Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#111

Post by JoshuaDavid » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #77

wonnage wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The warning is there because some people decided to self-medicate and bought veterinary doses and ODed.

You can also over-dose on dihydrogen monoxide - should we also ban any discussion on that?

Hydroperoxyl (the common name for hydrogen dioxide) should just break down into water and oxygen gas as soon as it encounters H+ ions (e.g. when it touches liquid water), no? Is there some particular reason you think the dangers are being repressed? If your answer is something to do with "free radicals" my understanding is that most of those come from metabolic processes rather than things you eat.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#112

Post by ds206 » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

ds206 wrote: post #66

DoreenMichele wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antiinflammatories are generally useful against all kinds of things. Inflammation is a common side effect of infection. I find that answer unsatisfactory. If "it's an anti-inflammatory!" is The Answer, there are lots of antiinflammatories out there.

Here, try this video https://youtu.be/kSWjl-JOIqs

Sorry, that clip doesn't talk about what I thought it did. I watched the whole 2.5 video before it was censored/taken down from YouTube and somewhere in there they talk about why they think Ivermectin is effective (assuming it is).

The full video can be watched here: https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/COVID-Ivermectin-and-the...

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#113

Post by andreilys » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #78

This looks less ridiculous than the last metaanalysis on Ivermectin that was posted here. Still if you look at it there's some reason for caution. Not all of the included studies were RCTs, some were not blinded. If you look at the "Risk of Bias"-Table there are really only three studies that could qualify as high quality. I'm waiting for judgement from medical experts.

Unfortunately medical experts are not allowed to discuss this in public, so we’re left with back door meetings where Pharma execs will inevitably push outcomes that will be favorable for their bottom line.

Who wants to invest billions of dollars into a new vaccine/anti-viral drug only to lose out on all that investment by Ivermectin which will not contribute a single cent to the Pharma execs year-end bonus?

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#114

Post by _Wintermute » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 6:59 PM UTC

throwkeep wrote: post #92

gmnash wrote: post #76

It's banned on YouTube because of multiple authoritative sources indicating it's not a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Here is the FDA's stance: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... Here is the European equivalent of the AMA advising against it's use: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-iv... Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: https://jamanetwork…

> If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? No, because it's out of patent. There's little profit to be made. Merck is instead pushing a new drug that they will have a monopoly on. "Merck Announces Supply Agreement with U.S. Government for Molnupiravir, an Investigational Oral Antiviral Candidate for Tre…

Dexamethasone is off patent, it's cheap and widely available, it's also the standard of care for covid-19 patients on respiratory support.

What's the difference between dexamethasone and hydroxycholoroquine/ivermectin/next-consipracy-theory?

It's been proven to work. There's no conspiracy, just pharmacology is hard, and people's random hunches typically don't work out.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#115

Post by zarzavat » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

desine wrote: post #83

enkid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source for the EUA stuff? Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? The problem isn't that some of these things might be viable, the problem is we don't know which of the literally hundreds of treatments are actually going to be viable when going through the proper testing and approval process. You can't just scream conspiracy when there much better explanations

>Source for the EUA stuff? https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/e/Emerg... (PDF warning)(section III, the first list, point #4) >Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? Dozens? Hundreds? of doctors speaking out, including videos posted to youtube, that they saw great effectiveness in the trial. The people promoting it weren't a bunch of nobodys, despite what the nightly news told you. There we…

You are seriously proposing that if an effective treatment had been found in 2020, that the US government would have denied EUA for vaccines while the rest of the world got to work vaccinating their citizens?

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#116

Post by jsnell » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

mgamache wrote: post #94

jsnell wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I believe it is factually incorrect that a treatment with the claimed efficacy numbers would have prevented an EUA, given the vaccines we got were both safe and more effective.

The vaccine is experimental and the full safety profile is still being discovered. The EUA specially requires that there is "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". The conclusion: "large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin" suggests it may be a viable alternative to widescale deployment of a vaccine that did not go through the full approval process.

No, sorry. The linked study suggests a 60% reduction in deaths from this drug. Even if it were true, it is nowhere enough to be an adequeate alternative to the vaccines, that were both vastly more effective at reducing deaths and could also significantly reduce transmission.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#117

Post by enkid » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

desine wrote: post #83

enkid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source for the EUA stuff? Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? The problem isn't that some of these things might be viable, the problem is we don't know which of the literally hundreds of treatments are actually going to be viable when going through the proper testing and approval process. You can't just scream conspiracy when there much better explanations

>Source for the EUA stuff? https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/e/Emerg... (PDF warning)(section III, the first list, point #4) >Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? Dozens? Hundreds? of doctors speaking out, including videos posted to youtube, that they saw great effectiveness in the trial. The people promoting it weren't a bunch of nobodys, despite what the nightly news told you. There we…

A number with a question mark behind it is not evidence, and even if hundreds of doctors did speak up about it, hundreds of doctors thought Cholera was caused by miasma instead of bad drinking water. Hundreds of doctors thought bleeding was the universal cure all. Hundreds of doctors thought washing their hands was useless. Some random number of random doctors saying it may be effective is not evidence of it's effectiveness.

Your document also doesn't say what you think it does. If it did, we wouldn't be able to have multiple vaccines approved. Is there any evidence that the FDA would interpret a non vaccine as an alternative to a vaccine, when there's no issue with granting EUA to multiple vaccines? I doubt it, but would love to see what you have.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#118

Post by andreilys » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

JoshuaDavid wrote: post #111

andreilys wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also over-dose on dihydrogen monoxide - should we also ban any discussion on that?

Hydroperoxyl (the common name for hydrogen dioxide) should just break down into water and oxygen gas as soon as it encounters H+ ions (e.g. when it touches liquid water), no? Is there some particular reason you think the dangers are being repressed? If your answer is something to do with "free radicals" my understanding is that most of those come from metabolic processes rather than things you eat.

Thanks for correcting me, meant to say dihydrogen monoxide, aka water ;)

My point being that you can over-dose on almost any compound at high enough doses. So instead of driving the conversation underground and letting patients self-medicate, we should empower doctors with proper information rather than painting Ivermectin as a conspiracy theory drug

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#119

Post by slumdev » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

jhayward wrote: post #25

"Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans." "Since the last revision of this section of the Guidelines, the results of…

> doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.

Drugs are approved according to their use. If they have multiple uses, they will have multiple approved dosages. Someone with sudden sensorineural hearing loss might be prescribed 60mg of prednisone per day, while someone who takes it for rheumatoid arthritis will take only 10 mg per day. One dose is six times the other dose. Both are safe, and both are approved.

It's also necessary to consider the drug's therapeutic index. Therapeutic index is a ratio that measures the difference between the effective dose of a drug and its lethal dose. [1] NIH data indicates that administering ivermectin (at these "100-fold higher" dosages) to treat COVID-19 is no more dangerous than placebo. [2]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index

2. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/ivermectin#section...

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#120

Post by gmnash » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

reedjosh wrote: post #99

Also, and feel free to downvote... > multiple authoritative sources Gross! Authority is the problem. We need to use our own minds. The very idea that an ad tech co is backing an amorphous group of authoritative governmental bodies is repugnant. > And here is Merck, that sells Ivermectin Ivermectin has been out of patent for years--so it is not particularly profitable anyway. The initial claim insinuates that Merck we…

It's impossible to be an expert in every field, particularly those as complicated as medicine. Furthermore, you don't have to rely on authority, I linked to an RCT showing it was ineffective.

"Not particularly profitable", which is speculative, is still profitable. I highly doubt any one at Merck is actively working against selling a drug they already manufacture at a profit, but feel free to provide evidence otherwise.