The Playground

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    All it needs is for somone to pay a lot of money for them.


    You can't expect private companies to spend money on thigs that have no return for them.


    Very good point

    Ivermectin has been reported to exert its antiviral effect by interfering with nuclear transport after binding with IMPα, affecting the recognition of important substrates, as well as binding to IMPβ [46].


    Comparative study of the interaction of ivermectin with proteins of interest associated with SARS-CoV-2: A computational and biophysical approach


    Comparative study of the interaction of ivermectin with proteins of interest associated with SARS-CoV-2: A computational and biophysical approach
    The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has accelerated the study of existing drugs. The mixture of homologs called ivermectin (avermectin-B1a [HB1a] + avermectin-B1b [HB1b])…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Abstract

    The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has accelerated the study of existing drugs. The mixture of homologs called ivermectin (avermectin-B1a [HB1a] + avermectin-B1b [HB1b]) has shown antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. However, there are few reports on the behavior of each homolog. We investigated the interaction of each homolog with promising targets of interest associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection from a biophysical and computational-chemistry perspective using docking and molecular dynamics. We observed a differential behavior for each homolog, with an affinity of HB1b for viral structures, and of HB1a for host structures considered. The induced disturbances were differential and influenced by the hydrophobicity of each homolog and of the binding pockets. We present the first comparative analysis of the potential theoretical inhibitory effect of both avermectins on biomolecules associated with COVID-19, and suggest that ivermectin through its homologs, has a multiobjective behavior.


    Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, Molecular docking, Molecular dynamic, Ivermectin, Avermectin


    Conclusions

    There are several studies on possible targets for the controversial ivermectin Abstract

    The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has accelerated the study of existing drugs. The mixture of homologs called ivermectin (avermectin-B1a [HB1a] + avermectin-B1b [HB1b]) has shown antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. However, there are few reports on the behavior of each homolog. We investigated the interaction of each homolog with promising targets of interest associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection from a biophysical and computational-chemistry perspective using docking and molecular dynamics. We observed a differential behavior for each homolog, with an affinity of HB1b for viral structures, and of HB1a for host structures considered. The induced disturbances were differential and influenced by the hydrophobicity of each homolog and of the binding pockets. We present the first comparative analysis of the potential theoretical inhibitory effect of both


    Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2

    Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2
    SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus that causes a respiratory disease with variable severity and fatal consequences. It was first reported in Wuhan and…
    www.frontiersin.org


    Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With SARS-CoV-2 Nsp14 Protein

    The docking scores with nsp14 revealed that among the five tested drugs, ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity (MolDock score −212.265) and protein–ligand interactions (MolDock score −215.323). It formed five different H-bonds with the Gln313, Asn334, Ala353, Tyr386, and Cys387 amino acid residues present at the predicted active of the protein. Remdesivir showed relatively high binding affinities and protein–ligand interactions (Table 2). In contrast, favipiravir showed the lowest binding affinity (MolDock score −49.083) and protein–ligand interactions (MolDock score −63.368). It formed two H-bonds with Asp352 and Ala353 amino acid residues present at the predicted active site of the protein. The 3D structural views of the ligand–binding site interactions are provided in Figure 3.

    Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach


    https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fvl-2020-0342


    Interaction of ivermectin with the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2

    Our experimental data on the docking of ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (in native form) revealed a strong binding of the compound with an energy value of -261.74 and -287, respectively, for B1a and B1b homologs. Spike protein is a homotrimeric protein with two functional S1 subunits and one structural S2 subunit [18]. Therefore, we checked the actual binding site of ivermectin isomers in the spike protein through separate docking using S1 and S2 subunits. Results of molecular docking using the Hex software program are shown in Figure 1A and Table 1. It was observed that the ivermectin homologs can bind with both S1 (the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein) and S2 subunits of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. But, the strength of the binding of ivermectin isomers were more intense on the S2 subunit (Figure 1A & Table 1). Energy value (ETot- values) for the interaction of B1a and B1b were -372.99 and -393.29 for S1 protein while -395.9 and -411.6. Therefore, it may be inferred that binding of ivermectin at S2 subunit of spike protein may cause an allosteric effect, which in turn can induce a conformational change in the whole protein or receptor-binding S1 subunit. Ivermectin B1a has been found to be the better molecule in targeting spike protein or its subunits than B1b isomer. We also scrutinized the stability of ivermectin-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein complex through molecular docking analysis stated in the later part of the manuscript.

    Quote from Zeus46

    Still, the vast majority (>80%) of people blindly trust that vitamins will help them, despite there being very little evidence.

    When vitamins were discovered, vitamin deficiency diseases such as pellagra were common. Taking vitamins was tremendously effective in reducing these diseases. It was one of the most effective therapies in the history of medicine. Decades later, diets improved; fresh food is more readily available; vitamins were added to some foods such as milk; and many people took vitamins, so deficiency diseases are now rare in the U.S. However, many people do not understand that once you get enough of a given vitamin, taking more has no effect. The extra vitamin material is excreted. People think, "one is good, so two is better, and three even better." It doesn't work that way.


    If people stopped taking vitamins altogether, some deficiency diseases might reemerge, but not as many as there used to be. If you eat a poor diet, you probably should take vitamins.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Right-wing is one thing. But why is it that scientifically illiterate idiots are always called right-wing? Weird. Left-winders are juts as capable of stupidity.

    I see it as another example of the politization of the western societies health care sciences. They are taking a page right out of the political play book where one party crams those with an opinion they don't like into a little box, label them as opposition, then demonize them. Once there, they become a convenient scapegoat.


    It has worked very well in this pandemic, as those opposed to lockdowns, questioned the effectiveness of masks in general and particularly in schools, advocated for HCQ/IVM, resisted COVID vaccines for the young, questioned death statistics, etc. have been labeled as right wingers, and anti-science. Fauci the other day "they are really criticizing science because I represent science". Science has simply, IMO, become another political party, and they are using political tactics against their opponents.


    Whether they be citizens of Austria trying to purchase IVM, Aussies marching in the streets for their freedoms, or healthy young sports stars refusing the vaccine, they are now right winger/anti-science, and obstructionists so must be taken out...politically speaking. Like the modern day Kulak's.

    Quote from Mark U

    With the devastating prospect of Omicron reaching our shores and killing us all,

    I know it's ironic. But WSJ,NYT, FAZ, Spiegel etc.. journals just undertake last effort to sell outdated Pfizer RNA gene therapies.


    Fact is: The Omicron variant is as harmless or even more harmless than delta.


    DAILY HOSPITAL SURVEILLANCE (DATCOV) REPORT - NICD
    DAILY HOSPITAL SURVEILLANCE (DATCOV) REPORT DAILY HOSPITAL SURVEILLANCE (DATCOV) REPORT (Jul-Dec 2021) NICD COVID-19 SURVEILLANCE IN SELECTED HOSPITALS (30 nov…
    www.nicd.ac.za


    This is the south Africa dashboard showing hospital admissions . Click at Gauteng the state with 70% Omicron already and see that there is no increase in admissions.


    The international panic reaction most likely is based on a mafia sponsored testing event that just did deliver a one day fake peak.

    Quote from Fm1

    more than 50,000 prisoners in the California system have contracted covid and at least 242 prisoners have died from coronavirus.

    Quote from Fm1

    Don Specter, who is the director of the Prison Law Office, said that the court’s ruling “puts both the prison staff and the incarcerated population at greater risk of infection,”

    They must have millions of prisoners at risk. May be they jail all anti vaxxer's not wearing masks...


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The levels needed (from lab results) for COVID are some 20X higher than those needed for de-worming.

    Our clown still does not understand the paper he cites....


    All India treatment has been done with a very low total daily dose of 12mg... Why are they free of CoV-19 since 6 months.

    I definitely believe that RNA vaccines severely damages some peoples brain.

    Quote from Fm1

    Comparative study of the interaction of ivermectin with proteins of interest associated with SARS-CoV-2: A computational and biophysical approach

    This is a serious try to get a re-patentable version of an Ivermectin homologous.


    Citation: , we found that each of the homologs of ivermectin could establish thermodynamically favorable dockings with each of the proteins tested in this study. Each homolog produced different changes in the thermodynamic stability of the complexes, affecting the degrees of freedom of energy transitions by mediating minimum energy conformations, with fluctuations different from those of the free proteins...

    Quote from Shane D.

    resisted COVID vaccines for the young

    Just met my former neighbor an our ago. His gran children have been vaccinated like the whole family. Did it help? Both children got it, 15 days later also the mother, what we all expect from staying home..


    What can we learn? Most vaccinated will get it and the virus will find no new ground. In Europe the early 4th wave countries (Baltics) are already in the decline phase. There is 0 = zero relation between vaccination and the height of the wave.


    We here just are in the very late phase of the pandemic that soon will change to a low level endemic phase. Why? :: We have tens of thousand of immune suppressed people (HIV). cancer treatments that will host the virus for years. Further cats & dogs enjoy it too.


    So all the panic you see is made up by Big pharma marketing facing the waning business.

    Reason: Both Pfizer & Moderna had to confess that there RNA gene therapies do not work for Omicron... So closing teh boarder means protecting the big pharma market....

    Quote from Zeus46

    You also lack understanding of the vitamin and supplements industry.

    Here something for Facebook children teaching:: May be you mix up millions with billions....


    Vitamins and minerals self-medication sales in Europe by country 2020 | Statista
    This statistic depicts the sales of self-medication vitamins and minerals in Europe in 2020 (or latest year available), by country.
    www.statista.com


    All cereals contain unnecessary vitamins. The large producers buy them at a fraction of the pharma market price. This is why Sandoz (Roche at that time) sold their world largest vitamin business already 20 years ago...

    The paper and the video demonstrate that that 1992 boil-off experiment failed: the 4 cells did not produce any excess heat.


    This specific experiment, held in April-May 1992, is the only one with multiple arrays of 4 open cells mentioned and documented by F&P. FWIK, no other experiment of this kind was mentioned by F&P in the following years. Can you provide a contrary evidence?


    Anyway, repeating such a boil-off experiment is not difficult at all: just wait that the input electric power heats the electrolyte, until it boils and completely evaporates. In fact, as McKubre stated at the last ICCF (1), that experiment is the only one which has been exactly repeated by a third part, namely by Lonchamp, in 32 years of research on CF/LENR. A successful replication of a null experiment.


    (1) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    Continued mass vaccination will only push the evolutionary capacity of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein beyond the Omicron version


    Continued mass vaccination will only push the evolutionary capacity of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein beyond the Omicron version
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.by G. Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD
    trialsitenews.com



    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.


    by G. Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD


    November 30th 2021


    ‘Omicron is more infectious!’ ‘Omicron causes a milder course of disease!’ ‘Omicron escapes vaccine-mediated immunity!’ ‘Omicron has an astonishing number of mutations within the spike (S) protein!’ ‘Omicron will kill itself since it has too many mutations; these will end up incapacitating viral replication!’ ‘Omicron is ominous.’ ‘Omicron is harmless.’ ‘Omicron was bred by an HIV patient.’ ‘South-Africa is to be blamed for spreading Omicron!’ ‘Regardless of all the above, we need new vaccines: anti-Omicron vaccines! Such vaccines will tame Omicron, put a halt to the pandemic and force Omicron into endemicity!’


    Neither Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) nor public health (PH) understand anything related to the evolutionary kinetics of this pandemic; this hasn’t changed at all with the appearance of Omicron. Hard-core scientists spend much time on the molecular stamp collection of a plethora of steadily arising SARS-CoV-2 variants but can’t see the forest for the trees. Clinicians are puzzled by the different manifestations of the disease. The vaccine industry doesn’t care about any of the above as long as they can sell a product carrying a name (‘vaccine’) that will soon be banned from the medical vade mecum.


    Scientific naivete combined with arrogant megalomania has led the mighty alliance of PH-KOL and Industry to dramatically underestimate the evolutionary capacity of SARS-CoV-2 when it is put under widespread immune pressure. There can be no doubt that Omicron is only one such example of this and that other variants harboring a similar panoply of S-directed mutations will soon emerge in other countries. There is, indeed, no reason to believe that identical conditions of suboptimal population-level immune pressure on SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness combined with widespread infectious pressure would lead to different results. Alternatively, countries which – thanks to mass vaccination – have prepared their populations to serve as an excellent breeding ground for more infectious variants will exhibit a high level of hospitality to Omicron and its peers.


    As the scientifically perverse narrative continues to add fuel to the fire, it is difficult to believe that Omicron will be the end station of the pandemic train that’s out of control. Omicron is likely to start out as a mild disease because short-lived, poorly functional anti-S antibodies (Abs) that resulted from previous asymptomatic infection (e.g., with another previously dominant variant) will no longer recognize Omicron. It is, indeed, highly likely that resistance of Omicron will not be limited to vaccinal Abs but also to naturally induced low affinity Abs that result from asymptomatic/ mild infection. Consequently, Abs from such previous infection would no longer compete with relevant innate Abs for binding to the virus. Individuals who previously contracted asymptomatic/ mild infection will, therefore, be able to fully rely on their first line of immune defense to deal with Omicron. This will leave our ‘experts’ with the impression that the virus (in fact Omicron) is becoming less virulent (than Delta) and is on its way to transit into endemicity. However, the overall pattern of ‘mild’ disease would only prevail until Omicron becomes dominant and causes high infection rates. When this happens, short-lived, low affinity anti-S Abs will start to compete with innate Abs in an increasing part of the population as a direct result of the enhanced likelihood of re-exposure shortly after previous infection. High Omicron infection rates will prevent short-lived, poorly functional anti-S Abs from declining in large parts of the population. This, combined with continued mass vaccination with (inevitable?) anti-Omicron vaccines, will enable large populations to exert immune pressure on Omicron’s infectiousness. None of these immune responses is, however, capable of curtailing viral transmission (it’s now widely acknowledged that the type of C-19 vaccines used by the industry is not capable of blocking transmission).


    Mass vaccination promotes viral resistance to C-19 vaccines. Viral resistance drives enhanced infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., Omicron) and may ultimately enable SARS-CoV-2 to utilize alternative cell surface determinants to enter permissive cells.


    I am convinced that sustained suboptimal immune pressure will ultimately lead to allosteric mutations[1] of S protein. Such mutation(s) would not prevent neutralizing Abs from binding to S protein but alter the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in ways that enable domains not recognized by these neutralizing Abs to bind to alternative receptor molecules on permissive host cells. Would such allosteric mutation prevent the virus from binding to ACE2? Maybe, or maybe not. It has been well documented that receptor-mediated entry of SARS-CoV-2 is not limited to ACE2 (1). At any rate, this mechanism would no longer allow previously neutralizing Abs acquired upon vaccination or recovery from natural disease to neutralize the virus, but still enable their binding to it. Abs that are still capable of binding to the virus without neutralizing it are at risk of causing Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADE). Even though the intrinsic virulence of the virus is unlikely to change (as there is no evidence of immune pressure being placed on virulence genes), the occurrence of ADE would have the same effect because it enhances and accelerates viral pathogenicity. When this happens, we’re likely to generate a situation that resembles the one described for Marek’s disease, although using a different pathway to cause devastating disease (2). Whereas Marek’s virus is so virulent that it breaks through the innate immune defense of the host (poultry) and stays ahead of protective adaptive immunity in unvaccinated chicken, an allosteric SARS-CoV-2 variant would not only break through the innate immune response of vaccinees (due to vaccine-mediated suppression of relevant innate Abs) and resist vaccinal Abs (by bypassing traditional receptor domains within ACE2), but also become more pathogenic due to ADE.


    It is undeniable that mass vaccination will only drive the virus to fully exploit its evolutionary capacity, including – if needed – its ability to use alternate receptor domains on permissive cells. The fitness cost that may come with such a dramatic mutation is likely to be rewarded with enhanced pathogenicity. I am truly afraid that these dynamics will eventually allow for the natural selection of individuals with uncompromised innate immunity while eliminating those without it. While such natural selection would lead to an eradication of SARS-CoV-2 as innate immunity sterilizes the virus and blocks transmission, the consequences would be unimaginable – the price paid for ending the pandemic by virus eradication is not comparable to the one paid for by generating herd immunity and allowing the virus to enter an endemic state. Those who are enforcing mass vaccination are opting for the former instead of the latter, an act that will be remembered as the deadliest sin ever.


    References:


    Classical and alternative receptors for SARS‐CoV‐2 therapeutic strategy
    Understanding the molecules that are essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) entry can provide insights into viral infection…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198&type=printable

    [1] For the purpose of this article, allosteric mutation is defined as a change in an immunogenic, S-associated domain that is situated outside of the RBD and the recognition of which by antiviral Abs leads to a conformational change in the RBD, thereby preventing binding of neutralizing Abs and enabling binding of the RBD to cell surface-expressed determinants that are different from those mediating ACE-2-mediated cell entry of the original Wuhan strain and classical variants (e.g., α, β, γ, δ)

    JedRothwell


    I feared that you would re-awake the Ancient Mariner, and so you did Now we have to suffer this particular Albatross around our necks for a while. But in a few days I will move this off topic comment elsewhere. AFAIK F&P were not the main topic (or a topic at all) at ARPA-E, which is the focus of this thread..

    Quote from Fm1

    It is undeniable that mass vaccination will only drive the virus to fully exploit its evolutionary capacity, including – if needed – its ability to use alternate receptor domains on permissive cells.


    I can think of very few pathogenic bacteria or viruses that have become more deadly since mass vaccination was introduced. The programme to produce these has made mistakes (Salk etc) but where deployed at a sufficiently large scale they have almost completely eradicated diseases most people under 50 have never heard of - diptheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, mumps, rheumatic fever and more.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    The paper and the video demonstrate that that 1992 boil-off experiment failed: the 4 cells did not produce any excess heat.

    There were other tests using other methods of calorimetry, such as continuous reflux boiling. These other methods also showed excess heat. Other methods were also used before and after the boil-off. It is not likely the heat started before the boil off, stopped during the boil off, and then started again after it.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    I feared that you would re-awake the Ancient Mariner, and so you did Now we have to suffer this particular Albatross around our necks for a while.

    Perhaps another maritime epic poem applies:


    Below the thunders of the upper deep,
    Far, far beneath in the abysmal sea,
    His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
    The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
    About his shadowy sides; above him swell
    Huge sponges of millennial growth and height;
    And far away into the sickly light,
    From many a wondrous grot and secret cell
    Unnumbered and enormous polypi
    Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green.
    There hath he lain for ages, and will lie
    Battening upon huge sea worms in his sleep,
    Until the latter fire shall heat the deep;
    Then once by man and angels to be seen,
    In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I can think of very few pathogenic bacteria or viruses that have become more deadly since mass vaccination was introduced. The programme to produce these has made mistakes (Salk etc) but where deployed at a sufficiently large scale they have almost completely eradicated diseases most people under 50 have never heard of - diptheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, mumps, rheumatic fever and more.

    I think it is erroneous for people to keep lumping mRNA treatment results with traditional attenuated virus vaccines historical results.


    Your statement is true that several very serious diseases have been reduced or eliminated by vaccines. I think nobody here argues that. But to state that an mRNA treatment (not a traditional vaccine in any way) will result in the same outcomes is not yet clear. Your post implies that point as most "consider" mRNA treatment "vaccines".


    The vaccines used for the diseases you mention all stopped the patient from both getting the disease AND from transmitting the disease. The current mRNA treatments do neither, this is absolutely now known. Thus we should not assume that the current mRNA treatments will have anywhere near the same pandemic impact as the ones that have proven successful. This is simply not only unproven but based upon current knowledge very UNLIKELY to do so.


    It is the same as some here stating that the current mRNA "Vaccines" are the safest that have EVER been produced. This is simply unfounded. There have been zero mass use of mRNA vaccines in the past. Attempts to do so were halted due to severe negative health effects. There have been zero long term safety studies done. To lump mRNA safety in with traditional attenuated virus vaccines is invalid and NOT "following science". The mRNA treatments function via a completely different mechanism than attenuated virus vaccines . Just because some call them vaccines, does not mean the historic safety record of attenuated virus vaccines can be automatically apply to them. "Just because they say so does not make it true!" I hope and perhaps the long term safety of the current mRNA vaccines will be high, but no one knows yet.

    12 months ago, there was no knowledge of heart issues etc. Now we know there are some issues. What will the next 12 months bring? We simply do not know.


    This is not an anti-vaccine post by no means. Again, I stress that traditional vaccines have been a god-send.


    These mRNA vaccines however are unproven long term safety and to force them upon people is quite wrong. Also it is quite apparent they do not stop the spread of Covid. Therefore, they will not stop the pandemic.


    What most here object too is the "the mRNA vaccines are the only way forward agenda", the strongly politicized forced use of these vaccines, the censorship and slandering of anything that might remotely diminish the use of these vaccines, even to the point of criminalizing the personal choice of what to use to fight Covid. It is the liberal elite thinking that is so skewered it is sickening to many here.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    (1) RE: What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

    Consider the condensed matter nuclear science reactive environment as atomic involving both the weak and strong force. Also, the concepts of a molecular particle accelerator (molecular cyclotron). Wherein nano fusion, nano fission (high energy nuclear physics on an extremely small scale) transmutation events occur.

    The marriage of nano physics, metamaterial physics, plasmonics and photonics with modern elecrochemistry seems to be a path the Berlinguette Research Group is pursuing. IMHO Understanding of nano high energy and low energy atomic physics is a result. Including perhaps Casimir Force, ZPE and weak force strong force interactions... the nano nano environ.

    Certainly, I could be mistaken, the cold fusion diode of fabrice DAVID parallels the pathway of Berlinguette, Trevithick, Munday and Google Inc.


    In answer to Matt Trevithick's question.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.