Coronavirus vaccine news

[basilio]

Some potentially great news on the COVID protection front. A cheap easily acessible drug to stop the spread of the disease in all it's variants.

Melbourne researchers trial use of common blood-thinning drug heparin to combat COVID-19​

By state political reporter Bridget Rollason
Posted 3h ago3 hours ago, updated 2h ago2 hours ago

Don Campbell and Gary Anderson are optimistic about the preventative treatment for COVID-19.(ABC News: Bridget Rollason)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article



Melbourne researchers have turned one of the world's most-used drugs into a nasal spray which they hope could prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Key points:​

• The nasal spray is expected to be effective against emerging COVID variants, including Omicron
• The drug will be trialled in 340 Victorian households over the next six months
• The spray does not require refrigeration and could be distributed widely

Researchers think they've found a way to combat COVID-19 using a common blood thinner

A trial of a nasal spray as a preventative treatment for COVID-19 will run for six months in Victoria. If it's a success, the spray could be distributed across the world.

www.abc.net.au

 

[macca]

Some potentially great news on the COVID protection front. A cheap easily acessible drug to stop the spread of the disease in all it's variants.

Melbourne researchers trial use of common blood-thinning drug heparin to combat COVID-19​

By state political reporter Bridget Rollason
Posted 3h ago3 hours ago, updated 2h ago2 hours ago
View attachment 134638
Don Campbell and Gary Anderson are optimistic about the preventative treatment for COVID-19.(ABC News: Bridget Rollason)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article



Melbourne researchers have turned one of the world's most-used drugs into a nasal spray which they hope could prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Key points:​

• The nasal spray is expected to be effective against emerging COVID variants, including Omicron
• The drug will be trialled in 340 Victorian households over the next six months
• The spray does not require refrigeration and could be distributed widely

Researchers think they've found a way to combat COVID-19 using a common blood thinner

A trial of a nasal spray as a preventative treatment for COVID-19 will run for six months in Victoria. If it's a success, the spray could be distributed across the world.

www.abc.net.au

Funny how even though it is one of the "worlds most used drugs" it still requires trials, sort of like IVM and Hydrox.

Hopefully this one is not banned as well

 

[wayneL]

McCullough suggested nasal sprays. It makes sense to me. Like many bacteria and viruses, Cov-sars2 is not hard to kill if you can get direct contact and there are many agents that will do the job.

We have used a nasal spray agent for exposure to colds flu for many years... But it has to be *early*, like a prophylactic, rather than a treatment once the disease takes hold.

FWIW

 

[Belli]

Funny how even though it is one of the "worlds most used drugs" it still requires trials

They would be totally negligent if they didn't undertake trials.

 

[cynic]

They would be totally negligent if they didn't undertake trials.

Great to see that you're finally catching on!

 

[macca]

They would be totally negligent if they didn't undertake trials.

In 2019 Fauci said it would take 10 years before an mRNA vaccine could be released safely after trials were completed.........................

 

[Belli]

Great to see that you're finally catching on!

Yep, just like these dudes did with regard to studies of another proposed treatment medication for Covid.

"Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".
Major problems included:

• The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people (bad, naughty)
• Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random (bad, naughty)
• Numbers unlikely to occur naturally (Oops)
• Percentages calculated incorrectly (damn maths)
• Local health bodies unaware of the studies."

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?

www.bbc.com

 

[cynic]

Yep, just like these dudes did with regard to studies of another proposed treatment medication for Covid.

"Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".
Major problems included:

• The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people (bad, naughty)
• Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random (bad, naughty)
• Numbers unlikely to occur naturally (Oops)
• Percentages calculated incorrectly (damn maths)
• Local health bodies unaware of the studies."

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?

www.bbc.com

So you found a study that you can condemn! Good for you!!

Would you care to apply the same standards when reviewing the studies supportive of mRNA based treatments for Covid19?

Better yet, would you care to share your thoughts, on Pfizer's new oral antiviral drug, and its perceived efficacy as a covid19 treatment?

 

[Belli]

One of the nice things of clinical trials is the publications. And publishing is one of the strengths. Every researcher with expertise in various fields will go through it thoroughly for errors and standards. Should there be concerns, this can be the result.

Table: Ivermectin Clinical Data | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

Review clinical data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov

 

[Belli]

So you found a study

Here is an earlier meta-analysis for you.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

www.cochrane.org

 

[cynic]

Here is an earlier meta-analysis for you.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

www.cochrane.org

So you found a study that you can condemn! Good for you!!

Would you care to apply the same standards when reviewing the studies supportive of mRNA based treatments for Covid19?

Better yet, would you care to share your thoughts, on Pfizer's new oral antiviral drug, and its perceived efficacy as a covid19 treatment?

The notable absence, of answers to the questions posed, is very telling.

Could it be that you discerned the presence of a loaded question?!

I invite those harbouring doubts about the wisdom of including ivermectin within the covid19 treatment arsenal, to answer the question, recently posed, regarding Pfizer's new covid treatment.

 

[Belli]

The notable absence, of answers to the questions posed, is very telling.

An afternoon or two reading for you.

Covid-19 living Data

covid-nma.com

 

[wayneL]

I haven't got any links but from some of the material I've read, Ivm is NOT effective as a stand alone medication for early treatment of covid-19.

This is actually the same for hydroxychloroquine.

It seems to me a little bit disingenuous that these studies quoted have been tests for ivermectin as a standalone medication.

It is pretty well documented that ivermectin in conjunction with other drugs is more effective, so it must be considered as part of a cocktail of drugs rather than by itself.

This should not be surprising as even in my own humble trade when I am dealing with a dangerous animal that a cocktail of drugs is required for best effect. Acepromazine, xylazine, even butorphonal or detomodine, on their own, can get me injured or killed.

Yet a combination of these drugs "keeps me safe"

This is not uncommon at all in medicine.

 

[macca]

Yes, like most seriously effective treatments there is a right way and right time to use them.

Deliberately using it in a different way than tested just feeds the conspiracy theory.

Quite simple really, let people use it as wanted, if it fails then people will stop the clamour BUT when it works they can kiss goodbye to all the Vax demand.

Some people may not be aware of this group of Doctors in the USA who have a range of protocols listed

<<About the I-MASK+ Protocol for COVID-19​

In October 2020, the FLCCC Alliance developed a preventive and early outpatient combination treatment protocol for COVID-19 called I-MASK+. It’s centered around ivermectin, a well-known, FDA-approved anti-parasite drug that has been used successfully for more than four decades to treat onchocerciasis “river blindness” and other parasitic diseases. It is one of the safest drugs known. It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, has been given 3.7 billion times around the globe, and has won the Nobel prize for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world. Our medical discovery of a rapidly growing published medical evidence base, demonstrating ivermectin’s unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and to suppress inflammation, prompted our team to use ivermectin for prevention and treatment in all stages of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not yet FDA-approved for the treatment of COVID-19, but on Jan 14, 2021, the NIH changed their recommendation for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 from “against” to “neutral”. (see our press release).>>

Treatment Protocols

Prevention and treatment protocols for COVID, Flu and RSV.

covid19criticalcare.com

 

[rederob]

Yes, like most seriously effective treatments there is a right way and right time to use them.

Deliberately using it in a different way than tested just feeds the conspiracy theory.

Quite simple really, let people use it as wanted, if it fails then people will stop the clamour BUT when it works they can kiss goodbye to all the Vax demand.

Some people may not be aware of this group of Doctors in the USA who have a range of protocols listed

<<About the I-MASK+ Protocol for COVID-19​

In October 2020, the FLCCC Alliance developed a preventive and early outpatient combination treatment protocol for COVID-19 called I-MASK+. It’s centered around ivermectin, a well-known, FDA-approved anti-parasite drug that has been used successfully for more than four decades to treat onchocerciasis “river blindness” and other parasitic diseases. It is one of the safest drugs known. It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, has been given 3.7 billion times around the globe, and has won the Nobel prize for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world. Our medical discovery of a rapidly growing published medical evidence base, demonstrating ivermectin’s unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and to suppress inflammation, prompted our team to use ivermectin for prevention and treatment in all stages of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not yet FDA-approved for the treatment of COVID-19, but on Jan 14, 2021, the NIH changed their recommendation for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 from “against” to “neutral”. (see our press release).>>

Treatment Protocols

Prevention and treatment protocols for COVID, Flu and RSV.

covid19criticalcare.com

Some people ARE aware.
Take their poor advice at your peril.
There are proven treatments available and in use.
Here's what the FDA say about ivermectin:

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19​

 

[rederob]

I invite those harbouring doubts about the wisdom of including ivermectin within the covid19 treatment arsenal, to answer the question, recently posed, regarding Pfizer's new covid treatment.

Where is your data on the efficacy of ivermectin that supports any purported "wisdom"?
Without it, what are you proposing as a basis for comparison?
Why do you habitually require answers from others when you actually offer nothing up front?

Here's what is proven about Pfizer's drug, (as distinct from "perceived" as you asked):

• Final data available from all high-risk patients enrolled in EPIC-HR study (n= 2,246) confirmed prior results of interim analysis showing PAXLOVID™ (nirmatrelvir [PF-07321332] tablets and ritonavir tablets) reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 89% (within three days of symptom onset) and 88% (within five days of symptom onset) compared to placebo; no deaths compared to placebo in non-hospitalized, high-risk adults with COVID-19
• The above data have been shared with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of an ongoing rolling submission for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
• Separately, interim analyses of an ongoing second study in standard-risk adults (EPIC-SR) showed a 70% reduction in hospitalization and no deaths in the treated population, compared to placebo, in the secondary endpoint; the novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days, as compared to placebo, was not met. The study continues
• An approximate 10-fold decrease in viral load at Day 5, relative to placebo, was observed in both EPIC-HR and EPIC-SR, indicating robust activity against SARS-CoV-2 and representing the strongest viral load reduction reported to date for a COVID-19 oral antiviral agent
• Recent in vitro data confirm that nirmatrelvir is a potent inhibitor of the Omicron 3CL protease, which, combined with existing in vitro antiviral and protease inhibition data from other Variants of Concern (VoC) including Delta, indicates that PAXLOVID will retain robust antiviral activity against current VoCs as well as other coronaviruses

 

[cynic]

Where is your data on the efficacy of ivermectin that supports any purported "wisdom"?

Thanks rederob. You have just provided the proof that ivermectin works!!

Without it, what are you proposing as a basis for comparison?
Why do you habitually require answers from others when you actually offer nothing up front?

Here's what is proven about Pfizer's drug, (as distinct from "perceived" as you asked):

• Final data available from all high-risk patients enrolled in EPIC-HR study (n= 2,246) confirmed prior results of interim analysis showing PAXLOVID™ (nirmatrelvir [PF-07321332] tablets and ritonavir tablets) reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 89% (within three days of symptom onset) and 88% (within five days of symptom onset) compared to placebo; no deaths compared to placebo in non-hospitalized, high-risk adults with COVID-19
• The above data have been shared with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of an ongoing rolling submission for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
• Separately, interim analyses of an ongoing second study in standard-risk adults (EPIC-SR) showed a 70% reduction in hospitalization and no deaths in the treated population, compared to placebo, in the secondary endpoint; the novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days, as compared to placebo, was not met. The study continues
• An approximate 10-fold decrease in viral load at Day 5, relative to placebo, was observed in both EPIC-HR and EPIC-SR, indicating robust activity against SARS-CoV-2 and representing the strongest viral load reduction reported to date for a COVID-19 oral antiviral agent
• Recent in vitro data confirm that nirmatrelvir is a potent inhibitor of the Omicron 3CL protease, which, combined with existing in vitro antiviral and protease inhibition data from other Variants of Concern (VoC) including Delta, indicates that PAXLOVID will retain robust antiviral activity against current VoCs as well as other coronaviruses

And the reason Pfizer's new drug works so well, just happens to be because, it primarily acts as a protease inhibitor!

Care to guess which other drug, acts primarily as a protease inhibitor?! (HINT: Its name begins with "iver" and ends with "mectin")

Even someone such as yourself should be able to figure this one out!

 

[rederob]

Thanks rederob. You have just provided the proof that ivermectin works!!

The opposite is true, and your habit of making false claims is tiresome.
The reason drugs are approved by competent authorities is because they meet the burden of evidence necessary for such approval, and I clearly linked at post #1315 that this has not occurred for ivermectin to date.

 

[cynic]

The opposite is true, and your habit of making false claims is tiresome.
The reason drugs are approved by competent authorities is because they meet the burden of evidence necessary for such approval, and I clearly linked at post #1315 that this has not occurred for ivermectin to date.

So which claim exactly, are you accusing me of falsifying?!!

Both drugs are known to be effective at preventing viral replication because of their merits as protease inhibitors, and you caught yourself out by choosing to answer an obviously "loaded" question.

 

[rederob]

So which claim exactly, are you accusing me of falsifying?!

You stated I "provided the proof that ivermectin works", which is false and was clearly elaborated in my reply.
HIV drugs prevent viral replication, and dozens of other drugs do as well. While Pfizer has scientific proof of efficacy based on intended use, ivermectin cannot yet make a valid claim to that effect.
As I said earlier, you have no basis for comparison, so unless you stump up with something my conversation with you on this point is again over.