| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
|
https://apnews.com/article/fact
Unfortunately many doctors don’t have the greatest research skills. Positive results from in vitro studies do not at all mean something will work in vivo. I could pick a random supplement or chemical out of my closet and have a decent chance it could show promising in vitro results against a virus.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
Quote: No, you’re misinterpreting the quote and how this kind of research works if you think that’s necessary. We don’t say something works just because we haven’t yet proved that it doesn’t. Once we have proof that something works, that’s when we say it works. This drug is not there yet and likely never will be. In vitro and preliminary studies lead to all sorts of media twists and “miracle cure” pushers like this guy. At this point there is more preliminary evidence that smoking cigarettes is an effective prophylactic than there is for this drug. This guy is almost certainly a charlatan who either lacks research skills/knowledge or more likely is grifting.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
Quote: Do you have a link to the study. I checked the usual databases and couldn't find that one. If it's new I haven't seen it yet, if it's the old one that was getting passed around frequently the data was not reliable and the study has been pulled. A physician at my wife's hospital was actually a co-author on the paper and hes the one who requested it be pulled, not sure if its the one you're referring to though. Quote: https://www.the-scientist.com/n If the drug works, that's incredible and I'm happy to be wrong. The problem is that this exact same scenario has played out with handfuls of drugs already. In-vitro studies are miraculous, observational studies look promising, then the drug's efficacy falls apart once it's put to a more rigorous test. Because of COVID these studies that have large and dangerous flaws get published on an accelerated schedule before data is verified and peer review is completed. Until I see blinded rct's or more verifiable data from respected researchers, it makes no sense to think this drug will be any different from the other miracle drugs. COVID acts in such a way that it seems very unlikely that standard/safe doses of any drug not specifically developed for the virus will act as an effective prophylactic, most drugs that have shown results are given to already sick people in large doses in hospital settings. Data in the in vitro studies suggest that even a dose 10x what the FDA recommends as safe had results that were below the effective/therapeutic level. Results from one study found that standard doses of ivermectin in humans showed no effect with COVID on either a clinical level or a microbiological level. https://journals.plos.org/ploso
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
Quote: So not only do you easily believe unfounded claims, but you spout them as well. Anyting that goes against your narrow view of reality is liberal propaganda, right? Taking cues from Trump I see. I totally trust your judgement on analyzing medical reserach. I'm sure you have a PhD in Youtube. Please tell me how you know about my medical and research background. Where am I working right now? I'll give you a hint, it involves a hazmat suit at the moment.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
Quote: It wasn't a study on prophylactic use, they looked at biomarkers and the ivermectin did not have any effect, those who did not receive the ivermectin actually did better. It's just preliminary evidence suggesting ivermectin likely does not influence the course of the disease at all. The results have a good chance of translating over towards earlier and prophylactic use because they showed zero effect on any relevant biological markers to fighting off COVID. Even without that study (which was small and not all that convincing) I'd still have close to zero faith in the drug. In-vitro it's easy to saturate a virus with whatever chemical you're looking to study, in humans, it's usually not. The in-vitro level of exposure they used is not attainable in humans, making the research that all of this hype was based upon completely irrelevant. "The available pharmacokinetic data for ivermectin indicate that at the doses routinely used for the management of parasitic diseases the SARS-CoV-2 inhibitory concentrations are practically not attainable. At present any empiric treatment with ivermectin or its inclusion in therapeutic protocols are not scientifically justifiable. The very consideration of the drug as a broad spectrum antiviral agent is incorrect because it has failed to demonstrate antiviral effects beyond the in vitro level. Pending the paucity of reliable data from controlled studies and the aforementioned pharmacokinetic considerations, the application of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients is to be decisively discouraged." "The analyzed data show that, at least at the clinically relevant dose ranges of ivermectin, the published in vitro inhibitory concentrations and especially the 5 µmol/L level causing almost total disappearance of viral RNA are virtually not achievable with the heretofore known dosing regimens in humans. The 5 µmol/L concentration is over 50 times higher than the levels attainable after 700 μg/kg [25] and 17 times higher vs. the largest Cmax found in the literature survey (247.8 ng/ml) [12]. Moreover the authors` claim for achieving viral inhibition with a single dose is inappropriate because practically the infected cells have been continuously exposed at concentrations that are virtually unattainable even with excessive dosing of the drug. In other words, the experimental design is based on clinically irrelevant drug levels with inhibitory concentrations whose targeting in a clinical trial seems doubtful at best." "Ivermectin has been previously shown to exert antiviral activity in vitro against Dengue fever virus (DENV) [28], influenza virus [38], West Nile Virus [26], Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [27] and heralded as a possible antiviral drug, but so far there has not been any clinical translation of these data. Noteworthy, a clinical trial for the treatment of Dengue fever in Thailand failed to show clinical benefits [11]. In light of the aforementioned pharmacokinetic considerations, this is not surprising given that the published inhibitory concentrations against DENV1-4 ranged within 1.66–2.32 µmol/L [28]." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi Edited by feevers (12/13/20 09:01 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
|
You referred to us as dubious posters with no medical training.
People were saying things you didn't want to hear, you respond by spouting insults and bullshit claims instead of evidence to support this doctor's hypothesis. That's an incredibly misguided and childish way to debate an issue that you brought to the table. Quote: Never said he was, just said he most likely is because that's what every other miracle drug promoter so far has been doing. I also said he just might not be very skilled at understanding research. Quote: I'm not attacking anyone, I gave a simple opinion and evidence. Quote: Projection, nice. To anyone who understands how to critically analyze research, the answer I gave was all the evidence needed. More research is needed, the studies now don't support his take on it. If better evidence comes to the table, I'm happy to re-assess. You responded with ad hom smear tactics, logical fallacies, and zero evidence against what I've posted. Quote: Sure, your appeal to authority saying the doctor works with covid patients was useful and necessary, but the fact that I also work with covid patients is irrelevant.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana | 4,423 | 12 | 09/10/12 08:36 PM by MEEZIE |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Entire Staff 4,213 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



