A good presentation from the Whiteboard Doctor summarising the theorised mechanisms of action together into one video. It will be interesting in the years to come when we look back and see which mechanisms were confirmed to play a role, or perhaps it is something else we are yet to discover.
Well said. MOA is still unknown. Importin channel blocking to the nucleus seems unlikely. The CD147 and SA receptor catch and clump, plus immunoregulatory STAT3 mechanisms seem way more plausible. Much more, it may be RNA dependent RNA polymerase inhibition. The latter seems to be the most logical. When you look at it in vivo, there has to be some mechanism for viral reduction. Could be helicase or spike protein RBD blockade. All of this is unproven. Chaccour wants to try a lavage or inhaled method to introduce Ivermectin to lung.
It's still snake oil at this point, but the lack of research is alarming. The west is all in on vaccines. People, it will be years before this is over.
Speaking of vaccines, I like the adenovirus engineered vacs like ChAdOx1 over the RNA vacs. Getting these RNA vacs out with super refrigerant are going to be tricky.
I prefer a more precise target, like a peptide vaccine being developed by Dr. Gershoni at Tel Aviv University. The more precise the target on the RBD (in fact the RBM) the safer the vac. Immunogenic properties may be reduced, but they are working on it.
We will be dealing with this for years. Research takes years, even with our new tech.
Any new antiviral therapeutic for someone infected early should be researched to the fullest. Early vaccines will only be so good.
My recommendation is to continue to mitigate with the best methods possible. What are those? Wear any type of mask. The better the mask, the better protection for those on both ends. Less viral load induction is proven to be better for disease progression. Wearing a mask is better than taking Ivermectin or 10,000 IU of Vit D any day.
Why do you find the importin mechanism unlikely? The STAT3 mechanism is directly related to this due to binding do a different KPNA to STAT1. NSP1 disruption of JAK1 is debateable. We don't fully grasp the timings and the complexities, or else we could explain why dosage leads to rapid improvements in a high number of cases (but not all, as if anything is 100% effective).
There are likely multiple mechanisms at play and more to discover. I see this as exciting, we are learning the deeper secrets of our cell biology and immune system through this. It's putting us closer to understanding cancer and autoimmune disease.
I think the trial data is where its at not due to the absence of evidence but the lack of support from authorities. Studies are in progress and quality of results improving, this takes time. The biological mechanisms discussed originate from quality research, some prior to COVID-19, so I do not think political bias comes into play there. The idea of inhaled/lavaged Ivermectin to the lung would be based on serum level data, but do we have Ivermectin assays into lung tissue in humans after dosing? Ivermectin is highly lipophilic with a longer half life in tissues.
Given the way this pandemic has caused political turmoil and widely variable responses, I have little confidence in 7 billion people complying to mitigation as time wears on. I hear your comment about vitamin D but I take view that C and D deficiency likely increases risk of harm, but are not curative by themselves. The biology is pretty solid on what role they have, disrupting immune and cell function cannot be good. We should all work on our hydration too. But yes, we should totally wear masks when entering places of high risk, it's not mutually exclusive.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points | Nov 02 2020 00:14:32
A good presentation from the Whiteboard Doctor summarising the theorised mechanisms of action together into one video. It will be interesting in the years to come when we look back and see which mechanisms were confirmed to play a role, or perhaps it is something else we are yet to discover.
permalink
[-] No-Sandwich-777 | 2 points | Nov 02 2020 05:43:19
Well said. MOA is still unknown. Importin channel blocking to the nucleus seems unlikely. The CD147 and SA receptor catch and clump, plus immunoregulatory STAT3 mechanisms seem way more plausible. Much more, it may be RNA dependent RNA polymerase inhibition. The latter seems to be the most logical. When you look at it in vivo, there has to be some mechanism for viral reduction. Could be helicase or spike protein RBD blockade. All of this is unproven. Chaccour wants to try a lavage or inhaled method to introduce Ivermectin to lung.
It's still snake oil at this point, but the lack of research is alarming. The west is all in on vaccines. People, it will be years before this is over.
Speaking of vaccines, I like the adenovirus engineered vacs like ChAdOx1 over the RNA vacs. Getting these RNA vacs out with super refrigerant are going to be tricky.
I prefer a more precise target, like a peptide vaccine being developed by Dr. Gershoni at Tel Aviv University. The more precise the target on the RBD (in fact the RBM) the safer the vac. Immunogenic properties may be reduced, but they are working on it.
We will be dealing with this for years. Research takes years, even with our new tech.
Any new antiviral therapeutic for someone infected early should be researched to the fullest. Early vaccines will only be so good.
My recommendation is to continue to mitigate with the best methods possible. What are those? Wear any type of mask. The better the mask, the better protection for those on both ends. Less viral load induction is proven to be better for disease progression. Wearing a mask is better than taking Ivermectin or 10,000 IU of Vit D any day.
permalink
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 1 points | Nov 02 2020 06:43:16
Why do you find the importin mechanism unlikely? The STAT3 mechanism is directly related to this due to binding do a different KPNA to STAT1. NSP1 disruption of JAK1 is debateable. We don't fully grasp the timings and the complexities, or else we could explain why dosage leads to rapid improvements in a high number of cases (but not all, as if anything is 100% effective).
There are likely multiple mechanisms at play and more to discover. I see this as exciting, we are learning the deeper secrets of our cell biology and immune system through this. It's putting us closer to understanding cancer and autoimmune disease.
I think the trial data is where its at not due to the absence of evidence but the lack of support from authorities. Studies are in progress and quality of results improving, this takes time. The biological mechanisms discussed originate from quality research, some prior to COVID-19, so I do not think political bias comes into play there. The idea of inhaled/lavaged Ivermectin to the lung would be based on serum level data, but do we have Ivermectin assays into lung tissue in humans after dosing? Ivermectin is highly lipophilic with a longer half life in tissues.
Given the way this pandemic has caused political turmoil and widely variable responses, I have little confidence in 7 billion people complying to mitigation as time wears on. I hear your comment about vitamin D but I take view that C and D deficiency likely increases risk of harm, but are not curative by themselves. The biology is pretty solid on what role they have, disrupting immune and cell function cannot be good. We should all work on our hydration too. But yes, we should totally wear masks when entering places of high risk, it's not mutually exclusive.
permalink
[-] No-Sandwich-777 | 1 points | Nov 02 2020 07:55:31
but not all, as if anything is 100% effective).
What is known, versus what is not.
Risk reduction in your daily life is a known.
permalink