91–100 of 294 posts
I'm excited to hear why the EUA for this drug is good when anti-vaxers have said they didn't trust the EUA for the vaccines.
Also was this medication developed using "mRNA"? That "messing with your RNA" angle is hammered repeatedly in conservative circles - enough that some of my not-right-wing neighbors are worried about it (like, go ahead and vax, but not for the children!!).
I enjoyed this article explaining in more detail how the drug works, though much of it goes over my head: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-021-00657-8 Briefly, it causes the copying process of viral RNA to go wrong by increasing the number of G-to-A and C-to-U mutations. A potential worry is that such mutations will also increase in places where we don't want them, such as in host DNA, but apparently at least f…
https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coro...
This is not my field. But if there is a pill that can reduce death by 50% from the virus, I would like to know more about it. > Bright's concerns that similar drugs in its class have mutagenic properties As a layperson, this instantly raises a red flag in my mind. Should I be concerned? Why, or why not? More importantly, where can I find research that elucidates this for me?
[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6882540/R-Bright-OSC-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In his Nobel-prize lecture, the Merck scientist William Campbell, talks about how Ivermectin was always intended to be used in humans. Two relevant quotes from his speech are, "I had always insisted that our written departmental objectives would include the development of new drugs for control of parasites in humans" and "The end of ivermectin is nowhere in sight." Check it out: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medi…
I'm not talking about ivermectin itself. I'm talking about how people are literally going to livestock supply stores, buying products that contain ivermectin but come in forms and dosages intended for livestock, and ingesting those (even when intended for topical usage), based entirely on internet advice and without any kind of doctor oversight. That's where "horse paste" mockery comes from.
You seem to have first hand knowledge of all these people's situations, are you following people to the livestock supply stores or talking out of your ass from stories you read on Reddit?
Most people that I know have that have took Ivermectin were taking the human pill. Only on the internet and news media have I seen people talking about horse paste.
Also, some vet meds are okay for humans (as long as you dose correctly), yeah you shouldn't take them, but that doesn't stop some of my liberal friends I know from taking horse tranqs (ketamine).
A potential bottleneck in the deployment of this is that only Heimdall is able to wield the Molnupiravir.
[flagged]
Pfizer isn't emergency use
I have a friend who is a nurse that's getting fired because she will not take the vaccine. She has patients that had adverse effects from the vaccine. I totally understand why she would not take it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A potential worry is that such mutations will also increase in places where we don't want them Can anyone speak to how the drug avoids this? I've tried reading the literature, such as the Nature link above, and have failed to see what makes the drug specific to the virus.
Nature link says the drug targets RdRp specifically which is a type of RNA copying mechanism (mostly?) confined to viruses. Wikipedia says about RdRp: > RdRps can be used as drug targets for viral pathogens as their function is not necessary for eukaryotic survival. By inhibiting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase function, new RNAs cannot be replicated from an RNA template strand, however, DNA-dependent RNA polymerase wil…
This is phenomenal news - I'm also curious how the various tribalist memes evolve. Will the vaccine maximalists who ridiculed "horse paste" when the data was still weak in part because a pill-based regime would undermine the message that vaccines ought to be mandatory embrace this much needed second tier therapeutic? Will the anti-vaxxers who will inevitably see this as the goal of a big pharma conspiracy covering up…
Not exactly going to be the same thing. Merck is applying for EUA use of this medication for Covid-19, something that Ivermectin never had. In addition, further studies didn't show Ivermectin to be useful for Covid. The study that first looked at Ivermectin has been proven to be not useful. If another study came out opposing the Merck data, then we'd have to dig in as well to find out why, and see if either study was…
- anti-vaxxers will eagerly take the pill, but believe that Merck covered up Ivermectin's efficacy to get this drug to market. the claim the vaccine's EUA was held up by lack of evidence of such pills will be memory holed
- the pro-mandate authoritarians will swallow the pill (figuratively, pun intended) when the powers that be celebrate this as a success and it begins being widely deployed.
in other words, we all win. the failure mode is if a divisive political figure takes a strong position on the pill being safe or not safe. fortunately I don't see this happening.
If you want to read a comment on this, try Derek Lowe's: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-... Wikipedia has an article on the drug already if you would like to have a look at that instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molnupiravir
> exerts its antiviral action through introduction of copying errors during viral RNA replication How does this target only viral RNA, not the body's own? Copying errors don't sound like something you want in your own RNA. "However, there are inherent risks in this approach. NHC can be metabolized by the host cell to the 20-deoxyribonucleoside form by the ribonucleotide reductase and then incorporated into the host c…