Vaccine mandate ethical dilemma

[Chuck Naill]

My choice on vaccination is a long discussion on risk assessment, which I'm not inclined to engage in here. It would just lead to the internet hyenas shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" in some fashion. Maybe I am, but maybe I'm not. My body, my choice; and all that...

You don't need to say, but I just suspected it has nothing to do with this thread's topic. While I may not be afraid to die, I have family that I for whom I would like to be engaged. Plus, economically, having a hosptical stay and long term health problems is not something for which I want to owe.

I might have said before I had a tick bite in July 2015 with similar symptoms to "long COVID" until the Spring of '19. And I have friends who chose to not get the vaccine who are continueing to be symptomatic.

Yeah, it is your choice, but the authors clearly stated their position given the death rate. I think your taking a risky path.

[dneal]

It indeed has nothing to do with the thread title. I got Lyme disease at Fort Chaffee in ‘96, btw

[Chuck Naill]

Marcus Lamb has died of COVID-19
"Instead of getting vaccinated, “we can pray, we can get ivermectin and budesonide and hydroxychloroquine,” he said, referring to several drugs that have not been approved for Covid treatment by the Food and Drug Administration. He denounced vaccination"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/u...lamb-dead.html

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently Lamb had been taking Ivermectin.

[dneal]

Chuck, honest question. Why are you so anti-ivermectin? If it works, and there is growing evidence it does; then that should be a good thing. If it doesn't, and does little to no harm; what's the problem with experimenting with it?

I'm talking about formulation and dose rates intended for humans - not "horse dewormer".

Every article or discussion I post on that seems to prompt you toward harshly negative comments. Have you really examined it objectively? Your "rebuttal" in a different thread (I can go dig it up if you want) was a journal article actually supporting further examination of ivermectin as a treatment.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha". I'm genuinely curious and genuinely think this might be a "blind spot" for you.

--edit--

I'll even throw this olive branch out. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer". I think those populations most vulnerable should get it. I'm a little gun-shy on vaccines because of the Army. I got my tetanus booster a few months ago. I got this season's flu-shot. My main issue with the covid vaccine is simply there is no long-term data on it. When I look at the mortality rate of covid, and do the risk assessment for me, it doesn't outweigh the lack of data for the vaccine.

I don't see a problem developing treatment protocols. Not for me "so I don't have to get the shot", but because it would save lives. Breakthrough cases included.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, honest question. Why are you so anti-ivermectin? If it works, and there is growing evidence it does; then that should be a good thing. If it doesn't, and does little to no harm; what's the problem with experimenting with it?

I'm talking about formulation and dose rates intended for humans - not "horse dewormer".

Every article or discussion I post on that seems to prompt you toward harshly negative comments. Have you really examined it objectively? Your "rebuttal" in a different thread (I can go dig it up if you want) was a journal article actually supporting further examination of ivermectin as a treatment.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha". I'm genuinely curious and genuinely think this might be a "blind spot" for you.

--edit--

I'll even throw this olive branch out. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer". I think those populations most vulnerable should get it. I'm a little gun-shy on vaccines because of the Army. I got my tetanus booster a few months ago. I got this season's flu-shot. My main issue with the covid vaccine is simply there is no long-term data on it. When I look at the mortality rate of covid, and do the risk assessment for me, it doesn't outweigh the lack of data for the vaccine.

I don't see a problem developing treatment protocols. Not for me "so I don't have to get the shot", but because it would save lives. Breakthrough cases included.

Since we are flying by the seat of our pants......LOL!!

What dosage of invermetin would you recommend? Would the dosage vary with age or co-morbidity? Would there be a need to do liver tests prior to taking? What precautions and adverse events were noted in clinical trial? Is there a pregnancy catagory? Should reliable contraception be known beforehand? What does for children under 12? What are the contraindications and drug interactions?

No way to say it works beyond anecdotal, @dneal. https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

As yoiu'll notice there are side effects and I know that matters to you.
"Clinical effects of ivermectin overdose include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and
diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased
consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death. Ivermectin may potentiate the
effects of other drugs that cause central nervous system depression such as benzodiazepines and
barbiturates"

Since no known therapeutic dose is known, overdose is possible.
"Examples of recent significant adverse effects reported to U.S. poison control centers include the
following:
• An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to
prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness,
visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for
nine days.
• An adult patient presented with altered mental status after taking ivermectin tablets of unknown
strength purchased on the internet. The patient reportedly took five tablets a day for five days to
treat COVID-19. The patient was disoriented and had difficulty answering questions and following
commands. Symptoms improved with discontinuation of ivermectin after hospital admission.
Recommendations for Clinicians and Public Health Practitioners
• Be aware that ivermectin is not currently authorized or approved by FDA for treatment of COVID"

If I take Tylenol at the beginning of a cold and get better overnight I might recommend it to you, but there is no evidence the drug cures the common cold. Ivermetic was suggested as was other drugs by Donald Trump. Had he not suggested the use, it would have never been considered. Can you see how you have been influenced. Some people even drank bleach!!!

The military apparently has greatly influenced you in many ways, some positive and some negative I suspect. I have never been against vaccines. When I traveled out of the states, it was required and I got them at the health department.

Over 700 Americans have died of COVID-19. The preacher who died was an antivaxxer who took Trump's recommended chances and lost. He could have received a free option that has FDA approval yet he chose an untested and unknown therapeutic dose of those drugs and paid dearly not to mention the grief and suffere from those for whom depended on him and loved him. Franklin Graham said he is now with Jesus.


So, in summary, if I am going to do something or recommend something I want evidence to support the practice and advice. You've ask why I am not advocating ivermetin and it is because I have no basis. If I did follow your advice it would be, "go ahead and give it a try". I don't really think that's the practice of the Army or any business venture.

[Chuck Naill]

"Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the 2020 presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as those who live in areas that went for now-President Biden. That's according to a new analysis by NPR that examines how political polarization and misinformation are now driving a significant share of the deaths in the pandemic.

NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.7 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates."
https://northcountrypublicradio.org/...on-is-to-blame

Of course this might just be fake news since NPR is liberal.

[TSherbs]

I just posted this on the other thread.

[dneal]

Chuck, that is precisely what I'm talking about. I asked you a genuine question, and your response started out with "Since we are flying by the seat of our pants......LOL!!"

That's the "other" Chuck, not the one I'm interested with talking to.

Then you post selective articles "proving" ivermectin is "bad". Then you post some article about Trump.

This is not dissimilar to the "Interesting Video" thread. I shared an expert's current understanding of where we're at with covid, namely that 3CL protease inhibitors appeared effective. There are several NIH and other credible links supporting it, and that ivermectin does a good job at inhibiting 3CL protease.

You responded with a portion of and link to another article, and concluded with a sarcastic remark. But the link and text you cited demonstrates the opposite of your claim. You read the first sentence, bolded it, and ignored the second sentence that contradicts what your understanding of the article appeared to be. The first sentence does too, for that matter. This is what I mean by "blind spot".

Here's the post I'm referring to.

"Conclusion
Previous experimental studies demonstrated that IVM could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro; however, IVM's molecular mechanism inhibits binding to importin-α, and other SARS-CoV-2 receptors have not yet been elucidated. Recently, docking studies suggested the possible molecular mechanism through which IVM could inhibit mouse importin-α and some key SARS-CoV-2 targets (Nsp9 replicase, RdRp, and Nsp13 helicase), paving the way to the development of more robust studies. In this research, we explored the ability of IVM to inhibit human importin-α and five SARS-CoV-2 targets: dimeric 3CLpro, Nsp9 replicase, Nsp13 helicase, RdRp, and RBD-spike protein, using docking analysis, MD simulations coupled to the MMGBSA approach, and per-residue decomposition analysis. Hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions guided interactions between IVM and importin-α, dimeric 3CLpro, and Nsp9, hydrophilic interactions being more critical for IVM binding at the central binding groove of importin-α. Per-residue free energy analysis let us identify hot-spot residues for importin-α-IVM (Trp184, Asn188, Arg227, and Trp231), 3CLpro-IVM (His41, Met49, Leu50, Leu141, Asn142, Met165, Glu166, and Gln189), and Nsp9-IVM (Leu4, Pro6, Leu97, Arg99, Gly100, Met101, Leu103, and Gly104), which contribute significantly to the affinity. MMGBSA results revealed that dimeric 3CLpro has the highest relationship among the different COVID-19 targets, followed by importin-α and Nsp9, which showed similar IVM affinity. This result indicates that the inhibitory activity of IVM maybe by targeting IMP and two essential targets of SARS-CoV2 (dimeric 3CLpro and Nsp9).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054936/


For @dneal, elucidate means to make clear.

So to ask again, why are you so anti-ivermectin (or any other treatment for Covid infection, for that matter)? Developing effective treatment for infection seems to me to be critical, particularly when new variants are more able to get around the vaccine.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you know what flying by the seat of your pants means? It means figuring it out as you go. Sorry if it was offensive. You've a little overly sensitive here latley....LOL!! I suspect you're playing the roll of a troll now. So, I may be wasting my time looking up resouces for you to read. Like others have said, we just come here for fun. After answering your question and then to have to ask it again tells me something.

I answered your question completly with documentaion. Why didn't you answer the questions?

What other treatment are you referring? Other oral medication are being developed.

[dneal]

Not oversensitive at all. We both know your first sentence was intended to be dismissive and mocking.

Your questions are ones I wouldn't know the answers to. "What dosage?" for example. I'm not making an argument on what we should or shouldn't prescribe. I'm pointing out that the people who are experts are trying to figure that out, but there is a narrative attempting to shut them down. That seems insane to me. You seem to have bought into that narrative.

Your typical responses to "ivermectin" appear to be knee-jerk, and appear to cause you to become irrational. A "science-denier", if you will. Maybe ivermectin will be a key component to saving lives, maybe not. I don't advocate its use. I advocate the research into it, among other treatments.

--edit--

Ivermetic was suggested as was other drugs by Donald Trump. Had he not suggested the use, it would have never been considered. Can you see how you have been influenced. Some people even drank bleach!!!

I forgot to comment on this. Do you think Trump just came up with using ivermectin? Or do you think someone in the medical profession suggested it to him? If the former, can you see how you have been influenced?

[Chuck Naill]

Not oversensitive at all. We both know your first sentence was intended to be dismissive and mocking.

Your questions are ones I wouldn't know the answers to. "What dosage?" for example. I'm not making an argument on what we should or shouldn't prescribe. I'm pointing out that the people who are experts are trying to figure that out, but there is a narrative attempting to shut them down. That seems insane to me. You seem to have bought into that narrative.

Your typical responses to "ivermectin" appear to be knee-jerk, and appear to cause you to become irrational. A "science-denier", if you will. Maybe ivermectin will be a key component to saving lives, maybe not. I don't advocate its use. I advocate the research into it, among other treatments.

Good grief @dneal. Others have to be laughing at you sudden concern for my satire given you own vernacular. You don't advocate its use....LOL!!

Well, bro, educate yourself if you're going to suggest a treatment because that's what occurs with an FDA approval. You get a dosage and all the rest.

What experts do you refer?

If I were a science denier, I would not be posting evidence based resouces. Wanna try again?

[dneal]

Wanna try again?

Not until you regain your composure.

[Chuck Naill]

I am good. Have a nice day.......

[dneal]

Ok Chuck, let's try again.

Understanding Unapproved Use of Approved Drugs "Off Label"

Why might an approved drug be used for an unapproved use?

From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.
You may be asking yourself why your healthcare provider would want to prescribe a drug to treat a disease or medical condition that the drug is not approved for. One reason is that there might not be an approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition. Another is that you may have tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits. In situations like these, you and your healthcare provider may talk about using an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition.

What are examples of unapproved uses of approved drugs?

Unapproved use of an approved drug is often called “off-label” use. This term can mean that the drug is:

Used for a disease or medical condition that it is not approved to treat, such as when a chemotherapy is approved to treat one type of cancer, but healthcare providers use it to treat a different type of cancer.
Given in a different way, such as when a drug is approved as a capsule, but it is given instead in an oral solution.
Given in a different dose, such as when a drug is approved at a dose of one tablet every day, but a patient is told by their healthcare provider to take two tablets every day.
If you and your healthcare provider decide to use an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition, remember that FDA has not determined that the drug is safe and effective for the unapproved use.

Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug. It is also won a Nobel Prize. It also has been used in many "off-label" instances as an anti-viral.

From the "Interesting Video" thread. The discussion summary and links to the journal articles.

3CL protease inhibitors show effectiveness at blocking covid. Ivermectin is increasingly shown to be an effective 3CL protease inhibitor. Again, drugs do not have to be approved by the FDA for "off-label" use, to be used "off-label".

From the description:

New Pfizer antiviral and ivermectin, a pharmacodynamic analysis

New Pfizer antiviral, PF-07321332, C₂₃H₃₂F₃N₅O₄

PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease

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:

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

Ivermectin, C48H74O14

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach

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

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

Layman's summary:
- Pfizer (and others) are developing new molecules that inhibit the 3CL protease.
- 3CL inhibitors already exist - one of them being ivermectin.
- Ivermectin is out of patent, and costs pennies per dose.
- Drugs still in patent (e.g.: Remdesivir) are exponentially expensive, with costs varying by country.

[Chuck Naill]

Okay I am game.


Off label use:
"https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/research/hrpp/assets/sis_guidance_offlabel_drug.pdf#:~:text=Good%20medi cal%20practice%20and%20patient%20interests%20requi re%20that,New%20Drug%20%28IND%29%20application%20o r%20review%20by%20the"

Another resource:
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-a...ed-drugs-label

Again, no answers to the questions I asked. What you postd doesn't answer.

[dneal]

I'm not going to answer those questions, and I already said that there's no way that I could.

Your "another resource" is the FDA page I posted and quoted. It reinforces my point (you have a blind spot), not yours (whatever that is...).

So let's go back to the original question on your "blind spot", exhibited in your mis-citing of the ivermectin study I quoted in post #149, your unsubstantiated assertion that no one would be looking at ivermectin had Trump not mentioned it, and your continued refusal to consider the cited evidence presented in Dr. Campbell's video on the potentially promising off-label use of ivermectin.

[Chuck Naill]

I'm not going to answer those questions, and I already said that there's no way that I could.

Your "another resource" is the FDA page I posted and quoted. It reinforces my point (you have a blind spot), not yours (whatever that is...).

So let's go back to the original question on your "blind spot", exhibited in your mis-citing of the ivermectin study I quoted in post #149, your unsubstantiated assertion that no one would be looking at ivermectin had Trump not mentioned it, and your continued refusal to consider the cited evidence presented in Dr. Campbell's video on the potentially promising off-label use of ivermectin.

Oh, so it is your thread and you don't have to answer those questions? Let's not discuss blind spots if you are unable to answer prescribing information while promoting a cure. Don't embarrass yourself further than you already have.

[dneal]

You're still dodging. That and your earlier responses that basically consist of "It doesn't work, here's a link", "The idiot Trump is who suggested it", and the incorrect statements of FDA approval and off-label use all seem to reinforce my hypothesis that you have a blind spot.

[Chuck Naill]

You're still dodging. That and your earlier responses that basically consist of "It doesn't work, here's a link", "The idiot Trump is who suggested it", and the incorrect statements of FDA approval and off-label use all seem to reinforce my hypothesis that you have a blind spot.

You just demonstrated you aren't reading my posts. None of that is a valid response.