The problem is that ivermectin doesn’t combat all that covid does. Those doctors that promote it don’t tell people (or don’t 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 monoclon…
The problem is that ivermectin doesn’t combat all that covid does. Those doctors that promote it don’t tell people (or don’t 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 wouldn’t be so much controversy. So in my opinion it isn’t the best choice to use or “complete cure.”
"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.
The problem is that ivermectin doesn’t combat all that covid does. Those doctors that promote it don’t tell people (or don’t 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 wouldn’t be so much controversy. So in my opinion it isn’t the best choice to use or “complete cure.”
"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 beginning…and 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.