So I understand Molnupiravir works as a synthetic nucleoside derivative N4-hydroxycytidine, and exerts its antiviral action through introduction of copying errors during viral RNA replication. So it is not related to Ivermectin. Ivermectin acts by interfering with the nerve and muscle functions of helminths and insects. The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells. It was not invented my Merck, but discovered in 1975 by William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura. It was first marketed as a veternarian antiparasitic by Merck in 1981.
In order for Molnupiravir to work, it must be taken before the onset of serious symptoms. What I'm curious about is whether those who refuse vaccines would be willing to take Molnupiravir as soon as they test positive, before their Covid symptoms become serious. I suspect a lot of people who refuse vaccines would also generally downplay or deny the seriousness of Covid and they will either recover after only minor illness or they will get very sick and it will be too late or Molnupiravir to have any effect.
It seems the potential market size for Molnupiravir will be primarily among people that are likely vaccinated that subsequently get Covid or Influenza and can then get access to Molnupiravir to prevent serious illness. If the vaccines (both covid and flu) limit the chances of serious illness, the application for Molnupiravir may appear to be limited, but since it is taken before the seriousness of the illness can be gauged, the potential market size could be as big as all break-through infections.
What do you think? If you've refused vaccines, would you take Molnupiravir at the first minor symptoms of covid or flu?
