Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys underground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Let’s eat all of these people!” — Venom

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, October 11, 2021

Stand By For Some Stunning Hypocrisy; Covidiot Ed.

Drugmaker Merck asked U.S. regulators Monday to authorize its pill for treating COVID-19 in what would add an entirely new and easy-to-use weapon to the world’s arsenal against the pandemic.

If cleared by the Food and Drug Administration — a decision that could come in a matter of weeks — it would be the first pill shown to treat the illness. All other FDA-backed treatments against COVID-19 require an IV or injection
.

They're applying for emergency-use authorization, the same category that the anti-vax covidiots have been yammering about.

The pill works by mRNA modification methods, another thing that the "we prefer to die from Covid" clowns have been screeching about.

But you can bet your ass that they'll rush to take a not-fully-approved pill over a fully-approved vaccine, in the same way that they've been pounding down horse paste.

18 comments:

B said...

"Ivermectin" isn't MRNA. (and neither is the Merck stuff)...

But one (ivermectin) is a real antiviral compound...
The Merck stuff mimics Cytosine and interferes with the reproduction of RNA. Not mRNA at all. Huge difference. And no one yet knows how it interferes with the RNA in human cells...

Of course, Ivermectin works and we have years (30+) of data to show a safe dose o humand and it is used throughout the world... and it is off patent and really cheap. So cheap that we gave it to horses and cows and sheep as well as humans (look it up, it was first developed for, and used on humans. Despite your derision of "Horse Paste" it is a HUMAN drug....(I like how you deride it, but never show any data that it doesn't work or is unsafe...telling, really)

The new Merck stuff is something like $1800 a dose and is of unknown safety.


Frank Wilhoit said...

It is not clear whether your last graf is serious or sarcastic.

Glenn Kelley said...

Ivermectin is an Anthelmintic not an antiviral. It kills things that suck blood like gastrointestinal nematodes,lungworms and nasal bots .
Anyone had nasal bots lately?
It kills things that suck blood in almost any living thing .
We gave it to horses and cows and sheep long before it was off patent and it wasn't cheap then.It's mainly used in cows( I've got a couple 20 L cubes at the store),Then sheep and I suspect that human use is way down the list .

Dark Avenger said...

I guess nobody twigged B that the coronavirus is an RNA virus.

Etiology

Coronaviruses (CoVs) are positive-stranded RNA(+ssRNA) viruses with a crown-like appearance under an electron microscope (coronam is the Latin term for crown) due to the presence of spike glycoproteins on the envelope.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/

This is from drugs dot com

Bottom line

Ivermectin should not be used in patients for COVID-19, unless it is part of a clinical trial.
Currently there is not enough high quality evidence supporting the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.
More randomized clinical trials with a higher certainty of evidence are needed for ivermectin in the treatment COVID-19.
Ivermectin tablets are FDA approved medicine for some types of intestinal worms and ivermectin cream is FDA approved for rosacea treatment.
Both oral and topical ivermectin have a good safety profile at standard dosing levels.

https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid-19-coronavirus-3535912/#:~:text=This%20is%20how%20the%20scientists,reduced%20by%20the%20viral%20proteins.


B said...

Just how do you think viruses work, DA? Of course it is an "RNA Virus" They all are.

Do you know what mRNA is? How it works?
Do you understand the mechanism by which Ivermectin interrupts the virus vs the mew Merck dug? (It ain't "mRNA").

If you really think that there is not enough "High quality evidence" that ivermectin works you are trying to not see it.
Believe what you want. You've shown (repeatedly) that you really don't have the background to understand anyway, and just parrot what you are told.

Dark Avenger said...

B, of course all viruses use mRNA to hijack the ribosomes to create the proteins they need for replication, but not all viruses have a core of RNA as does the coronavirus and a number of other ones. DNA viruses need their core translated by either viral or host enzymes into mRNA that
then is translated by ribosomes into the proteins needed for the coat and spikes for infection. Examples of DNA viruses include but are not limited to herpesviruses smallpox virus and adenoviruses. Your accusation of ignorance is very, very, inaccurate.

Eck! said...

On a good day your assertions are fraudulent at best and
error filled.

High quality evidence regarding Ivermectin for Covid is a
qualified study or several. That is generally non existent
or does not support the assertion. Not a discontinued study
or anecdotal information. In the development search for
drugs or their components one of the stronger criteria is
that their effectivity is provably clinically effective
without unde side effects.

The new Merck stuff is something like $1800 a dose and
is of unknown safety."

That is a blatant piece of negative propaganda aka lie.
THe price if set is not important as the usual epipen
can cost as much and Insulin is over 350$ a vial. As
to unsafe or unknown safety, that had to be established
before the clinical trials could commence. To date there
is no indication is has any safety issues other than
if you have covid already your at risk of death.
Considering a say in ICU is well over 5,000$ day and
can reach 10,000$/Day the price of the drug to reduce
or prevent that is a red herring at this point.

Reminer the covid vaccination is already paid aka no
out of pocket cost and is preventative. Prevention is
without a doubt the best path and long term and applied
across larger groups far lower in cost.

Just because a drug is used in humans it may not be suitable.
For example there are several antivirals that have proven
useless already. Also antibacterials some of which are weak
antiviral have been tested and deemed ineffective. Add to
that a range of drugs, say Aspirin also ineffective but
widely used in humans.

Add to that Ivermectin for humans has contraindications.
The versions used for animal treatment are unsafe due to
additives and have wider dose controls.

Finally Ivermectin is best and known effect are against
parasitic worms and Rosacea is not a viral or bacterial
disease. And its effectiveness if any for that is as yet
under investigation and a topical application.

The Merck pill is:
Molnupiravir (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) is an investigational,
orally administered form of a potent ribonucleoside analog
that inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2, the causative
agent of COVID-19. [from their application]

In plain english Ribonucleoside is mRNA, or more correctly
developed via using mRNA materials and techniques. There
are a whole classes of antivirals resulting from that.

So your back to propagandizing and should be deleted.


Eck!

S M McBean said...

I first read this post and comments last evening. I've read enough comments here to know B to be argumentative at least, but took his suggestion to "look it up"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

Ivermectin greatly slowed replication of(but did not kill) Covid in a Petrie dish of modified monkey kidney cells at 35X the normal human dose. Cause for further research? Yes. Reason to eat horse paste? No.

I was glad to see others respond to his half-baked rant. I've lost patience with people who read a headline or the first paragraph and assume it reinforces their preconceptions. I've gotten my vaccine and will get a booster. And I'll wait for career epidemiologists and researchers to sort things out.

In the meantime, my personal suggestion to B is to be like the "b" in DUMBASS: silent. If I've earned a yellow card, I can live with that

B said...

Eck!: So both you and DA can read but not understand. You statements regarding RNA show that.
I'm sorry for you.
Also note that there is NO study of how animal formulations of Ivermectin are dangerous. Zero...Nada. Mere supposition, but no data. Using that logic, you would not take either the Covid Jab nor the new Merck medicine because there is no data to show that it is safe. At least be consistent.

Here is a decent study on Ivermectin and Covid-19 for your perusal:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
Note that it is a real. peer reviewed, study published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a real medical publication.

Believe what you want.



Eck! said...

B, anything you say is not to be believed.

Add to that most of your cite are likely unread by you beyond
the part that agrees with you. If you had read it fully you
would never have used it to support an argument that it is
anything more then experimental off label use.

Overview is that was a meta-study of previous work. The take
away is it might help maybe. Save for it had a confirmation
bias built in it did make it to one journal for further
comment. I'd bet a penny there is a follow up paper
presenting a counter argument that the conclusion is
faulty. What was interesting is the studies used for data
in most cases were considered low quality by the papers
authors and a few made the moderate quality. Bad data
does not make for a confirmatory conclusion, only more
bad data. One last comment with tests or trials sample
size matters.

One last item that they published it is not anything other
an opinion at best supported by low quality data. They try
to be honest at that and try to make useful sense of the data.
It may mean something but some of the studies were discontinued
suggests its not a path to a useful therapy. To that I say
Merck rather than play went to work and took a path to
something of proven value.

That and do you understand the relationship of RNA and DNA
in living organisms? Hint; the key word in both RNA and DNA
is Ribonucleic acid, a building block of genetic structures
and the enzymes and proteins they build.

As to read and understand, its your opinion pulled from
the same hole that has delivered other wild unproven stuff
and your comment is therefore reduced to the level of
name calling.

In the end I still say Ivermectin is on the same path as
other experimentally applied drugs that the conspiracy right
espoused and most now forgotten or referred to in jokes.

In all, the current best therapy is one of prevention.
The goal is clear, do not get covid by isolation or or
at least get the Vaccine as prophylaxis against
contracting covid. It has been proven to reduce the
likelihood of severe disease resulting from serious
covid. Getting sick and relying on a long list of
therapies with high uncertainty is not an cogent
argument for personal safety. It is proof of idiocy.


Eck!

B said...

Yeah, I read it. IN full.

it says what it says. While not a total cure, the use of Ivermectin reduces the death rate, symptoms, and aids quicker recovery.

I am sure you think you know all about RNA and DNA, but you apparently cannot tell the difference between RNA and mRNA, nor do you understand how the Merck drug works to break the RNA reproduction using an analogue of Cytosine.
Sorry, the fact that you don't understand those differences and that mechanism shows your expertise lies somewhere other than being an objective source or critic of any of the above medications. You've bought what the Media has told you and will not learn nor listen beyond that. At this point your bias will not allow it. You are less objective (but marginally better informed and somewhat more intelligent than) DA. At this point the Government Line is like a religion to you and logic and facts will not sway you.

I'm done on this thread, have the last word.

Eck! said...

Facts those are facts?

You have none and if you makes claims you have to know what your
talking about something your really can't do.

You hit and mRNA and RNA or DNA being different. You have no
idea why only you say that to make yourself look smart. Real
people that understand explain why they differ. mRNA is simple
best said as incomplete sequence of RNA to make a protein that
is almost but not quite the real thing. A biochemical Trogan
horse without the internal Greeks. THe goal is to make the body
believe it saw the real thing and react, rather than the real
thing that might be toxic. as to the Merck wow you read it is
an cytosine. Wrong, bad puppy.

what is cytisine... Cytosine (C) is one of four chemical bases
in DNA, the other three being adenine (A), guanine (G), and
thymine (T). Within the DNA molecule, cytosine bases located
on one strand form chemical bonds with guanine bases on the
opposite strand. Not what you said at all. all you did was
to name one of the four CAGT of DNA.

"Merck's pill belongs to a class of antiviral drugs called nucleosides,
which can block a virus from replicating inside cells. This particular
drug creates mutations in the part of its genetic code that the virus
uses to replicate. Once enough of its code is changed, the virus dies
out, preventing a patient's symptoms from getting worse."

That's a mouthful but if you chew hard you may understand there is more
to it than calling it C.

That makes it more than just cytosine and a modified analog as it
has to build the more complex protein and at the same time poison
the DNA replication process.

With that your still and idiot. One that can't stop repeating
the party line even if it hurts you. Not at all pretty.

At this point I reply to mock and ridicule you and those you
claim are authoritative. Your stuck with the authoritarian
propaganda and your strawman. You conflate things to accept
stories in absence of facts or detail. The result is all
false claims.

Likely you never read my blog as DasGov is anything but
authoritative or religion or occasionally correct.
Your guy proved that. So you deserve another bad puppy.
That may disappoint you and be a contradiction but its
what you want to believe not anything factual, just
them liberal feels you claim to ridicule.

Free advice, don't go away mad, just go away.


Eck!

Dark Avenger said...

The biopolymers that comprise DNA, RNA and (poly)peptides are linear polymers (i.e.: each monomer is connected to at most two other monomers). The sequence of their monomers effectively encodes information. The transfers of information described by the central dogma ideally are faithful, deterministic transfers, wherein one biopolymer's sequence is used as a template for the construction of another biopolymer with a sequence that is entirely dependent on the original biopolymer's sequence. When DNA is transcribed to RNA, it's complement is paired to it. DNA codes A, G, T, and C are transferred to RNA codes U, C, A, and G, respectively. The encoding of proteins is done in groups of three, known as codons according to the table.

Transcription is the process by which the information contained in a section of DNA is replicated in the form of a newly assembled piece of messenger RNA (mRNA). Enzymes facilitating the process include RNA polymerase and transcription factors. In eukaryotic cells the primary transcript is pre-mRNA. Pre-mRNA must be processed for translation to proceed. Processing includes the addition of a 5' cap and a poly-A tail to the pre-mRNA chain, followed by splicing. Alternative splicing occurs when appropriate, increasing the diversity of the proteins that any single mRNA can produce. The product of the entire transcription process (that began with the production of the pre-mRNA chain) is a mature mRNA chain.

The mature mRNA finds its way to a ribosome, where it gets translated. In prokaryotic cells, which have no nuclear compartment, the processes of transcription and translation may be linked together without clear separation. In eukaryotic cells, the site of transcription (the cell nucleus) is usually separated from the site of translation (the cytoplasm), so the mRNA must be transported out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it can be bound by ribosomes. The ribosome reads the mRNA triplet codons, usually beginning with an AUG (adenine−uracil−guanine), or initiator methionine codon downstream of the ribosome binding site. Complexes of initiation factors and elongation factors bring aminoacylated transfer RNAs (tRNAs) into the ribosome-mRNA complex, matching the codon in the mRNA to the anti-codon on the tRNA. Each tRNA bears the appropriate amino acid residue to add to the polypeptide chain being synthesised. As the amino acids get linked into the growing peptide chain, the chain begins folding into the correct conformation. Translation ends with a stop codon which may be a UAA, UGA, or UAG triplet.

The mRNA does not contain all the information for specifying the nature of the mature protein. The nascent polypeptide chain released from the ribosome commonly requires additional processing before the final product emerges. For one thing, the correct folding process is complex and vitally important. For most proteins it requires other chaperone proteins to control the form of the product. Some proteins then excise internal segments from their own peptide chains, splicing the free ends that border the gap; in such processes the inside "discarded" sections are called inteins. Other proteins must be split into multiple sections without splicing. Some polypeptide chains need to be cross-linked, and others must be attached to cofactors such as haem (heme) before they become functional.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

Pete said...

B wrote, "(I like how you deride it, but never show any data that it doesn't work or is unsafe...telling, really)"

B, you need to apply this statement to your assertions of massive voter fraud in the last election (nebulous claims of statistical improbability are not data).

That you probably won't is . . . telling really.

Pete

Eck! said...

DA,

It would have been shocking if B posted that.

From you its in your ballpark as well as my backyard. I was both
aware and also read that and decided not to. Facts are wasted
on the boy.

The details were not how it works or what the bits and pieces
are but making claims that have no basis and unsupported. It
was the constant barrage of party line and mostly less.

Eck!

Comrade Misfit said...

General Yellow Card.

Play nice, people.

Dark Avenger said...

Eck, I’m minded of the story in the book “Through the Chinese Looking Glass, of the Chinese housemaid when asked about her English employer’s treatment of her, responded: “Oh, I don’t care what he says, I tell myself, he is just a barbarian.”

Eck! said...

DA,

Reflecting on the culture referenced that is priceless.

Barbarian in their language and in class context has a lot
of implications on origins and up bringing. Its not a mild
insult.

I don't have a single english language word that encompasses
the depth and expanse of that.



Eck!