Here's the thing: none of us without biomedical training are going to be able to figure out whether Ivermectin is an effective treatment. If there was anything to this, the massive corps that produce ivermectin would be going HAM to get this approved.
One of the many companies that sells ivermectin is Merck, which doesn't have a vaccine to sell. Instead, Merck is releasing public statements begging people not to buy one of their products. A giant corporation that is entirely profit driven and straight up evil can't even figure out a way for ivermectin to pass the sniff test.
What we can do is list off the many reasons it hasn't been approved as a treatment, why the studies antivaxers are pointing to are bunk, the harm it does to the human body at the dosages mentioned in those studies, etc.
Hopefully I don't sound too pissed at you or anyone else here, I just have to deal with this shit in real life too and it's exhausting. I know you're just trying to get more info to talk your brother off the ledge and I hope you're able to because this shit is dangerous.
Edit: I just Googled "Merck ivermectin" and the second result is a crazy as shit antivaxxer site. Fuck this country. Hope it fucking burns to the ground in a pile of intestinal sloughings.
I would be dubious of any study that a CHUD presents, but as far as studies go this one isn't terrible. They present a clear methodology and pathway of action, in this case by inhibiting active transport of vial DNA across the nuclear membrane, and a pretty simple experiment, infecting cells and then pelleting them to collect viral particles for quantification. That being said this is one data point that needs to be replicated to have any real relevance. Also this is still 'in vitro' "aka in test tubes for non nerds" which is completely different from in "vivo trials" which is different from actual therapeutic use. It is possible that ivermectin is effective in preventing active transport across cell membranes, but it is also possible that the dose required would kill or seriously harm a live subject. It is also possible their study suffers from systemic errors, Steve might have improperly inoculated the test samples with COVID for example because he grabbed a vial of distilled water instead of COVID . In short one study is at best an interesting starting point for investigation, but more importantly why fucking bother when we have a vaccine that has 80%-99% effectiveness.
deleted by creator
Here's the thing: none of us without biomedical training are going to be able to figure out whether Ivermectin is an effective treatment. If there was anything to this, the massive corps that produce ivermectin would be going HAM to get this approved.
One of the many companies that sells ivermectin is Merck, which doesn't have a vaccine to sell. Instead, Merck is releasing public statements begging people not to buy one of their products. A giant corporation that is entirely profit driven and straight up evil can't even figure out a way for ivermectin to pass the sniff test.
What we can do is list off the many reasons it hasn't been approved as a treatment, why the studies antivaxers are pointing to are bunk, the harm it does to the human body at the dosages mentioned in those studies, etc.
Hopefully I don't sound too pissed at you or anyone else here, I just have to deal with this shit in real life too and it's exhausting. I know you're just trying to get more info to talk your brother off the ledge and I hope you're able to because this shit is dangerous.
Edit: I just Googled "Merck ivermectin" and the second result is a crazy as shit antivaxxer site. Fuck this country. Hope it fucking burns to the ground in a pile of intestinal sloughings.
:jokerfied: :amerikkka:
deleted by creator
That's good to hear. This shit is brutal.
I would be dubious of any study that a CHUD presents, but as far as studies go this one isn't terrible. They present a clear methodology and pathway of action, in this case by inhibiting active transport of vial DNA across the nuclear membrane, and a pretty simple experiment, infecting cells and then pelleting them to collect viral particles for quantification. That being said this is one data point that needs to be replicated to have any real relevance. Also this is still 'in vitro' "aka in test tubes for non nerds" which is completely different from in "vivo trials" which is different from actual therapeutic use. It is possible that ivermectin is effective in preventing active transport across cell membranes, but it is also possible that the dose required would kill or seriously harm a live subject. It is also possible their study suffers from systemic errors, Steve might have improperly inoculated the test samples with COVID for example because he grabbed a vial of distilled water instead of COVID . In short one study is at best an interesting starting point for investigation, but more importantly why fucking bother when we have a vaccine that has 80%-99% effectiveness.