• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

COVID treatments debate

covid coronavirus treatments fda

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 October 2021 - 06:03 PM


I always thought is was very funny the way people behaved during the devastating bubonic plague (Black Death) that hit in 1347, and killed a third of the people in Europe.

 

At the time, the common people believed that the plague was a punishment by God, because humans had been sinning too much. 

 

So the people in the street when around constantly flogging and beating themselves with whips, sticks, etc. The believed that by such flagellation, they could atone for their sins, and so be protected against the plague.

 

 

 

Of course, the intelligentsia of the time were much wiser, and the knew the plague was transmitted from one human to another, so the intelligentsia engaged in social distancing, which helped protect them from the pathogen which causes bubonic plague (the bacterium Yersinia pestis).

 

But laughably, the common people just kept going around whipping themselves and inflicting pain! 

 

The moral of the story is that the common people often get it wrong, whereas the intelligentsia usually know better.

 

 

 

[mod]This thread contains off-topic posts mainly from the ivermectin thread. Other off topic posts specifically to do with HDQ and nasal irrigation were merged into their respective threads. There may be other themes here (notably on mAbs) - if you want to pursue these please start a new thread. 

What remains is a general debate about how to determine the general safety and efficacy of COVID treatments. You can continue to discuss that here, but please do not constantly 'infect' other more specific threads with it. While this debate has its place, the ad-hominem and hyperbole that often seeps into it has none. 

We assume good faith and an earnest desire for civilised debate from anyone posting at LongeCity. We also require everyone making an effort to keep information relevant and focused on topic. Users who cannot follow these guidelines either through ill will or incompetence will have to be excluded. -caliban[/mod]


Edited by caliban, 02 November 2021 - 12:30 PM.
split, note

  • Ill informed x 4
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#2 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 October 2021 - 09:09 PM

I always thought is was very funny the way people behaved during the devastating bubonic plague (Black Death) that hit in 1347, and killed a third of the people in Europe.

 

At the time, the common people believed that the plague was a punishment by God, because humans had been sinning too much. 

 

So the people in the street when around constantly flogging and beating themselves with whips, sticks, etc. The believed that by such flagellation, they could atone for their sins, and so be protected against the plague.

 

 

 

Of course, the intelligentsia of the time were much wiser, and the knew the plague was transmitted from one human to another, so the intelligentsia engaged in social distancing, which helped protect them from the pathogen which causes bubonic plague (the bacterium Yersinia pestis).

 

But laughably, the common people just kept going around whipping themselves and inflicting pain! 

 

 

 

The moral of the story is that the common people often get it wrong, whereas the intelligentsia usually know better.

You can’t logically jump from a single example to “usually”. Also, the intelligentsia of the time believed in miasma theory, which is not the same as believing in person-to-person spread. True, belief in miasma will cause one to avoid unsanitary places, sick people, and dead bodies. But is not as if the intelligentsia were exceedingly wise.

 

Here is a counter example. The common people believed that milkmaids never got smallpox. The intelligentsia thought this was an old wives tale. Then one smart guy named Jenner was open-minded enough to take it seriously and look into it. The result: vaccination against smallpox.

 


  • Good Point x 3
  • Off-Topic x 1

#3 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 October 2021 - 11:01 PM

Here is a counter example. The common people believed that milkmaids never got smallpox. The intelligentsia thought this was an old wives tale. Then one smart guy named Jenner was open-minded enough to take it seriously and look into it. The result: vaccination against smallpox.

 

Yes, sometimes you do get common wisdom.

 

Interestingly, the smallpox vaccination which Dr Jenner developed — the world's first vaccine — actually became compulsory in England in 1853. The Vaccination Act of 1853 made it mandatory for all children to be vaccinated against smallpox. It was illegal to refuse smallpox vaccination, with a fine to pay if you did refuse. 

 

So when people talk about COVID vaccine mandates, this would be nothing new. 


Edited by Hip, 16 October 2021 - 11:04 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#4 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 845 posts
  • 435
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 October 2021 - 12:32 AM

I think the evidence of from US doctors is good enough now,

 

BUT early on, I would have liked to see more US studies, too bad our health agencies have been paid off so this is all we have left... 63 and counting, but nothing from us

 

I suppose you think the Remdesivir study was the height of pure untainted scientific evidence?  We are still using the poison here in the states.  The corruption is obvious..


  • Good Point x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#5 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 October 2021 - 01:27 AM

Interesting quote from Dr. Sheldrick:

That's not to say that all public supporters of ours make legitimate points or that all criticism is invalid. For instance some supporters try and translate fraud in studies supporting ivermectin as positive proof it doesn't work, that's not valid."

 

That is a reasonable statement, and so is this: It is the totality of evidence that counts.

 

I find it interesting to think about what may go through the mind of someone thinking about committing scientific fraud. It seems like a big risk to take, especially if you intend to publish about something the whole world is interested in.

 

Suppose you are a clinician in third-world country. You really want to publish something to boost your prestige. You aim to publish a study of Ivermectin for Covid, because that is something you and your colleagues are actually doing. You find that you don’t really have the wherewithal to do a proper study. You are busy treating patients. You have no funding. Maybe you collect some data, maybe you decide from the start to fabricate data. What direction is your fraud most likely to take? I submit that you would choose to fabricate data to seem like it could be real based on your experience. This would be especially important if you intend to have coauthors who are not in on the fraud. Your more honest collaborators are sure to notice if your numbers are too discordant with their lived experience. Even with a full conspiracy, everybody would be motivated to create something close to what they believe would happen in a proper study. They would be less likely to get caught that way, and maybe proper studies will eventually corroborate the fake conclusions.

In fact, individuals could even assuage what is left of their conscience by telling themselves that their fraud does no harm, because even though the numbers are fake the conclusion is probably true.

 


  • unsure x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#6 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 204 posts
  • 129
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 October 2021 - 01:46 AM

 

Interestingly, the smallpox vaccination which Dr Jenner developed — the world's first vaccine — actually became compulsory in England in 1853. The Vaccination Act of 1853 made it mandatory for all children to be vaccinated against smallpox. It was illegal to refuse smallpox vaccination, with a fine to pay if you did refuse. 

 

So when people talk about COVID vaccine mandates, this would be nothing new. 

The smallpox vaccine was far more effective than any of the current Covid vaccines. And smallpox was a far more deadly disease than Covid ever was. The success of the smallpox vaccine is not a justification for Covid vaccine mandates.


  • Agree x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1

#7 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2021 - 03:23 AM

The smallpox vaccine was far more effective than any of the current Covid vaccines. And smallpox was a far more deadly disease than Covid ever was. The success of the smallpox vaccine is not a justification for Covid vaccine mandates.

 

I agree that smallpox killed a higher percentage of the population than COVID, but not that much higher.

 

This article indicates that smallpox killed around 3 million a year globally in the 20th century:

 

 

Some academic estimates place smallpox's death toll at 300 million in the twentieth century

 

 

That is about the same amount as COVID has killed per year globally. But global populations were considerably smaller in the 20th century, with the world population in 1950 being 2.5 billion, compared to the 7.9 billion at present. So if smallpox returned today, it would probably be killing something like 9 million per year in this larger population.

 

 

But the point is, the anti-vax mantra of "my body, my choice" carries no weight in law. If COVID had been a bit more serious, you can be sure that governments would have made vaccination compulsory, and most of public would probably have supported it. 

 

Civil liberty is merely a matter of degree, and depends on the situation: if a worse pandemic comes in the future, or if a worse variant of coronavirus appears, history shows civil liberties will be curtailed, and vaccination would be made compulsory. 


Edited by Hip, 17 October 2021 - 03:39 AM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Agree x 1
  • dislike x 1

#8 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2021 - 03:48 AM

However I am not saying other drugs shouldnt have been studied first, there are quite a few extracts like licorice, egcg, quercetin, curcumin, and beta glucans that I would like to see studies on

 

Do you know of any viral infection which can be successfully treated with supplements? I mean, there are hundreds of different human viruses; can you give any example of a viral infection which can be effectively treated with supplements?  

 

You have HIV, herpes simplex, shingles (varicella infection), cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus (mononucleosis), Kaposi's sarcoma virus, influenza, parainfluenza, metapneumovirus, parvovirus B19, coxsackievirus, echovirus, enterovirus, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, West Nile virus, bornavirus, Ross River virus, molluscum contagiosum, JC virus, etc, etc.

 

Those are the well-known viruses, and there a dozens of other human viruses which are less well known.

 

 

Do you know of any supplements or herbs which can effectively treat these infections? I know just a handful of examples where supplements can help a little bit with one or two of the above viral infections, but generally supplements do not work.

 

So if supplements generally are not helpful for viral infections, it's not very likely supplements are going to work for coronavirus.


Edited by Hip, 17 October 2021 - 03:49 AM.

  • Ill informed x 4
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#9 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 845 posts
  • 435
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 October 2021 - 06:52 AM

So if supplements generally are not helpful for viral infections, it's not very likely supplements are going to work for coronavirus.

 

Its ok, Im sure Ivermectin doesnt taste that bad if you have to take it..No reason to get excited.

 

On EGCG , using science instead of cynicism

 

"Recent double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, reported up to 75% reduction in the risk of respiratory infection by healthcare workers during an outbreak of H1N1 influenza, simultaneously enhancing systemic immunity by increasing proliferation of ϒδ T cells (28%) and production of IFN-γ (26%). In molecular docking studies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak also known as COVID-19) EGCG was identified as a candidate with very high potential for antiviral chemoprophylaxis of COVID-19" - Link

 

But either way, why not find out?

 

Personally I do have greater confidence in the antiseptics and nebulized hydrogen peroxide, but if symptoms, nice to have a backup.

 


Edited by Gal220, 17 October 2021 - 06:53 AM.

  • Informative x 3
  • Agree x 1

#10 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2021 - 01:32 PM

But either way, why not find out?

 

If Big Vitamin want to spend the money to conduct clinical trials on their products, then they can go ahead. Nothing to stop them, apart from their greed. Big Vitamin earns hundreds of billions per year on supplement sales, so could easily afford to do studies, but they actually spend very little on clinical trials. That's always my gripe with Big Vitamin, they never get down to doing solid science. 

 

It's a boring cliche to criticize Big Pharma, every airhead does it; but few people will criticize Big Vitamin.

 

But the reality is, Big Pharma spends billions in conducting clinical trials to prove its products work, whereas Big Vitamin spends very little.

 

Of course, one of the reasons Big Vitamin might not want to conduct clinical trials is because they might prove their products do not work.

 

At present, Big Vitamin can sell products without needing to prove they work, and that's how they make a fortune.


Edited by Hip, 17 October 2021 - 01:37 PM.

  • Ill informed x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1

#11 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • -173

Posted 17 October 2021 - 05:11 PM

 

 

Suppose you are a clinician in third-world country. You really want to publish something to boost your prestige. You aim to publish a study of Ivermectin for Covid, because that is something you and your colleagues are actually doing. You find that you don’t really have the wherewithal to do a proper study. You are busy treating patients. You have no funding. Maybe you collect some data, maybe you decide from the start to fabricate data. What direction is your fraud most likely to take? 

 

Scientific fraud is usually not intentional.  These third world studies, the scientists don't wake up and think "today I am going to commit scientific fraud".

 

In my opinion there are two big traps scientists fall into.  The first one is when scientists become too enamored and wrapped up in their hypothesis. Many years ago I worked in a microbiology lab where one of the grad students was working on a microbe. This student found what they thought was a mutant that changed the morphology of the colonies. We all tried to tell him it was a contaminant. He would not believe us and spent lots of time studying this "mutant". The PI finally convinced him to sequence the microbe. It was a contaminant. Typing this I realized that this guy is one of the few scientists I know to support Trump, FWIW.  I had to "unfriend" him on Facebook because of all his crazy posts. But I digress. He was so focused on his "mutant" that it interfered with his dissertation and he left without his PhD. Scientists may get very excited about preliminary data that has not been validated and want to publish. And then go hunting for data to validate their hypothesis while excluding data that goes against it. All it takes is for one author on a paper to muck things up and the others are probably unaware. It's more common in the third world because you don't have the concentration of scientific minds at any given institution that you might have at a UCSD or whatever. 

 

The second trap is focusing on your experimental group and not focusing on using valid controls.  It's easy to show a hypothesis works if you pick and choose controls that highlight how well the experimental group is working.  One issue I see in many of these third world studies I read is the scientific controls are often sketchy. 


  • like x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#12 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,648 posts
  • 598

Posted 17 October 2021 - 07:05 PM

It was the monoclonal antibodies.  The same thing Trump got and the one treatment that can be considered a miracle cure for covid.

 

https://www.latimes....t-don-lemon-cnn

 

On Sept. 1, Rogan announced via Instagram that he had recently tested positive for COVID.

“We immediately threw the kitchen sink at it,” he said, “all kinds of meds. Monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak, prednisone, everything. And I also got an NAD drip and a vitamin drip and I did that three days in a row. And here we are, Wednesday, and I feel great.”

 

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#13 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2021 - 07:18 PM

It was a very bad idea for Joe Rogan to take the corticosteroid prednisone when he is coming down with an acute coronavirus infection. 

 

Research by Dr John Chia, an expert in ME/CFS, found that giving people corticosteroids during the acute phase of a viral infection is almost a recipe for creating ME/CFS

 

Long COVID may just be a form of ME/CFS, remember, so taking corticosteroids too early may turn COVID into long COVID.

 

During the crucial acute phase of a viral infection, if you weaken antiviral immunity using corticosteroids, Dr Chia found that the virus seems to insinuate itself more deeply into the body, and then the viral infection may never clear. That make intuitive sense, because during the acute infection when the virus attacks most strongly, you need a strong immune response to battle that virus.

 

 

Corticosteroids are appropriate when you start to develop severe COVID, and there is a strong immune attack on your lungs due to a cytokine storm. In this context, corticosteroids can reduce the lung damage, and save lives.

 

But common sense will tell you that taking corticosteroids too early in the course of the coronavirus infection may be a risky and bad thing to do. 

 

 

 

A COVID paper says pretty much the same thing:

Immunosuppression and anti-inflammation are likely to benefit when the immune response is dysregulated and turning into a cytokine storm.

 

A medication that has saved many could be the one predisposing to severity if taken as a preventive measure, too early in the disease course, especially the viraemia phase.


Edited by Hip, 17 October 2021 - 07:20 PM.


#14 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 845 posts
  • 435
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 October 2021 - 08:08 PM

If Big Vitamin want to spend the money to conduct clinical trials on their products, then they can go ahead.

IF big vitamin could get products approved the way Remdesivir did, maybe they would?  I cant believe you dont see this, IVM has much more evidence and couldnt get approved.

 

They are protecting their Vax dollars plane as the sun in the sky... THEY QUIT in May 2020, let all those seniors die so they could collect their payout...


  • Good Point x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#15 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 845 posts
  • 435
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 October 2021 - 08:16 PM

This is one of the things that needs to come out of this ordeal, how to fix things.

 

One would be to blow up the federal agencies and force states to have their own Institute of Health, BUT that organization needs split up into 4 divisions - (Vax - formed when necessary), new medicine, old medicine, and extracts.

Our govt is built on checks and balances, that doesnt exist in the NIH. 

 

One easy example is plane DVT, you will know the system is working when they get this fixed as there are many products that address it, but airlines cant promote it b/c it isnt officially recognized.


  • Good Point x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1

#16 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,067 posts
  • 436
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 07:35 PM

Do you know of any viral infection which can be successfully treated with supplements? I mean, there are hundreds of different human viruses; can you give any example of a viral infection which can be effectively treated with supplements?  

 

You have HIV, herpes simplex, shingles (varicella infection), cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus (mononucleosis), Kaposi's sarcoma virus, influenza, parainfluenza, metapneumovirus, parvovirus B19, coxsackievirus, echovirus, enterovirus, norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, West Nile virus, bornavirus, Ross River virus, molluscum contagiosum, JC virus, etc, etc.

 

Those are the well-known viruses, and there a dozens of other human viruses which are less well known.

 

 

Do you know of any supplements or herbs which can effectively treat these infections? I know just a handful of examples where supplements can help a little bit with one or two of the above viral infections, but generally supplements do not work.

 

So if supplements generally are not helpful for viral infections, it's not very likely supplements are going to work for coronavirus.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but l-lysine is a pretty well accepted treatment for herpes simplex.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1

#17 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2021 - 07:58 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but l-lysine is a pretty well accepted treatment for herpes simplex.

 

Lysine has always been touted by alternative medicine practitioners as a cold sore treatment, but a Cochrane review of the evidence found no cold sore preventative effects from lysine.

 

However, one paper suggested that lysine may work for cold sores if used in high doses of 3 grams per day, and in combination with a low arginine diet. 

 

So maybe these very high doses might offer some benefit if you reduce arginine in your diet; but generally I would not say that lysine was a good antiviral for cold sores. 

 

 

By contrast, a standard oral pharmaceutical antiviral called Valtrex is highly effective for cold sores. If you take Valtrex at the first tingle of a cold sore, you can prevent it from appearing entirely. 

 

Resveratrol used topically on a cold sore does have a good effect, see this study. That is because when used topically, you can achieve super high local concentrations of the supplement.   


Edited by Hip, 18 October 2021 - 07:58 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#18 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,067 posts
  • 436
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 October 2021 - 09:09 PM

Lysine has always been touted by alternative medicine practitioners as a cold sore treatment, but a Cochrane review of the evidence found no cold sore preventative effects from lysine.

 

However, one paper suggested that lysine may work for cold sores if used in high doses of 3 grams per day, and in combination with a low arginine diet. 

 

So maybe these very high doses might offer some benefit if you reduce arginine in your diet; but generally I would not say that lysine was a good antiviral for cold sores. 

 

 

By contrast, a standard oral pharmaceutical antiviral called Valtrex is highly effective for cold sores. If you take Valtrex at the first tingle of a cold sore, you can prevent it from appearing entirely. 

 

Resveratrol used topically on a cold sore does have a good effect, see this study. That is because when used topically, you can achieve super high local concentrations of the supplement.   

 

True. But your earlier statement implied that supplements were not effective at treating viruses and yet you've added resveratrol to my suggestion of l-lysine.


  • Cheerful x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1

#19 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2021 - 11:02 PM

True. But your earlier statement implied that supplements were not effective at treating viruses and yet you've added resveratrol to my suggestion of l-lysine.

 

I said earlier I know a few examples where supplements can help bit with certain viral infections, but generally supplements do not work for viruses. I challenge anyone to give me an example of where supplements have any useful effects for the clinical viral infections that are encountered in medicine. Maybe you might find one or two examples, but that's about it.

 

Alternative medicine practitioners will often claim supplements have antiviral effects, but in vivo, in clinical practice, they don't. Like many people, these practitioners confuse in vitro antiviral effects with in vivo. Many supplements are antiviral in vitro, but not in vivo, so they have no clinical benefits.

 

Even when supplements do have antiviral effects, they are very, very weak in comparison to pharmaceutical drugs. In the days before antiviral drugs for HIV were developed, people with HIV were desperately trying all sort of supplements and herbs to try to stay alive, but sadly they did not find anything which worked, and they all died. It was only when antiretroviral drugs were developed that AIDS became a survivable condition.  

 

 

 

As I explained just above, for topical antiviral use, it is easier to get supplements to work, because you can use extremely high concentrations. When you place resveratrol directly on a cold sore, you produce an extremely high concentration of resveratrol within the local area of the cold sore. But if you were to take resveratrol orally, it would have no effect on your cold sore. Most viral infections are not localized like a cold sore is, so such topical use of antivirals cannot help in most viral infections.


Edited by Hip, 18 October 2021 - 11:10 PM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#20 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2021 - 02:39 PM

Possible zinc ionophore:  https://www.scienced...210803320300531

 

 

That paper seems to be more third-rate science from the third world. The study says nigellimine from Nigella sativa might work a zinc ionophore, but then it provides no references, data or explanations as to why it says that.

 

I could find no information online about nigellimine being a zinc ionophore, so I have no idea where this study got the idea that it might be.

 

The journal is the "Journal of Herbal Medicine", so pretty wishy-washy to start with, and then the single author is based in a dentistry department, which is not where you would expect to find expertise in virology and antiviral compounds.

 

 

 


Edited by Hip, 19 October 2021 - 02:41 PM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#21 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2021 - 07:10 PM

That is why I used the word "Possible" in front of zinc ionophore in my post.

 

Maybe you missed that point when reading the post.

 

And to help you better understand.....the definition of "possible" can mean "being something that may or may not occur"

 

I am not criticizing your post, but the author of the study. 

 

In science, if you say something is possible, you usually mean there is some theoretical reasoning or empirical evidence to suggest it is feasible or likely. 

 

So if you don't cite that evidence or reasoning, why even mention it?

 

 

If you are using possible in the normal English sense, then it could apply to anything.

 

Cat's piss might be a possible zinc ionophore. Belly button fluff might be a possible zinc ionophore. Anything and everything is a possible zinc ionophore. 

 

It thus becomes a meaningless statement to say nigellimine is zinc ionophore, unless you provide evidence or reasoning. 


Edited by Hip, 19 October 2021 - 07:12 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#22 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2021 - 07:29 PM

My mistake: the paper did actually provide some reasoning to explain why they think nigellimine might act as a zinc ionophore:

 

 

In other words, chloroquine can act as ionophore for Zn to enter in pneumocytes. Given the similar chemical structure of a number of terpenes present in black seed such as nigellimine, they might provide similar ionophore functions to aid Zn entry to pneumocytes.

 

I missed that sentence when I was looking to find the reasoning behind their statement that nigellimine might be a zinc ionophore.

 

Still a pretty speculative statement though.


Edited by Hip, 19 October 2021 - 07:30 PM.

  • Cheerful x 1
  • like x 1

#23 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 845 posts
  • 435
  • Location:United States

Posted 20 October 2021 - 01:00 PM

Covid19Crusher posted a new article from IVM - link

 

Highlights
-Drug repositioning is a useful and effective idea for Covid-19 antiviral discovery.
 
-Ivermectin has proven effective for HIV-1, Adenovirus, Influenza virus, SARS-CoV, and many more, in the past.
 
-Due to genomic similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and the SARS-CoV, the role of the IMPα/β1 complex for viral protein (NSP12-RdRp) shuttling between the nucleus and cytoplasm holds great potential.
 
-Ivermectin also exhibits great potential in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral replication via numerous modes of action, such as the disruption of the Importin heterodimer complex (IMPα/β1).


#24 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 October 2021 - 01:26 PM

Ivermectin has proven effective for HIV-1, Adenovirus, Influenza virus, SARS-CoV, and many more, in the past.


Gal220, please check the studies you post to see whether they mean in vitro antiviral effects, or in vivo.

In vitro means nothing until proven otherwise.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Agree x 1

#25 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 October 2021 - 04:32 PM

UK Scientist Andrew Hill received death threats for being vaccinated and retracting his metanalysis:

 

https://www.theguard...-death-threats 

 

"In March 2021, I received my first vaccine dose and posted a photo on Twitter from the clinic. Within minutes I was receiving strange messages: “Why would you do that?”, “not safe”, “why not use ivermectin instead”, “you are paid by the Gates Foundation”. One person even sent a link to a suction device to remove the vaccine fluid from my arm. Any message I sent promoting the benefits of vaccines led to threats and abuse."

 

"However, we then found several examples of medical fraud in the clinical trials of ivermectin: some of the databases had been simply made up by unscrupulous doctors. When we filtered out all the poor-quality clinical trials, there was no longer any clinical benefit for ivermectin.After we reported on the medical fraud in July 2021, the abuse became much worse. I was sent images of Nazi war criminals hanging from lamp-posts, Voodoo images of swinging coffins, vivid threats that my family were not safe, that we would all burn in hell. This was happening most days – I opened my laptop in the morning to be confronted with a sea of hate and disturbing threats. Twitter did nothing after I reported these threats. So I had to shut down social media."

 

The more I see of this anger and aggression from stupid individuals who read misinformation and conspiracy theories online, the more I think we should restrict certain people from going online altogether. It's no good just trying to get social media companies to filter out misinformation, which is a very difficult task; we need to go one step further, and stop idiots (and those with problematic mental health issues like schizotypy) from getting posting on the Internet entirely.

 

When I first got onto the Internet, which was around the beginning of the 1990s, it was only really available in universities and scientific institutions. It was not available or used by the general public. 

 

I think we need to return to this more restricted use Internet. There should be some sort of license required before you can post online, just like we require people to pass a test before they can drive a car, fly an airplane, or become a doctor and prescribe drugs. Not everyone should be allowed to enter the hallowed noosphere of the Internet. 

 

Otherwise angers and aggressions will continue to get worse in society, and dangerous terrorist radicalization (which takes place online) will continue to mar our existence.

 

The UK government is currently considering plans to prevent all anonymous posting online. Under these new plans, you would only be allow to post material online in a way which can be traced back to you. But I think we need to go a little further, and regulate who is allowed to post online. The online world needs to be a reflection of the finer nature of humanity, not festival of humanity's stupidities and lower nature.

 

And society needs to be a geniocracy (rule by the intelligent), not a kakistocracy (rule by the stupid).

 

See: List of forms of government


Edited by Hip, 20 October 2021 - 04:34 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 3
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#26 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • -173

Posted 20 October 2021 - 05:05 PM

 

 

I think we need to return to this more restricted use Internet. There should be some sort of license required before you can post online, just like we require people to pass a test before they can drive a car, fly an airplane, or become a doctor and prescribe drugs. Not everyone should be allowed to enter the hallowed noosphere of the Internet. 

 

 

 

I don't agree with that! Misinformation on the internet  is a big problem. I don't have a solution but I think regulating it will be a slippery slope and will backfire. The conspiracy minded folks are very loud and vocal. I think the answer is for sane people to be just as loud and vocal and present the facts so that the garbage being spewed is unmasked  for the garbage that it is. 


  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#27 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 October 2021 - 05:29 PM

I don't agree with that! Misinformation on the internet  is a big problem. I don't have a solution but I think regulating it will be a slippery slope and will backfire. The conspiracy minded folks are very loud and vocal. I think the answer is for sane people to be just as loud and vocal and present the facts so that the garbage being spewed is unmasked  for the garbage that it is. 

 

The sort of regulation I am suggesting is nothing new, as we have always had regulation and gatekeeping regarding who can publish their ideas or views on various public media. 

 

In the past, if you had certain opinions, and you contacted a journalist, radio or TV show host, etc in order to try to publish or broadcast your views, you would not get automatic access to the media to broadcast your ideas. The journalist and the newspaper editors would listen to what you have to say, and if it sounded like nonsense, misinformation, or just daft conspiracy theory, they would not publish it. Whereas if you had a sound and important story to tell, the journalist may well write an article on it.

 

So before the Internet, there were always gatekeepers to the media, who would act as quality control assessors for what material was allowed on public media. 

 

Before the Internet, conspiracy theories and other such nonsense might still be published in books for a niche market of conspiracy theory consumers, but crazy conspiracy theories would not get broadcast to the general public. 

 

 

However, since the Internet arrived, all that has changed, and anyone, no matter how foolish or mentally ill or violently aggressive, can publish their views or story online. Unlike traditional media, there are no gatekeepers to the Internet, and this is not a good thing, in my view.

 

I understand the fear that regulating might be a slippery slope to censorship, but we never really had much issue with censorship when the traditional media was regulated by gatekeepers like journalists and editors.


Edited by Hip, 20 October 2021 - 05:30 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#28 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • -173

Posted 20 October 2021 - 06:44 PM

The sort of regulation I am suggesting is nothing new, as we have always had regulation and gatekeeping regarding who can publish their ideas or views on various public media.

I understand the fear that regulating might be a slippery slope to censorship, but we never really had much issue with censorship when the traditional media was regulated by gatekeepers like journalists and editors.


I don’t think more regulation or censorship is the answer. While misinformation and conspiracy theories will continue to be a problem, I feel there is reason to be hopeful. I have noticed among my acquaintances a growing awareness of the problem of misinformation on the internet compared to a few weeks ago. The Qanon crazies are lost causes. But there is a growing awareness in the general public that the internet is full of nonsense. I have a relative who would always come to me with crazy things they read online. This relative has realized that you can’t trust everything online and that most of it is distorted half-truths and nonsense. People are becoming more skeptical and critical. In the war against misinformation our best weapon is truth. In the end truth will trump crazy conspiracies.
  • Needs references x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#29 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,067 posts
  • 436
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 October 2021 - 07:35 PM

The sort of regulation I am suggesting is nothing new, as we have always had regulation and gatekeeping regarding who can publish their ideas or views on various public media.


No, that would be new here in the states. We do have that pesky 1st amendment and things like social media are the 21st century equivalent of the public square. And yes, what you propose generally speaking isn't new at all. Censorship is as old as the human race.
 
 

In the past, if you had certain opinions, and you contacted a journalist, radio or TV show host, etc in order to try to publish or broadcast your views, you would not get automatic access to the media to broadcast your ideas. The journalist and the newspaper editors would listen to what you have to say, and if it sounded like nonsense, misinformation, or just daft conspiracy theory, they would not publish it. Whereas if you had a sound and important story to tell, the journalist may well write an article on it.
 
So before the Internet, there were always gatekeepers to the media, who would act as quality control assessors for what material was allowed on public media. 
 
Before the Internet, conspiracy theories and other such nonsense might still be published in books for a niche market of conspiracy theory consumers, but crazy conspiracy theories would not get broadcast to the general public. 
 
 
However, since the Internet arrived, all that has changed, and anyone, no matter how foolish or mentally ill or violently aggressive, can publish their views or story online. Unlike traditional media, there are no gatekeepers to the Internet, and this is not a good thing, in my view.


No one is demanding that news organization publish any given person's speech in their newspaper. But facebook, twitter, youtube, et. al. are the new public square and they bill themselves as platforms and not publishers. If you're a platform you are simply a conduit of content just like the electrical company is a conduit of electricity. If something isn't illegal (inciting violence for instance) a platform shouldn't be able to block content any more than the phone company should be allowed to cut off your service if they don't like what you're saying. What you propose is that governments and private companies should have the ability to banish someone from public discourse. I think it is foolish to let either of those parties that power. You however are confident that such power would only be "used for good", i.e. to banish people with which you do not agree. Anyone familiar with history would not share your confidence.
 
 

I understand the fear that regulating might be a slippery slope to censorship, but we never really had much issue with censorship when the traditional media was regulated by gatekeepers like journalists and editors.


What you've done is a neat verbal trick. You've simply renamed "censorship" as "regulation". But what you describe is exactly censorship.

The remedy to bad information isn't censorship, it's more good information. You must take the time and effort to win the debate. But that is apparently too much trouble for some people and they just want to skip to the end and shut those that they disagree with down. That's lazy not to mention counterproductive. Nothing is feeding these ridiculous conspiracy theories more than the fact that all the big powerful organizations, the government and the social media companies (aka "the establishment") are trying to silence dissenting voices.

 

It's breathtaking to me the extent to which some people would like to hand over censoring public debate to insanely large multinational companies, especially coming from those on the left who used to have a healthy skepticism of big business.

 

This is very much an elitist impulse, the idea that "only the right people" should have a voice in public discourse.

 

 

 


  • Well Written x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#30 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,523 posts
  • -58
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 October 2021 - 08:00 PM

While misinformation and conspiracy theories will continue to be a problem, I feel there is reason to be hopeful. I have noticed among my acquaintances a growing awareness of the problem of misinformation on the internet compared to a few weeks ago.

 
People may be becoming a little more skeptical and circumspect in the way they analyze online information, but I think the main way that misinformation is countered is a result of other members of the public criticizing it. That takes a lot of time, and requires millions of intelligent and educated people to actively counter the online bullshit. 
 
Those intelligent and educated people are better off applying their talents to their work and careers, rather than acting as what is effectively kinder-garden teachers to the armies of online idiots that have come out of the woodwork since the Internet appeared.
 
What I dislike most is the distrust that misinformation and conspiracy theories sow in society. People become wary and often hateful of others.
 
We see that in this very ivermectin thread, because some here believe in the conspiracy theory that ivermectin is being deliberately suppressed by some nefarious forces in order to boost the profits of the pharma industry, thereby (according to this stupid conspiracy theory) sacrificing the lives of millions to COVID as a result.
 
In fact, the only people who are sacrificing the lives of others are the anti-vaxers who cause thousands of deaths each day. 
 
Misinformation and damaging conspiracy theories are a poison to human society, and poisons are best not injected into the body of society in the first place. As a society we should not be constantly subjected to information poisons, which then constantly require the antidotes to those poisons to be deployed. That's not a good way to live; it's rather precarious.
 
Many commentators have observed that society is getting more divided, with more aggression taking place between these divisions. Modern media is the direct cause of that.


 

that would be new here in the states.

 
Prior to the Internet, there was no means in any country by which an ordinary person could broadcast his view or story across the media, unless he found a journalist and editor who was willing to publish them.

 

 

 

 

What you propose is that governments and private companies should have the ability to banish someone from public discourse. I think it is foolish to let either of those parties that power. You however are confident that such power would only be "used for good", i.e. to banish people with which you do not agree. Anyone familiar with history would not share your confidence.


No, what I am proposing is that we should return to the state of affairs that existed just prior to the public getting onto the Internet (which is only about 20 or so years ago), where there was journalistic quality control in place regarding what was published in the media.

 

Society functioned fine 20 years ago, so we have nothing to worry about returning to that state.

 

 

In fact, if we are concerned about the collapse or perversion society and democracy, we are a lot closer to that now than we were 20 years ago. Thus the Internet and the unbridled freedom of expression it facilities is arguably a destabilizing force in our society, creating strife and animosity, rather than a stabilizing one creating harmony.

 


Edited by Hip, 20 October 2021 - 08:52 PM.

  • Ill informed x 4
  • Unfriendly x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: covid, coronavirus, treatments, fda

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users