Ivermectin and Covid-19: SA drug regulator allows controlled, compassionate access

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,440
It is all about the definitions. There might be more scientifically accurate definitions around but this one pretty much is good enough for us normal okes.

From Wikipedia:

A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease.[1] A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future. Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild" pathogen), or therapeutic (to fight a disease that has already occurred, such as cancer).[2][3][4][5]

So, Vaccines do NOT prevent one from being infected just help your body fight off infections, hopefully, sooner rather than later and thus might help in reducing the spread of a disease. How quickly that happens is open to plenty of conjecture.

I assume everyone will understand that a vaccine is NOT an antiviral agent?

Now for an antiviral: From medicinenet:

Antiviral: An agent that kills a virus or that suppresses its ability to replicate and, hence, inhibits its capability to multiply and reproduce.

Therefore a vaccine cannot be referred to as an antiviral drug or medicine, even if its action or way of working could be thought of as similar by some.

IVM is an antiviral as it directly attacks a number of viruses.
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
15,284
So, Vaccines do NOT prevent one from being infected just help your body fight off infections, hopefully, sooner rather than later and thus might help in reducing the spread of a disease. How quickly that happens is open to plenty of conjecture.
Exactly..... so what logical reason is there to limit movement based on vaccination?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,440
When last did you have measles or polio?
So, this at the heart of the debate. How long did it take with rigorous vaccination campaigns to get to the point where both your examples were pushed so low that we hardly hear of them anymore?
It does not mean both have been eradicated.
What is our expectation from the Covid 19 vaccinations?
What is realistic? Are we not expecting too much?
 
Last edited:

Daveogg

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
1,137
So, this at the heart of the debate. How long did it take with rigorous vaccination campaigns t o get to the point where both your examples were pushed so low that we hardly hear of them anymore?
It does not mean both have been eradicated.
What is our expectation from the Covid 19 vaccinations?
What is realistic? Are we not expecting too much?
You quoted Wikipedia and interpreted your quotation to state vaccines in general do not prevent infection. For most illnesses current vaccines absolutely do prevent infection.

Regarding Sars co-v2
A year ago, medical science was questioning whether a vaccine against a Corona virus was even possible. The fact that we have multiple vaccines that prevent infection in a large number of people and in the rest ameliorate the infection to a mild upper respiratory tract infection is quite frankly amazing.

There clearly are also a few lemons Sinopharm looking at you.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,440
You quoted Wikipedia and interpreted your quotation to state vaccines in general do not prevent infection. For most illnesses current vaccines absolutely do prevent infection.

Regarding Sars co-v2
A year ago, medical science was questioning whether a vaccine against a Corona virus was even possible. The fact that we have multiple vaccines that prevent infection in a large number of people and in the rest ameliorate the infection to a mild upper respiratory tract infection is quite frankly amazing.

There clearly are also a few lemons Sinopharm looking at you.
Thanks for the response appreciated. Yes, I see that I may have misinterpreted the wiki definition to some extent. Still not sure how the "prevention" aspect can be claimed if the action of a vaccine is primarily there to prepare the immune system to attack an invading virus. It still means the virus must infect someone and then the immune system springs into action. The thin line between true "prevention" (which means the virus just can't get a hold at all}, and total neutralisation before symptoms of any sort develop. This is the point I was trying to make.​
It is very concerning to have vaccines around that don't work. How is anyone going to accept being injected with a vaccine that does not actually work and then getting sick anyway?​
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,440
The latest response to the court order issued against SAHPRA and the Minister in relation to the IVM saga.

 

Attachments

  • MEDIA-RELEASE-High-Court-Case-Ivermectin-9April.pdf
    168.9 KB · Views: 1

TeMoeg

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
54
WTF...

"SAHPRA reiterates that to date, there is insufficient scientific evidence on the efficacy of Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19."

Are they blind or mad or what? They have blood on their hands, as was proven beyond reasonable doubt in the court case, yet they still deny any wrongdoing from their part.

They are a disgrace against humankind, and need to be taken out of these positions.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
WTF...

"SAHPRA reiterates that to date, there is insufficient scientific evidence on the efficacy of Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19."

Are they blind or mad or what? They have blood on their hands, as was proven beyond reasonable doubt in the court case, yet they still deny any wrongdoing from their part.

They are a disgrace against humankind, and need to be taken out of these positions.
Nah, they’re waiting for a clinical trial as qualitative, rigorous and best practice / procedural as any other drug goes through to support such claims. There are a few in process currently. Sadly, the majority of those being paraded are simply not. Scientific process still matters.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
Still not sure how the "prevention" aspect can be claimed if the action of a vaccine is primarily there to prepare the immune system to attack an invading virus. It still means the virus must infect someone and then the immune system springs into action. The thin line between true "prevention" (which means the virus just can't get a hold at all}, and total neutralisation before symptoms of any sort develop. This is the point I was trying to make.
Most antiviral mechanisms are inhibitor based which provides prevention by disrupting a viruses activity.
 

TeMoeg

Active Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
54
Nah, they’re waiting for a clinical trial as qualitative, rigorous and best practice / procedural as any other drug goes through to support such claims. There are a few in process currently. Sadly, the majority of those being paraded are simply not. Scientific process still matters.
There is a large group of highly qualified, well respected scientists, who are of the opinion that the tipping point in the available evidence in favour of using IVM was already passed a few months ago, and any further waiting in reacting to this evidence can be seen as grossly negligent or may even be found criminally liable in a court of law.

Dr. Tess Lawrie estimated that at least 60 000 Covid-19 patients lives could have been saved in the UK alone, since she presented her +100-page evidence document to the regulators, early in January 2021, with timeous reaction from their part, which never happened. Funnily, UK doctors may prescribe IVM to their patients for worms or scabies etc, but not for Covid-19.

It seems that all regulators in most countries are singing from the same hymn sheet, which is: "There is not enough evidence, further trials are required". My prediction is that they will continue doing so, even after the evidence becomes favourable with a statistical confidence of 99.9%, instead of the required 95%.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658
There is a large group of highly qualified, well respected scientists, who are of the opinion that the tipping point in the available evidence in favour of using IVM was already passed a few months ago, and any further waiting in reacting to this evidence can be seen as grossly negligent or may even be found criminally liable in a court of law.

Dr. Tess Lawrie estimated that at least 60 000 Covid-19 patients lives could have been saved in the UK alone, since she presented her +100-page evidence document to the regulators, early in January 2021, with timeous reaction from their part, which never happened. Funnily, UK doctors may prescribe IVM to their patients for worms or scabies etc, but not for Covid-19.

It seems that all regulators in most countries are singing from the same hymn sheet, which is: "There is not enough evidence, further trials are required". My prediction is that they will continue doing so, even after the evidence becomes favourable with a statistical confidence of 99.9%, instead of the required 95%.

Yes and there is an even larger group of highly qualified, well respected scientists who aren't as vocal that have looked at the data as part of the peer review process and believe there's still not enough quality to call it either way hence the larger trials currently underway. The majority of the data or meta data analysis itself qualify the very same conclusions that more investigation is needed.

You're also being disingenuous in terms of prescription. The treatment guidelines for human usage and safety for it's on-label treatment is once or twice a year as a single dose. The usage being advised for C19 is not only as treatment but also as prophylaxis for long term usage for which there is very limited data in terms of safety.
 

Markd

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,140
Yes and there is an even larger group of highly qualified, well respected scientists who aren't as vocal that have looked at the data as part of the peer review process and believe there's still not enough quality to call it either way hence the larger trials currently underway. The majority of the data or meta data analysis itself qualify the very same conclusions that more investigation is needed.

You're also being disingenuous in terms of prescription. The treatment guidelines for human usage and safety for it's on-label treatment is once or twice a year as a single dose. The usage being advised for C19 is not only as treatment but also as prophylaxis for long term usage for which there is very limited data in terms of safety.

Thank you for being a voice of reason and sanity in this nuthouse of jaded conspiracy theorists.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,658

The impact of Ivermectin use in Zimbabwe​

Not quite sure how statistics and Ivermectin usage line up in terms of the numbers? According to this video the entire country had a blitz (35 fold increase) on Ivermectin sales from end of December to end of February (500,000 doses) yet the numbers show an increase and largest infection and death rate than previously from late December onwards? Even the graph used in the video show that the quiet months were had while she was having her success (ie. no deaths) ?
 
Top