Well, it does seem there are some decent scientists out there
Thanks for your email and it's always nice to hear from another Saffa. No, Reuters took some sound bites from my statement but I was still happy with the bits they included. Also, I have no conflict of interest with Pfizer. I am interested in drug repurposing from a research perspective on it, but do not (yet) collaborate with pharmaceutical partners on it. To answer your questions:
1. in which other levels does the new drug differ?
[Its mechanism of action is a single, focussed one, rather than ivermectin that is like a Swiss army knife - but not in a good way!]
2. and how so?
[it just targets one of the viral proteins to stop it from working, it is not designed to target human proteins and clinical trials show now 'off-target effects'. Importantly, it has a much higher potency at stopping the virus protein. They way it blocks the viral protein will be similar to how ivermectin works, but this has been refined and as I say crucially, made far more potent so you can take less drug with more of an antiviral effect]
3. Additionally I would be very interested in learning your involvement with the new pfizer treatment and through which avenues?
I hope that helps with your enquiries. It is amazing to see the progress that has been made in preventing and treating COVID-19 in such a short period of time.
Only strangeness was " but not in a good way" which is implying there are negative side-effects to using ivermectin
* a Nobel prize winning
* WHO listed essential medicine for the last 40 years
* with 1 listed death..
Of course if you take a horse sized dose you will have negative repercussions... duh
as opposed to the current "vaccination" drive....
colour me surprised I certainly didn't expect to receive a response let alone relatively quickly. I am most grateful for your time.
As you may have guessed I have a number of colleagues/friends/family who are interested in the prophylactic use of ivermectin.
Currently the thinking is the reporting around its use is dishonest, and when you say "but not in a good way" clearly you mean in-larger doses as per the FDA's report https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 where people are taking "Horse-sized doses" and getting "Horse-sized side-effects" to boot. Or, do you mean there are negative side effects beyond those that are proportionate to dosage size?
Thank you for clarifying the relationship with Pfizer it certainly helps in the arguments against "captured science".
In the same vein may I ask if funding or research is sponsored by the "Bill & Melinda Gates foundation" or GAVI? I realise that may indeed indirectly be the case as they are so prolific in their funding specifically via GAVI and the vast network of related organisations.
As you may have guessed my field is a bit more technical than most but beyond a personal interest for use in discussions, there is no conflict on my side.
Thank you so much for taking the time.
Especially considering the case of Mrs Fype
Chicago internist, Alan Bain, MD -- who administered ivermectin to Nurije Fype (and prescribed it to Randy Clouse, along with other COVID patients) -- testified at a court hearing this week that Fype was weaned off a ventilator and discharged from the hospital after receiving small amounts of the drug for 20 consecutive days, the State Journal-Register reported.
The quaks put her on a ventilator; which has a 50 to 90% death rate.. daughter insisted with a lawyer and lo and behold she recovers...... nothing to see here citizen.
Mortality rates reported in patients with severe COVID-19 in the ICU range from 50–65% [6–8]. In patients requiring MV, mortality rates have been reported to be as high as 97%