Thank you Paul! I am trying to figure out what this may mean, and one factor is that we haven't had such widespread use of an antiviral against respiratory infections such as this, and so it does raise questions if just a short dose may be responsible, could viral tropism alter the bioavailability of the drugs in areas where they are most needed? There's a lot to discuss here. The only one I know of against Influenza is Tamiflu, and it's been considered highly controversial and usually deployed far too late into the disease.
We use very high dose vitamin D, 100,000 iu daily X 3 days, plus elder leaf tincture, a couple other antiviral herbs for a knock out. Works great every time
I haven't heard of 100k I.U. do you need to get that from a pharmacist? Elderberry is one of those things I wanted to look into a bit. It's everywhere but it's also considered pseudoscience so it'd be something interesting to research.
My wife, the retired family practice doc, was an early fan of vitamin D. I waited till she had suggested it to others, then asked how'd it go before I did it. You can buy 10,000 iu gel caps, take ten a day for the three days.
Buhner covers Elder in his Antiviral Herbs for Emerging Organisms book, with lots of references. The leaf, stem and root are stronger medicine than the berry. Most people use the berry and think the leaf is toxic. It's not. It's an emetic for some people if used raw, so you can decoct it (steep in hot water) fresh which eliminates the emetic principle, and preserve with 20% etoh for storage. We simply use some fresh leaf or flowers in our daily tea as part of our general antiviral program. And yes, it interferes with Sars-Cov-19. Buhner has references in his book.
Molnupiravir sounds... mutagenic. Not only is this going to increase the number of viral mutants, but most people like their DNA the way it is. Since living humans have rapidly dividing cells (like intestinal villi), methinks I can smell the sulfur and brimstone from here.
It actually is mutagenic- that's it's mechanism of action! Fortunately, it's a ribonucleoside so there are questions as to how likely it can be converted into the deoxyribonucleotide form. However, my first post on Molnupiravir was an in vitro study in which they raised concerns that it was likely to occur. So far we don't have any information on any of this which is quite ridiculous, and it if turns out that it's not very effective I don't see how the FDA could keep its EUA.
Okay, I read it. Isn't this sentence self contradictory? ==>
"Our study showed that the vaccination rates were higher in patients who developed COVID-19 rebound than in those who did not, suggesting that vaccination was not a major contributor for COVID-19 rebound."
It looks like vaccination contributes to rebound, right? So we were right all along?
I think they may have been suggesting how lack of prior immune response may lead to viral rebound, such that unvaccinated individuals may have higher rates of viral rebound. Therefore, the vaccinated having a higher rebound would rebut that suggestion- at least that's what I believe they were getting at?
I didn't read into the role of vaccination too much because the researchers couldn't determine the actual vaccination rate. Also, although statistically significant I can't put much weight to the given 5% difference between the recorded vaccinated group and the recorded unvaccinated group, mostly because I am unsure how that would translate in the real world.
The issue is that it was a retro study, so they really had no way of knowing who exactly were vaccinated but did/did not have rebound. For all we know both groups could have had the same number of vaccinated people. Keep in mind that these people have recorded hospital records which would also argue that these people are generally unhealthy to begin with.
Very good follow-up to all your previous analysis on Molnupiravir. When reading about the MoA above I couldn't help but also think that this sounds like a big gamble as you don't know what you're gonna get! Which also makes me think of the "vaccines" in a similar light (i.e. where does it go in the body - not quite how it was marketed). It's a sad state of affairs when all this chaos was created over a highly survivable disease (sunshine, diet & exercise could keep most people from suffering severe outcomes - then protect those who are vulnerable). But... sigh... we know not we they (meds, vaccines, CDC, FDA, WHO) do (which begs the question, do they know what they do).
Well it does make me wonder what may happen. If word spreads of Molnupiravir likely having rebound I see this as a pretense to immediately revoke it's EUA. It was already considered highly contentious and it also came about before PAXLOVID and therefore it was justified because there was nothing else.
It is interesting when we push for more experimental drugs rather than good health and exercise, which would really help against any disease.
Thanks for the thoroughness. As usual, the gold rush mentality of pHarma results in unforseen outcomes.
Thank you Paul! I am trying to figure out what this may mean, and one factor is that we haven't had such widespread use of an antiviral against respiratory infections such as this, and so it does raise questions if just a short dose may be responsible, could viral tropism alter the bioavailability of the drugs in areas where they are most needed? There's a lot to discuss here. The only one I know of against Influenza is Tamiflu, and it's been considered highly controversial and usually deployed far too late into the disease.
We use very high dose vitamin D, 100,000 iu daily X 3 days, plus elder leaf tincture, a couple other antiviral herbs for a knock out. Works great every time
I haven't heard of 100k I.U. do you need to get that from a pharmacist? Elderberry is one of those things I wanted to look into a bit. It's everywhere but it's also considered pseudoscience so it'd be something interesting to research.
My wife, the retired family practice doc, was an early fan of vitamin D. I waited till she had suggested it to others, then asked how'd it go before I did it. You can buy 10,000 iu gel caps, take ten a day for the three days.
Buhner covers Elder in his Antiviral Herbs for Emerging Organisms book, with lots of references. The leaf, stem and root are stronger medicine than the berry. Most people use the berry and think the leaf is toxic. It's not. It's an emetic for some people if used raw, so you can decoct it (steep in hot water) fresh which eliminates the emetic principle, and preserve with 20% etoh for storage. We simply use some fresh leaf or flowers in our daily tea as part of our general antiviral program. And yes, it interferes with Sars-Cov-19. Buhner has references in his book.
A new delicious post! About to start reading it!
Molnupiravir sounds... mutagenic. Not only is this going to increase the number of viral mutants, but most people like their DNA the way it is. Since living humans have rapidly dividing cells (like intestinal villi), methinks I can smell the sulfur and brimstone from here.
Excellent article, by the way.
It actually is mutagenic- that's it's mechanism of action! Fortunately, it's a ribonucleoside so there are questions as to how likely it can be converted into the deoxyribonucleotide form. However, my first post on Molnupiravir was an in vitro study in which they raised concerns that it was likely to occur. So far we don't have any information on any of this which is quite ridiculous, and it if turns out that it's not very effective I don't see how the FDA could keep its EUA.
And thank you!
Okay, I read it. Isn't this sentence self contradictory? ==>
"Our study showed that the vaccination rates were higher in patients who developed COVID-19 rebound than in those who did not, suggesting that vaccination was not a major contributor for COVID-19 rebound."
It looks like vaccination contributes to rebound, right? So we were right all along?
I think they may have been suggesting how lack of prior immune response may lead to viral rebound, such that unvaccinated individuals may have higher rates of viral rebound. Therefore, the vaccinated having a higher rebound would rebut that suggestion- at least that's what I believe they were getting at?
I didn't read into the role of vaccination too much because the researchers couldn't determine the actual vaccination rate. Also, although statistically significant I can't put much weight to the given 5% difference between the recorded vaccinated group and the recorded unvaccinated group, mostly because I am unsure how that would translate in the real world.
The researchers came close to providing extremely interesting and damning evidence, but unfortunately backed out and provided NO evidence.
The issue is that it was a retro study, so they really had no way of knowing who exactly were vaccinated but did/did not have rebound. For all we know both groups could have had the same number of vaccinated people. Keep in mind that these people have recorded hospital records which would also argue that these people are generally unhealthy to begin with.
I wrote an article about a new study that did look at vaxed vs unvaxed and boosted people, it came out yesterday. I mention your article also
Very good follow-up to all your previous analysis on Molnupiravir. When reading about the MoA above I couldn't help but also think that this sounds like a big gamble as you don't know what you're gonna get! Which also makes me think of the "vaccines" in a similar light (i.e. where does it go in the body - not quite how it was marketed). It's a sad state of affairs when all this chaos was created over a highly survivable disease (sunshine, diet & exercise could keep most people from suffering severe outcomes - then protect those who are vulnerable). But... sigh... we know not we they (meds, vaccines, CDC, FDA, WHO) do (which begs the question, do they know what they do).
Well it does make me wonder what may happen. If word spreads of Molnupiravir likely having rebound I see this as a pretense to immediately revoke it's EUA. It was already considered highly contentious and it also came about before PAXLOVID and therefore it was justified because there was nothing else.
It is interesting when we push for more experimental drugs rather than good health and exercise, which would really help against any disease.
Thanks Heidi!