> On Aug 16, 2021, at 3:08 AM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:
> I understand Hydroxychloroquine to have been used widely in developing 
> (equatorial) countries as an antiviral (in particular Malaria) \
> 
Not antiviral, Steve.  Plasmodium isn’t even a bacterium; it is a protozoan.  
One of us, gooble gobble.  

Don’t mean to be a pedant.  But to the extent that we think things work for 
reasons, major domain distinctions are likely affect what we think deserves 
time to follow up.

I have a colleague who gave a talk at SFI once (on metastasis in cancers), in 
which as a supporting tangent to an argument about difficulty, he commented 
that he had had fungal toenail infection since teenage, when as an athlete he 
had developed it from locker room showers in England, and in the subsequent 
decades been unable to get rid of it.  His next sentence: “And that’s a 
different _kingdom_!”  But the least different from us you can get without 
going to the animals, and that was enough to drastically lower the 
interventions available for it.  His point: imagine how much harder it is to 
get rid of a cancer cell line that is your own personal genome, mostly.  (Be 
your own, personal, genome.)

Also, on Nick’s question about parasites.  I haven’t read the studies showing 
antiviral activity of ivermectin in vitro (I am not as good a person as REC, by 
a lot, but we knew that), but from what I have read, I gather that they drowned 
the virus in ivermectin, presumably in whatever cell culture they were growing 
it in.  But I would be amazed if any of those studies deliberately included 
cell parasites in the medium, so that ivermectin’s knocking them out would 
affect the ability of some unrelated virus to replicate in cells that perhaps 
that parasite doesn’t even touch.

Again, of course, in the world where, as Masha Gessen says of the cynical 
society under autocracies, “Anything is possible and nothing is true”, the fact 
that ivermectin is claimed to be antiviral at drowning doses in vitro with no 
parasites, and then by coincidence the same drug is claimed to be antiviral at 
doses many orders of magnitude smaller in people in countries where you have a 
lot less ability to referee study methods if you don’t live there, but where 
there could be different parasites, makes this connection completely comme il 
faut  

We know that at some sufficiently strong concentration, ethanol, and I assume 
either vinegar or baking-soda solution, will also be antiviral against almost 
anything.  (Whether vinegar or baking soda will depend on whether capsule 
denaturation is acid-catalyzed or base-catalyzed, but probably it will be one 
or the other.)  But of course, we know why you can’t get to those 
concentrations in a live animal.  That just isn’t interesting, because there 
isn’t anything singular about it.  The obscure drugs are singular, particularly 
if they are “anti parasitical”, given the above comment about how delicate a 
matter it can be to clear something that is phylogenetically not so far from 
you.

Btw, the use of “parasite” in pharmacology again makes the hair on the back of 
my neck stand up.  What _kind_ of parasite?  Protists and predatory lenders?  
Bacteria and fungi?  Tapeworms?  I feel like, for any of these drugs that do 
actually have some efficacy, there is probably a more specific word for what 
they cover that could be used, and would aid in guessing-games about their 
likely off-label scope.  When efficacy is real, and against classes of things 
that really don’t have much in common, that becomes even more interesting.  

Eric



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Reply via email to