BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 3 hours ago, G_B_ said: @BacktoCricaddict thankyou for your informative posts. I was speaking to a friend and he told me that one reason for up containing the wave was ivermectin. He said its readily used by doctors for nearly everything. "nearly everything" scares me but that is a discussion for another day. Early on during the pandemic, arguments were being made for HCQ being the cure-all. Today, that is tempered down, except for some anecdotes. There are a couple of reasons why regulatory agencies are cautions with easily-available medications such as HCQ and Ivermectin. (1) People start self-medicating as soon as some positive news comes out. (2) People hoard and black market, making it harder for patients with proven needs (e.g., HCQ for lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis) to acquire them. Not always is there something sinister going on. G_B_ 1
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: So far it was not science, now it can be termed scientific after one study done somewhere? Seriously what is anecdotal when he knew for sure that is brother recovered after taking this medicine. Sorry, it was not one just any "one" study. It was a meta analysis that evaluated quality of numerous studies, consolidated them and provided statistically robust data after combining the results. Otherwise any Amar Akbar Anthony can recommend anything after 5 people take it. Levels of evidence Edited May 25, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: So far it was not science, now it can be termed scientific after one study done somewhere? Seriously what is anecdotal when he knew for sure that is brother recovered after taking this medicine. Some people recovered without taking anything. Should we recommend that to everyone? BS.
vvvslaxman Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 8 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: So far it was not science, now it can be termed scientific after one study done somewhere? Seriously what is anecdotal when he knew for sure that is brother recovered after taking this medicine. You do know many specialist doctors around the world have died right?
ravishingravi Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 The real question is that this medicine has been here since ever. There are no patents on it. Why was this not brought up over last 18 months as a serious therapeutic option for study ? Why did we straight jump to a vaccine as the possible magic bullet. Even I think its not a good practice to start recommending it blindly. But clearly evidence on the ground seems to be getting firmer and firmer.
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) Del Edited May 25, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) Just now, ravishingravi said: The real question is that this medicine has been here since ever. There are no patents on it. Why was this not brought up over last 18 months as a serious therapeutic option for study ? Why did we straight jump to a vaccine as the possible magic bullet. Even I think its not a good practice to start recommending it blindly. But clearly evidence on the ground seems to be getting firmer and firmer. It was never an anti-viral. It is an anti-worm, anti-louse medication. There was no reason to think that it would work in this setting. AFAIK, it has never been used for antiviral purposes. At least remdesivir has been developed as an antiviral. So, you start with petri dish and try random known molecules of low toxicity. For every 1000 or 10000 molecules that work in a petri dish (depending on what you know about its toxicity), one will work out. Shyte takes time. Edited May 25, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict ravishingravi 1
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 Currently, in my lab, I have tested a molecule that works in a test-tube to strongly inhibit an enzyme that HIV needs for its replication. In other words, it inhibits a viral enzyme. It has a great non-toxicity profile, too. Based on this, should I ask someone with a viral respiratory infection to try it? Absolutely 100% NO.
vvvslaxman Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 1 minute ago, BacktoCricaddict said: It was never an anti-viral. It is an anti-worm, anti-louse medication. There was no reason to think that it would work in this setting. AFAIK, it has never been used for antiviral purposes. At least remdesivir has been developed as an antiviral. So, you start with petri dish and try random known molecules of low toxicity. For every 1000 or 10000 molecules that work in a petri dish (depending on what you know about its toxicity), one will work out. Shyte takes time. At the end of the day they are medicines developed by the same community. Conspiracy theroists act like there are one group of doctors in the world are out there to undermine other group of doctors. Same accusations are levelled by siddha doctors and other quack doctors.
urbestfriend Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 1 minute ago, BacktoCricaddict said: It was never an anti-viral. It is an anti-worm, anti-louse medication. There was no reason to think that it would work in this setting. AFAIK, it has never been used for antiviral purposes. At least remdesivir has been developed as an antiviral. So, you start with petri dish and try random known molecules of low toxicity. For every 1000 or 10000 molecules that work in a petri dish (depending on what you know about its toxicity), one will work out. Shyte takes time. Peer review came after doctors tried this anecdotally everywhere, but had they been strict about what WHO is recommending, we'd been potentially missing an alternative cheap medicine. As you say it is never an anti viral yet it works mysteriously against virus, so would you punish doctors for prescribing something which is anecdotal? I recalled watching this video.
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: Peer review came after doctors tried this anecdotally everywhere, but had they been strict about what WHO is recommending, we'd been potentially missing an alternative cheap medicine. As you say it is never an anti viral yet it works mysteriously against virus, so would you punish doctors for prescribing something which is anecdotal? I recalled watching this video. Yeah I saw that. He is absolutely wrong on this but the video is great for confirmation bias. If no one was around to evaluate anything, how do you do quality control? Yes, there are things with peer review that must improve in a big way, but people who know the subject must evaluate it. Or some crazy old man like me can take a molecule I have in my lab and start calling it medicine. Why should I believe any of his claims about beef if no one else who knows about agriculture has evaluated it? In any case, what we are talking about is more than peer review of an individual paper. It is a systematic analysis of already-peer-reviewed papers. Most of the individual studies don't have statistical power due to small sample sizes. So, even though they are published after peer-review, they have some limitations. But if you combined them thereby increasing the sample size and used proper stats to analyze them, you will get powerful data. Uss ko meta analysis kehte hain. Edited May 25, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict urbestfriend 1
urbestfriend Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 In principle I agree with the fact that authenticity of any treatment will come with proper research studies...But i m only against this branding of everything that is not proven through scientific studies are anti scientific...
vvvslaxman Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 @BacktoCricaddict What do you think of this side effect? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1917344
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 6 minutes ago, urbestfriend said: As you say it is never an anti viral yet it works mysteriously against virus, so would you punish doctors for prescribing something which is anecdotal? No I would not punish doctors - I would only hope that they keep good records and report data. These are desperate times so I get it. But as a reg agency, you must also consider people who need it for proven needs. What I am saying is I would not encourage people to use it unless there is a high level of evidence.
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 Just now, urbestfriend said: In principle I agree with the fact that authenticity of any treatment will come with proper research studies...But i m only against this branding of everything that is not proven through scientific studies are anti scientific... How about we call it "inadequate" and leave it at that? Like my anti-HIV molecule. I have evidence that it works against that virus, but it is inadequate. urbestfriend 1
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 1 minute ago, vvvslaxman said: @BacktoCricaddict What do you think of this side effect? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1917344 This is exactly why it should be regulated, recorded and used only under med supervision. OK time to stop before I get a talking-to from my dean about work :=)
coffee_rules Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 11 hours ago, rkt.india said: They used cylinders used for industrial oxygen in carrying medical oxygen for patients. Those cylinders aren't as hygienic as medical oxygen cylinders. There is no definitive link says AIIMS chief.
rkt.india Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 3 hours ago, vvvslaxman said: @BacktoCricaddict What do you think of this side effect? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1917344 Ivermectin safety is already well established. Rare side effects happen with every drug. You think vaccines are 100% safe? Many people have died after taking vaccines due to side effects.
rkt.india Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 43 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: There is no definitive link says AIIMS chief. For me, this is the only thing different to what it was in first wave. Steroids were used in first wave too. But industrial oxygen cylinders are used this time. coffee_rules 1
coffee_rules Posted May 25, 2021 Posted May 25, 2021 1 hour ago, rkt.india said: For me, this is the only thing different to what it was in first wave. Steroids were used in first wave too. But industrial oxygen cylinders are used this time. Agree AIIMS chief also said Sunanda Tharoor committed suicide, what does he know?
Recommended Posts