“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously y’all. Stop it.”
FDA… You approved the drug for use in humans and it has less side effects than acetaminophen / paracetamol… y’all.
That was bs from the FDA, but it’s ok because the folksy “y’all” is endearing to who I assume they were internally calling ”flyover hicks self-medicating with horse paste”.
All they had to say was we have not approved this medication for covid and the animal applications are not approved for use in humans, their dosages can be very dangerous.
Off-topic but does anyone have a mechanism by which Ivermectin would be helpful with Coronavirus? It seems bizarre that an anti-parasite medicine targeting a eukaryote would have any efficacy against a virus.
I'll give you one (total supposition, I Am Not A Veterinarian): most people don't "get infected" with worms, but some have exposure and have immune responses that may not ever rise to the level of "symptoms". anti-parasitcs might assist and allow more robust responses to other health challenges.
Don't look too deep into how much life we host even when healthy; it'll squick you out.
So far a multitude of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tried but not found significant benefits from using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in a single-drug treatment regime.
However it's worth noting that certain multi-drug treatment regimes are looking quite promising [1][2].
Furthermore, early multi-drug treatment (before severe symptoms) using existing widely available medicines has been proven effective at reducing hospitalization and death [3][4][5][6][7]. Many front-line doctors have been using such techniques since the beginning of the pandemic, because they had to - as there were no vaccines yet and no RCTs to guide them so naturally the only option was using and combining existing medicines with established safety and efficacy profiles, the same strategy used for other difficult to treat diseases and cancers.
It's an interesting concept. When your body makes antibodies against an active infection, it targets more than just the spike protein. Against the vaccine, it targets the spike protein 100% because that's all it has. As variants come and go, you should expect that the spike protein will change -- but it can't change that much because changing too much will reduce its ability to infect cells -- so it's a good thing to have a wide variety of antibodies against. However, having antibodies against other parts of the virus is useful too, since those might be more conserved with variants, but also they could be conserved less -- we don't really know.
I meant the article said that the actual disease confers greater immunity than a vaccine.
While that might be true, that immunity would only be good for one particular strain of the virus as opposed to the vaccine which provides you protection against a wider variety of strains.
One can argue that the protection from the vaccine is better in the sense, that it protects you from a wider variety of Covid strains.
Also, just so you know, that while the (mRNA) vaccine replicates protein, it is still your body and immune system which reacts to this protein and creates the antibodies.
So even in case of the vaccine, strictly speaking the immunity is natural.
A couple notes:
1. The vaccine is not substantially different from natural immunity. The two main distinctions: a) natural immunity is broader and more resilient due to having multiple targets for antibodies as opposed to just the spike protein, and b) the PCR test is sufficiently sensitive to detect people who never got a substantial infection nor were contagious. These people may not develop broad immunity but also were never contagious so I don’t think anyone cares. I’ve never seen support for the hypothesis that some non-immunodeficient person can be symptomatic and contagious and not develop immunity.
2. The immunity is likely to escape the vaccine first due to all vaccines coding for only one protein. The primary (perhaps optimistic) hypothesis on that front was that evading the recognition of the spike protein would force the disease to be less infectious. I’ve not seen any good evidence for this, nor do I necessarily believe we have the capacity to support such a hypothesis.
3. Immunity doesn’t mean no reinfection, it means shortened period during reinfection, usually more mild symptoms, and less transmissibility (which correlates strongly with severity).
4. The current curve reduction is almost certainly a result of high immunity eg high immunity within the populations frequently interacting.
5. Antibodies are not synonymous with immunity. People have immunity from T-cell memory even after mild infection.
6. It’s unclear to me why immunity “stops,” my suspicion is that the largest force in that equation is evolution of the underlying virus to evade immunity, not some ticking time bomb typically characterized by the mainstream community. I’m not sure why this abstract belief of ticking time bomb immunity has become so prevalent.
