Fairly informative article. The headline is quoting someone who seems ill-informed.
Selected quotes:
Dr Kylie Wagstaff (Monash 48 hours)
‘We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours, and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it,’ she said.
The authors say ivermectin binds to, and destablises, the receptor responsible for transmitting viral proteins into the host cell nucleus.
‘This likely results in reduced inhibition of the antiviral responses, leading to a normal, more efficient antiviral response,’ the study authors wrote.
Dr Wagstaff says these results are encouraging.
‘Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as a safe drug,’ she said. ‘We need to figure out now whether the dosage you can use it at in humans will be effective – that’s the next step.
‘In times when we’re having a global pandemic and there isn’t an approved treatment, if we had a compound that was already available around the world then that might help people sooner. Realistically it’s going to be a while before a vaccine is broadly available.’
Borody:
Sydney gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody has since reignited interest in the topic with a 7 August interview on Sky News Australia in which he said ivermectin, when combined with doxycycline and zinc, may be an effective treatment for the virus.
‘There are a number of studies that are amazingly successful – we’re talking close to 100%,’ Professor Borody told Sky News.
He said this treatment has not been used in Australian patients, but that it has been used successfully in China and Bangladesh.
He was lying. No reported ivermectin study has used zinc.
The guy quoted for the article title:
Associate Professor Tong says he is aware of a study performed in Bangladesh involving ivermectin.
‘But it was pretty poor quality, as far as I understand,’ he said.
"As far as I understand." Meaning, someone mentioned to him that the study was sub-par, and Tong didn't actually read the study.
[-] TrumpLyftAlles | 3 points | Sep 02 2020 22:36:50
Fairly informative article. The headline is quoting someone who seems ill-informed.
Selected quotes:
Dr Kylie Wagstaff (Monash 48 hours)
‘We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours, and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it,’ she said.
The authors say ivermectin binds to, and destablises, the receptor responsible for transmitting viral proteins into the host cell nucleus.
‘This likely results in reduced inhibition of the antiviral responses, leading to a normal, more efficient antiviral response,’ the study authors wrote.
Dr Wagstaff says these results are encouraging.
‘Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as a safe drug,’ she said. ‘We need to figure out now whether the dosage you can use it at in humans will be effective – that’s the next step.
‘In times when we’re having a global pandemic and there isn’t an approved treatment, if we had a compound that was already available around the world then that might help people sooner. Realistically it’s going to be a while before a vaccine is broadly available.’
Borody:
Sydney gastroenterologist Professor Thomas Borody has since reignited interest in the topic with a 7 August interview on Sky News Australia in which he said ivermectin, when combined with doxycycline and zinc, may be an effective treatment for the virus.
‘There are a number of studies that are amazingly successful – we’re talking close to 100%,’ Professor Borody told Sky News.
He said this treatment has not been used in Australian patients, but that it has been used successfully in China and Bangladesh.
He was lying. No reported ivermectin study has used zinc.
The guy quoted for the article title:
Associate Professor Tong says he is aware of a study performed in Bangladesh involving ivermectin.
‘But it was pretty poor quality, as far as I understand,’ he said.
"As far as I understand." Meaning, someone mentioned to him that the study was sub-par, and Tong didn't actually read the study.
I think Tong's comment was pretty poor quality.
permalink