Big one I know of right now is that Pfizer isn't known to cause male fertility issues in multiple species ranging from mosquitoes to rats to humans. Granted that might change with time.

Mosquitoes
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2988-3

Rats
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21783912/

People
https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/abstract/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients-12867.html

I don't need anymore babies so I'm fine with infertility, lol

Gives a whole new twist to the "that's ok baby. I'm on the pill".

Or "just a minute babe. I need to mix my spermicide in my OJ first."

The Pfizer drug is a protease inhibitor specifically designed to block an enzyme critical to Covid replication:

" Protease inhibitors bind to a viral enzyme (called a protease), preventing the virus from replicating in the cell. Protease inhibitors have been effective at treating other viral pathogens such as HIV and hepatitis C virus, both alone and in combination with other antivirals. Currently marketed therapeutics that target viral proteases are not generally associated with toxicity and as such, this class of molecules may potentially provide well-tolerated treatments against COVID-19."

Ivermectin is an anti parasite drug:

" Ivermectin and its related drugs act by interfering with nerve and muscle function of helminths and insects. The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels that are common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells. Ivermectin binding pushes these channels open, increasing the flow of chloride ions and hyper-polarizing the cell membranes. This hyperpolarization paralyzes the affected tissue, eventually killing the invertebrate.In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and so it does not make it to the brain."

So there is that

A patient in our health system had been prescribed ivermectin to treat COVID 19 by another physician who never saw the patient. The patients wife sued the health system to force them to give her husband ivermectin.

Our health system responded with a thorough literature review and assessment of the scientific evidence base regarding ivermectin and COVID 19. The judge reversed his initial order requiring the health system to provide ivermectin treatment to the patient, and stated that the health system could not be forced to provide a medication of unproven efficacy to the patient.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/07/ohio-judge-reverses-ivermectin-order/

A recent Cochrane review supports the lack of evidence of efficacy of ivermectin.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full?cookiesEnabled

Suffice it to say that based on current evidence base the case is closed on ivermectin at the present time

That being said, there are a number of higher quality studies underway. stay tuned.

Ivermectin does not function by inhibiting protease activity. It interacts with an ion channel found in insects.

Proteases are enzymes that cut proteins. Ion channels sit in cell membranes and let small chemicals in and out.

So very different target and mechanism of action.

I don't get the big deal with the Pfizer pill. It's just started phase 2, so we don't even know that it's effective. I don't get why people are getting so bent out of shape over a drug company testing a drug. It's what they do.

people are looking under every rock to find a "government/big business" conspiracy.

amercer said:

---

Ivermectin does not function by inhibiting protease activity. It interacts with an ion channel found in insects.

Proteases are enzymes that cut proteins. Ion channels sit in cell membranes and let small chemicals in and out.

So very different target and mechanism of action.

---

And has been found to inhibit protease
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

Diggity said:

---

people are looking under every rock to find a "government/big business" conspiracy.

---

It's not hard to find government/big business conspiracy. Money drives everything.

amercer said:

---

aggierogue said:

---

WorthAg95 said:

---

amercer said:

---

Ivermectin does not function by inhibiting protease activity. It interacts with an ion channel found in insects.

Proteases are enzymes that cut proteins. Ion channels sit in cell membranes and let small chemicals in and out.

So very different target and mechanism of action.

---

And has been found to inhibit protease
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

---

---

Do you know what in silico means?

---

No. I didn't link the study. But I did notice that they found Ivermectin has antiviral properties...which has been refuted by the MSM narrative and many critics that it's simply a "horse dewormer."

They didn't "find" anything.

In silico means computer models.

Computer modeling isn't totally worthless in drug discovery, but it's pretty close.

Finding a plausible mechanism of action is critical to drug discovery. I spend a lot of my waking hours on it.

Computers are crap. Cells in a dish are only slightly less crap. High res structure of your molecule binding something? That's pretty good, but won't move the needle without animal data. We can cure damn near anything in a mouse, but move that same thing to monkeys and it fails 90% of the time. Move the thing that works in monkeys to people? Your odds are even worse.

So no, no one has demonstrated that ivermectin has any plausible mechanism for Covid antiviral activity. It's perfectly good science to screen whatever you have lying around for new indications. Drug companies love the idea of getting to new markets with things that already have an acceptable safety profile. But 99% it fails, because you are just trying to get lucky in a field where luck isn't ever on your side.

aggierogue said:

---

amercer said:

---

They didn't "find" anything.

In silico means computer models.

Computer modeling isn't totally worthless in drug discovery, but it's pretty close.

Finding a plausible mechanism of action is critical to drug discovery. I spend a lot of my waking hours on it.

Computers are crap. Cells in a dish are only slightly less crap. High res structure of your molecule binding something? That's pretty good, but won't move the needle without animal data. We can cure damn near anything in a mouse, but move that same thing to monkeys and it fails 90% of the time. Move the thing that works in monkeys to people? Your odds are even worse.

So no, no one has demonstrated that ivermectin has any plausible mechanism for Covid antiviral activity. It's perfectly good science to screen whatever you have lying around for new indications. Drug companies love the idea of getting to new markets with things that already have an acceptable safety profile. But 99% it fails, because you are just trying to get lucky in a field where luck isn't ever on your side.

---

So where is Oxford getting this?

Quote:

---

With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies.

---

Oxford Trial

---

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

Double-blind study from Israel shows ivermectin reduces disease's duration and infectiousness

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Big one I know of right now is that Pfizer isn't known to cause male fertility issues in multiple species ranging from mosquitoes to rats to humans. Granted that might change with time.

Mosquitoes
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2988-3

Rats
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21783912/

People
https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/abstract/effects-of-ivermectin-therapy-on-the-sperm-functions-of-nigerian-onchocerciasis-patients-12867.html

---

If this is true, look how many years it took to find it, and yet we rush headlong with an experimental vaccine and more anti-virals that will get approval by the end of the year.

aggierogue said:

---

amercer said:

---

They didn't "find" anything.

In silico means computer models.

Computer modeling isn't totally worthless in drug discovery, but it's pretty close.

Finding a plausible mechanism of action is critical to drug discovery. I spend a lot of my waking hours on it.

Computers are crap. Cells in a dish are only slightly less crap. High res structure of your molecule binding something? That's pretty good, but won't move the needle without animal data. We can cure damn near anything in a mouse, but move that same thing to monkeys and it fails 90% of the time. Move the thing that works in monkeys to people? Your odds are even worse.

So no, no one has demonstrated that ivermectin has any plausible mechanism for Covid antiviral activity. It's perfectly good science to screen whatever you have lying around for new indications. Drug companies love the idea of getting to new markets with things that already have an acceptable safety profile. But 99% it fails, because you are just trying to get lucky in a field where luck isn't ever on your side.

---

So where is Oxford getting this?

Quote:

---

With known antiviral properties, ivermectin has been shown to reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in laboratory studies.

---

Oxford Trial

---

So when the Oxford trial reads out and shows that ivermectin has no effect on Covid, you will believe it?

I just would have thought that people would have learned something from the HCQ debacle. There were people all over the internet who KNEW it worked, anecdotes, Drs running tiny studies, loads of papers dumped on pre print servers, and inclusion in real clinical trials. And what happened?

What's worse now is we actually have something that does work great against Covid, but people would rather take their chances on a complete shot in the dark.

Antiviral properties and lab studies are in vitro. That falls into his "slightly less crap" category.

It's been discussed, but there's a couple of things. For one, even if the side effects are minimal if the drug as no upside vs placebo those minimal side effects are borne for no reason, with no purpose. So, for example, if people are getting the runs, or dizziness, or having lower sperm count from ivermectin and it doesn't help, that's downside with no upside. You multiply that by millions of people and there's risk of harm.

The other thing is it takes drugs from people who need them. Maybe it's not such a huge thing here in the US where parasitic infections are not so common, but they do occur, and if you can't get ivermectin when needed those people will have harm for no benefit. If it happens in the third world, people suffer real harm who can't get medicine.

The other indirect thing is that research time and dollars are finite. Like it or not highly publicized / politcized treatments drive dollars and interest. If these dollars are chasing confounding effects (like azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine probably were) or are trying to replicate fraudulent results (like ivermectin probably is) those dollars are wasted - when they could have been spent researching things with a chance to work.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Why are people including Doctors so against people trying Ivermectin for a virus that has very few treatments? If it doesn't help it doesn't help, but what does it hurt? Side effects are pretty minimal.

---

Most reasonable people don't really care if someone uses ivermectin under physician supervision. The problem is when people act like its a legitimate alternative to vaccination at preventing severe disease. Its not no matter how many dubious studies samurai texan posts about.

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Why are people including Doctors so against people trying Ivermectin for a virus that has very few treatments? If it doesn't help it doesn't help, but what does it hurt? Side effects are pretty minimal.

---

Vaccine + Ivermectin? Go for it.

Using Ivermectin as a replacement for the vaccine? That's the rub. If it's a nothing burger (which so far all the real in person data says) then you are actually doing harm.

Mathguy64 said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Why are people including Doctors so against people trying Ivermectin for a virus that has very few treatments? If it doesn't help it doesn't help, but what does it hurt? Side effects are pretty minimal.

---

Vaccine + Ivermectin? Go for it.

Using Ivermectin as a replacement for the vaccine? That's the rub. If it's a nothing burger (which so far all the real in person data says) then you are actually doing harm.

---

This is the problem. You see it here and on 16chan. There is a significant segment of the population that is foregoing the vaccine in favor of HCQ ivermectin.

Anyone wondering why doctors look at the current publications for ivermectin and say it's not very compelling should read this.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/

DadHammer said:

---

Forum Troll said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Why are people including Doctors so against people trying Ivermectin for a virus that has very few treatments? If it doesn't help it doesn't help, but what does it hurt? Side effects are pretty minimal.

---

Most reasonable people don't really care if someone uses ivermectin under physician supervision. The problem is when people act like its a legitimate alternative to vaccination at preventing severe disease. Its not no matter how many dubious studies samurai texan posts about.

---

Almost nobody is saying that.

---

Not sure if serious.

would love to see a Venn diagram for folks that are taking Ivermectin as a supplement to the vaccine, rather than a replacement.

WAG would be <5% use it as a supplement. Maybe <1%