HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Misunderstanding prelimin...

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 03:40 PM

Misunderstanding preliminary scientific results led to the ivermectin fiasco

Work on cultured cells (cells grown on plastic) is considered a way to get preliminary data on whether a drug might be useful for a disease.

1000's of drugs look good on cultured cells for numerous diseases: few actually work in humans for various reasons. Hydroxychloroquine worked well in cultured cells too, btw. However, human trials showed no effect for hydroxychloroquine-- turned out the cell line used was more limited than normal human lung cells in how SARS-Cov2 could bind.

Ivermectin kills invertebrate parasites by binding to invertebrate glutamate-gated chloride channels in nerve cells, hyperpolarizing the nerve cells causing paralysis and death.

Ivermectin also appears to have antiviral activity against numerous viruses possibly due to an off-target ability to block transport of proteins into the nucleus of cells by binding to importin (IMP) α/β1. At high concentrations many drugs bind to other than their original intended target.

Last year, some scientists decided to test whether it would also work against Sars-Cov2 in cell culture. Here is the paper showing that it worked against Sars-Cov2 on cultured cells: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 They mention that similar favorable cell culture data for dengue virus led to a human trial which showed NO efficacy. That is typical of something working in cells on a dish but not in animals or people.

But looking at their data for Covid-19 they needed >5 uM dose of ivermectin for 50% efficacy (it's off-target after all) [they need closer to 10 µM to be effective] and normal human dose only brings the tissue level to .0873 µM-- which is 60 times too little to do any good. Basically ivermectin was DOA for Covid-19 after that realization. Data on dosing from https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.1889

But that didn't stop some reading news stories and even some scientists to think it might work-- there are even clinical trials exploring its use, which will almost certainly will not show efficacy based on the need for toxic doses of the drug for the treatment to even have a chance. Why? Misunderstanding the significance of preliminary scientific results.

10 replies, 860 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to andym (Original post)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 03:56 PM

1. KCN would probably kill the virus in a petri dish as well ... just sayin (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugh_Lebowski (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 04:43 PM

6. Well it would kill the cell :)

and having no cell means the virus can't replicate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #6)


Response to andym (Original post)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 03:59 PM

2. Ivermectin does not cross the cell wall lipid barrier. Kills invitro, yes, but that's not where

The virus lives or replicates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 04:01 PM

3. I'm reminded of this toon.



You're point is clear and well made. Thank you for your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 04:26 PM

4. Not "Misunderstanding the significance of preliminary scientific results."

More like deliberate misrepresentation of preliminary scientific results.

Those pushing this drug know exactly what they are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 04:42 PM

5. I've been harping on this issue forever- preliminary data is NOT conclusive scientific evidence

There have been so many, many, many posts about either cures or new variants, or vaccine efficacy, etc. That are drawn from preliminary data or “pre-print” research, or non-peer reviewed studies.

This type of click bait generates false hope or false anxiety, and yes, conspiracy theories.

NONE of those sources can be considered conclusive scientific evidence- ultimately, the speculation or hypotheses of the researchers (or often, the journalist or blogger who has drawn their own conclusions based on this data) may eventually be confirmed, but not at this stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 04:45 PM

7. Somebody is pushing out this misinformation.

Somebody made it go viral on FB and right-wing blogs. Most people aren't tracking preliminary research. Who pushed this out to the masses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #7)


Response to yardwork (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 30, 2021, 07:42 PM

10. It's not brand new info. I know a RW person who had Covid in November of 2020...

They were saying there was a dewormer which might help them get better, which I assume was this one? They also were looking into hydroxychloroquine and oleandrin back then. Luckily their doctor talked them out of all that and now they're even fully vaccinated. Which goes to show they're not Q-nuts, just their peers were pushing crazy stuff to them on social media. I was scared for them.

I believe in my heart a lot of this crazy stuff is being spread via foreign interests (Russia, etc.) to sow chaos and destabilize our Covid efforts here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread