Jump to content

Covid-19: Razvoj vakcine, imunitet i primena medikamenata


Recommended Posts

On 18.10.2021. at 7:59, vememah said:


15 hours ago, gospa buba said:

ziva nisam da saznam. prosechna velichina ljudske celije je oko 100 mikrometara. kad chujem nano, vec sam premestila novchanik blize oku :hihi:

Nisam čuo za ovo ranije i pogledao sam šta kažu po netu, nema apsolutno ništa o ovome u medijima osim gornjeg priloga na Sedmici (koja je od tri komercijalne free-to-air televizije najdesnija po opredeljenju, Dejvid Koh posebno) i po jednog članka u Mardokovim novinama (ozbiljnijem Australijenu i tabloidnom Dejli Telegrafu). Ništa na dve državne free-to-air televizije, ništa u drugim novinama. Možda znaju nešto što mi ne znamo, a možda rezonuju kao buba sproću novčanika (sam sam sklon da tako tretiram Mardokove medije i komercijalne free-to-air televizije).



Link to comment

chekamo ondak da saznamo.

ljudska celija je u proseku 100 mikrometara

krvna zrnca razna su do 25 mikrometara

virusi su velichine do 400 nanometara, takoreci do pola mikrometra

molekul metoprolola, koji mnogi piju za pritisak, ima jednu (vecu) dimenziju oko 2 nanometra. metoprolol je dakle neshto shto je zaista nano.

fuleren, C60, napushteno chedo tehnoloshkih ochekivanja, nesudjeni nanobog nanorobot, oko 1 nanometar.

ne kazem nishta, samo se igram brojevima na shiroj slici. radujem se prichi unapred, ako naletish, bacaj vamo biggrin.png

sent from novi mnogo jak bubamoto.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, gospa buba said:

ne kazem nishta, samo se igram brojevima na shiroj slici. radujem se prichi unapred, ako naletish, bacaj vamo biggrin.png

Evo našao sam na jedan članak iz Heralda iz 2012. koji pominje ovo dvoje doktora i njihovu firmu, ispravni su naučnici, izašli iz CSIRO koji je državna institucija skoro pa sovjetsko socijalističkog sveobuhvatnog tipa, tim čudnije da Herald i ABC ne pominju rad na ovoj vakcini (ali bar meni to indikuje da tu nešto nije u redu, u smislu da je prerano za izveštavanje ili da tehnologija ne obećava). Ovaj stari članak je takođe vrlo interesantan, što zbog dimenzija, što zbog opšte priče o pokušajima lečenja raka.

Could this virus cure cancer?


  • +1 1
Link to comment


Detaljna priča o tome kako je došlo do toga da se veruje u ivermektin kao lek za koronu i zašto će australijski blam zbog toga da traje

How a false science ‘cure’ became Australia’s contribution to the pandemic

When veteran scientist Craig Rayner saw Australian laboratory results had been published that suggested the drug ivermectin could potentially fight COVID-19, he felt a sense of dread.


The experienced drug developer was aware experiments with ivermectin had been performed. Two weeks earlier, researchers at the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute had sought his opinion on some laboratory tests that showed the drug could stop the SARS-Cov-2 virus from growing in cell culture.


The results were tantalising. Ivermectin is a commonly used and inexpensive antiparasitic to treat worms in animals and lice and scabies in humans. It was March 2020. The pandemic was in its ascendancy and there was no vaccine in sight.


But although Dr Rayner agreed at the time that the results were interesting, they were nowhere close to proving ivermectin could treat COVID-19 in real life. For a start, the dose required to kill the virus in a test tube was many multiples higher than the dosage approved for human use.


He discussed the results with a colleague, Mark Sullivan, and they agreed the next step was to check if the drug had the same effect in a dose safe for humans, which they conveyed to the researchers. It was a busy time for drug developers. Their minds moved on to other things.


So they were startled to learn on April 3 that the Monash study had been published in the Antiviral Research journal and announced in a press release titled “Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug ivermectin eliminates SARS-Cov-2 in cells in 48 hours”. Ivermectin was safe, widely used and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, the press release said. And it could potentially be used to fight COVID-19.


“It was incredibly hyped,” Dr Rayner said. “I knew it was going to start a fire.”


Eighteen months later, the evidence to show ivermectin cures COVID-19 in humans remains elusive, yet the fire ignited by that preliminary data has swept the world. Demand for the drug has skyrocketed, causing shortages. Veterinarians in Romania cannot get stock to treat dogs for scabies and ranchers in South Carolina cannot get enough to worm their cattle. Hospitals everywhere have reported overdoses. And people continue to die of COVID-19 while taking ivermectin.


“It’s not the best thing for Australia to become known for in terms of its contribution to the pandemic,” Dr Rayner said. “But that’s what it is, unfortunately. It has promoted vaccine hesitancy and people are dying because they’re taking a veterinary medicine that has not been proven.”

The fire spreads

Within weeks of the Monash study being published, research efforts were diverted to ivermectin and clinical trials were registered in several countries.


In April, the American healthcare analytics company Surgisphere published a preprint (meaning it was not subjected to peer review) that purported to show a strong positive association between ivermectin and COVID-19 patient survival. Surgisphere would later be exposed for scientific fraud and the data would be retracted, but only after it had been used in studies published in the high-profile New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Some countries included ivermectin in treatment guidelines. Enthusiasm for the drug continued unabated.


An Iranian study showed an 80 per cent reduction in mortality. A Lebanese study showed reduced hospitalisation. Both were later found to contain major flaws. An influential Egyptian preprint found a 90 per cent reduction in mortality for patients taking ivermectin. The website later retracted the article amid fraud claims – some patients had died before the study started, among other concerns – but it had been cited by 30 other studies in the interim and included in meta-analyses that amplified its findings. The meta-analyses continue to be quoted as proof of the drug’s efficacy.


By November 2020, the Monash study had been referenced in 450 journals. Dr Rayner addressed a conference on COVID-19 drugs organised by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Science and cautioned against using ivermectin. “We’re hoping [it] will not become the next hydroxychloroquine,” he said.


Then, on December 8, US physician Dr Pierre Kory appeared before a US Senate committee and described ivermectin as miraculous. “If you take it, you will not get sick.”


The clip was viewed over a million times, according to the Associated Press, before YouTube took it down – which only served to raise its profile. Conservative commentators cried censorship, anti-vaccination activists co-opted the drug for their purposes and ivermectin prescriptions surged by 2400 per cent over the pre-pandemic weekly average in the United States. In South Africa, a black market developed.


Kyle Sheldrick, a medical doctor and researcher at the University of NSW, has scrutinised 29 of the most influential studies on ivermectin and found the only studies to show a statistically significant improvement in mortality have turned out to be false. But belief in ivermectin has taken root.


“Once the idea that something works is in the popular domain, winding it back is almost impossible,” Dr Sheldrick said.


More recently, large clinical trials have shown marginal to zero benefit from ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. A Cochrane review, which is considered the gold standard in analysing scientific research, found there was not enough evidence to say whether ivermectin was effective against COVID-19. The TOGETHER trial, conducted by Canada’s McMaster University and involving 9000 patients, was terminated in August because it did not demonstrate a statistical effect.


Dr Sheldrick said it should not be surprising that so many of the first trials were flawed. “A lot of these trials came out incredibly quickly,” he said. “Legitimate trials take longer than fake trials.”


Last month, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) banned the off-label prescribing of ivermectin, citing the public health risk and national shortages created by a three- to four-fold increase in prescriptions.


Monash University has moderated its original press release to highlight disclaimers about the drug’s effectiveness and added a warning against ivermectin put out by the US’s FDA.


The university said in a statement it had always been clear that ivermectin was effective at killing the virus in a lab environment and further testing and clinical trials would be needed to establish the effectiveness of the drug at levels safe for humans. It still intended to conduct these trials.


“The university remains committed to making its research results known in a timely manner,” the statement said. “It is important that significant research findings – particularly during times of global crises like COVID-19 – are shared with the broader research and medical community to enable a greater effort to solve such problems.”

Promotion Down Under

Australia has its own ivermectin evangelists, most prominently Sydney gastroenterologist Thomas Borody. Dr Borody, who developed a therapy for peptic ulcers in the 1980s, has been a driving force behind faecal transplants and treated Labor politicians including Bob Hawke and Ian Macdonald.


Last year Dr Borody announced via press release that he had discovered a “cure” for COVID-19: a triple therapy of ivermectin, zinc and doxycycline. Ivermectin has since been championed by federal politicians Craig Kelly and George Christensen. Dr Borody’s research was quoted by the plaintiffs seeking to challenge mandatory vaccination in NSW.


“The biggest thing about this is no one will make money from this,” Dr Borody told 2GB’s Chris Smith in August 2020. “So there’s no big pharma behind it. I mean, one ivermectin tablet costs $2. It’s the cheapest, fastest way – with fewest side effects – to end this pandemic.”


Smith: “So you don’t have the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies banging on the door of the federal health minister, for instance?”


“That’s probably why it’s not getting through.”


The Herald does not suggest Dr Borody does not genuinely believe in ivermectin as a treatment, but he does stand to profit from the drug. The drug by itself is off-patent and therefore unprofitable, but his company Topelia Australia owns the global patent rights to his triple therapy and is raising money to support clinical trials.


A US-based trial found it had a 100 per cent survival rate among moderate to severe COVID-19 patients without hospitalisation and a rapid resolution of hypoxia. But the trial had 24 patients and Dr Sheldrick has pointed out that the patients in a synthetic “control” group were older and sicker than those who took ivermectin.


Dr Borody said patents were necessary because nobody would fund the trials otherwise. He has applied for 196 patents since the 1980s, covering inventions in his specialty area of gut health and extending to treatments for autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder and Parkinson’s disease. His peptic ulcer cure, which is now widely used, was initially derided as well, he said, and more than 600 COVID-19 patients had benefited from his triple therapy. “Essentially, this works.” The results are yet to be published.

The ‘Big Pharma’ conspiracy

The claim that Big Pharma has a vested interest in preventing ivermectin from being adopted as a COVID-19 treatment is a common thread among those who promote the drug. There is little argument pharmaceutical companies have no commercial incentive to repurpose off-patent drugs. The regulatory process is expensive because authorities require high-quality evidence that medicines are safe and effective.


Glenn Begley, an international biotechnology consultant, said the regulatory process was an essential element of bringing new medicines to market, but academic research was not subjected to the same rigour. Besides, academics had a vested interest too.


In 2012, Dr Begley reviewed all the oncology drugs his company Amgen had investigated over the preceding 10 years and found 90 per cent of the projects it had pursued based on studies published in major journals were later terminated. This was because the original researchers were unable to replicate their results when Amgen asked them to repeat the experiments blind. None of those papers had been retracted, he said.


“The real purpose for academics is to get their paper published,” Dr Begley said. “You’ve just got to get published to get the next research grant.”


Ivermectin was a case in point.


“The preclinical work about ivermectin should never have been published,” Dr Begley said. “The university was aware that there were problems with this research before it was published, but it went ahead anyway. And the truth is that in the fullness of time, Australia will be embarrassed by this story.”




  • Hvala 1
Link to comment


Covid-19 Updates: Moderna Says Its Vaccine Is Safe for Children From 6 Through 11

The results were announced one day before an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration is scheduled to review data for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children 5 through 11


Link to comment

Evo NYT već izbacio članak:



A cheap antidepressant lowers the risk of Covid hospitalization, a large study finds.

A large clinical trial has found that a common and inexpensive antidepressant lowered the odds that high-risk Covid-19 patients would be hospitalized. The results, published on Wednesday, could open the door to new guidelines for the drug’s use both in the United States and globally.

The drug, fluvoxamine, has been safely prescribed for nearly 30 years as a treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. But when the coronavirus started spreading, researchers were drawn to the medication because of its ability to reduce inflammation, potentially allowing it to quell the body’s overwhelming response to a coronavirus infection.

Several smaller studies of fluvoxamine earlier in the pandemic showed promising results, but none was as large or persuasive as the one published on Wednesday by a group of researchers in Canada, the United States and Brazil, outside scientists said. Among nearly 1,500 Covid patients in Brazil given either fluvoxamine or a placebo, the drug reduced the need for hospitalization or prolonged medical observation by one-third, the study found. It was published in The Lancet Global Health.

Some patients struggled to tolerate the drug and stopped taking it, the study said, raising a question among outside scientists about whether they had yet identified the ideal dose. But among those who had largely followed doctors’ orders, the benefits were even more striking. In those patients, the drug reduced the need for hospitalization by two-thirds and slashed the risk of dying: One Covid patient given fluvoxamine died, compared with 12 given a placebo.

“That’s really good,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease scientist at the University of Minnesota who worked on a smaller, real-world study of the drug in Covid patients in California. Plus, he added, “it’s not a shiny new, expensive drug. The nice thing about this is it has a known safety profile.”

Beyond proper dosing, the study left other questions unresolved, scientists said. Penny Ward, a visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at King’s College London, noted that part of the drug’s benefit appeared to come from reducing the need for extended medical observation, which the study tracked alongside hospital admissions. And most patients in the study were unvaccinated, Professor Ward said, so it’s unclear how well the drug would work in the vaccinated.

The new study, coming nearly a year after smaller trials of the drug, was a reminder of the difficulty that many researchers have had running large tests of Covid treatments. The Biden administration has made more funding available for such trials, scientists said, but enrolling enough patients has only gotten more difficult: Most high-risk Americans are vaccinated, and vaccine-averse people may be less likely to participate in trials.

Because fluvoxamine is already approved for treating O.C.D., doctors can already prescribe it “off label” for Covid. But Dr. Boulware said that prescriptions of the drug had increased only slightly during the pandemic, unlike other repurposed drugs with far less scientific support, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

“It hasn’t really gotten any cult following,” he said.

Federal treatment guidelines say that larger trials are necessary to evaluate the use of fluvoxamine for Covid, and scientists said they expected those recommendations to change on the basis of the new study.

The new findings are also expected to boost the popularity of the drug in less wealthy countries: A 10-day course of the drug costs about $4.

Edited by vememah
Link to comment

Pharmaceutical company Merck has agreed to allow other drugmakers worldwide to produce its COVID-19 pill in a move aimed at helping millions of people in poorer countries get access to the potentially lifesaving drug.
The Medicines Patent Pool, a United Nations-backed public health organization, said in a statement Wednesday that it had signed a voluntary licensing agreement for the drug, called molnupiravir, with Merck and its partner, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics.
The agreement will allow the Medicines Patent Pool to grant further licenses to qualified companies that are approved to make the drug. Neither drugmaker will receive royalties under the agreement for as long as the World Health Organization deems COVID-19 to be global emergency. Molnupiravir is the first pill that has been shown to treat the disease. (...)
The charity Doctors Without Borders welcomed the agreement that Merck struck to share its COVID-19 pill, but said it didn’t go far enough.

“The license excludes key upper-middle-income countries like Brazil and China from its territory, where there [is] strong, established capacity to produce and supply antiviral medicines,” said Yuanqiong Hu, a senior legal and policy advisor at Doctors Without Borders. Hu called the deal “disappointing.”


Edited by vememah
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Skyhighatrist said:

Biće veselo kad ovi naši krenu da rokaju antidepresive umesto ivermektina :covid19:


Antivakseri vs korona u epizodi "Antidepresivi". Mile ostavio uputstvo za nabavku i upotrebu. "..nek ukinu drzavu. Nek ukinu Savu i Dunav al nek nas bar puste da se smirujemo kako mi ocemo"



  • Haha 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

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...