For the dumb Ivermectin cultists
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/
Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach
Taken together, our data on the interaction between ivermectin and viral proteins indicated that ivermectin majorly acts by interfering with the viral entry through inhibiting the function of spike protein and protease. These studies also indicate that ivermectin may also target human ACE2 and TMPRSS2 for exerting its inhibitory action over SARS-CoV-2. However, all these in silico studies require subsequent experimental validation, which could enable Ivermectin as a drug of reliance to be used for counteracting the viral growth.
Go to:
Conclusion
Developing an effective therapeutic against COVID-19 is currently the utmost interest to the scientific communities. The present study depicts comparative binding efficacy of a promising FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, against major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and their human counterparts involved in host–pathogen interaction. Herein, our in silico data have indicated that ivermectin efficiently utilizes viral spike protein, main protease, replicase and human TMPRSS2 receptors as the most possible targets for executing its antiviral efficiency. Therefore, ivermectin exploits protein targets from both virus and human, which could be the reason behind its excellent in vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 as reported by Caly et al. [13]. Ivermectin B1b isomers have been found to be the more efficacious molecule out of the two homologs. Intriguingly, comparison of the in silico efficiency of ivermectin with currently used anticorona drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir, indicated toward the potential of ivermectin to target the major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Ivermectin is a popular antiparasitic drug and is also safe in children, younger adults, pregnant and lactating ladies. Development of pulmonary delivery of ivermectin through synthesis of better ivermectin formulation has been reported recently and this is expected to shorten the treatment duration and lead to better outcomes [33]. It is noteworthy to mention that many anti-SARS-CoV-2s are now being tested for their efficacy in shaping the immune response of humans, through targeting the cell surface as well as intracellular toll-like receptors [34,35]. In this context, ivermectin could be an effective option as well. Considering all these facts, the present study explores the therapeutic targets of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 and enlightens the possibility of using this drug in COVID-19 clinical trials shortly.
Summary points
Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach
Taken together, our data on the interaction between ivermectin and viral proteins indicated that ivermectin majorly acts by interfering with the viral entry through inhibiting the function of spike protein and protease. These studies also indicate that ivermectin may also target human ACE2 and TMPRSS2 for exerting its inhibitory action over SARS-CoV-2. However, all these in silico studies require subsequent experimental validation, which could enable Ivermectin as a drug of reliance to be used for counteracting the viral growth.
Go to:
Conclusion
Developing an effective therapeutic against COVID-19 is currently the utmost interest to the scientific communities. The present study depicts comparative binding efficacy of a promising FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, against major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and their human counterparts involved in host–pathogen interaction. Herein, our in silico data have indicated that ivermectin efficiently utilizes viral spike protein, main protease, replicase and human TMPRSS2 receptors as the most possible targets for executing its antiviral efficiency. Therefore, ivermectin exploits protein targets from both virus and human, which could be the reason behind its excellent in vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 as reported by Caly et al. [13]. Ivermectin B1b isomers have been found to be the more efficacious molecule out of the two homologs. Intriguingly, comparison of the in silico efficiency of ivermectin with currently used anticorona drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir, indicated toward the potential of ivermectin to target the major pathogenic proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Ivermectin is a popular antiparasitic drug and is also safe in children, younger adults, pregnant and lactating ladies. Development of pulmonary delivery of ivermectin through synthesis of better ivermectin formulation has been reported recently and this is expected to shorten the treatment duration and lead to better outcomes [33]. It is noteworthy to mention that many anti-SARS-CoV-2s are now being tested for their efficacy in shaping the immune response of humans, through targeting the cell surface as well as intracellular toll-like receptors [34,35]. In this context, ivermectin could be an effective option as well. Considering all these facts, the present study explores the therapeutic targets of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 and enlightens the possibility of using this drug in COVID-19 clinical trials shortly.
Summary points
- The present in silico study presents the therapeutic efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to two recently used anti SARS-CoV-2 drugs, namely remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine.
- Molecular docking was performed using the drugs of interest and various proteins involved in the infection cycle of SARS-CoV-2 such as spike glycoprotein, main protease, replicase, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, human ACE2 receptor and human transmembrane serine protease. The dynamics of the interaction was further analyzed by molecular dynamics simulation studies and the binding free energy of binding of ivermectin to each protein was determined.
- The pharmacokinetic attributes of ivermectin were compared with other two anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs and ivermectin was found to be a safe drug.
- Ivermectin was found to be an efficient inhibitor of Mpro, replicase and hTMPRSS2 and the study manifests a superior ground for the candidature of ivermectin to be an efficient anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapeutic option.
So this is a in silico analysis study performed based on computer modeling.
Do you have Ivermectin with Covid study peer-reviewed and performed on humans in a major medical journal? Get back to me when you do.
Fake news.
NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.
https://nhssequoyah.com/
That extreme liberal doctor is definitely, lying to demonize Ivermectin and discourage its use. One top official of one of the hospitals said that the ICU overflow is because a lot of people got admitted for emergency for other illnesses and not only Ivermectin poisoning for those who ingested the Ivermectin for horses. So, these extreme liberal hack doctors making stuff up out of their asses because they see more and more people using Ivermectin?
Ivermectin, a deworming medicine, is the latest quack cure for Covid-19
Its popularity is growing in America, though the explanation is complex
https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...edicine-is-the-latest-quack-cure-for-covid-19
FEED STORES across America are experiencing a surge in demand for ivermectin, a deworming drug for horses and other livestock. Prescriptions are flying off the pad for the human version, too. They are up almost 30-fold compared with 2019 according to IQVIA, a health-care analytics company. Yet it is not an epidemic of parasites that is driving sales of both kinds of ivermectin, but rather covid-19. Despite little evidence of its efficacy, it has become the pandemic quack cure du jour.
Ivermectin’s rise parallels that of hydroxychloroquine, another much-touted “cure”. In both cases early studies showed promise before being discredited. Some statisticians have suggested that ivermectin clinical trials would not stand up to scrutiny. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not well-designed. One study was so flawed it was removed from the preprint server that hosted it over “ethical concerns”. Merck, which manufactures the drug, says there is currently “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against covid-19”.
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence it is dangerous when misused. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), America’s regulatory agency for drugs, warns that overdosing can cause vomiting, nausea, seizures and even death. Poison control lines, set up to dispense information and handle emergencies, are swamped with calls—the American Association of Poison Control Centers received 459 in August, almost eight times as many calls about ivermectin as in the same month in 2020. In Mississippi at least 70% were about people who took the veterinary formulation, which is far more potent than the human version. Several people have been hospitalised.
Why do so many people buy into these unproven cures? Partisanship plays a big role. According to a poll that YouGov conducted on behalf of The Economist, opposition to covid-19 vaccinations is more pronounced on the right. Republicans account for 56% of respondents who say they will not get vaccinated; 25% are independents and 13% are Democrats (the remainder are “not sure” of their identity). The ideological breakdown is similar: 53% of holdouts describe themselves as conservative, and just 7% are liberal. These differences outweigh any other demographic factors. The poll also finds that 26% of Republicans (roughly the same proportion as independents) and 33% of conservatives believe that ivermectin is a “possibly” or “very” effective treatment.
How people come to believe such things is contested. One popular explanation is that influential figures persuade people to ignore medical advice. Social scientists call this a “top-down” or “elite-driven” model. Although some conservative commentators have touted ivermectin, far more have encouraged vaccination. These mixed messages suggest a hybrid “top-down, bottom-up” model, in which vaccine scepticism is also driven by peers. “Elites can (and do) try to lead public opinion,” says Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, “But they often have to follow.”
Less clear is why these beliefs are so prominent among conservatives in particular. It could be grounded in a general dislike of government intervention. One poll from Reality Check Insights, a pollster, found that Americans who think “parents, not the government” should get to decide whether their children wear face masks were likely to think the same about seatbelts. When asked whether expert risk assessment should lead governments to shut businesses, the partisan gap was similar irrespective of whether the threat was covid-19 or a hurricane.
Republicans also tend to be less educated and more religious than Democrats, which might make them trust experts less. It may also be that, rather than people’s politics determining their views on vaccination, both are determined by their pre-existing membership in other social groups. Whatever the reasons, Americans would do well to heed the words of the FDA. On August 21st it tweeted out “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Its popularity is growing in America, though the explanation is complex
https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...edicine-is-the-latest-quack-cure-for-covid-19
FEED STORES across America are experiencing a surge in demand for ivermectin, a deworming drug for horses and other livestock. Prescriptions are flying off the pad for the human version, too. They are up almost 30-fold compared with 2019 according to IQVIA, a health-care analytics company. Yet it is not an epidemic of parasites that is driving sales of both kinds of ivermectin, but rather covid-19. Despite little evidence of its efficacy, it has become the pandemic quack cure du jour.
Ivermectin’s rise parallels that of hydroxychloroquine, another much-touted “cure”. In both cases early studies showed promise before being discredited. Some statisticians have suggested that ivermectin clinical trials would not stand up to scrutiny. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not well-designed. One study was so flawed it was removed from the preprint server that hosted it over “ethical concerns”. Merck, which manufactures the drug, says there is currently “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against covid-19”.
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence it is dangerous when misused. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), America’s regulatory agency for drugs, warns that overdosing can cause vomiting, nausea, seizures and even death. Poison control lines, set up to dispense information and handle emergencies, are swamped with calls—the American Association of Poison Control Centers received 459 in August, almost eight times as many calls about ivermectin as in the same month in 2020. In Mississippi at least 70% were about people who took the veterinary formulation, which is far more potent than the human version. Several people have been hospitalised.
Why do so many people buy into these unproven cures? Partisanship plays a big role. According to a poll that YouGov conducted on behalf of The Economist, opposition to covid-19 vaccinations is more pronounced on the right. Republicans account for 56% of respondents who say they will not get vaccinated; 25% are independents and 13% are Democrats (the remainder are “not sure” of their identity). The ideological breakdown is similar: 53% of holdouts describe themselves as conservative, and just 7% are liberal. These differences outweigh any other demographic factors. The poll also finds that 26% of Republicans (roughly the same proportion as independents) and 33% of conservatives believe that ivermectin is a “possibly” or “very” effective treatment.
How people come to believe such things is contested. One popular explanation is that influential figures persuade people to ignore medical advice. Social scientists call this a “top-down” or “elite-driven” model. Although some conservative commentators have touted ivermectin, far more have encouraged vaccination. These mixed messages suggest a hybrid “top-down, bottom-up” model, in which vaccine scepticism is also driven by peers. “Elites can (and do) try to lead public opinion,” says Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, “But they often have to follow.”
Less clear is why these beliefs are so prominent among conservatives in particular. It could be grounded in a general dislike of government intervention. One poll from Reality Check Insights, a pollster, found that Americans who think “parents, not the government” should get to decide whether their children wear face masks were likely to think the same about seatbelts. When asked whether expert risk assessment should lead governments to shut businesses, the partisan gap was similar irrespective of whether the threat was covid-19 or a hurricane.
Republicans also tend to be less educated and more religious than Democrats, which might make them trust experts less. It may also be that, rather than people’s politics determining their views on vaccination, both are determined by their pre-existing membership in other social groups. Whatever the reasons, Americans would do well to heed the words of the FDA. On August 21st it tweeted out “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
This study clearly demonstrates that Ivermectin should be studied as a treatment for Covid.
Yeah.... and my computer model study showing that white males living in central North Carolina have to the largest penises on earth deserves larger study by a select group of female college researchers.
I take it you're in central NC.
Oh, well, you better inform quantum physicist as well as most of science that all studies that use computer models are crap.
Your argument is literally retarded.
You basically saying that science doesn't exist.
Not at all.... I am just mentioning what else deserves further research based on computer modelling.