Posting just for completeness, nothing new really. Just quoting this part which really makes no sense to me at all, please somebody explain it to me.
An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 0.5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification).24 25In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient. Among other reasons, we believe this might have led WHO to exclude ivermectin from its Solidarity Trial for repurposed drugs for COVID-19,12which raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin.
So, because the in vitro concentration was high, it means there's no point to even try doing in vivo studies? Since when do in vitro results 100% determine in vivo results? You always hear, "yeah it worked in the lab, doesn't mean it will work on humans". And if the in vitro concentration was not so high, we would be hearing exactly that. But now we are hearing "it didn't work in the lab [at sufficiently low concentration] so it cannot work on humans, best not even try that". So they are saying the in vitro results 100% determine the in vivo ones. A logical fallacy.
[-] TehCaster | 4 points | Apr 26 2021 22:11:01
Posting just for completeness, nothing new really. Just quoting this part which really makes no sense to me at all, please somebody explain it to me.
An important controversial point to consider in any rationale is the 0.5 µM required concentration to reach the anti-SARS-CoV-2 action of ivermectin observed in vitro,17 which is much higher than 0.28 µM, the maximum reported plasma concentration achieved in vivo with a dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (about nine times the FDA-approved dosification).24 25 In this sense, basic fundamentals for assessing ivermectin in COVID-19 at a clinical level appear to be insufficient. Among other reasons, we believe this might have led WHO to exclude ivermectin from its Solidarity Trial for repurposed drugs for COVID-19,12 which raises questions about the pertinence of conducting clinical studies on ivermectin.
So, because the in vitro concentration was high, it means there's no point to even try doing in vivo studies? Since when do in vitro results 100% determine in vivo results? You always hear, "yeah it worked in the lab, doesn't mean it will work on humans". And if the in vitro concentration was not so high, we would be hearing exactly that. But now we are hearing "it didn't work in the lab [at sufficiently low concentration] so it cannot work on humans, best not even try that". So they are saying the in vitro results 100% determine the in vivo ones. A logical fallacy.
permalink
[-] cuibono2 | 1 points | Apr 27 2021 05:11:17
yes this was the one serious flaw in this otherwise sound paper
permalink