and reality of the outbreak, and didn't even disclose until much later that he and his family had been vaccinated. Instead, he often gave the impression, while admitting little in terms of verifiable fact, that he didn't need to be vaccinated. Had he encouraged vaccination, had he been shown receiving his vaccinations on television, a significant number of his followers would likely have followed suit and not suffered the dangers of subsequent infection.
Trump is a bombastic ass and yes, his comments like "13 cases going to zero" were stupid. and kind of ironic that the US was hit harder than and had worse outcomes than most of the westernized world.
One thing that Trump did, though, is take ivermectin and man did this piss off the "left". I agree with the comment by Bay Dog that the reason this was blacklisted was because it didn't have vaccine profit written all over it and these vaccines were equally unproven. That disaster called Remdesivir was likewise unproven but sure made money for big pharma.
Ivermectin was investigated as a possible treatment and shown to be worthless. (It was a very profitable drug for Frontline Doctors though). Other treatments that were shown to have value - like steroids (for certain patients ) and putting patients prone were used - neither of them have vaccine profit written over them either. Remdesivir showed some promise early on but was used less as the pandemic went on as were many other treatments. Vaccines have been proven over and over again to reduce death and hospitalizations. Vaccine in general are not big $$ money makers for pharma because Big Pharma can always make far more $$ treating disease than preventing it.
Wow. You can really find "proof" of just about anything you want on the internet - and then make money off of it. I looked at those 101 'studies' and noted that in nearly all of them only 1 or 2 patients received ivermectin for COVID. the other patients got something else (usually a much larger #). The results are reported for "all patients." We know that most people recover from COVID without taking anything. So the results aren't for ivermectin - they're for the entire study sample. Most telling are the disclaimers at the very bottom of the site. It says, "We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. " now that's good advice.
Wow! Those honest doctors who lost their jobs after curing their patients with ivermectin and those PhD epidemiologists who couldn't get their papers published because they went against the mainstream are sure rakiin' in the dough in their new careers as bloggers.
And the profits on ivermectin! $1.30 per dose really adds up!
Good thing we've got these non-profit pharmaceutical companies that don't care a whit about making money. They just want to do what's best for public health, even if it costs them money. Phizer, Bayer/Monsanto, and Eli Lily are some of the most altruistic beneficiaries that mankind has ever known.
Dr Pierre Kory was on the front lines, treating thousands of patients and collecting statistics on what works. He brought the evidence before Congress. Here he tells what happened to him next. https://twitter.com/i/status/1768033041568727391
Dr Kory and Front line doctors didnтАЩt tell 5 of my patients what the warning signs of getting covid were when you were unvaccinated. I had to put 5 of them on oxygen for 2 months in 2021-2022 when they were pushing ivermectin. They thought it was the magic pill when it wasnтАЩt. 1 has really bad long Covid and can no longer work. They forgot to tell them that if their oxygen went below 94% that they needed to get other medical help. They missed their opportunity to get monoclonal antibodies which REALLY were a God send when they existed.
For one thing, he promoted unproven drugs, but did not take them. He was treated with 8 drugs during his COVID-19 illness. FYI - dexamethasone and remdesivir were older drug that were later approved for Tx of COVID-19 because of effectiveness.
I had onchocerciasis in Malawi - my whole family got it from swimming in Lake Malawi, and the ivermectin dose worked fine against this parasite. Since COVID is a virus - and invades multiple organs as well as blood, there would be no expectation that it would work at all against COVID. And that's what the peer reviewed research showed. Peer review research - which means scientists not involved in the study read and review the results, and it showed COVID vaccines were highly effective. How anyone could read this and still think taking ivermectin- which has serious side effects (and especially at high doses given to horses) - is a good idea, is beyond me. Literally, beyond me.
Ivermectin had shown some minor anti-viral potential in-silico in extremely large doses. If it were used in sufficient dose to have a similar effect in humans, as an "antiviral" its adverse effect on the central nervous system would have been more widely reported. Note that the Veterans Administration discontinued a large ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine study due to futility and adverse mortality outcomes.
For parasites, the effective dose is much smaller because its CNS effect on parasites requires a lower concentration, due to their relative size. Its antiviral effect was never actually proven in-silico, but that identification was made by a rather simplistic AI analysis of thousands of existing compounds early in the outbreak.
You can't actually subscribe to Katelyn's newsletter AND be an ivermectin nut, can you??? Cmon. I don't buy it. Ivermectin is worthless for covid. Hydroxychloroquine caused 17,000 deaths. Same stupidity. Fake cures...for what? Why?
Unkind words to be fair. But, I fail to see how someone's political leanings left - right - up -down have ANYTHING to do with reading scientific reports (which are full of arguments by the way, not ever giving 100% credibility to anything), has to do with what works to mitigate COVID or other diseases. I don't get my health advice from a politician - and I would suggest you wouldn't be wise to do so either.
IVERMECTIN NUT. Yes. ThereтАжnot small words. Ivermectin is a brilliant drugтАж.NOT for covid! Neither is hydroxychloroquine. Understanding science and medicine basics doesnтАЩt make me a тАЬleftistтАЭтАжit makes me normal.
The problem is that ivermectin doesnтАЩt combat all that covid does. Those doctors that promote it donтАЩt tell people (or donтАЩt know?) that there are MANY immune pathways that covid effects. It only stops one of them. 5 of my patients had to be put on oxygen while they waited for ivermectin to work and they missed the window to use monoclonal antibodies which REALLY worked . ( so wish we still have them) So I think if they had put a disclaimer and gave people parameters there wouldnтАЩt be so much controversy. So in my opinion it isnтАЩt the best choice to use or тАЬcomplete cure.тАЭ
"there are MANY immune pathways that covid effects"
Yes, there are. Bradykinin and the use of vitamin D in the vascular constriction path is another one of them. There were some interesting observations made about this in Israel where they discovered the muslim females that wore the full suits had the lowest D levels and the worst covid outcomes, compared to those who had a lot of sun exposure. Somehow, I recall around the time that this got discovered there was talk of prohibiting OTC vitamin D sales too.
With respect to ivermectin, there is data that regarding areas where it was used prophylactically such as India and Africa that there was less spread of covid. While it is an anti parasitic, there was evidence that it can play a role in inhibiting the viral reproduction. Anecdotally, one friend of mine contracted covid and took ivermectin and felt significantly better within 24 hours. Another friend and his wife contracted it. He took it and quickly recovered, she didn't and wound up in the hospital. Is this proof? No, absolutely not. The problem I have with the public health aspect is the attempt to actively suppress even the discussion or research of it and even attempting to broach the subject resulted in ridicule and blackballing, even when the person in question was well credentialed. Instead of factually arguing the message or data the target became the person. Ironic that the other day statements were being made before SCOTUS about govt. pressuring media to suppress speech that went against the administrations narrative. This sort of thing does not create trust, but destroys it.
Yes, I get it. I don't think they attempt to suppress, I get the impression that they don't feel like they need to respond. At the same time, if they did respond it would have been a better understanding for the general public. I also saw the mortician videos and when a forensic examiner who was an MD described what was being seen, I felt that yes that person's expertise was far better than that of the mortician looking at post mortem clots. The problem I have with Khory, McCullough and Malone is that they too have not changed their stance from 2020 as more data started to come through. And there is alot of data that goes into the pathophysiology of COVID and potential treatment. There is alot of vaccine efficacy data and data that shows decrease MACE (major acute cardiac event) with vaccination. What they also don't do is put a disclaimer that says... "possibly" thus confusing alot of people. I knew 5 persons that tried Ivermectin while having COVID and unvaccinated and they went onto needing oxygen after the fact. They lost their opportunity to use monoclonal antibodies which REALLY worked because they waited too long hoping Ivermectin was going to work. Some also felt better the 1st day. Unfortunately, Ivermectin only inhibits one mechanism associated with the inflammatory aspect of COVID. The Ivermectin doctors are not letting patients know that or not doing close enough follow up to know that their some of their patients are actually ended up having long COVID and COVID damage. Out of the 5 that took Ivermectin, one is can no longer work because the fatigue is too overpowering. Driving for an hour is exhausting for that person. Also please provide the data /research articles from India and Africa. Thanks.
With the possible exception of the ionophore argument virtually all the other potential pathways are no longer considered viable, to the best of my knowledge and prior reading. I'll reserve judgement about the ionphore argument at this time. One of the issues with ivermectin was that, in order to effect any in silico action, concentrations were required to be so high that CNS toxicity would likely be noted in vitro. The levels required to affect parasites are much lower than those apparently required to create significant antiviral effects through any of the pathways indicated by Zaidi and Deghani.
Trump promoted anti-vaxxing messaging (even before the pandemic) downplayed the severity of COVID, encouraged people to take treatments that were unproven. All of these added to the confusion and mistrust. These are facts. If you refuse to acknowledge what was actually said by Trump then you are the one with the extreme partisan bias.
I often told others when Covid began & the vax first came out: "Look... we're all on the SS-Covid Titanic. We only have 2 choices: Jump or go down with the ship... Taking a new vaccine that was created at lightning speed was a little scary... -- (plus many assumed it was a "sterilizing" vax=you'd be 99% protected from getting Covid/spreading/etc.) -- but what other choices did we have? We either "Jumped/got vaxed" or "went down with the ship/risked Covid death, long Covid and/or the long-term consequences of viral 'hibernation' in the body... like Chicken Pox or Epstein-Barr virus... What enraged me had to do with those who were "upset/angry" that I had the 'audacity' to wear a mask to protect my own life!
The crazy thing was that I was listening to some reputable podcasts that actually explained what the data meant and that there was no way to tell it was 'sterilizing' based on the data. It's sad because seriously getting a 95% effective vaccine was REALLY REALLY Good news, it just wasn't the complete get out of jail free card people wanted.
Great point. also, people failed to understand that you might still get COVID even though you were vaccinated, and that the point of vaccination was to diminish the severity and impact of COVID, not physically prevent its transmission. Too subtle for people who feel entitled to simple answers and what they want when they want it. Grown ups welcome.
I still wear a mask at times. It is an Airgame mask which is no longer available but is very distinctive. If someone asks me why I am wearing a mask I tell them it is to prevent them from getting my "Europa" stain of Covid. I hope if they Google it they will realize it is none of their business why I wear the mask.
" (plus many assumed it was a "sterilizing" vax=you'd be 99% protected from getting Covid/spreading/etc.) -- but what other choices did we have?"
And there we some voices arguing that mass vaccination with a non sterilizing vaccine in the middle of a pandemic could put extreme evolutionary pressure on the virus, but they were shouted down, silenced, and canceled. And then came the Omicron variant which was suspected of either escaping from a lab or having mutated in an immune compromised person who had received the vaccine.
Please note, the argument was against MASS vaccination, not against vaccinating those at high or elevated risk.
So you are saying it would have been better to allow people to die instead of mass vaccination? And how would we know about who has elevated risk and who does not when it was a novel virus? Maybe if it were more like a hemorrhagic virus (Ebola), people would have dropped their ignorant ape-egos because they fear the sight of blood? lol... The spread of other unknown zoonotic diseases will just be a repeat lesson for the human-apes until we either go extinct or grow some brains to understand "If one person isn't safe, then nobody is safe..." That's the law of disease that is contagious when a deadly virus is only a plane ride away...
You do realize that a sterilizing vaccine is almost a completely unralistic scenario, correct? And for a coronavirus, it's virtually impossible. As Paul Offit recently observed, a respiratory virus with a very short incubation period is unlikely to be successfully eradicated by a vaccine.
I maintain, however, that we had an extremely brief window during the initial phases of mass vaccination to have gotten enough people at least in the US vaccinated that we might have made progress toward shutting down the pandemic. It couldn't last because other countries had poor access to the very successful (against the ancestral strain) mRNA vaccines, but it could well have provided a breathing space we could have used to our advantage, and if at least 85% had been vaccinated in the first 7-8 weeks, we'd have seen a significantly different outcome.
(DISCLOSURE: The percentage needed to vaccinate fully, and time period were based on my own calculations at the time.)
Since we started seeing significant anti-vaccine messaging almost immediately, and without cause, save some unknown malign intent, we never saw anything near achieving that level of coverage. And, indeed, Trump and his surrogates, especially on talk radio and online social media did significant damage in this regard. One of Trump's biggest accomplishments was certainly funding Warp Speed. That said, he questioned the utility of vaccination, and of the validity and reality of the outbreak, and didn't even disclose until much later that he and his family had been vaccinated. Instead, he often gave the impression, while admitting little in terms of verifiable fact, that he didn't need to be vaccinated. Had he encouraged vaccination, had he been shown receiving his vaccinations on television, a significant number of his followers would likely have followed suit and not suffered the dangers of subsequent infection.
Trump is a bombastic ass and yes, his comments like "13 cases going to zero" were stupid. and kind of ironic that the US was hit harder than and had worse outcomes than most of the westernized world.
One thing that Trump did, though, is take ivermectin and man did this piss off the "left". I agree with the comment by Bay Dog that the reason this was blacklisted was because it didn't have vaccine profit written all over it and these vaccines were equally unproven. That disaster called Remdesivir was likewise unproven but sure made money for big pharma.
Ivermectin was investigated as a possible treatment and shown to be worthless. (It was a very profitable drug for Frontline Doctors though). Other treatments that were shown to have value - like steroids (for certain patients ) and putting patients prone were used - neither of them have vaccine profit written over them either. Remdesivir showed some promise early on but was used less as the pandemic went on as were many other treatments. Vaccines have been proven over and over again to reduce death and hospitalizations. Vaccine in general are not big $$ money makers for pharma because Big Pharma can always make far more $$ treating disease than preventing it.
Here's a summary of 101 studies, almost all of which find a benefit, the most positive find 95% reduction in deaths if used early:
https://c19ivm.org/
Wow. You can really find "proof" of just about anything you want on the internet - and then make money off of it. I looked at those 101 'studies' and noted that in nearly all of them only 1 or 2 patients received ivermectin for COVID. the other patients got something else (usually a much larger #). The results are reported for "all patients." We know that most people recover from COVID without taking anything. So the results aren't for ivermectin - they're for the entire study sample. Most telling are the disclaimers at the very bottom of the site. It says, "We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. " now that's good advice.
Wow! Those honest doctors who lost their jobs after curing their patients with ivermectin and those PhD epidemiologists who couldn't get their papers published because they went against the mainstream are sure rakiin' in the dough in their new careers as bloggers.
And the profits on ivermectin! $1.30 per dose really adds up!
Good thing we've got these non-profit pharmaceutical companies that don't care a whit about making money. They just want to do what's best for public health, even if it costs them money. Phizer, Bayer/Monsanto, and Eli Lily are some of the most altruistic beneficiaries that mankind has ever known.
Here's a book where you can read about the altruism of Big Pharma: https://experimentalfrontiers.scienceblog.com/2021/04/27/trust-me-im-a-medical-researcher/
Dr Pierre Kory was on the front lines, treating thousands of patients and collecting statistics on what works. He brought the evidence before Congress. Here he tells what happened to him next. https://twitter.com/i/status/1768033041568727391
Dr Kory and Front line doctors didnтАЩt tell 5 of my patients what the warning signs of getting covid were when you were unvaccinated. I had to put 5 of them on oxygen for 2 months in 2021-2022 when they were pushing ivermectin. They thought it was the magic pill when it wasnтАЩt. 1 has really bad long Covid and can no longer work. They forgot to tell them that if their oxygen went below 94% that they needed to get other medical help. They missed their opportunity to get monoclonal antibodies which REALLY were a God send when they existed.
For one thing, he promoted unproven drugs, but did not take them. He was treated with 8 drugs during his COVID-19 illness. FYI - dexamethasone and remdesivir were older drug that were later approved for Tx of COVID-19 because of effectiveness.
No, it wasn't in his vaccine either. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/06/16/trump-got-pfizer-covid-vaccine-not-ivermectin-mix-fact-check/70303213007/
I had onchocerciasis in Malawi - my whole family got it from swimming in Lake Malawi, and the ivermectin dose worked fine against this parasite. Since COVID is a virus - and invades multiple organs as well as blood, there would be no expectation that it would work at all against COVID. And that's what the peer reviewed research showed. Peer review research - which means scientists not involved in the study read and review the results, and it showed COVID vaccines were highly effective. How anyone could read this and still think taking ivermectin- which has serious side effects (and especially at high doses given to horses) - is a good idea, is beyond me. Literally, beyond me.
Ivermectin had shown some minor anti-viral potential in-silico in extremely large doses. If it were used in sufficient dose to have a similar effect in humans, as an "antiviral" its adverse effect on the central nervous system would have been more widely reported. Note that the Veterans Administration discontinued a large ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine study due to futility and adverse mortality outcomes.
For parasites, the effective dose is much smaller because its CNS effect on parasites requires a lower concentration, due to their relative size. Its antiviral effect was never actually proven in-silico, but that identification was made by a rather simplistic AI analysis of thousands of existing compounds early in the outbreak.
You can't actually subscribe to Katelyn's newsletter AND be an ivermectin nut, can you??? Cmon. I don't buy it. Ivermectin is worthless for covid. Hydroxychloroquine caused 17,000 deaths. Same stupidity. Fake cures...for what? Why?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2024/01/07/trump-promoted-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19-a-drug-now-linked-to-17000-deaths/?sh=6afd3c0b2fcd
Ivermectin nut?
Such small words in an attempt at a put down from an ignorant leftist.
Unkind words to be fair. But, I fail to see how someone's political leanings left - right - up -down have ANYTHING to do with reading scientific reports (which are full of arguments by the way, not ever giving 100% credibility to anything), has to do with what works to mitigate COVID or other diseases. I don't get my health advice from a politician - and I would suggest you wouldn't be wise to do so either.
IVERMECTIN NUT. Yes. ThereтАжnot small words. Ivermectin is a brilliant drugтАж.NOT for covid! Neither is hydroxychloroquine. Understanding science and medicine basics doesnтАЩt make me a тАЬleftistтАЭтАжit makes me normal.
The problem is that ivermectin doesnтАЩt combat all that covid does. Those doctors that promote it donтАЩt tell people (or donтАЩt know?) that there are MANY immune pathways that covid effects. It only stops one of them. 5 of my patients had to be put on oxygen while they waited for ivermectin to work and they missed the window to use monoclonal antibodies which REALLY worked . ( so wish we still have them) So I think if they had put a disclaimer and gave people parameters there wouldnтАЩt be so much controversy. So in my opinion it isnтАЩt the best choice to use or тАЬcomplete cure.тАЭ
"there are MANY immune pathways that covid effects"
Yes, there are. Bradykinin and the use of vitamin D in the vascular constriction path is another one of them. There were some interesting observations made about this in Israel where they discovered the muslim females that wore the full suits had the lowest D levels and the worst covid outcomes, compared to those who had a lot of sun exposure. Somehow, I recall around the time that this got discovered there was talk of prohibiting OTC vitamin D sales too.
With respect to ivermectin, there is data that regarding areas where it was used prophylactically such as India and Africa that there was less spread of covid. While it is an anti parasitic, there was evidence that it can play a role in inhibiting the viral reproduction. Anecdotally, one friend of mine contracted covid and took ivermectin and felt significantly better within 24 hours. Another friend and his wife contracted it. He took it and quickly recovered, she didn't and wound up in the hospital. Is this proof? No, absolutely not. The problem I have with the public health aspect is the attempt to actively suppress even the discussion or research of it and even attempting to broach the subject resulted in ridicule and blackballing, even when the person in question was well credentialed. Instead of factually arguing the message or data the target became the person. Ironic that the other day statements were being made before SCOTUS about govt. pressuring media to suppress speech that went against the administrations narrative. This sort of thing does not create trust, but destroys it.
Yes, I get it. I don't think they attempt to suppress, I get the impression that they don't feel like they need to respond. At the same time, if they did respond it would have been a better understanding for the general public. I also saw the mortician videos and when a forensic examiner who was an MD described what was being seen, I felt that yes that person's expertise was far better than that of the mortician looking at post mortem clots. The problem I have with Khory, McCullough and Malone is that they too have not changed their stance from 2020 as more data started to come through. And there is alot of data that goes into the pathophysiology of COVID and potential treatment. There is alot of vaccine efficacy data and data that shows decrease MACE (major acute cardiac event) with vaccination. What they also don't do is put a disclaimer that says... "possibly" thus confusing alot of people. I knew 5 persons that tried Ivermectin while having COVID and unvaccinated and they went onto needing oxygen after the fact. They lost their opportunity to use monoclonal antibodies which REALLY worked because they waited too long hoping Ivermectin was going to work. Some also felt better the 1st day. Unfortunately, Ivermectin only inhibits one mechanism associated with the inflammatory aspect of COVID. The Ivermectin doctors are not letting patients know that or not doing close enough follow up to know that their some of their patients are actually ended up having long COVID and COVID damage. Out of the 5 that took Ivermectin, one is can no longer work because the fatigue is too overpowering. Driving for an hour is exhausting for that person. Also please provide the data /research articles from India and Africa. Thanks.
So far, I've not deduced a single immune pathway that Ivermectin affects that might be shared by SARS-CoV-2. If you have references, I'm interested!
This was at the beginningтАжand lots of speculation. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
With the possible exception of the ionophore argument virtually all the other potential pathways are no longer considered viable, to the best of my knowledge and prior reading. I'll reserve judgement about the ionphore argument at this time. One of the issues with ivermectin was that, in order to effect any in silico action, concentrations were required to be so high that CNS toxicity would likely be noted in vitro. The levels required to affect parasites are much lower than those apparently required to create significant antiviral effects through any of the pathways indicated by Zaidi and Deghani.
Thank you, however, for providing the reference.
Looking now, thanks.