Coronavirus

[Arthur Dent]

The Biden booster plan seems like it is probably incorrect, but the one thing about it that makes sense is that they decided to just make a judgement rather than waiting on endless months of useless process that doesn’t even result in a rational choice.

Agreed.

The FDA announced the resignations of Marion Gruber and Philip Krause on Tuesday.

The pair lead the FDA office in charge of approving vaccines.

Politico and Endpoints reported that the pair left in frustration over Biden's COVID booster plan.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-top-fda-o ... 27868.html

This is sorta odd. I guess in my mind, the FDA should be in charge of approving if the vaccines/boosters themselves are safe to use. The CDC should be in charge of the plan (e.g. schedule) for vaccinations/boosters.

Why should the FDA have any say over when the boosters should be administered?

Also, high level FDA vaccine officials resigning over what amounts to a bureaucratic turf battle is embarrassing. The substance of FDA vaccine decision making seems really important. Did anyone resign over approvals being dragged out due to non-substantial paperwork issues? That seemed genuinely bad!

[cardinalkarp]

Did anyone resign over approvals being dragged out due to non-substantial paperwork issues?

Dragged out? You have got to be kidding.

[Popeye_Card]

Did anyone resign over approvals being dragged out due to non-substantial paperwork issues?

Dragged out? You have got to be kidding.

I can certainly buy an argument that trials should have lasted longer.

Approvals should be expedient, particularly given the urgency. Careful review of course, but there should not be paperwork delays in processing approvals.

[AdmiralKird]

Preliminary results out of Israel from 3rd shot booster recipients since July 31st indicates a return to ~85-95% efficacy against infection. It's on John Campbell's yt channel if you're interested.

[mikechamp]

Preliminary results out of Israel from 3rd shot booster recipients since July 31st indicates a return to ~85-95% efficacy against infection. It's on John Campbell's yt channel if you're interested.

I'm not surprised by that, but the real question will be: how long does that level of efficacy hold?

What are we seeing with the original 2-shot dosage? 6 months of that level? 4 months? I genuinely don't know/remember.

[ghostrunner]

This doctor is about as anti for-profit medicine as they come.

[cardinalkarp]

First, I’m glad to hear that studies are actually being done on Ivermectin.

And I know people have mentioned, “well, if your not willing to take the vaccine why would you trust other drugs made by the same institutions you have so much distrust in?”

To answer that question, I have a lot more faith in something that has been used safely for decades than something that has just been approved and put on the market. The list is long of drugs that have been approved and pulled off the market YEARS later because they are deemed unsafe or have damaging side effects that were determined years down the road.

So here’s an article from nature.com from the journal of antibiotics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

This article displays that Ivermectin without a doubt has antiviral properties that worked against COVID-19.

In a recent in vitro study, the Vero/hSLAM cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 virus were exposed to 5 µM ivermectin in 48 h, and a 5000-fold reduction in viral RNA compared with control was found [15]. The results showed that treatment with ivermectin effectively kills almost all viral particles within 48 h. The study was the first to assess the antiviral effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. The authors acknowledged that the drug may have antiviral effects by inhibiting the importin (IMP) α/β receptor, which is responsible for transmitting viral proteins into the host cell nucleus. The authors proposed human studies to confirm the potential benefits of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. Although this study was the first to confirm the antiviral effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 [15], other studies examined the antiviral effects of the drug on both RNA and DNA viruses

Granted, these aren’t human studies. And while the FLCCC seems to have multiple human studies they are not large scale clinical trials which seems to be why the data is being dismissed.

But the frustrating thing until recently is that the narrative has been “This is anti-parasitic horse paste!!”….which is obviously 100% false. Why not be open to something for those uncomfortable getting the vaccine if it’s proven it works (which depending on the studies you look at is debatable) instead of the immediate degradation?

[G. Keenan]

As far as I can tell, the deal with ivermectin is that it does have anti-viral properties and in petri dish cultures in a lab it's shown promise. The problem is that you have to give a human a huge dose of it for it to be effective as an anti-viral, so much that you can't really take it because you're pooping your intestines out.

I was pleasantly surprised to learn today that the NIH is funding research on ivermectin and other drugs with potential off-label therapeutic applications for Covid. If we could find some cheap, already known drug that can easily treat Covid infections that would be amazing. They are being studied and we'll have to wait to see how that shakes out.

But in the meantime, the vaccines are the best hope we've got of saving lives. And it's kind of ironic that you have people here hesitant to take them because they don't trust the CDC or the NIH, but they'll trust data out of Brazil or India where the only reason doctors are handing out ivermectin in the first place is because they don't have enough of the very vaccines Americans don't want to take.

I'd bet ivermectin turns out to be a false hope. It's been given to a lot of people in Brazil because it's cheap and widely available so we have a good data set on it, and as that data is getting crunched by researchers around the world it seems to be showing that it is not particularly effective against Covid at the dosages human bodies can tolerate.

[ghostrunner]

As far as I can tell, the deal with ivermectin is that it does have anti-viral properties and in petri dish cultures in a lab it's shown promise. The problem is that you have to give a human a huge dose of it for it to be effective as an anti-viral, so much that you can't really take it because you're pooping your intestines out.

That’s what I’ve read

[cardinalkarp]

Warning: Armchair Scientist Alert

Obviously, there has been talk about using Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and for EARLY treatment to COVID. I’ve also read that it’s not nearly as effective w/ late stage COVID or someone that is seriously ill.

Is it possible that by catching the virus early, so it hasn’t had time to replicate and cause an extremely high viral load would allow ivermectin to be more effective?