Ivermectin vs. Merck’s New Antiviral, Molnupiravir

Ivermectin vs. Merck’s New Antiviral, Molnupiravir by Dr. Joseph Mercola

GNN Note – It should be called “Mercvermectin”. /END

In the video above below retired nurse lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D., reports on a comparative analysis of molnurpirivir and ivermectin published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics.¹ The first is Merck’s new antiviral drug and the second is the much vilified and maligned^2,3 antiparasitic drug used in humans since 1987⁴ and approved for human use in the U.S. in 1996.^5,6

Campbell compares the efficacy, safety and cost using available data for ivermectin published in peer reviewed studies and the first interim data for molnupiravir published by Merck. Molnupiravir, also known as EIDD-2801/MK-4482⁷ has data published as early as October 2019 that showed it was a clinical candidate for monotherapy in influenza viruses.⁸

And yet, Merck’s investigation into the oral antiviral medication against SARS-CoV-2 was not logged with Clinical Trials until October 5, 2020.⁹ While Gilead raced to release remdesivir, posting their first clinical trial February 5, 2020,¹⁰ Merck appeared to be slow off the mark. Gilead suspended or terminated the early trials for remdesivir. The reasons given included:

• “The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well at present, no eligible patients can be recruited.”¹¹
• “The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well in China, no eligible patients can be enrolled at present.”¹²

The advantage molnupiravir has over remdesivir is that it is administered orally and can be used for early treatment in an outpatient setting. However, as we review the comparison between the drugs, it’s important to remember that the early data on molnupiravir has been published in a press release.¹³

How Do Ivermectin and Molnupiravir Stack Up Against COVID-19?

In the video Campbell reviews a paper published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics¹⁴ that was a chemical comparison of the pharmacological effects of molnupiravir and ivermectin. Looking at the two ways science uses to develop new treatments when a new condition arises,¹⁵ Campbell explains the first is to create a new drug and the second is to repurpose medications used for other conditions.

For example, aspirin originally was used to treat fever. Once it became evident that it was also effective against pain, doctors began recommending it to relieve headaches and other minor aches and pains. Subsequently, it was found that aspirin was an effective antiplatelet, as well, and this function was added to the known uses for aspirin.

According to the paper,¹⁶ Ivermectin is the “most studied, ‘repurposed’ medication globally, in randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies and meta-analysis.” Ivermectin is an FDA-approved, broad spectrum antiparasitic¹⁷ with known anti-inflammatory properties.¹⁸

As Campbell reviews, an in vitro study¹⁹ demonstrated that a single treatment with ivermectin effectively reduced viral load 5,000 times in 48 hours in cell culture. By comparison, Merck claims molnupiravir is a broad-spectrum antiviral that is active against the Gamma, Delta and Mu SARS-CoV-2 variants.²⁰

The data in the comparison paper show molnupiravir is more potent in-vitro than ivermectin,²¹ which means it needs less drug to work with a lower tissue concentration.²² The amount of time the maximum drug dose is found in the serum is one to 1.75 hours for molnupiravir and four to six hours for ivermectin.

Interestingly, the half-life for Merck’s drug is seven hours and the half-life for ivermectin is 81 to 91 hours. This is the amount of time it takes for your body to reduce the active ingredients in the drug by half. Campbell also reviews the following factors: