Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[supernumerary] 04/1/2022 00:11

'let doctors treat early as they see fit'. Which is fine until the doctor in question turns out to be Harold Shipman. Or a grossly incompetent GP with a penchant for conspiracy theories. Or merely a hard-pressed locum with no ongoing commitment to the patient or the practice or the community.

The rules about prescribing are conservative, and rightly so.

Personally I doubt that even given free rein over Covid prescriptions, more than a handful of British GPs would wish to take advantage of it. The moral constraints in prescribing outside SoC, the requirement for fully-informed consent, the acquiescence of the insurance companies, the need for detailed follow-up etc all mitigate against it.

[ammons] 03/1/2022 22:44

Interesting discussion, thank you. And I have answered your question. They do not have to approve it or ivermectin or anything else. My discussion was about ALL early, pre hospital covid treatment, including fluvoxamine and ivermectin. There are others not mentioned here. I chose those two. They do not have to approve anything. They should definitely withdraw the "do nothing till you cannot breathe" nonsensical medical advice for a supposedly very deadly virus and let doctors treat early as they see fit. Trial and error evidence based on known anecdotal studies for a new and deadly virus is far better than doing nothing at all till the patient is half dead.

Conspiracy by big pharma to have nothing approved unless its one of thier own expensive patented drugs or repeat vaccines manufactured by them? I will leave it to you to work out for yourself. Is more fluvoxamine data needed? It always will be because nobody is going to to a large and expensive RCT for a cheap generic drug. Until that is done (which is exactly how big pharma wants it) then more data will always be needed no matter what evidence is presented. That way big pharma will ensure that thier own products is/are all that will be approved. Job done.

Thanks again.

[bermudashorts] 03/1/2022 22:17

ammons

Thanks for your replies - going to leave it here. This whole discussion started with your suggestion that fluvoxamine would have been approved if it wasn't out of patent. You have been shown that the reason why it hasn't been approved is that the clinical data has some shortcomings and further data is required. you still haven't answered whether you think the regulators should go ahead and approve it anyway.

Either there's a conspiracy on the part of big pharma to block fluvoxamine or it really is as simple as more data is needed. I don't think we're going to agree but thanks for the discussion.

[torquayfan] 03/1/2022 21:46

Super no offence taken - I had read your post of course but it was around bedtime ! My mistake. Apologies.

While you were 'in passing', I found this helpful - 'It seems that we can't get 2 Covid infections at the same time' so 'the virus that gets there first has a huge advantage'. I guess that's how one virus takes over from another, as Omicron from Delta in the UK for example.

[ammons] 03/1/2022 21:40

They have not approved absolutely anything for covid outside of hospital except for vaccines and the Pfizer and Merck expensive new drugs.

I have not been able to find ONE UK doctor who does anything other than the NHS guidelines for the super duper dangerous virus - go home and pray, take a paracetamol. There are many doctors in the USA, and other countries, Japan, India, some South American countries, South Africa. None in the UK that I have been able to locate. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I assume that the reason why not one single UK doctor is prescibing anything other than "go home and hope for the best" for the super duper deadly virus is because they are not allowed to. So yes, plain common sense tells me that there is something stopping UK doctors from diverting away from the NHS "do nothing till you cannot breathe" rubbish advice. That is all the advice I got in 2020 when I was infected with covid myself even though I was well aware of fluvoxamine and especially ivermectin at the time.

Should the NHS recommend it? They dont have to. What the NHS should do is cease its do nothing advice and allow doctors to home treat covid patients as they see fit as early as possible at the viral stage when it is easiest to treat. The NHS has recommended useless remdisivir in hospital patients based on rubbish evidence. It was happy to do that and continues to be happy to do nothing until hospital treatment is needed. That was the advice even before vaccines.

[bermudashorts] 03/1/2022 21:06

Yes, but can you please answer the question in my 20.26. Should the regulators approve fluvoxamine based on the data from one trial which was halted for futility by an INDEPENDENT DMC and second trial with shortcomings in the data?

Incidentally, there is nothing to stop doctors prescribing drugs off-label and no reason why they can't already treat their patients as they see fit.

[ammons] 03/1/2022 20:50

NIH covid treatment guidelines?????????? They are part of the overall problem!!!

Of course big pharma is blocking the use of any cheap generic home treatment drugs unless it is one of thier own drugs under patent.

Pharma wants thier vaccines to be the one and only solution for covid and governments have fallen into line. As time has moved on and fewer people are willing to be vaxxed multiple times (Israel is starting on its fourth round, others will follow) then treatments must be considered instead of multiple jabs.

Pfizer and Merck have had thiers approved already following thier own trials. (Shock, surprise.) The large RCTs you were on about earlier for thier own products. Job done.

Regulators should allow doctors to treat thier patients how they see fit which includes using repurposed generics. There is nothing new or unusual about that - except for covid. Move away from the covid mainstream narrative and watch out........ The current UK advice - for this supposedly super deadly virus - is to stay home, hope for the best, call back when you cannot breathe.

[bermudashorts] 03/1/2022 20:26

Good grief - it was an alternative view to the one you were presenting.

Anyway, do you have any opinion regarding my link? Are you really suggesting that despite the shortcomings in the available data the regulators should approve fluvoxamine? To help you reach a decision please read the right hand column which summarises the issues with the existing data. So easy to throw around allegations that big pharma are blocking the approval of this drug, but when you actually dig down into the clinical trial results could it just be possible that the quality of the data simply isn't sufficient (yet!)?

[ivyspivey] 03/1/2022 20:04

Ha ha Loggie,
Given up on footy but no need to send me tinnies as my son has got me plenty of beer as Xmas and Birthday present so well stocked at moment.
Did you see the Video Clip about the 2 Scottish girls who came to England for NYE and said they could not go out in Glasgow due to restrictions plus all their friends had Covid so they came to Carlisle.
Hope you did not bump into them lol
Good for markets to open tomorrow so we can get talking about real stuff again

[ammons] 03/1/2022 19:59

Bermuda, your view is not alternative at all. It is the mainstream response to any attempt to get cheap treatments approved at home. More data will always be needed to get a cheap drug approved for home treatment for covid. The current treating doctors will always be considered "anecdotal" evidence. The large RCTs carried out by big pharma for thier own patented products will more likely than not get approved. Hey presto the new Pfizer and Merck covid pills, more to follow no doubt. (I wouldn't touch anything produced by Pfizer myself.)

Even remdisivir has been approved for covid hospital patients (expensive, patented) based on extremely weak evidence. It does not actually save more patients. All it does is cuts the hospital time for those who would probably have survived anyway by a couple of days. Even that small benefit is hotly disputed.

The current advice upon covid infection almost worldwide is to stay at home, take a paracetamol, drink water, hope for the best, call back if and when you cannot breathe. If there is a bed space you will be admtted to hospital. That applies to vaxxed or not. Doctors who treat "anecdotally" refuse to do this because it is unethical, which it is. They treat thier covid patients at home which is what doctors are supposed to do before hospital admission is needed.

They treat with generic drugs and neutracuticals and, anecdotally as you call it, report great success. For reporting thier findings where they can they get censored, cancelled, smeared, rubbished and threatened with having thier medical lisences revoked. What they are doing does not fit in with the mainstream narrative which is to go home and hope for the best.

[thelogman] 03/1/2022 19:42

Bermuda you know me only being daft. On a serious note........................................ Man u just lost, gonna celebrate with one of moljen 6.6% bottles happy days. Ivy will be upset now, man u that bad I am considering sending him some tinnies.

[supernumerary] 03/1/2022 19:00

tf - no offence, but it's probably best to read my post before commenting on it.

In passing, I think any new variant will have to prove more infective than Omicron to succeed. It seems that we can't get 2 Covid infections at the same time, or even a second one shortly after the first, so the virus that gets there first has a huge advantage. If Omicron is infecting 3 patients while Rho only infects 2, the latter doesn't stand a chance. And killing them off won't help either :¬)

And finally, why is it that the more bizarre the beliefs, the more unpleasant and aggressive the poster? Toxoplasmosis? See for example:

[bermudashorts] 03/1/2022 18:53

Loggie - apologies and congrats!

[ammons] 03/1/2022 18:15

Nice try, Bermuda. The prinipal is not the same and anyone with two or more brain cells knows this. The trials you describe are very expensive and almost always carried out by the big pharma companies who will only do them for thier own patented drugs. Dexa in hospital makes no difference to the vaccine viability.

Ask the real doctors who actually treat thier real covid patients at home with real generics with real success, in the face of real and substantial opposition, threats and smearing.

Try again Bermuda............

[bermudashorts] 03/1/2022 17:56

The setting is irrelevant, the principle is the same - an off patent generic drug with a well designed, large RCT funded not by big pharma at all but by you (presumably) and me - ie. the UK tax payer via the RECOVERY trial. You seem to be suggesting that off patent drugs are being blocked and yet dexamethasone shows this isn't the case.

[panama7] 03/1/2022 17:42

Ammons, great response, Bermuda is another poster who has undergone mass psychosis.

[ammons] 03/1/2022 17:35

Rubbish. Dexamethasone is approved for hospital patients, not for general home treatment. Approving dex does (or did) not affect the viability of the vaccines which work for a couple of months only, then you are back to square one.

Nice try.

There are many drugs which, in combination with others, work very well. Ask the brave doctors who treat the illness under threat, in many countries, of having thier medical lisences revoked.

Robust, well designed, large,RCT's?? Oh, the ones funded by the big pharmacutical companies? Yeah, right.

Nice try.................

[bermudashorts] 03/1/2022 17:24

.......an alternative view is that if ivermectin or fluvoxamine had proven themselves in robust, well designed, large, randomised trials then they would have been approved and widely prescribed regardless of their IP status - in exactly the same way as dexamethasone has been. An off patent generic drug costing just £5, approved by the regulators and widely prescribed.

It's not hard to see how the anti-inflammatory effects of flovoxamine could have a positive impact on Covid patients and I hope it lives up to expectations. However, it seems there is a little way to go yet before there is sufficient data to justify approval.

[panama7] 03/1/2022 17:13

Gecko, the evidence is undeniable unless you are suffering from mass psychosis.

[geckotheglorious] 03/1/2022 17:01

And if Ivermectin is so useless how come:

"Fun fact: Between 100-200 United States Congress Members (plus many of their staffers & family members) with COVID.. were treated by a colleague over the past 15 months with ivermectin & the I-MASK+ protocol at hxxp://flccc.net.

None have gone to hospital. Just sayin' "


hxxps://covid19criticalcare.com/


And Dr Robert Malone(you know who he is right!)
Malone then explained to Rogan how the Uttar Pradesh province in India crushed Covid with early treatment that included ivermectin, however he claims that the Biden administration met with Modi and a 'decision was made not to disclose the contents of the treatment.'

Be interested to find the truth here as I know Ivermetin was prescribed in Uddar Pradesh. And the cases/hospitalisations and deaths from Covid are way way lower than rest of India.

[geckotheglorious] 03/1/2022 16:57

Supernumerary.

”New Pfizer drug and Ivermectin – Dr John Campbell” 22mins

New Pfizer antiviral and ivermectin, a pharmacodynamic analysis
“Modality of action exactly the same!”

New Pfizer antiviral, PF-07321332, C₂₃HS23;₂F₃N₅O₄
PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease,
(“3CL protease” breaks down the proteins” and inhibits viral replication)

PFIZER’S NOVEL COVID-19 ORAL ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT CANDIDATE REDUCED RISK OF HOSPITALIZATION OR DEATH BY 89% IN INTERIM ANALYSIS OF PHASE 2/3 EPIC-HR STUDY


So,what is a protease?
So what is a protease inhibitor?

And, what is 3CL?
Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CL main protease, or 3CL Mpro)


Identification of SARS-CoV‑2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening (3rd September 2020)


The activity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 viral infection was confirmed in 7 of 23 compounds


Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection


the strength and persistency of the interaction between IVE and the binding site of 3CLpro indicate that a partial inhibition of the catalytic activity could have place as the drug interacts with the main subdomains that define the enzyme binding pocket:
(ie Ivermectin blocks protease)


Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents


as shown in Fig. 4, out of 13 OTDs only ivermectin completely blocked ( more than 80%) the 3CLpro activity at 50 µM concentration.

Development, validation, and approval of COVID-19 specific drugs takes years. Therefore, the idea of drug repositioning, also known as repurposing, is an important strategy to control the sudden outbreak of life-threatening infectious agents that spread rapidly.


Ilimaquinone (marine sponge metabolite) as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study



From the docking analysis, ivermectin showed the highest docking score with an average energy of −8.5 kcal mol−1 among all the compounds. Remdesivir showed the lowest binding energy and highest docking score of −9.9 kcal mol−1


Ritonavir, C37H48N6O5S2 - £340/vial (UK hospital only)
Ivermectin, C48H74O14 (WHO – 6 cents a dose)

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach (in silico – computer modelling)


We have documented an intense binding of both ivermectin B1a and B1b isomer to the main protease with subsequent energy (ETot-) values of -384.56 and -408.6.

PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease,
hxxps://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizers-novel-covid-19-oral-antiviral-treatment-candidate


Risk of virus developing resistance to PF-07321332


Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2



With SARS-CoV-2 S Spike protein
Ivermectin showed high binding affinity to the viral S protein as well as the human cell surface receptors ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.

In agreement to our findings, ivermectin was found to be docked between the viral spike and the ACE2 receptor

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human TMPRSS2 Protein (ACE2 protein)

The docking results revealed that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −174.971) and protein–ligand interactions

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human ACE-2 Protein that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −159.754) and protein–ligand interactions

With SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein
Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein

With SARS-CoV-2 Nsp14 Protein
ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity (MolDock score −212.265) and protein–ligand interactions

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With SARS-CoV-2 PLpro
Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein (MolDock score −180.765) and protein–ligand interactions

A brief message to world leaders

[panama7] 03/1/2022 16:10

Supernumerary " Ivermectin " maybe you should actually do a little research unless that is beyond your Mass Psychosis brain .......hxxps://www.worldtribune.com/researcher-andrew-hills-conflict-a-40-million-gates-foundation-grant-vs-a-half-million-human-lives/

Also the PRINCIPLE study at Oxford was held up apparently due to a lack of supply of Ivermectin. Not say the Suppliers who are supplying to a multitude of Countries across the World.

Don't forget if Ivermectin gets approval Big Pharna Va x x es lose their EUA and Governments across the World lose their Emergency Powers. Wouldn't anyone with half a brain call that a significant CONFLICT OF INTEERST.