Bruddah IZ
DA
We've been camping twice at San Onofre on the military side. No issues. Public sites seem to be fine issueless as well. No mask required at eateries.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
More proof that vaccines don't work as well as the immune system that has been to battle with the Corona virus long before the experts arrived on the scene.And now we move on to the next set of gov demands. The US won't be far behind.
Some countries are setting vaccine expiration dates for travel - The Points Guy
You got vaccinated, but now some countries are imposing time limits on the COVID-19 vaccines.thepointsguy.com
O.k. Team Safety, I need your help on something...... to see if this idea can be destroyed. In this video, John Campbell explains that Ivermectin works along the same basic structural ideas as the new Pfizer and Merck drugs. They are different molecules. But the mechanism is the same. Ivermectin may very well be less efficient at the doses safe for human consumption than the new drugs, but basically it does the same trick. Campbell has been very pro government throughout all this, criticizing the antimaskers, antivaxxers, and antilockdowners, so it's surprising for him to suggest that governments have recklessly killed millions for the sake of protecting drug company profits. Furthermore, with much of the third world unable to afford the new drugs, but able to afford the out of patent Ivermectin, it's going to cost more lives. What does he get wrong? Is this just a conspiracy theory, and if so why? Please do your best, if you are able, at tearing him down. Because otherwise this is one of the biggest scandals in human history (with lives basically thrown away) and it falls on the heads of some pretty big sacred cows including Fauci/NIH, the WHO, and the EMA.
Bruddah IZ
DA
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
I didn't click, but there is a paper that showed that, for in vitro cultured cells, IVM at high concentration can block viral entry to some extent by targeting the S-Ace2 receptor interaction, much as it has been shown to disrupt cell entry for other viruses. that is the "same mechanism" you are talking about. The problem, from a physiological standpoint, is delivering the drug at an efficacious concentration to the necessary site of action, which in this case is the external surface of epithelial cells lining your respiratory track, requires a very high circulating concentration. Since IVM is metabolized and cleared rapidly, there are studies showing that it may not be possible to sustain the necessary circulating concentration for a pharmacologically relevant period of time. As has been discussed here, at high concentrations IVM can also cross the blood brain barrier and enter the central nervous system, at which site it is a rather potent neurotoxin because it can target the receptors involved in neuronal signalling. So there is a drug targeting problem with IVM for respiratory viruses. Snorting IVM might be one possibility; I imagine somebody is trying it.
Rather than preventing infection, it's possible that IVM may be of value at high concentration at limiting infections once they become more systemic, or once the permeability of the aveolar epithelium becomes altered due to immune cell infiltration as a Cov-2 infection really gets going. Because IVM can disrupt so many types of small molecule/receptor interactions, it is also a good anti-inflmmatory, and it's clear at this point that IVM can work like some of the other anti-inflammatories that are being used to treat COVID.
For the rest of it, going from "Ivermectin may very well be less efficient at the doses safe for human consumption" to the all rest of it, others can play with it if they think it has any relevance.
At the micro level, as explored in this video, ivermectin is shown to be effective at attacking some specific steps in the viral infection process.
At the macro level, as in drug effectiveness and safety trials in actual humans, it is not.
Disappointed. a. we know Ivermectin is safe to use at certain doses in human, b. some of the trials have shown an impact at the doses used in humans, and c. people have been talking Ivermectin since summer of last year so there's been plenty of time to get that data done. So the claim is that at doses which have been shown to be safe for human consumption for other purposes, Ivermectin does something (maybe not as much as the 2 new drugs which are specifically targeted, but something). And something (when we had nothing) would have been great, and still might be useful for countries that can't afford the 2 new drugs.
Didn't really expect much for espola, but did from dad4. Seriously, I'm looking for reasoning why Campbell is wrong...I could have done this. The only thing this illustrates is yes, it's right, but the dosing required is too high but there's no facts in evidence supporting that contention. Maybe the other 2 will show up.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Mandate IVM and lets see how effective it is.
Unlike the other two this is useful, thanks. The "may not' be possible gives me pause considering some of the result tracking studies that came out. The argument Campbell makes isn't about preventing infections but limiting them. The take away I get from your breakdown, is it may very well work to limit infection at the safe doses, but not very well but: a) we don't know for sure yet (which in my mind is a clear failure of the public health authorities...they've known this for a while and we know Fauci has been funneling money in certain ways) and b) not very efficiently (which is fine, but the argument is at the time we didn't have anything else and much of the 3rd world still doesn't have anything else). The conclusion which would hold out is so long as the dosing is kept safe, what would it do harm, since there is the possibility it seems to help. Thanks!
Bruddah IZ
DA
But only if you're using government mandated silver bullets.
As usual, I didn't see anything wrong with the Campbell video. As usual, I found fault with the emotional conclusions you jumped to as a result.
Then you didn't watch to the end. He essentially suggests a conspiracy and unusual for him gets emotional. Seriously, espola, how clueless are you???
To the cynical, it would appear that ivermectin will reduce the incidence of covid deaths because the patients will die from ivermectin poisoning first.
"You're not a horse, you're not a cow" etc.
wow you are in a rush to prove how clueless you really are today. Ivermectin has been taken by people around the world safely for years. The question, as evil goalie has framed it, is whether at the doses which are safe for human consumption (how far has this been pushed?) does it do anything to help (and if so how much)?
p.s. as an aside, if we knew that (which by this point we really really should), wouldn't it be fun to have the debate is ivermectin more efficient than masks?
Why would you think a math teacher or a lawyer has the requisite skills to assess drug safety and effectiveness?
My stats are not up to the task. Your stats are definitely not up to the task.
We train biostatisticians for a reason. Why not listen to them?
Bruddah IZ
DA
IVM isn't a silver bullet. If it was it would have been mandated.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Coo coo.
Bruddah IZ
DA
What a novel idea. You've ignored them from the beginning.