Anti parasitical medicines work against viruses?

  • Get the NEW AquariaCentral iOS app --> http://itunes.apple.com/app/id1227181058 // Android version will be out soon!

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,600
833
120
I have heard claims of anthelmintic or anti parasitical medicines being used to treat viruses in fish for like 20 years. It didn't make sense to me, and I dismissed it, but after hearing this physician testify in senate that Ivermectine (an existing anti parasitical/anthelmintic drug) also kills the corona virus as a side effect I think there might me something to it.


I'm thinking it would probably work against other viruses as well (at least in the same family) it is being used as a veterinary medicine but I have never heard of it being used on fish. I am interested now... maybe there are members that have heard of this, or other anti parasiticals being successfully used to treat viruses in fish?
 
Apr 2, 2002
2,753
394
92
New York
Look to the science here folks. I have found a bunch of studies on this topic. You can find them via this link:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&q=ivermectin+covid&scisbd=1

From what I saw on this, and I only checked out a few full studies, is that this drug works well against Covid when tested in vitro (i.e. against the virus in a dish in a lab), It seemed to offer some benefit in non severe cases of Covid. In one study they did a double-blind with placebos. There were about 55 patients in each group. The major difference was none who got the drug died and 4 in the placebo group did.

Basically, from what I saw there is evidence making it worth investigating this drug further, but there is nobody who was willing to say it should be used on all case because it works. What they say is more research is needed.

One of things I have learned reading scientific papers is that sometimes things may have an unexpected effect in a specific case, but this is not the same as it having a fairly universal effect. There is evidence of Ivermectin working against other viruses but the jury seems still to be out on the use if it for treating Covid.

More worrisome to me were two pieces I heard on the news this morning. The first indicated that folks who have been vaccinated successfully against Covid may still be able to spread it. This would not be good if true. The second one related to the S. African variant of Covid which may be resistant to the vaccine.

There is a lot of stuff out there and I am not sure how much of it is worth talking about vs. what actually works. One problem I have is that I have learned never to trust anything I see on the FOX network. However, maybe we should ask Doctor Trump if he has found Invermectin to be more or less effective against Covid than hydroxychloroquine? Do your own research folks do not believe what you hear if you cannot verify it from independent sources. And remember, there are a zillion doctors out there and most of them are not experts on this topic. So just because a news network has doctor somebody saying something, it is up to you to verify this person is actually an expert in the area.

I am turning 73 soon. I had triple bypass in Sept. 2019. I have COPD because I smoked for 45 years before quitting over a decade ago. I also have high blood pressure controlled by medication. If I get Covid I will almost certainly die. So excuse me if I am unwilling to truist anything I cannot determine helps for sure. I have been a hermit since last March and will stay that way until NY has vaccines readily available. Right now things are a joke in that respect. Appointments now are scheduling for 3-4 months from now, if you can get through on the phone or get the site page to load. Operation warp speed seems to be running on impulse engines..............
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sprinkle
Apr 2, 2002
2,753
394
92
New York
Need to add one more thing. The doctor in the vid is Dr. Pierre Houury. here is some information on him:

Dr. Pierre Khoury, MD
Oncology Hematology


Pierre Khoury, MD, received his medical degree from Saint Joseph University Faculty of Medicine in Beirut, Lebanon. He then completed his residency at North Shore Medical Center Salem Hospital in Massachusetts. Dr. Khoury went on to complete his fellowship at McGovern Medical School at UTHealth in Houston.

Board certified in hematology and medical oncology, Dr. Khoury is committed to providing quality treatment for each patient. His clinical interests include anemia (lack of blood), bladder cancer, bone marrow aspiration, bone marrow transplant, brain cancer, breast cancer, chemotherapy, colon cancer, head and neck cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (Hodgkin’s disease).
from https://www.memorialhermann.org/doctors/hematologic-oncologists/dr-pierre-khoury-md-1548223878

Excuse me if I take his opinion re viruses etc. with a huge grain of salt. If you had cancer would your preference of doctor be a virologist or an oncologist?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: the loach

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,600
833
120
This doesn't answer my question about anti paraasiticals used for viruses on fish, but why are you posting that? It's not the same guy, he doesn't even look like him? It's Dr Kory, pulmonary specialist, associate professor of medicine he is speaking from his expertise.
 

Sprinkle

AC Members
Mar 21, 2020
1,652
321
92
15
UK
Camera Used
My iPad
This doesn't answer my question about anti paraasiticals used for viruses on fish, but why are you posting that? It's not the same guy, he doesn't even look like him? It's Dr Kory, pulmonary specialist, associate professor of medicine he is speaking from his expertise.
His just tryna help...
 

Wyomingite

Fish Wrangler
Oct 16, 2008
525
280
72
52
Wonderful Windy Wyoming
Real Name
Ivan
Okay, this is what I thought. It doesn't kill the Covid-19 virus, it inhibits replication. Two different things.

So simplified: A virus isn't even a single cell organism as such. Heck, as far as I know it's still debated whether a virus is even alive. Viruses have been categorized as living organisms, poisons, and biological chemicals, so the best definition is probably an "infectious entity". Like a chemical, it cannot reproduce on its own. Unlike a chemical or poison, it can use living material from a host cell to replicate itself. A virus is nothing more than a very simple strand of DNA and some proteins. The DNA of a virus is far less complex than anything in an animal cell. An animal's cell has thousands and thousands more DNA components than a virus. When the virus infects a cell, it disrupts the cell's normal functions and breaks down the DNA and proteins from the cell and processes them to create more viruses. When the virus has created all the new viruses that it can from that cell, the cell ruptures, releasing all the new viruses to infect more cells, which then create more viruses in those cells, which then rupture to infect more cells, and so on and so on.

Antiviral drugs don't destroy the virus, rather they keep the virus from completing the creation of more viruses by keeping the virus from achieving one portion of the replication process that I outlined above. There are all types of antiviral medications that target various stages in the replication process. For example, some antivirals work by blocking the point the virus needs to attach to the cell, while others keep the virus from "stealing" enzymes it needs from the host cell so that the virus can't create more viruses.

So this ivermectin doesn't kill the virus, it just keeps it from replicating and creating new viruses. If I remember right, to destroy a virus you pretty much have to kill the host cell.

The following link confirmed what I thought. I can't link to the full article even as a member, but I can link to the abstract page which pretty much explains that it acts as an inhibitor: The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

The second thing I wondered about after listening to the gentleman in the video was what side effects the drug had: Side Effects of Ivermectin

As stated in the link:

Q: Is there any danger to humans taking ivermectin?
A: There are approved uses for ivermectin in people and animals but it is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. You should not take any medicine to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless it has been prescribed to you by your health care provider and acquired from a legitimate source.

Some of the side-effects that may be associated with ivermectin include skin rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, facial or limb swelling, neurologic adverse events (dizziness, seizures, confusion), sudden drop in blood pressure, severe skin rash potentially requiring hospitalization and liver injury (hepatitis). Laboratory test abnormalities include decrease in white cell count and elevated liver tests. Any use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided as its benefits and safety for these purposes have not been established. Data from clinical trials are necessary for us to determine whether ivermectin is safe and effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.


So is this a miracle drug for treatment and prevention? Those side effects have me asking myself whether this is the "miracle cure" the country desperately wants. Will it work in the body? Well according to the doctor above it does, but how long did the test subjects have to take it to receive the benefit? Do they have to take it continuously and often enough at a certain dose to maintain a constant level in the blood to prevent infection, thereby increasing the potential for adverse side effects? Or is it a one dose and you're good for a month type of deal? How much did the test subjects have to take? Is the dosage enough that liver function could be compromised quickly? I'm quite sure I wouldn't take it without a lot more information. There are a lot more questions than answers.

I can identify with TTA, and I can't say I blame him if it seems he ranted a little and got off on a tangent a bit. I have artificial heart valves which can become infected and subsequently damaging the heart or become fatal. I have asthma and smoked for 20 years and have the early stages of COPD, I guess you call it, as well as neurological problems (including seizures) from a stroke and a head injury. I spent from March to November isolated in the house and still ended up catching it during a doctor's visit. I was lucky and my case was mild in spite of my health issues. The doctor told me to be careful but I didn't have to worry so much and I could get out a little bit and go to the grocery store and such as long as I wore a mask and washed my hands regularly, especially after being out. Then the new strains developed and now I've been told to stay home and isolated again because the new strains are worse than the original, so now I'm back to square one. After a while you start getting a little frustrated and a little cranky.

And BTW, I share your feelings about the Fox Network, TTA.

WYite
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sprinkle

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,600
833
120
Well this thread isn't going like it was intended to, it was supposed to be about medicines for fish that as a side effect, are anti viral (I wrote above anti parasitical/anthelmintic but it may be anti biotics as well).
I don't want to keep other members from speaking their mind while I personally really don't want to go off topic, but some statements are just not true or no arguments that I still feel I have to correct them (like a link to another doctor "proving" Dr. Kory is out of his league) If I am out of line Bob and/or Freshy can delete my posts... I have no intention of breaking the rules.

Faux news: I didn't even notice it was on their channel but if you want to discredit the video, doctor or message because of that;
Provide arguments or evidence it is a fake/staged clip/show not in the senate, or accept that it is really a testimony, in the senate, which happened regardless on which network it aired or on who's youtube channel it is. Only one can be true, there is no in between.

Ivermectine was, according to Wikipedia, approved 40 years (!) ago as safe for humans to use against a number of parasites. The apparent side effects (not noting on their occurrence) have not been a problem for all of his time to use it against some trivial parasites. To not use, try or approve it against a deadly virus because it could cause vomiting and diarrhea and such seems like a terrible argument and is, I think, exactly what Dr. Kory is arguing for the bureaucrats to take a look at. He did also say not to take his word for it but look at the international studies his team collected (which I am doubtful of are the same on Google scholar).
 
Apr 2, 2002
2,753
394
92
New York
I did not investigate deeply re the doctor. I was more interested in the drug. I did not even play the vid. I should have done this, but I was in a hurry and I apologize for my mistake. I just played it now. I was most struck by how manic that doctor appeared. His group did no research themselves. They relied on the work of others. I could not find support for his claim that this drug prevents one from catching Covid.

I did run across another study which was, "a Pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of Ivermectin reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when administered early after disease onset." Oxford university is set to do some serious research into the efficacy of the drug against Covid. However, the conclusions of most studies seemd to be the results were not proof of efficacy but they did merit more in depth studies. This is much like what happened with hydroxychloroquine. This does not mean the same disappointment will emerge for invermectin as it did for the hydroxy.


However, I actually found papers investigating the use Invermectin for fish : " Clarias gariepinus or African sharptooth catfish is a species of catfish of the family Clariidae, the airbreathing catfishes." I could only read the abstract which may as well have been written in Sanskrit. However, the first and last sentences are almost really all one should need to see:

The short-term effects of ivermectin (IVMT) on the oxidative stress and biochemical parameters of Clarias gariepinus juvenile was assessed under semi-static conditions at concentrations of 9 to 25 μg L-1 for up to 4 days........
This showed that IVMT is toxic to fish and should be used with utmost caution.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32141005/

Th above study was conducted in Nigeria.

Here is another paper using zebra danios and Catla catla South Asian carp, A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE TOXICITY OF IVERMECTIN IN ZEBRA FISH AND CATLA FISH MODELS. The fish had issues but as the last line of the abstract concluded. "The results of this study conclude that zebrafish is more tolerant to higher concentrations and prolonged exposure to ivermectin compared to catla fish."

And yet another zebra danio study: Multilevel assessment of ivermectin effects using different zebrafish life stages
Highlights

• Toxicity of ivermectin was assessed using zebrafish life stages and SSD analysis.
• Lethal toxicity is higher for adults and juveniles than for embryos.
• For biochemical and behavioural endpoints differences are not so evident.
• Ivermectin is not genotoxic to zebrafish adults.
• Ivermectin is extremely toxic for fish and invertebrates (HC5 = 0.057 μg/L).
To see a whole lot of papers on invermectin and fish invermectin "fish" toxicity

Bear in mind that the investigation into the use of medications for treating fish fall into only two categories. Aquaculture where humans will be eating the fish and ornamental fish keeping where the fish will not be eaten. Almost all the research is done in the service of aquaculture for food even when using fish like zebra danio for testing purposes.
 

Wyomingite

Fish Wrangler
Oct 16, 2008
525
280
72
52
Wonderful Windy Wyoming
Real Name
Ivan
Well this thread isn't going like it was intended to, it was supposed to be about medicines for fish that as a side effect, are anti viral (I wrote above anti parasitical/anthelmintic but it may be anti biotics as well).
I don't want to keep other members from speaking their mind while I personally really don't want to go off topic, but some statements are just not true or no arguments that I still feel I have to correct them (like a link to another doctor "proving" Dr. Kory is out of his league) If I am out of line Bob and/or Freshy can delete my posts... I have no intention of breaking the rules.

Faux news: I didn't even notice it was on their channel but if you want to discredit the video, doctor or message because of that;
Provide arguments or evidence it is a fake/staged clip/show not in the senate, or accept that it is really a testimony, in the senate, which happened regardless on which network it aired or on who's youtube channel it is. Only one can be true, there is no in between.

Ivermectine was, according to Wikipedia, approved 40 years (!) ago as safe for humans to use against a number of parasites. The apparent side effects (not noting on their occurrence) have not been a problem for all of his time to use it against some trivial parasites. To not use, try or approve it against a deadly virus because it could cause vomiting and diarrhea and such seems like a terrible argument and is, I think, exactly what Dr. Kory is arguing for the bureaucrats to take a look at. He did also say not to take his word for it but look at the international studies his team collected (which I am doubtful of are the same on Google scholar).
Well, now I'm not sure if this was supposed to be about the side effect of ivermectin as an antiviral and its use as an antiviral in fish, or if it was supposed to be about the use of ivermectin and its potential to be effective in fighting Covid-19.

In response to the first, I logged in and looked on JSTOR, ResearchGate and ScienceDirect and could find only one reference to ivermectin as an antiviral in animals, in the potential treatment for a variety of the ranavirus that is unique in that it affects fish, amphibians and reptiles. All the other references were for the its use as an anti-parasitic, mainly in the treatment of copepods.

As for the second, I'll stand by this observation: So is this a miracle drug for treatment and prevention? Those side effects have me asking myself whether this is the "miracle cure" the country desperately wants. Will it work in the body? Well according to the doctor above it does, but how long did the test subjects have to take it to receive the benefit? Do they have to take it continuously and often enough at a certain dose to maintain a constant level in the blood to prevent infection, thereby increasing the potential for adverse side effects? Or is it a one dose and you're good for a month type of deal? How much did the test subjects have to take? Is the dosage enough that liver function could be compromised quickly? I'm quite sure I wouldn't take it without a lot more information. There are a lot more questions than answers.

I'm not arguing that it isn't effective as an antiviral. What I'm pointing out is that as a treatment for parasites (which is what it is approved for), the dosage is finite, limited to a certain dosage for a fixed period of time. Once that dosage is completed and the parasites are dead, the drug is degraded or removed from the body. Once it's gone, the body is again susceptible to the same parasitic infection. It will be the same for the virus. It will only be effective as long as the drug remains in the system at a minimum therapeutic level, and therefore the questions. What is that therapeutic level? What dosage does it take to get there? How often does the drug have to be taken to maintain that therapeutic level? The drug was approved at that finite dosage as indicated with the frequency and severity of side effects in patients set at a certain acceptable percentage. If used as a preventative against the Covid-19 virus, in a manner that the drug wasn't approved for, will the seriousness and frequency of the side effects remain at an acceptable level in test patients or will the frequency and severity increase to an unacceptable level? I would not be surprised at all if the side effects worsened and became more frequent if the drug was used as a preventative that required a therapeutic level be maintained in the body long term. All that needs to be conclusively answered before ivermectin can be considered as an acceptable tool in the fight against the disease. I don't care who published what, if the questions can't be answered then these claims are nothing but media hype, and none of these issues were spoken to in the doctor's testimony. People shouldn't be claiming that they have a tool in the fight against any disease until they have all the answers, and it usually takes years of testing and experimentation to determine if a drug is safe. This isn't about the video being faked or not actually taking place before the senate, this is speaking to the incompleteness of the testimony in not discussing or even mentioning anything other than its effectiveness. I myself can't stand Fox News, but I'd be asking these questions no matter what network the clip you posted was aired on.

My apologies about my rant about being stuck at home and my frustrations about the progress being made. I didn't mean to hijack your thread with my personal feelings. I'm tired, I'm frustrated, I'm angry, and if I'm honest I'm a bit scared that this is something that, with every new mutation of the virus, is going to be hanging over my head for years to come, and I understand how TTA feels with having health risks hanging over your head to amplify the whole mess.

WYite
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store