Wow, thank you so much for this iamsoandso!
There were two points in the research that might apply to our conversation.
A . " Ivermectin (IVM), a widely used antiparasitic agent in human and veterinary medicine, was recently shown to augment macroscopic currents through rat P2X4 receptor channels (Khakh, B.S., W.R. Proctor, T.V. Dunwiddie, C. Labarca, and H.A. Lester. 1999.
J. Neurosci. 19:7289–7299.). In the present study, the effects of IVM on the human P2X4 (hP2X4) receptor channel stably transfected in
HEK293 cells were investigated by recording membrane currents using the patch clamp technique. In whole-cell recordings, IVM (≤10 μM) applied from outside the cell (but not from inside) increased the maximum current activated by ATP, and slowed the rate of current deactivation. These two phenomena likely result from the binding of IVM to separate sites. "
B. "In humans, IVM is typically given as an oral dose of 150 mg/kg, once a year. This dose, which has minimal adverse effects, results in a peak plasma concentration of IVM of ∼50 ng/ml. In a recent study, higher concentrations of IVM were tested, resulting in a threefold greater peak plasma concentration, also with no significant adverse experiences (
Guzzo et al., 2002)."
As to the first point, this reminds me of a question that a lady here asked me. When I took some time to look for source material concerning HEK293, I had trouble finding the same information that used to be relevant and top of the Google affiliate searches. The question was whether HEK293 or byproducts were used as ingredients, or if it was only used as research media? At least that's how I interpreted the question. This brings me to the question at hand. From what I gather from this study is that it appears to use HEK293 as the media for testing the samples of IVM. If I am wrong, please clarify. If I remember correctly, the inventor/ discoverer.of IVM developed a way to ferment a substance in the soil from a a Japanese golf course. If HEK has a role to play in it's production, then I want nothing to do with it. If it was simply a separate study that has nothing to do with an OTC product, then there should be no moral implications IMHO.
Part B is another detail that I noted.
It provides a dosage which is possibly commonly prescribed by physicians. I want to remind other readers who may not get the correct dosage of the following. This was published in pub med. That doesn't mean that it's without error, or that we will interpret the information properly if it is correct. It is highly technical.
The dosage is at a specific concentration. I don't know if there's an industry standard concentration for oral medication across the board for humans and for livestock. Not do I know if the one given is a standard you would find if purchased over the counter. I'm not offering advice other than to say others should do plenty of research and seek advice only from those who have been shown to successfully treat many patients.
Example, I have lost very valuable exotic animals to veterinarians. Some advertised as exotic animal vets who specialized in my specific species. The treatments were what sometimes caused the demise. That said, seeking "medical advice" is like looking for any other service. There are good and bad in those areas too.
Concentrations vary too. If I made lemonade from a can of frozen concentrate, I would not thaw and drink it directly from the container. I would put it in a large container, mix with water and enjoy many glasses/ doses over a period of time. Medicine is likewise. Dosages are dependant upon concentration. Verify the physician as those who actually use the med with success if you decide to go that route.