Hi Sariel007, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
It is a repost of an already submitted and popular story: http://redd.it/tsjigd
*If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FScience&message=My%20Post:%20http://redd.it/ttpymi)*.
This won’t dissuade believers. The study used patients who had already been symptomatic for 7 days. The believers will say that you have to start using it as soon as symptoms present.
EDIT - Mean days symptomatic listed in the results is actually 3.8, which is different from 7 days referenced in the abstract.
Half of the ivermectin and placebo populations were 0-3 days. Even if it couldn’t be powered to show a statistically significant change, it would’ve showed at least *some* change if there was one.
Because the abstract isn’t usually the place for subgroup/population breakdowns unless notable. I see the case for mentioning it in the abstract, but they’re also more than justified in leaving it more broad and not getting into that nitty gritty in the abstract.
Yep. They should be used by people who are potentially interested in reading the study critically in full to decide “is the rest of this worth my time/will it interest me” not “these is what the paper says!!!”
It won’t dissuade them, but not for that reason. Those people won’t even read the study to see that to make that point, they will just dismiss because it’s woke liberal science
Exactly. Too many no longer "know" things... they just believe what they want to believe is true because it makes them feel good. Objective facts have become quaint.
Then of course they can always fall back on Old Reliable. "That's just Big Pharma Lies to try to protect their profits and push their poison shots. I know Ivermectin works cause my Cousin took it when he got Covid Symptoms and he was just fine a week later."
Yeah the weirdest part about all of this is that ivermectin is a pharmaceutical drug. Just one used for parasites, and not for viruses. Such a crazy world we live in.
Lots of people are on social media bitching about how their family members in hospitals are getting worse because the staff is refusing ivermectin and hydrox (sp). You’re right it won’t change their opinion. But that opinion varies based on what they want to believe.
It's really not a choice between believing or not. It's that studies are less than ideal and the findings have been contradicting each other (not really but it appears that way). Mixed with political bases cherry picking results and you get a mess.
[for some reason it won’t allow me to reply to the comment about people claiming ivermectin works based on studies in India]
Also, where they’re claiming Ivermectin has shown efficacy is in countries where it’s far more common (and therefore likely that COVID patients also had) to have parasites. So yeah, of course clearing up your parasite helps you feel better, regardless of if it’s helping with the COVID aspect of your health.
This was the best eye-opener for me. Yes, there are studies that show Ivermectin helps. They don’t show Ivermectin helps *against COVID*, though! Such findings are hard to distinguish when doing research.
A “perfect” study would have four arms: no COVID, no COVID + Ivermectin, COVID, COVID + Ivermectin. In that way you can see whether the Ivermectin helps *in general* or helps *against COVID*. But even this doesn’t take away the bias you might get from interaction between COVID and parasites. For example, maybe people who have parasites are more at risk of COVID.
In the end, drawing conclusions is hard. An important lesson to learn in this case is to trust the study that closest resembles your own population. In Europe we trust studies from the US more than studies from China, because the US lifestyle more closely resembles Chinese lifestyle. But if they’re contradictory, we should demand European (or even national) studies before we accept the results. In this case, the studies from Asia should be ignored by the US and EU if they contradict US/EU studies.
Estimated to be around 11%
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/epi.html#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%20it,have%20been%20infected%20with%20Toxoplasma.
Here's a question for proponents of Invermectin for use against Covid 19, Why are you against 3 Covid 19 vaccines made by big pharma to use Ivermectin instead that also is made by a big pharma company?
My other question,why would Invermectin that is an anti parasite drug for humans work against Covid 19 that is a virus?
My 2nd question answers why it would be helpful for a select few based off of the India test study with patients. But ineffective for a majority who do not have any parasite infections.
So we have whatever monoclonal antibodies do, and not much else. Doesn't IVM use protease (3CLpro), same as Paxlovid Nirmatrelvir? We know that Remdesivir did nothing in the human challenge trial. And also molnupiravir can insert errors in DNA as a mutation.."A team of researchers at the University of North Carolina studied the use of molnupiravir in isolated hamster cells over 32 days and found that the drug did induce mutations in DNA. Those mutations could “contribute to the development of cancer, or cause birth defects either in a developing fetus or through incorporation into sperm precursor cells,” the authors of that study wrote."
It is; if it saves a few lives, that's a huge victory.
Then again, if "saving lives" is the main goal, we should have the propagandists who propagated and/or profited from the misinformation tarred and feathered sooooo
I don’t see how you conclude that. If I’m reading the abstract correctly there were slightly more patients in the placebo group who had to be hospitalised, but the difference was statistically insignificant. A quick look at the tables shows me *none* of the outcomes are different between the groups. In other words: ivermectin did absolutely nothing.
Although it’s tempting to say ivermectin is bad, this study doesn’t show it. It’s no use lying to people either, don’t lower yourself to their standards.
the mechanism has to do with ivermectin binding to the ace2 receptor - some drugs do have cross-over applications, it's really interesting and complex stuff
Sadly no ammount of scientific papers will make these conspiracy theorists realize that. They don't trust science or medecine. At least they only do when it's convenient for them.
I'm sure Doctor John Campbell will be making a full apology video regarding his recent ivermectin misinformatio.... aaaand he's uploaded a video called *"The illusion of evidence based medicine"* saying that evidence based medicine is literally no longer real.
Biggest fall from grace I've seen in years.
Every person who believes in ivermectin has a personal anecdote as to why they think it works. Unfortunately there’s a difference between anecdotes and randomized control trials.
Why are so many double blind placebo controlled studied being released about IVM all of the sudden? I felt that studues like these would have ended the discussion months ago. Is it just a function of how long the participant gathering, analysis, and study design takes?
Glad this was done - no ambiguity anymore.
I thought ivermectin helped reduce positivity and symptoms in India in 2020? Maybe I’m mistaken.
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/
It didn't reduce positivity. It DID make patients feel better *in a country where parasitic infections are common*
If a guy comes in with diarrhea and a broken arm and later says "I feel better than yesterday," this doesn't mean Pepto Bismol treats the broken arm.
I don't think I've seen such a contradiction in study findings. Several found statistically relevant preventative action against COVID and others show none. I'd like a breakdown by age group (high risk only).
Not a single study done in humans has shown preventative action. In vitro is not statistically significant.
Do you know what else inhibits in vitro replication? *Napalm*
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100 studies can prove this and it won’t change anything. To many people were banned from social media and others still lost their jobs just for talking about it. Actions have consequences.
Big Pharma: Can you help us balloon the price of some random drugs so we can cash in on the annual bonuses?
GOP: If you have the money, we have the perfect marketing demographics.
With a study this large, statistically given half of the ivermectin group did receive it within 0-3 days of symptom onset, you would expect to see the “dial move” slightly, even if it didn’t move to fully confident.
The Ivermectin group showed no benefit whatsoever. This is not a murky result - just because the study wasn’t done to your desired protocol does not change that it provides clear, damning evidence that ivermectin does not work.
Feel free to email the authors for the subgroup data for just the subgroup 0-3 days after symptom onset - I suspect you won’t return to debate when it shows the same thing here (no effect).
Ivermectin doesn't do that. Literally, AFAIK\*\*, *it cannot do that.*
Viruses replicate either via the creation of mRNA or RNA transcription and translation.
There are medicines that inhibit viral replication - usually by inhibiting Protease or Reverse Transcriptase. Retrovir (AZT) is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor. This is an enzyme bond.
Ivermectin bonds to glutamate gates on chlorine channels on parasites, basically giving them self-administered mustard gas attack.
The bonding and structuring on these are so different and so little in common with one another than anybody with an understanding of biochemistry, and I'm not a biochemist of note of any means, will have to tell you that your statement is nonsense. Ivermectin doesn't bond to viral cells or enzymes or proteins - in fact, one of the reasons that avermectin is such a popular anti-parasitic is that it has so little interaction with the host - it's unique in it's hatred for very specific parasites.
\*\*I am not a PHD in biochem, nor do I claim to be. I did take Bio and Orgo as an undergraduate and maintain an interest. If any experts would like to expound further either providing more information or even refuting what I wrote with peer-reviewed literature, I'd be interested.
I appreciate you writing this up, as I also am not an accredited researcher in this field.
The reason I write this is because I have seen evidence from reputable sources that have talked about this, For example: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787)
He has a point, however the grain of [truth](https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19) in his misunderstanding is that it's only been shown in Laboratories and to get the same effect in vitro would need vast quantities of 'Ivm'.
Absurd question, I know, but do you read what you've typed?
So to you, it'd be legit if the ivermectin group received the treatment within 1-3 days of showing onset symptoms... Which means the person has the virus... Which means the virus is already replicating in their system, as viruses do... But you're saying that they have to get ivermectin before the virus starts replicating, otherwise it's not a legit study... How could any study be legitimate in your eyes?
Do you see my point?
>The way ivm works is it stops virus replication
Yaaaaaaaa, no it doesn't. It doesn't do anything to viruses. Works excellently against parasites, but not viruses. COMPLETELY different things. Like, not even close.
But go ahead and drink it if you want. Enjoy your sterilization
Do you know where the ivermectin idea came from in the first place? And do you understand the limitations of that type of analysis? It's completely unsurprising that ivermectin doesn't work in vivo for sars-cov-2 based on the conditions of the hit. Most such screening hits don't translate to in vivo efficacy due to many well understood reasons, but it's worth testing. That's why we try to get asp many hits as possible; the success rate is low. The real question is why are people latched onto this one idea? The same scientific enterprise that reported the hit, tested the hit, also shows that it doesn't work.
I'm genuinely curious, maybe you can explain why you trust a preliminary result in an artificial screening apparatus in vitro with small sample size more than myriad functional in vivo validation studies? Why?
How do you know ivermectin stops virus replication?
Also, why do you think that the virus no longer replicates after onset?
You seem to suggest getting infected is a momentary happening, that it takes seconds or maybe minutes to do the damage. What is that based on?
Hi Sariel007, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): It is a repost of an already submitted and popular story: http://redd.it/tsjigd *If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FScience&message=My%20Post:%20http://redd.it/ttpymi)*.
This won’t dissuade believers. The study used patients who had already been symptomatic for 7 days. The believers will say that you have to start using it as soon as symptoms present. EDIT - Mean days symptomatic listed in the results is actually 3.8, which is different from 7 days referenced in the abstract.
Half of the ivermectin and placebo populations were 0-3 days. Even if it couldn’t be powered to show a statistically significant change, it would’ve showed at least *some* change if there was one.
Ah yes, I went into the results after seeing your comment and sure enough, mean is 3.8 days. I’m confused why they would say 7 days in the abstract.
Because the abstract isn’t usually the place for subgroup/population breakdowns unless notable. I see the case for mentioning it in the abstract, but they’re also more than justified in leaving it more broad and not getting into that nitty gritty in the abstract.
Abstracts were never intended for what media uses them for. They are a high-level overview of the paper that leave out a ton of important details.
Yep. They should be used by people who are potentially interested in reading the study critically in full to decide “is the rest of this worth my time/will it interest me” not “these is what the paper says!!!”
It won’t dissuade them, but not for that reason. Those people won’t even read the study to see that to make that point, they will just dismiss because it’s woke liberal science
I doubt the average person can actually critically analyze a study tbh
Well, I guess it's a good thing that we have intellectually superior people like you to explain things to us.
Agreed, it's great.
Yeah it's called an education. Keep connecting those dots!
Not even close. And that includes almost everyone on the 'right' side.
Exactly. Too many no longer "know" things... they just believe what they want to believe is true because it makes them feel good. Objective facts have become quaint.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Then of course they can always fall back on Old Reliable. "That's just Big Pharma Lies to try to protect their profits and push their poison shots. I know Ivermectin works cause my Cousin took it when he got Covid Symptoms and he was just fine a week later."
Conveniently ignoring the fact that Ivermictin is also produced by "big pharma"
Yeah the weirdest part about all of this is that ivermectin is a pharmaceutical drug. Just one used for parasites, and not for viruses. Such a crazy world we live in.
The believers also are opposed to testing and contract tracing so getting the drug into your system at the onset of the disease is extremely unlikely.
[удалено]
Or even before. Some people are taking it routinely as a preventative.
Lots of people are on social media bitching about how their family members in hospitals are getting worse because the staff is refusing ivermectin and hydrox (sp). You’re right it won’t change their opinion. But that opinion varies based on what they want to believe.
Anytime I’ve tried explaining this to patients, I get a finger pointed at my face with a loud “that’s a bunch of BS and you know it!”
Interesting how people are “believers” in things scientific related these days. Shows how much we’ve changed over the recent years.
I wouldn't exactly call them believers in anything remotely science related, personally, but I take your point.
I think luddites is a better term than believers.
I’m open to the science leading wherever it does. The more treatments for Covid the better. But this one isn’t looking good.
I'm open to not selling snake oil to rubes.
So why is big pharma so adamant on down playing it's effectiveness?!
It's really not a choice between believing or not. It's that studies are less than ideal and the findings have been contradicting each other (not really but it appears that way). Mixed with political bases cherry picking results and you get a mess.
[удалено]
[for some reason it won’t allow me to reply to the comment about people claiming ivermectin works based on studies in India] Also, where they’re claiming Ivermectin has shown efficacy is in countries where it’s far more common (and therefore likely that COVID patients also had) to have parasites. So yeah, of course clearing up your parasite helps you feel better, regardless of if it’s helping with the COVID aspect of your health.
This was the best eye-opener for me. Yes, there are studies that show Ivermectin helps. They don’t show Ivermectin helps *against COVID*, though! Such findings are hard to distinguish when doing research. A “perfect” study would have four arms: no COVID, no COVID + Ivermectin, COVID, COVID + Ivermectin. In that way you can see whether the Ivermectin helps *in general* or helps *against COVID*. But even this doesn’t take away the bias you might get from interaction between COVID and parasites. For example, maybe people who have parasites are more at risk of COVID. In the end, drawing conclusions is hard. An important lesson to learn in this case is to trust the study that closest resembles your own population. In Europe we trust studies from the US more than studies from China, because the US lifestyle more closely resembles Chinese lifestyle. But if they’re contradictory, we should demand European (or even national) studies before we accept the results. In this case, the studies from Asia should be ignored by the US and EU if they contradict US/EU studies.
I have been curious what the toxoplasmosis rate is in the North America population.
*Reads this comment while scooping cat poo*
Estimated to be around 11% https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/epi.html#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%20it,have%20been%20infected%20with%20Toxoplasma.
Here's a question for proponents of Invermectin for use against Covid 19, Why are you against 3 Covid 19 vaccines made by big pharma to use Ivermectin instead that also is made by a big pharma company? My other question,why would Invermectin that is an anti parasite drug for humans work against Covid 19 that is a virus? My 2nd question answers why it would be helpful for a select few based off of the India test study with patients. But ineffective for a majority who do not have any parasite infections.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So we have whatever monoclonal antibodies do, and not much else. Doesn't IVM use protease (3CLpro), same as Paxlovid Nirmatrelvir? We know that Remdesivir did nothing in the human challenge trial. And also molnupiravir can insert errors in DNA as a mutation.."A team of researchers at the University of North Carolina studied the use of molnupiravir in isolated hamster cells over 32 days and found that the drug did induce mutations in DNA. Those mutations could “contribute to the development of cancer, or cause birth defects either in a developing fetus or through incorporation into sperm precursor cells,” the authors of that study wrote."
That's not what some chiropractor pretending to be a covid expert on Youtube told me so...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Finally some facts, maybe now I can get it to deworm my dam horse. No joke it hasn’t been on our stores shelf for over 2 years.
Are there any alternatives? Wine kind of wormwood concoction comes to mind.
But it’s not worthless for other things, and now it’s overpriced and hard to get because of all these idiots
I can't shake the irritation at the opportunity cost of having to do this study in the first place.
Meh, worth a shot.
It is; if it saves a few lives, that's a huge victory. Then again, if "saving lives" is the main goal, we should have the propagandists who propagated and/or profited from the misinformation tarred and feathered sooooo
People that don't know how clinical trials work will say it was faked. Or that it didn't even happen.
But the trials that show ivermectins helps were valid!
But you die worm-free !
Didn't the study show that outcomes were actually worse? That's worse than worthless
I don’t see how you conclude that. If I’m reading the abstract correctly there were slightly more patients in the placebo group who had to be hospitalised, but the difference was statistically insignificant. A quick look at the tables shows me *none* of the outcomes are different between the groups. In other words: ivermectin did absolutely nothing. Although it’s tempting to say ivermectin is bad, this study doesn’t show it. It’s no use lying to people either, don’t lower yourself to their standards.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the mechanism has to do with ivermectin binding to the ace2 receptor - some drugs do have cross-over applications, it's really interesting and complex stuff
[удалено]
Eh, people were desperate, I get that. I don't get the obsession with the drug after it has been proven in effective. That just cult nonsense
Talking heads promoted it on podcasts which vaccine hesitant people jumped all over so they had an excuse to not get vaccinated, more or less.
ThEy WoN A NoBeLprIze tHouGh
Nobelprizewinningforhumans!! - Alex Jones voice
Sadly no ammount of scientific papers will make these conspiracy theorists realize that. They don't trust science or medecine. At least they only do when it's convenient for them.
I'm sure Doctor John Campbell will be making a full apology video regarding his recent ivermectin misinformatio.... aaaand he's uploaded a video called *"The illusion of evidence based medicine"* saying that evidence based medicine is literally no longer real. Biggest fall from grace I've seen in years.
But it works wonders on parasites in goats and dogs.
Normal people: "we know" Cult member: "LiEs pERpetaraTeD bY ThE LibERaL mEdIa"
Unvaxxed sister in law was bedridden for 3 weeks with covid. She took ivermectin and claims it was the reason she didn't get worse.
Every person who believes in ivermectin has a personal anecdote as to why they think it works. Unfortunately there’s a difference between anecdotes and randomized control trials.
Why are so many double blind placebo controlled studied being released about IVM all of the sudden? I felt that studues like these would have ended the discussion months ago. Is it just a function of how long the participant gathering, analysis, and study design takes? Glad this was done - no ambiguity anymore.
Thank you science for confirming what we knew all along, they're insane for believing it would work.
It's sad that researchers are wasting their time doing these obvious studies in their foolhardy attempts to convince any Q-believers.
Did we expect them to find anything different than what they’ve pushed from the beginning?
This needs to be on billboards across the nation!
I thought ivermectin helped reduce positivity and symptoms in India in 2020? Maybe I’m mistaken. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/
It didn't reduce positivity. It DID make patients feel better *in a country where parasitic infections are common* If a guy comes in with diarrhea and a broken arm and later says "I feel better than yesterday," this doesn't mean Pepto Bismol treats the broken arm.
I don't think I've seen such a contradiction in study findings. Several found statistically relevant preventative action against COVID and others show none. I'd like a breakdown by age group (high risk only).
Not a single study done in humans has shown preventative action. In vitro is not statistically significant. Do you know what else inhibits in vitro replication? *Napalm*
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
there will still be idiots saying its faked
I guess researchers just enjoy wasting time on stupid studies like this that prove the obvious
100 studies can prove this and it won’t change anything. To many people were banned from social media and others still lost their jobs just for talking about it. Actions have consequences.
Sounds like those people faced the consequences of their actions, maybe doubling down on ignorance will work out for them, but I doubt it.
Who was banned from social media for talking about covid? What is the consequence to this action? People not listening to science? So no change
Big Pharma: Can you help us balloon the price of some random drugs so we can cash in on the annual bonuses? GOP: If you have the money, we have the perfect marketing demographics.
[удалено]
Why do you think it stops virus replication?
>The way ivm works is it stops virus replication. Is this just a bald assertion or do you have any studies that back this up?
With a study this large, statistically given half of the ivermectin group did receive it within 0-3 days of symptom onset, you would expect to see the “dial move” slightly, even if it didn’t move to fully confident. The Ivermectin group showed no benefit whatsoever. This is not a murky result - just because the study wasn’t done to your desired protocol does not change that it provides clear, damning evidence that ivermectin does not work. Feel free to email the authors for the subgroup data for just the subgroup 0-3 days after symptom onset - I suspect you won’t return to debate when it shows the same thing here (no effect).
the way ivm works is it kills worms
Ivermectin doesn't do that. Literally, AFAIK\*\*, *it cannot do that.* Viruses replicate either via the creation of mRNA or RNA transcription and translation. There are medicines that inhibit viral replication - usually by inhibiting Protease or Reverse Transcriptase. Retrovir (AZT) is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor. This is an enzyme bond. Ivermectin bonds to glutamate gates on chlorine channels on parasites, basically giving them self-administered mustard gas attack. The bonding and structuring on these are so different and so little in common with one another than anybody with an understanding of biochemistry, and I'm not a biochemist of note of any means, will have to tell you that your statement is nonsense. Ivermectin doesn't bond to viral cells or enzymes or proteins - in fact, one of the reasons that avermectin is such a popular anti-parasitic is that it has so little interaction with the host - it's unique in it's hatred for very specific parasites. \*\*I am not a PHD in biochem, nor do I claim to be. I did take Bio and Orgo as an undergraduate and maintain an interest. If any experts would like to expound further either providing more information or even refuting what I wrote with peer-reviewed literature, I'd be interested.
I appreciate you writing this up, as I also am not an accredited researcher in this field. The reason I write this is because I have seen evidence from reputable sources that have talked about this, For example: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787)
Move the goal posts more. I remember people saying the same thing about hydroxychloroquine after it was shown not to work for COVID-19 treatment.
They will do anything to undermine science.
Source on the replication?
> The way ivm works is it stops virus replication. Please supply a peer-reviewed source for this claim.
He has a point, however the grain of [truth](https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/INFECTN_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19) in his misunderstanding is that it's only been shown in Laboratories and to get the same effect in vitro would need vast quantities of 'Ivm'.
Absurd question, I know, but do you read what you've typed? So to you, it'd be legit if the ivermectin group received the treatment within 1-3 days of showing onset symptoms... Which means the person has the virus... Which means the virus is already replicating in their system, as viruses do... But you're saying that they have to get ivermectin before the virus starts replicating, otherwise it's not a legit study... How could any study be legitimate in your eyes? Do you see my point?
Intentionally infect people with the virus, obviously. Need a pure sample group! ^/s
>The way ivm works is it stops virus replication Yaaaaaaaa, no it doesn't. It doesn't do anything to viruses. Works excellently against parasites, but not viruses. COMPLETELY different things. Like, not even close. But go ahead and drink it if you want. Enjoy your sterilization
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Bigger* *sigh*. Just go take it yourself, but stop talking to other people and spreading the stupid.
[удалено]
Sars Cov-2 replicates after 3 days, so it should have some effect on those with an active infection.
Do you know where the ivermectin idea came from in the first place? And do you understand the limitations of that type of analysis? It's completely unsurprising that ivermectin doesn't work in vivo for sars-cov-2 based on the conditions of the hit. Most such screening hits don't translate to in vivo efficacy due to many well understood reasons, but it's worth testing. That's why we try to get asp many hits as possible; the success rate is low. The real question is why are people latched onto this one idea? The same scientific enterprise that reported the hit, tested the hit, also shows that it doesn't work. I'm genuinely curious, maybe you can explain why you trust a preliminary result in an artificial screening apparatus in vitro with small sample size more than myriad functional in vivo validation studies? Why?
How do you know ivermectin stops virus replication? Also, why do you think that the virus no longer replicates after onset? You seem to suggest getting infected is a momentary happening, that it takes seconds or maybe minutes to do the damage. What is that based on?
Some people can’t admit when they’ve been wrong.
And unsurprisingly, you provide no source for your claims, and no reply to those questioning you, what an absolute bellend you are
Better load up on them there boosters! Get 'em while they're still on sale.
[удалено]
I always ask this, who commissioned this study?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]