RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Ya know, this whole thing about novel uses for already established drugs in attacking certain mechanism(s) in a target pathogen. Cross uses for known drugs avoids 8 to 10 years of testing and the money saved in learning about possible novel uses represents being able to bring treatments that much faster and less expensive. Ivernectim is quite interesting, and not fully understood how it works, but its side effects, or lack thereof, are.

Internal use of dihydrogen monoxide on human health is well established, and I will assume FDA approved. . Did you know dihydrogen monoxide can be used as a solvent to clean clothes and ... hold your hat.... douse fires! The question remains, is dihydrogen monoxide FDA approved for human consumption AND ALSO for the suppression of the chemical reaction resulting from substances combining chemically with oxygen in air to rapidly oxidize? The mechanism for these side uses is totally opposite from how dihydrogen monoxide is used in the human body...


So the politics revolving around things like drugs for certain afflictions is hilarious. Chloroqin /Hydroxychloroquine is used to treat malaria... malaria isn't a virus... people I know were incredulous that anybody would take a malaria drug to treat covid, thinking that disqualified it out of hand.. . BUT wait, it is also used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus ! How can that be???? they aren't anything to do with malaria!! They even said it was dangerous for humans t take it- that it would cause death!!!... yet people with lupus take it all their lives... 25-35 years or more--- you don't know it, because it DOESN'T KILL them.

So you have to ask how it works before you call it a travesty to take it.


So here, is a peer reviewed journal to learn about ivermectim, its discovery in Japan, and the several billion doses TO HUMANS and even animals, and how it works on killing specific mechanisms in non vertebrae infestations, and also other things that cells and bacteria and viruses use and even the treatment of cancer... Think dihydrogen monoxide (water/H20)... it has a lot of uses other than the one the FDA has ( I assume) approved... Why not ask how a drug works, it mechanism(s), and accept that it may be used in many, many ways other than the one it way it was primarily known to be used/developed for.

If just to make an intelligent arguement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6

Oh, Hydroxychloroquine works by suppressing the leading cause of death from infections by controlling the body overreactive immune mechanism commonly called sepsis. People's immune system were overreacting to covid-19... sepsis was killing them... See it was drug that didn't attack the virus, it treated the bodies toxic and often deadly reaction to it.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/sars-cov-2-caused-more-deadlier-cases-sepsis-thought
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006295213003286

dakotacheryl Loc: Near Mt Rushmore

Richie.
Wow. Great post!!

rwoodvira

[quote=RichieC] Interesting reading, the use of drugs to handle other uses once out is more common than most of us think. A good example is the new injectable drugs for Type II diabetes which is now being dispensed for weight loss.

I think that one, reading your note would make the assumption that ivermectin worked; it doesn't. If you look up the trials by non-FDA scientific studies, the latest being Duke University in 2023, the results are clear that it doesn't work. As you mentioned early studies thought that it might; there was a search for something quick to stop the spread of COVID - antivirals previously used for influenza didn't work and there was no vaccine.But the problem with invermectin is that many of these tests were seriously flawed as is cited in the below article:
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o917
From what I've read Dr. Bowden continued to prescribe these drugs when sources said they didn't work. Please note that Dr. Bowden is not an expert on infectious disease; she's an ear, nose and throat specialist. One might wonder if her suit was an action because of the heat she got from the local medical boards and because her privileges were revoked at a local hospital. One can only speculate.

On hydrochloroquine, early studies thought that it might work against COVID - from memory I think one was a French study with a very small sample. Later trials also found it also lacking.

A major problem is that the FDA is a political appointee - there was intense pressure from the politicos to get something done and fast; trials for new drugs generally take years. There was enough time to take a pain-staking process; too many would die. It was a miracle that we got the vaccinations out as soon as we did.

Triple G

[quote=rwoodvira]

Those results don't seem to matter to the pro-ivermectin and hydrocloroquine proponents. It is a great thing that vaccines were developed a quickly as they were and are as effective as they are. With the kind of drugs they are, they are easily adapted for the new stains which is also a benefit. I've not read much on Plaxlovid, but I'm mighty glad that there is an FDA approved treatment available.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

If you want to bring Trump's greatest failure to November ... please be my guest. I suppose it distracts from the rape and fraud convictions. All the best and go for your life.