Stop recommending Ivermectin, it inhibits Importin α/β, an esential protein for cellular processes

[meatbag]

I am reading a lot of people recommending Ivermectin on the forum, and also people telling people to tell others to use Ivermectin. Beyond what Ray Peat has mentioned about the compound, you should realize that Ivermectin inhibits the protein Importin α/β (1). This protein is essential for proper cell function in Eukaryotes, inhibiting or knockout models of Importin α/β result in the following;

The physiological function of importin α subtypes in mammals has been revealed in vivo by the generation and analysis of importin α knockout mice. KPNA1-null mice develop normally,81,82) but show hypoplasia in female reproductive organs such as the ovary and uterus with severely reduced serum progesterone levels and progesterone receptor mRNA levels.81) Analysis of KPNA1 knockout mice further revealed that KPNA1 is important for muscle regeneration.83) That is, KPNA1 knockout caused muscle satellite cells to prematurely activate and undergo apoptosis, which led to the exhaustion of muscle satellite cells. On the other hand, knocking out KPNA7 results in reduced reproductivity and fetal lethality in females.84) Of note, it was reported that mutations in KPNA7 are associated with a human neurodevelopmental disease.85) Although KPNA6 knockout mice were viable, KPNA6-null oocytes showed a complete arrest at the two-cell embryo stage after fertilization,86) demonstrating that it has an important role in the very early phases of development. Intriguingly, a comparison of KPNA1, KPNA4, and KPNA6 knockout mice revealed that KPNA6 knockout mice are highly resistant to infection with influenza viruses,87) highlighting the importance of importin α as a determinant of pathogenicity." (2)

So you are reducing the capacity for the virus to use the cell's proteins to replicate but sterilizing the organism. Inhibition of this protein also leads to neurological and gonad damage, potentially sterilization. It would lead to reduction of progesterone and likely other steroid production and inability of muscles to function properly.

(1) Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus
Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus - PubMed
"The movement of proteins between the cytoplasm and nucleus mediated by the importin superfamily of proteins is essential to many cellular processes, including differentiation and development, and is critical to disease states such as viral disease and oncogenesis."

(2) Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus​

Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus - PubMed​

--
@Vileplume : If the spike proteins are so easily transmissible and so dangerous, might ivermectin and HCQ be reasonable prophylactic measures for someone exposed to vaccinated people daily?

Ray Peat: Ivermectin has been associated with brain damage in a small percentage of users, so I don’t think it’s suitable for prolonged preventive use. Vitamin D, aspirin, antihistamines, aspirin, progesterone, etc. are safer.

-Ray Peat Email Advice Depository

 

[Comstock]

Imagine the reverse-reverse psychology in play if the globalist de-pop agenda was to get people to take ivermectin. That's real 4D chess

 

[meatbag]

Imagine the reverse-reverse psychology in play if the globalist de-pop agenda was to get people to take ivermectin. That's real 4D chess

its like the reasoning as using raditation to destroy cancer cells

 

[Missenger]

Probably wouldn't matter too much with Gates 'producing' an extended release ivermectin pill. Most of big pharma's stuff is neurotoxic in the long run if you take too much.

 

[gaze]

agreed

 

[yerrag]

Thanks for bringing this discussion out. I've heard Ray say Ivermectin isn't good just as he has said that HCQ isn't either, and while I recall him saying that HCQ has effects on fertility, he hasn't been more specific on the risks of taking Ivermectin. Both certainly being pharma drugs, one has more of a need to weigh the need for taking them from the standpoint of risk vs. benefits. If the risk of COVID-19 infection is so much magnified by media and my medical authorities of big pharma persuasion, then it would make the risk appear more visceral and vile, and this would drive more people towards taking these drugs.

So, while the mainstream is actively discouraging and prohibiting the use of Ivermectin, it is also by the doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it is causing people who hate mainstream pharma to have a favorable reaction towards taking Ivermectin as the focus become "me and Ivermectin" against the big pharma Goliath. But in reality, Ivermectin usage may also be helping achieve what the New Normal Reset guys are aiming to - mass sterilization, which is what the inhibition of importin with Ivermectin use is doing.

Is it small comfort to the eugenicists to think that despite widespread use of Ivermectin in Africa, it is not denting the growth of the population in Africa? Still, we won't know as even if Ivermectin usage in Africa is causing sterilization, Africa is still growing as population growth in the developed countries is diddly squat compared to Africa, and the effects of Ivermectin use on Africa can barely be noticed as Africa is outgrowing these developed countries. Pardon the metaphor, but it's like spraying pesticides on a horde of locusts- there are still enough locusts to eat up all the crop for the season.

 

[Rick K]

Thanks for bringing this discussion out. I've heard Ray say Ivermectin isn't good just as he has said that HCQ isn't either, and while I recall him saying that HCQ has effects on fertility, he hasn't been more specific on the risks of taking Ivermectin. Both certainly being pharma drugs, one has more of a need to weigh the need for taking them from the standpoint of risk vs. benefits. If the risk of COVID-19 infection is so much magnified by media and my medical authorities of big pharma persuasion, then it would make the risk appear more visceral and vile, and this would drive more people towards taking these drugs.

So, while the mainstream is actively discouraging and prohibiting the use of Ivermectin, it is also by the doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it is causing people who hate mainstream pharma to have a favorable reaction towards taking Ivermectin as the focus become "me and Ivermectin" against the big pharma Goliath. But in reality, Ivermectin usage may also be helping achieve what the New Normal Reset guys are aiming to - mass sterilization, which is what the inhibition of importin with Ivermectin use is doing.

Is it small comfort to the eugenicists to think that despite widespread use of Ivermectin in Africa, it is not denting the growth of the population in Africa? Still, we won't know as even if Ivermectin usage in Africa is causing sterilization, Africa is still growing as population growth in the developed countries is diddly squat compared to Africa, and the effects of Ivermectin use on Africa can barely be noticed as Africa is outgrowing these developed countries. Pardon the metaphor, but it's like spraying pesticides on a horde of locusts- there are still enough locusts to eat up all the crop for the season.

I believe that any recommendation to use Ivermectin in this forum is for short duration,; not on a sustained basis. Given the alternative of spike protein damage I will risk the infinitesimally small risk of brain damage which I already got from my kids and infertility. The damage to fertility from spike protein appears substantial.

 

[DennisX]

So it's better to not use evermectin if you catch covid go to the hospital, once you can't breath, have them do nothing but give you oxygen then if that doesn't work put you on a ventilator where you have a 90% chance of dying. Vs taking 5 days of evermectin, killing the virus and being well. Oh yeah I'd rather die unconscious on a ventilator.

 

[mrchibbs]

Since the start, it has seemed clear to me that sunshine/vitamin D is the only thing needed to stop this "pandemic".

But that's probably too basic to be seen as a real solution and I think it has more to do with prevention than active treatment.

What Ray is saying is that it's not a good option for *prolonged* preventative use. Vitamin D is safer for these purposes. He doesn't say it isn't a good idea for the acute phase of treatment.

Morever, the benefits of Ivermectin are that it is dirt cheap, already in use in all continents, where it has been used massively for decades and especially, fertility rates are still sky high in Africa, as @yerrag pointed out.

To treat people who are starting to develop the pathology, anti-serotonin agents may be safer, but I certainly wouldn't think discouraging the use of ivermectin at least as an option to treat people with acute cases is the right way to go. The potential risks of Ivermectin are well worth the shot in those circumstances, as @DennisX said.

It's not perfect, but it seems to be slashing mortality and is much safer than the vaccines. So, yeah Ivermectin as a therapeutic, cheap drug for people who are starting to get sick, is still a very good idea.

 

[Doc Sandoz]

For those not wanting or past having children, the "sterilization" effect would seem to be incidental. More concerning is the small possibility of brain damage or interference with steroid production. I'd personally rather risk the Mec than ventilation at my nearest death center.

 

[Vileplume]

Since the start, it has seemed clear to me that sunshine/vitamin D is the only thing needed to stop this "pandemic".

But that's probably too basic to be seen as a real solution and I think it has more to do with prevention than active treatment.

What Ray is saying is that it's not a good option for *prolonged* preventative use. Vitamin D is safer for these purposes. He doesn't say it isn't a good idea for the acute phase of treatment.

Morever, the benefits of Ivermectin are that it is dirt cheap, already in use in all continents, where it has been used massively for decades and especially, fertility rates are still sky high in Africa, as @yerrag pointed out.

To treat people who are starting to develop the pathology, anti-serotonin agents may be safer, but I certainly wouldn't think discouraging the use of ivermectin at least as an option to treat people with acute cases is the right way to go. The potential risks of Ivermectin are well worth the shot in those circumstances, as @DennisX said.

It's not perfect, but it seems to be slashing mortality and is much safer than the vaccines. So, yeah Ivermectin as a therapeutic, cheap drug for people who are starting to get sick, is still a very good idea.

I agree with you, others in this thread, and Dr. Peat that ivermectin should not be used preventively, but I still struggle to understand the signifiers of when one has developed the spike protein/COVID pathology enough to warrant using ivermectin. How does a person know when they've reached this point? When they experience respiratory symptoms, aches, dizziness, and/or brain fog that would otherwise lead them to go to the hospital?

Edit: heard a relevant quotation from Dr. Pierre Cory (ICU and lung specialist) on Joe Rogan's podcast:

Dr. Cory: "My dream is that every household has ivermectin in the cupboard, and you take it upon development of first symptom of anything approximating a viral syndrome. You should be assuming that any sort of viral flu-like illness is COVID until proven otherwise. Even if it's not COVID, it's safe to take, and it's probably effective against that virus.

Joe: Are there any side effects?

Dr. Cory: There are, they're all what's considered minor and transient. Ivermectin is known as one of the safest drugs in history... a little nausea, some people get a headache, some people get dizziness...

a few minutes later, Bret Weinstein, reading directly from a study: low certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by a rate of 86%"

This guy, Dr. Cory, seems a little biased in favor of ivermectin, seemingly downplaying the side effects, which @meatbag and Dr. Peat have pointed out. Still, he states that people should use ivermectin at the onset of the symptoms of any viral infection. This leads to another problem, that symptoms of a viral infection hardly distinguish from symptoms of a cold, a bacterial infection, hypometabolic symptoms, dehydration, pretty much anything bad...

 

[Doc Sandoz]

a few minutes later, Bret Weinstein, reading directly from a study: low certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by a rate of 86%"

Just to clarify, Weinstein later explains that "low certainty evidence" is a data-science term meaning there is an expectation when you collect more info that the 86% number will move a bit, not that the prophylaxis effect is in question.

Also, if you are symptomatic there is evidently the Abbott Laboratories home test that is designed to detect COVID if you have a high viral load. If it actually works, you will be able to differentiate from colds, flu etc.

 

[mrchibbs]

I think Pierre Cory is biased towards Ivermectin because he's used it in countless real life situations where it worked. And the data makes it clear: Ivermectin works https://ivmmeta.com/ Ray cautioned against long-term use of ivermectin which is a different thing. Although Weinstein is taking it preventively as well, so clearly they may be pushing it a little hard. In his dark horse podcast they mentioned cyproheptadine and other drugs as well, Cory mentioned vitamin C, D and other things too.

Cory also assumes that anything with flu symptoms is likely covid at the moment because of viral interference. This is something which is bull**** to me, but basically they both make a case that the prophylactic (preventive) use of ivermectin could stop the ''pandemic'', while also curing the vast majority of patients if used early on when the symptoms start.

It's a convincing case, even if I don't agree with all of it. At one point Cory also acknowledges that Ivermectin is not unique, but it has been the most studied this year and has the largest pool of evidence directly related to covid and is cheap and freely available. All good points going for it.

The most damning part of that Joe Rogan podcast is how they break down pretty convincingly that the FDA/NIH/WTO/CDC are crooked as hell (regulatory capture) and have chosen profits and censorship (backed by the Trusted News Initiative) to push vaccines which benefits almost everyone in the industry because they are all related in some ways to Moderna/Biotech. For instance, the NIH owns half of Moderna and therefore they have every incentive not to protect their own population, suppress inexpensive drugs and promote vaccines.

 

[Vileplume]

The most damning part of that Joe Rogan podcast is how they break down pretty convincingly that the FDA/NIH/WTO/CDC are crooked as hell (regulatory capture) and have chosen profits and censorship (backed by the Trusted News Initiative) to push vaccines which benefits almost everyone in the industry because they are all related in some ways to Moderna/Biotech. For instance, the NIH owns half of Moderna and therefore they have every incentive not to protect their own population, suppress inexpensive drugs and promote vaccines.

Yes. And it was scary to hear Weinstein say that if we don’t nip covid in the bud now, it could become a mainstay in our world. But it sounds like that’s exactly what the world leaders have agreed upon, with pretty much all national governments refusing to accept ivermectin as a safe way of treating covid. Even Mexico, with its 75% reduced hospitalization rate when using ivermectin as treatment, did not accept covid as a national treatment strategy.

Mrchibbs, if you were working on the frontlines in healthcare, would you use ivermectin as prophylaxis?

 

[Aad]

Ivermectin is total garbage.

 

[mrchibbs]

Ivermectin is total garbage.

Yeah, right. Sound argument there bud.

 

[Braveheart]

Ivermectin is total garbage.

Ignore option activated...thanks for this option!

 

[mrchibbs]

Yes. And it was scary to hear Weinstein say that if we don’t nip covid in the bud now, it could become a mainstay in our world. But it sounds like that’s exactly what the world leaders have agreed upon, with pretty much all national governments refusing to accept ivermectin as a safe way of treating covid. Even Mexico, with its 75% reduced hospitalization rate when using ivermectin as treatment, did not accept covid as a national treatment strategy.

Mrchibbs, if you were working on the frontlines in healthcare, would you use ivermectin as prophylaxis?

I don't know, but probably. Are there other drugs which are even safer and cheaper and more freely available?

Ivermectin seems to have the momentum right now and would probably be taken more seriously than vitamin D.

That being said, based on what I know, I'd recommend vitamin D as prevention and using Ivermectin at the first signs of symptoms. Anti-serotonin drugs can be stacked too.

But as you said, the plan is clearly to keep this going for years and years and provide an endless cycle of booster shots and restrictions.

 

[Missenger]

They will keep going unless people tell them to stop, then they'll pretend they didn't hear you until you scream in their ears, then they'll play victim and proclaim you're a thug instead of them.

 

[meatbag]

You guys have no idea how ivermectin works or what importin even does in cells and yet your recommending others to take it