New antiviral drugs could help prevent COVID-19, boosting the efficacy of vaccines and reducing the severity of the infection. They could be handed out to people exposed to the virus or as soon as someone tests positive, potentially stopping them from passing the virus on to other people — which, if currently available, would have been a huge help to the people of Melbourne.
But given Australians’ reported wariness on getting the AstraZeneca vaccine, would people be happy necking government-sanctioned pills to help stop the spread?
What do the drugs do?
Previous antiviral drugs have worked on severe cases of COVID-19 but not much else: remdesivir shortens recovery time and the steroid dexamethasone reduces mortality for those with severe COVID-19 who also received respiratory support.
Two new peptide-based drugs, however, have been specifically designed for SARS-CoV-2. Developed by researchers at Queensland’s QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, the first drug cloaks a cell’s ACE2 receptor, meaning the virus latches to the cloaking peptide — not the cell.
The second drug deactivates the virus if it manages to get through before it can reach the nucleus of the cell and replicate. The drugs are being tested on hamsters in France.
The second peptide-drug can interrupt the virus’s usual method of replicating within the host cell, even if it the virus does manage to get inside. It also boosts the immune system’s ability to recognise the virus.
Antivirals are nothing new — they’ve been used to treat influenza for decades, and they’re no substitute for a vaccine. But it could bolster the efficacy of vaccines and work as a stop-gap for those who haven’t been vaccinated or are unable to be.
The UK government is planning to develop and distribute similar antivirals among its population by September.
How would they be doled out?
UNSW infectious disease social scientist associate professor Holly Seale told Crikey similar initiatives have been considered before but were abandoned.
“There was a lot of discussion about this even before the 2009 [swine flu] pandemic that … wouldn’t it be wonderful for every member of the community to have some just in case their stockpile of medicine,” she said.
But economically and logistically it didn’t look like it would work, she said. Drugs could expire, causing wastage, people could take wrong doses or mix them with medication they shouldn’t be mixed with, give them to family members, or even stockpile them to sell on the black market.
Logistics aside, even during bad flu seasons the government hasn’t pushed antiviral medications instead or alongside a flu vaccine — the major reason being vaccines are a lot more effective and last a lot longer.
“I don’t think the regulations would allow there to be a massive surge in people taking drugs [over a vaccine].”
Would people take them?
Hypothetically if such drugs were available now, would people take them? While needle phobia is real, member of the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Board on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health Professor Ross Gordon told Crikey most people’s hesitancy isn’t borne out of a fear of vaccines — but of risk-benefit analysis.
“Health is a very personal and emotional issue so I don’t necessarily think there’s always a huge difference between vaccines and other drugs when it comes to hesitancy,” he said.
“There’s a bit of complacency, as well as a failure of communication because of the assumption that we don’t have local cases and no community transmission and there’s no imperative [to get a COVID-19 vaccine].”
Despite prominent anti-vaxxers using their platform to promote their views, Australia isn’t a particularly vaccine-hesitant nation: 95% of all five-year-olds are fully immunised, while it’s estimated 75% of Australians aged 65 and over were vaccinated against influenza in 2009.
One survey found people hesitant toward the COVID-19 vaccine were nervous about side effects, don’t know enough about the vaccine, wanted to wait until more people have been vaccinated, and didn’t feel there was any rush given Australia’s closed borders.
This, Gordon said, could be addressed with proper communication: “We need to feature people from the community who have had the vaccine and remind them why they’re getting vaccinated — for health benefits, social benefits of protecting others in the community … that it’s the right thing to do.”
A speculative article. Any antivirals are likely to be years if not decades away. Research on antivirals has been ongoing since HIV, with relatively little to show. A massive investment similar to the covid vaccines may show results, however Regulatory authorities are unlikely to give fast track approval as covid vaccines exist. Therefore the time to market is likely to be around 10 years.
Scrubturkey summarises this article pretty well. It could be added that the main antiviral used to date for treatment of Covid, Remdesivir, has been shown to be of moderate, if any, benefit — while being highly expensive and a good earner for pharma group, Gilead. Its biggest fans have been Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.
The following article provides a useful read on this drug: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/remdesivir-fda-approval-who-ineffective-covid/
Amber makes no mention of the increasingly recognised benefits of the non-patented Ivermectin as an effective treatment of Covid. It’s available and being widely used in many places right now.
Reggie
Ivermectin shows efficacy against covid sars2 in test tube tests (in vitro). However the concentration required is difficult to achieve in blood. The concentration in vitro was 5um. This compares with about 0.28um achievable with a dose 9 times higher than fda recommended. There is obviously a big gap. Nonetheless ivermectin has been used, especially in south America, simply because little else works. Most data on ivermectin is very shaky. To date the most effective proven treatment is probably dexamethasone to prevent an over-active immune system causing further problems for the patient. This treats symptoms, not the virus.
We (the world) are grasping at straws hoping repurposed drugs are going to be game changers in the covid antiviral area.
Scrubturkey
You may find this an interesting article to read about Ivermectin. Note especially WHO’s hostile treatment when assessing its efficacy: https//covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/:
Trying again with that link:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/
got it thanks Reggie. I’d suggest that website, a group of independent physicians in USA, have a bit of vested interest in their treatment protocol which obviously includes ivermectin. Information on the website downplays the importance of clinical trials and supports use of ivermectin, largely based on observation and patient feedback. There are also comments about the conspiracy by WHO and peer-reviwed journals against ivermectin (and other drugs used ‘off label’). Suggestions that health authorities eg WHO, Lancet, BMJ who have no commercial interest, are biased, from a website that does have a commercial interest certainly rings alarm bells to me.
Studies to date on ivermectin are largely open studies with low numbers of patients. These studies are notoriously bad for reporting effects that do not exist, largely due to placebo effects. (for most open drug studies, the placebo effect is about 30%. ie 30% of patient report feeling better. For antidepressents the placebo effect is almost double that!).
This comes down to a clinical trials versus gut feel approach to medicine and patient wellbeing. I suggest that ivermectin may have some impact on covid, and in vitro it does. However it is definitely not a game changer. There are now a lot of high quality studies underway yet to report but my ‘gut feel’ is that overall little major benefit will be found.
From the lancet
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext
Thanks scrubturkey, it’s not easy wading through the flccc and other sites to find real information on ivermectin. The biggest advocates, usually untrained social media warriors, have been proselytising these vast and huge benefits, which if true would have us all cured, now. The fact that we aren’t indicates to me that it isn’t as effective as the advocates claim. The fall back ‘big pharma conspiracy’ line just leaves me cold.
The flccc stuff is hugely compromised, filled with doctors who magically have their own cures, just coincidentally. None of their quack cures actually works, but that doesn’t matter.
Nice symmetry with a Remdesivir company called Gilead.
Relenza.
Relenza is a flu treatment drug.
What about “Viraleze”, the nano-medicine made by the Melbourne based company, StarPharma. It has some effects against covid apparently and has been released commercially in the UK, but strangely not yet in Australia though.
I don’t think it’s the communication, I think it is the actual physical delivery of the jab which is too convoluted. I’m a bit sick of hearing the word “hesitancy”.
There is a refusal to acknowledge that “hesitancy” may well be an appropriate course when it comes to a decision on whether to choose to receive one of the currently offered Covid vaccines, particularly at this still early stage in their existence. The public is being relentlessly pushed in the direction of vaccination without being properly informed as to the true risks of Covid (particularly for the young and/or healthy), as these are still being assessed in a time-delayed real-life, global experiment.
Some people are credulous; others can smell agendas. As with Facebook, some people have identified themselves as being the main product of the enterprise, and perhaps not one of its beneficiaries. This is not so much a perception problem as a valid real-life issue.
Amber writes that “one survey found people hesitant toward the vaccine were nervous about side-effects, don’t know enough about the vaccine, wanted to wait until more people have been vaccinated, and didn’t feel there was any rush given Australia’s closed borders.” That sounds like a rational response by these people to the limited evidence before them at this stage.
What sort of “communication” would be necessary for them to overcome their hesitancy?
There’s good reason to be hesitant in taking an experimental vaccine. https://tinyurl.com/r6t7ef . This link will take anyone interested to Yellow Cards Reports –COVID-19 Vaccine Analysis Overview. All up to date information on injuries & deaths from report run date: 12/05/2021,. It covers all of the different Vaccines & you can explore each one seperately.
Herein lies the problem for anyone who questions the official COVID-19 narrative. We are living in a time where rational inquiry itself is under attack. It seems that to question the validity of COVID-19 is verboten.
Yet clearly, there are justifiable reasons for doing so. The fake moral outrage of the mainstream media, fact checkers and professional “debunkers,” is a defence mechanism and a propaganda technique.
It isn’t designed to combat the claims of a relatively small group of sceptics; its purpose seems to be to stop the much larger group of somewhat sceptical people looking at the evidence.
Hundreds of millions of vaccines already jabbed into arms, comparatively tiny numbers of reactions and they include sore arm, slight fever or a headache, plus about 5 reactions for each report (AZ). It doesn’t actually stack up to much at all, and bespeaks a certain hypochondriac lean to it. Most of us would not consider a sore arm, a slight fever or a slight headache as anything worth reporting, but not the people contributing to these numbers.
There is risk in life, taking a jab is one of the smaller ones you will take. Getting Covid is a multitude higher risk of serious health issues.
I’m sick of your repeated nonsense which never varies. Getting very boring.
As are your continued Anti-Vaxxer posts which are either pointing to dodgy Webshytes or not backed by any valid, peer reviewed scientists. Give it a rest.
You’re another known nutter who calls every alternative than MSM dodgy. You have no credibilty & have published no links except to express disbelief without any reason. If you don’t like the content you don’t have to read or act on it. Nothing I have posted has been from a “dodgy” website. I’ve possibly had more vaccinations than you during my life but they have been well tested. Give it a rest yourself.
No credibility with you I wear as a badge of honour as you have no credibility with 99% of Contributors here when it comes to COVID matters! Virtually every link you post is to a nutbag Antivaxxer/Conspiracy Theorist/Sovereign Citizen/Tinfoil Hat/QAnon disreputable, non-peer reviewed Webshyte and yet you attack others who post links to genuine, peer reviewed, reputable scientific information. As others have stated to you, when it comes to COVID, you are a complete Antivaxxer/Conspiracy Theorist/Sovereign Citizen/Tinfoil Hat/QAnon Nutter.
Wait, I know, it’s all a plot from “Command Central”.
Don’t go away mad, just go away.
I’d be sick of the word too if not for the fact every time I see the vaccine issue brought up, there’s a group of people who demonstrate they are hesitant – either hesitant to get the AstraZeneca jab because of its potential side effects, or hesitant because they don’t think it’s efficacious relative to what younger people will eventually receive.
I think what’s generally lacking has been a sense of urgency, which is that happens when it is driven by a combination of consumer buy-in and scarcity. I get my flu shot tomorrow, for example, but there was no hesitancy that stopped me getting the jab earlier – I just didn’t see the need given there’s not much flu going around at the moment. A COVID outbreak sure has a way of focusing one’s attention, as the vaccination program in Victoria over the past week can attest.
I’m with @Reggie on this.
Ivermectin was identified over a year ago as efficacious in Australia by Professor Borody.
That information has been suppressed by the mainstream media and the WHO. Amber Schultz doesn’t seem to be aware of it. Randomised trials have since been conducted that confirm Borody’s opinion.
When confronting a crisis you throw everything at it. Immediately. A safe drug like Ivermectin doesn’t need to wait for trials – it either works or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, you discard it… it’s simple.
What’s going on?
Yes, you are right keith mitchelson. Starpharma’s Viraleze sounds good and is on sale in the UK. Just spray it up your nose before you go on public transport. Soon to be available in the EU as well. Apparently they are negotiating to supply it in India. A pity they’re not already selling it in their home country but I guess they figure we don’t care about such things.