Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, skywindO2 said:

Tangentially related but the idea that people go to the doctor asking for a specific prescription completely boggles my mind. Advertising for prescription drugs should be outlawed. Those commercials that say things like "ask your doctor if Eighteensideffecticilin is right for you" just shouldn't exist. 

That would create a system in which the Doctors just become total sellouts to whichever drug company gives them the most bennies..... wait

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Alternatively: Get a chipotle burrito with the hot salsa delivered to you. That shizz will clear your sinuses SO FAST.

Yeah, but are clear sinuses really worth the E. coli?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ny92mike said:

Appreciate it.  You're the 3rd person to mention Mucinex, ER Doctor and one of the nurses that administrated the infusion.  

I'm starting it this evening and will keep you guys updated on my progress.

I'm hopeful that this Regeneron infusion gives me some relief in the morning.

I have respiratory issues. The best think for chest congestion is expectorant, specifically, https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1004/guaifenesin+ac+oral/details

Get a syrup with just the expectorant, no codein etc.

When you take it drink lots of water. You will cough up stuff you inhaled a decade ago.🤠

I wouldn’t, under any circumstance take a cough suppressant. 

Edited by diehardlionfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

I have respiratory issues. The best think for chest congestion is expectorant, specifically, https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1004/guaifenesin+ac+oral/details

Get a syrup with just the expectorant, no codein etc.

When you take it drink lots of water. You will cough up stuff you inhaled a decade ago.🤠

I wouldn’t, under any circumstance take a cough suppressant. 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Again I'm not arguing against doctors using it. 

I don’t know man. Unless this was a life or death situation, I would seriously question any doctor who prescribes this now over the other data driven treatments available.

Edited by Xenos
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I think we're the only country where there are drug commercials like this, but someone would need to check that.

I’ve done quite a bit of international travel. It’s just here from what I’ve seen. The content and length of our commercials are on a completely different level. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said:

I’ve done quite a bit of international travel. It’s just here from what I’ve seen. The content and length of our commercials are on a completely different level. 

July 4 Yes GIF

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of Ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway

Thx for posting.
The FDA didn't review the data yet - because there's no compelling reason for them to do that. In great part because several talented Clinical Pharmacology groups did the work for them and wrote the paper.

With regards to Ivermectin - There's no debate, its not in question anymore, it has no merit, it doesn't work vs COVID. It was determined to be a waste of resources back in October of 2020.

The FDA is busy as all hell trying to get through all of their normal workload + all the COVID vaccines and treatments. They simply don't have the time or resources to waste on this already debunked idea. 

- End of Story -


Here we see the PK graph of safe dosing levels of Ivermectin plotted vs the minimum concentration required to kill SARS-COV2 virus in human lungs ( red line) .

The black line is the level of Ivermectin in your bloodstream, the blue line is the level of drug in your lung tissues

As you can clearly see - It never gets high enough to be effective unless you get into toxic doses.
Now, you can get into toxic doses in a test tube, no problem - the test tube will be fine either way.
But you can't get there in humans without causing health problems

I'd also caution against the idea that MD's know what they're doing all the time. They don't. Its impossible to know everything about every drug for every patient population- which is why others do the research. And then they tell the doctors what the results were so they can adjust their practice.

I'm not surprised by all the breathless anecdotes, but I'm not swayed by them either.

 

gr1_lrg.jpg

Now, a smart dude like Rams99 can tell you just how large that gap is between the dose levels shown and the red line threshold for efficacy.

What you'll also note is that post-dosing... the levels of drug shoot way up and then decline over time. Your body does a remarkable job of clearing things out, that's what keep us alive. So even if you managed to get the peak levels over the red line, you'd have to find a way to keep them over the red line long enough to do the job- and that would create all kinds of toxicity in your major organs. This is well understood.

The Risk is very high, the Reward is non-existent.

It simply doesn't work against this virus, for this disease, in this species.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time in drug /vaccine development, so we move on and look for ones that do work.  🙂

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

But I’m not a fan of commercials, they don’t educate the consumer, they mostly just muddy the waters.

If they really want to be helpful, include the average cost of the meds.  That should cut down on a lot of the questions.

The commercials we see on U.S. television are actually frightening. With most the list of possible side effects makes you think the illness is safer than the drugs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

The commercials we see on U.S. television are actually frightening. With most the list of possible side effects makes you think the illness is safer than the drugs.

I hate even defending the nonsense, but possible side effects don’t mean probable side effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Thx for posting.
The FDA didn't review the data yet - because there's no compelling reason for them to do that. In great part because several talented Clinical Pharmacology groups did the work for them and wrote the paper.

With regards to Ivermectin - There's no debate, its not in question anymore, it has no merit, it doesn't work vs COVID. It was determined to be a waste of resources back in October of 2020.

The FDA is busy as all hell trying to get through all of their normal workload + all the COVID vaccines and treatments. They simply don't have the time or resources to waste on this already debunked idea. 

- End of Story -


Here we see the PK graph of safe dosing levels of Ivermectin plotted vs the minimum concentration required to kill SARS-COV2 virus in human lungs ( red line) .

The black line is the level of Ivermectin in your bloodstream, the blue line is the level of drug in your lung tissues

As you can clearly see - It never gets high enough to be effective unless you get into toxic doses.
Now, you can get into toxic doses in a test tube, no problem - the test tube will be fine either way.
But you can't get there in humans without causing health problems

I'd also caution against the idea that MD's know what they're doing all the time. They don't. Its impossible to know everything about every drug for every patient population- which is why others do the research. And then they tell the doctors what the results were so they can adjust their practice.

I'm not surprised by all the breathless anecdotes, but I'm not swayed by them either.

 

gr1_lrg.jpg

Now, a smart dude like Rams99 can tell you just how large that gap is between the dose levels shown and the red line threshold for efficacy.

What you'll also note is that post-dosing... the levels of drug shoot way up and then decline over time. Your body does a remarkable job of clearing things out, that's what keep us alive. So even if you managed to get the peak levels over the red line, you'd have to find a way to keep them over the red line long enough to do the job- and that would create all kinds of toxicity in your major organs. This is well understood.

The Risk is very high, the Reward is non-existent.

It simply doesn't work against this virus, for this disease, in this species.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time in drug /vaccine development, so we move on and look for ones that do work.  🙂

The king makes his return. Thank you sir.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Thx for posting.
The FDA didn't review the data yet - because there's no compelling reason for them to do that. In great part because several talented Clinical Pharmacology groups did the work for them and wrote the paper.

With regards to Ivermectin - There's no debate, its not in question anymore, it has no merit, it doesn't work vs COVID. It was determined to be a waste of resources back in October of 2020.

The FDA is busy as all hell trying to get through all of their normal workload + all the COVID vaccines and treatments. They simply don't have the time or resources to waste on this already debunked idea. 

- End of Story -


Here we see the PK graph of safe dosing levels of Ivermectin plotted vs the minimum concentration required to kill SARS-COV2 virus in human lungs ( red line) .

The black line is the level of Ivermectin in your bloodstream, the blue line is the level of drug in your lung tissues

As you can clearly see - It never gets high enough to be effective unless you get into toxic doses.
Now, you can get into toxic doses in a test tube, no problem - the test tube will be fine either way.
But you can't get there in humans without causing health problems

I'd also caution against the idea that MD's know what they're doing all the time. They don't. Its impossible to know everything about every drug for every patient population- which is why others do the research. And then they tell the doctors what the results were so they can adjust their practice.

I'm not surprised by all the breathless anecdotes, but I'm not swayed by them either.

 

gr1_lrg.jpg

Now, a smart dude like Rams99 can tell you just how large that gap is between the dose levels shown and the red line threshold for efficacy.

What you'll also note is that post-dosing... the levels of drug shoot way up and then decline over time. Your body does a remarkable job of clearing things out, that's what keep us alive. So even if you managed to get the peak levels over the red line, you'd have to find a way to keep them over the red line long enough to do the job- and that would create all kinds of toxicity in your major organs. This is well understood.

The Risk is very high, the Reward is non-existent.

It simply doesn't work against this virus, for this disease, in this species.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time in drug /vaccine development, so we move on and look for ones that do work.  🙂

dave grohl GIF

This. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...