i8wu | 3 points
Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment: clinical response at quasi-threshold doses via hypothesized alleviation of CD147-mediated vascular occlusion (A higher dose may be called for to get better outcomes and to stop the blood binding that hinders blood flow, especially in older patients.)[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 1 points
This was posted a month ago here. THAT post was a redirect to the original post, which was made by the study author, because the original wasn't named properly. I created the second post SO IT COULD BE FOUND. So this is the 3rd post of this article.
For me, when I post a duplicate, the UI tells me that it has already been submtted.
It doesn't follow the naming convention. Please read the sub's top post.
Locked, will be deleted as soon as thaw moves her post.
[-] thaw4188 | 3 points | Aug 17 2020 22:29:14
oh they are insane with mega doses like that
they do it do extend the half-life so the drug sticks around over days, that's idiotic, just do 200mcg/kg for a few days, maybe a week
wtf do they resist doing multiple days, the virus needs to be constantly attacked as it tries to replicate, a "one shot" dose is not the right approach
I tried 600mcg/kg for the second round of ivermection (out of three) and I had severe visual problems, the smallest amount of light would cause massive strobbing in my head even with my eyes closed, I could see patterns of light everywhere, it took like 48 hours to stop happening which makes sense as the half-life would take that long to fade
it took three rounds to kill the virus enough for my body's own immune system to finally finish the task, to me that is a clear indication it takes TIME not mega-doses to persistently work
permalink
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 2 points | Aug 17 2020 23:57:44
Jeez, thaw, you really went through the ringer.
Would you please move your post to the "real" post of this article here?
I'm going to delete this post shortly.
permalink