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?
I think the pathway of targeting calcium channels in invertebrates is not the same discussion as a proposed disruption of MRNA encoding that is basically how life is carried out in vertebrates like me. Two unrelated discussion points. Impact of a drug in one species does not preclude other results in other species. So that is a poor strawman argument in my opinion.
So given this new drug induces copy errors in cellular MRNA machinery for the virus, what happens when it produces errors in MRNA intended to carry out life function? Like blocking blood clotting proteins when you get a cut?
My shoot from the hip response is d1cking with MRNA expression is very questionable. What other functions would it cancel, and for how long? What happens to cells when the can't do things like apoptosis or replication or send messenger proteins for communication? Messing with MRNA machine is messing with proteins, which are the currency of life. Out of the many expressions of MRNA, what would it cancel beside the virus? What other cellular life functions would be disrupted?
Waiting for an answer before I decide.
