New Hampshire Pharmacies Could Soon Dispense Ivermectin Without Doctor Approval

The Approved Dose of Ivermectin Alone is not the Ideal Dose for the Treatment of COVID-19 (PubMed)

Caly et al.1 reported that ivermectin inhibited severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro for up to 48 hours using ivermectin at 5 μM. The concentration resulting in 50% inhibition (IC50 ; 2 µM) was > 35× higher than the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) after oral administration of the approved dose of ivermectin when given fasted. ... Repurposing drugs for use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is an ideal strategy but is only feasible when product safety has been established and experiments of repurposed drugs are conducted at clinically relevant concentrations.

It is not feasible to give patients such a massive overdose of ivermectin. According to the original in vitro study, ivermectin has no antiviral effects whatsoever at or around the approved dosage. A massive overdose (like > 35× higher) is quite unhealthy for the patient. It is quite toxic (has to kill the worms after all), that's why quantities given at the approved dosage are very small (around 10-15mg depending on the weight of the patient). The authors of the in vitro study mentioned at the start ("Caly et al."), were very well aware that the concentrations they used were completely unfeasible and unrealistic, they deliberately left that out of their paper. Deliberately being vague about it, cause they also knew that as soon as they used more realistic concentrations (0.0873 µM), there was no antiviral effect whatsoever. Note the difference between 0.0873 µM and 5 μM, or even 2 µM.

Zinc + zinc ionophore probably already has a bigger effect than 50% inhibition. But it doesn't matter, cause you can't even get to 2 µM with the approved dosage ("predicted lung: 0.0873 µM", quoting from the abstract above, the part I skipped), or even 10 times the approved dosage ("predicted lung: 0.820 µM"), which already is a considerable overdose and unhealthy for the patient. From the graphs of the original in vitro study (which start at around 0.2 µM, note that this can only be achieved by already giving more than the approved dosage), you can see that the first minimal antiviral effect (the point where the line goes down) begins to show up around 1 µM, which would already require giving the patient more than 10 times the approved dosage. Original in vitro study:

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

The authors of that study were well aware that the concentrations they used in their test (experiment), are not feasible in vivo (in human patients). They did it on purpose and then deliberately were vague about whether or not the concentrations they used were feasible for in vivo studies. Pretending to be ignorant of that in the process. Even outright lying when saying things like:

Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans.

No, your graphs show the exact opposite. And you know it! (that's my biggest gripe here, they're not stupid, they know exactly why they used such ridiculously high concentrations, to pretend it has "possible benefits", as an antiviral that is; to force an antiviral effect at those higher concentrations). And others have run with it and claimed numbers such as 99.99% viral inhibition (looking at the 5 μM statistics, and only reporting the results for that concentration, which is even more ridiculous and unfeasible in vivo). But it works well in news reports or youtube videos from channels like Whiteboard Doctor (who was similarly vague about the concentrations used and the fact that these concentrations were utterly unfeasible in vivo, and that the graphs already showed no antiviral effect at 0.2 µM all the way up to almost 1 µM).

After all, it's peer reviewed holy Scripture, why should he be skeptical about something that is peer reviewed.

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

...

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.” [whereislogic: and not just faked data, cause my example, does not actually use faked data, but the deception in presenting a misleading picture, is in how they talk about that data. That is how they avoid being accused of fraud or lying. Being vague about something you are well aware of, is a useful trick.]

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

...

Source: Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

I heard that Ivermectin is effective against COVID because of its anti-parasitic properties. People have so many parasites in their bodies, when they take ivermectin the worm population drops and they can finally absorb nutrients from their diet.

a reply to: joejack1949

Incorrect. It has anti-viral properties as well. The method of action for virus is different than that for parasites.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: putnam6

Regardless of the questions, the fact is the vaccine is approved, not EUA. The questions you pose are valid and could easily lend itself to an argument in a post admitting the vaccine is approved while questioning if it should be. When a post contains factual errors it casts everything else in the post in a bad light, and makes any actual arguments easily dismissed. That is why we need to always be mindful to make sure our statements are correct, and when shown incorrect, admit it, apologize, and re-emphasize the rest of the argument that was true.

Unfortunately what I see on ATS is doubling down on factually incorrect statements rendering valid points moot and worthless.

Oh, noes just killed the use of ivermectin for Covid with my silly and partially incorrect post oh my, what will I do?

a reply to: putnam6

You can do whatever you want as people look at your post and dismiss it. If you are only posting to the people who agree with you what's the point?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

99% of this website is people saying inaccurate things and everyone else agreeing with them. Confirmation bias IS the point.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: putnam6

You can do whatever you want as people look at your post and dismiss it. If you are only posting to the people who agree with you what's the point?

Really? after all the stupid lies, BS, and outright falsehoods posted on ATS about COVID and this is what you piss and moan about? figures...

How gives a fiddler's f--- if somebody dismisses a post, especially one so anal they point something like that out. As if it was never approved for emergency use, and it wasn't finally approved much later.

BTW the post is about Ivermectin and the seemingly need for the New Hampshire legislature to authorize its use during a rise in COVID cases seems slightly unusual. No more no less, anything else is your interpretation Scooter

It is all about early detection, catch it early there is a good sized list that can knock it out.

Red flag: Why is Ivermectin so much easier to get than HCQ?

HCQ also works for the flu and various other viruses. The key function of it is that it increases the pH level in cells, endosomes and lysosomes. By doing so, it reduces the function of the biomolecular machinery that are sensitive to a narrow band of acidity (pH level) and makes it harder for the virus to get in. Here's the viral pathway of the Corona virus:

HCQ also targets IL-6 (IL = Interleukin), which is involved in the cytokine storm (an overreaction from the autoimmune system), the major cause of trouble for patients requiring hospitalization. It's primarily used as an immunomodulator in Rheuma and Lupus patients. It is also listed as an immunomodulator (rather than an antiviral) in this paper:

Observational Study of the Efficiency of Treatments in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 in Madrid (medrxiv.org)

...

Results

... Except for hydroxychloroquine and prednisone, patients that were treated with any of the medications were more likely to go through an outcome of death or intubation at baseline. ...

See table 2 for a complete list of all the different medications looked at.

So now we know it's both an antiviral and an immunomodulator. Killing 2 birds with one stone. Its side-effects for short-term usage* have been massively exaggerated since April 2020. *: i.e. during the time one has Covid-19, not like Rheuma and Lupus patients that are on it for years.

Detailed discussion concerning HCQ's mechanism of action (MOA) starts below after 7:24 (only the antiviral MOA):

I would be afraid that they are now making their own version and it is not going to help people.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: lordcomac
I hope you're being sarcastic-

Yes, I apologize, I thought the post was dripping with sarcasm, with an extra side of sarcasm thrown in.

it isnt that you were being sarcastic

its (sadly and a sad fact of the intelligence of covidians, here and in public) they BELIEVE this "horse worming drug" rot
along with publish in main stream media , social media and even on ATS this lie/rant.

so (again sadly) it is not unreasonable to ask of being sarcastic or not.

scrounger


scrounger

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: putnam6

Correction, vaccines are now approved, they are not EUA. Otherwise I agree.

of course they are

they bypassed the NORMAL AND SAFE testing phase by (though use of EUA) using the POPULATION as "test group) to determine if its safe

btw given alot of the suppressed info (some even from the CDC itself) the "approval to it being safe" is questionable (at best).

scrounger

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: putnam6

This is fantastic!

Every single "expert", scientist, doctor, pharmacist, politician, that suppressed this therapeutic needs to be arrested for crimes against humanity.

Every organization FDA, WHO, NIH, CDC, that suppressed this therapeuticshould be destroyed like IG Farben was, really we need to do a better job as somehow Bayer is still in existence.

and martin sckrelli.

Course the FDA now revoked some good alternatives, because they arent good enough against omnicron and yet vaccines yep still pushing that.