Posted on 10/13/2021 7:49:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Some social media users have been saying that Merck’s experimental COVID-19 antiviral product molnupiravir is a rebranded version of the anti-parasitic Ivermectin. Two disease experts have told Reuters that this is not the case and that the chemical make-up of the two drugs is different.
One tweet (here ) reads, “Ivermectin is a safe cure that was removed from CDC treatment protocol. Merck refurbishes it and *poof, it’s a miracle pill. Further proof that Big Pharma is in the business of creating customers.”
Similar posts on Facebook are visible here and here .
One reads, in part, “The pharmaceutical giant Merck just “developed” a pill that does the same thing as Ivermectin.”
The professors
Dr. Stephen Griffin, virologist and associate professor at the University of Leeds ( here ), told Reuters that molnupiravir is not repackaged ivermectin.
The two drugs have “dissimilar chemistry,” he said. “There is no way that Merck is doing this,” he said.
“Molnupiravir is a derivative of a nucleotide that, predictably, interferes with the RNA replication of the virus. While Ivermectin does also have a defined mechanism of action, BUT it’s against ion channels found in parasites,” Griffin said.
Paul Auwaerter, the Clinical Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases ( here ) at Johns Hopkins Medicine told Reuters via email that the only similarity the two drugs have is that they “have been brought to the FDA for market approval by the Merck Company.”
The professor pointed to structural differences between the two drugs, which can be explored in papers here and here and drug class differences. “Ivermectin is classified as a macrocyclic lactone. It is derived from Streptomyces avermitilis which is a bacterium." Molnupiravir, rather, is classified as a nucleoside analog (like some HIV medications) and works as an antiviral.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Well, we know that IVM is safe, beyond any reasonable doubt. One of the safest drugs ever marketed.
And we’re pretty sure that it’s got some effectiveness, but even Tess Lawrie’s very solid meta-analysis has to rely on small, poorly funded studies. The error bars are bigger than anyone would like.
The trials that Merck is relying on for their new drug were designed to put it in the best possible light, which is fine. They recruited only people at high risk of complications, and within 5 days of onset of symptoms.
The big “Together” trial, which the media and our ruling junta rely on to show that IVM doesn’t work, did the opposite. No screening for high risk (ie, young healthy people will get fine on their own, so reducing possible efficacy data), and recruited out to 10 days post symptom (so a bunch of the study group were already out of the viral phase where IVM appears to have the most efficacy.)
No one had to conspire to get these results, they just let the existing system run on the rails that had already been laid.
What would a large, multi-center trial of IVM show, using the same design as the Molnupiravir show? We’ll never know, because no one will fund it, so it won’t be conducted.
I don’t blame the drug companies, but if this isn’t a core responsibility of a functioning government, I don’t know what is.
On the other hand, Molnupavir is a close cousin of Remdesivir. However Remdesivir cannot be taken orally. This was the goal of of the development of Molnupavir. This Nature article does a very good job of describing the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of Molnupavir:
"Similar to other nucleoside analogs, molnupiravir targets the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), which mediates replication and transcription of the coronavirus genome. Viral RdRps are proven effective targets for inhibition, with several licensed nucleoside analogs that are used therapeutically. Indeed, the only currently clinically approved antiviral used for the treatment of COVID-19 is remdesivir (Veklury), which targets the RdRp. Similar to remdesivir, molnupiravir has been re-investigated as a coronavirus antiviral agent that leads to increased frequency of G-to-A and C-to-U transition mutations."
Stick with ivermectin
World has been using it for 40-50 years with negligible reports of any serious side effects unless compromised liver or kidney disease
This new stuff…already reported has potentially serious side effects
Long term unknown, There is no long term,
Its great that it is not repackaged Ivermectin because Ivermectin is a better drug by far and costs much less.
Some highlights from the video and referenced comparison article
https://austinpublishinggroup.com/pharmacology-therapeutics/fulltext/ajpt-v9-id1149.pdf
Tmax (the time it takes to get to maximum plasma concentrations)
Molnupiravir : 1-1.75 hours
Ivermectin : 4-6 hours
Half life
Molnupiravir : 7 hours
Ivermectin : 81-91 hours (less than this according to some other researches, but still far better than Molnupiravir. Besides Ivermectin has the ability to accumulate in the lungs, which is very important for treating Sars-Cov-2 infection)
Inhibation of cytokine production and inflammation
Molnupiravir : Not known yet
Ivermectin : Effective
Total Cost/Price per treatment
Molnupiravir : 700 USD
Ivermectin : 0.53 USD
Safety/Adverse events
Molnupiravir : Unknown yet
Ivermectin : Very low number of adverse events (3.7 billion doses have been given to humans so far and only 5693 AE records retrieved. For comparison the number for ibuprofen is 165.479
More in the video above
“the chemical make-up of the two drugs is different.” Probably true. The new drug has little bitty aliens in it.
True....Ivermectin is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE!!!!! (and cheaper).
Here’s a statistic:
Adverse Events reported, lifetime, for Ibuprofin: 169,000+
Adverse Events reported, lifetime, for Ivermectin: 5800+
You can buy advil in any grocery store.
This is moot. For an EUA, there cannot be another viable approved drug available to treat the illness.
The reason why they stomped on Ivermectin so hard is because if Ivermectin were declared safe and effective against COVID, then none of the gene therapies would have been eligible for EUA.
I will point out that STILL there are no approved gene therapies for Covid 19. The existing Pfizer one is still on EUA. They have not made the switch to Comviranty or whatever the f*ck that poison is called.
Disagree. The greatest difference is the cost to the consumer and potentially monstrous profit for Merck. Follow the money.
It would be safer if it were
They seem to be incapable of telling the truth.
They are not the same. But that’s not really material. Does one work better than the other? We have to study them in a head to head clinical trial to find out. It’s been done before. But it won’t be funded by government or government funded NGOs. That’s the other problem.
Stock options, million dollar salaries, private jets, expensive cocktails, housekeepers, private chefs, luxury mattresses and lots of pills.
The active molecules are not the same.
Our despicable ruling class is trying to break down Americans into just livestock to be managed, taken advantage of, and slaughtered.
They are like the dairy farmer that pets his milk cows every day and then sends them to slaughter thr moment they can no longer produce milk.
Efficacy and Safety are the main issues at question when evaluating a drug.
As to safety, Ivermectin has a 40 to 50 year record proving safety. Molnupiravir is new and may well be proven safe in forthcoming trials.
As to efficacy, Ivermectin has undergone multiple peer revievew test and been show effective in both prevention and early treatment. In addition it has undergone at least one peer review meta analysis published in a major medical journal confirming finding both as to prevention and early treatment. In addition it received a recommendation for physician prescription both as a prevention and early treatment. Molnupiravir is new and may well be proven effective in forthcomming trials.
Both medications may be shown to be both safe and effective. There is no medical requirement that only one medication be approved for treatment of any one issue. Indeed, look at the number of approved medication for blood pressure control. If they are both safe and effective, approve both and allow the patient and doctor to decide which to use. If a third, forth, or even fifth meets the criteria, approve them also. The more the merrier.
I will answer myself. Cost and profit. The FDA is in the business of protecting the pharmaceutical companies, not the public. Molnupiravir can never compete with ivermectin on cost thus the field must be cleared to protect the cost structure of our drug business.
Now THAT is the kind of data which we the people need in order to make informed decisions. Sadly, the current evil regime does not want or enable informed decisions.
Not impossible. Remdesivir and Molnupavir have some serious potential side effects in both of their respective Rx listings.
However, it is out of our hands once the FDA grants Merck their EUA, Molnupiravir will rapidly become first-line treatment of choice, which will kill the experimental serum mandates. Every cloud = silver lining...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.