Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

journals.lww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 644 posts

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

#141

Post by raphlinus »

For the curious, reasonably recent discussions from several TWiV episodes on Ivermectin. [3] is quite recent (Jun 9). [4] reviews a study which is mildly encouraging. I think it's fair to say that the jury is still out, and it does deserve more investigation.

Fun fact: Vincent Racaniello's wife worked on Ivermectin at Merck, and on a recent livestream (the 6/16 one) he suggested it would be reasonable to take it, especially because it's known to be safe.

[1]: https://youtu.be/4hGVeZGfEnU?t=5414

[2]: https://youtu.be/N0-H28vzOps?t=1452

[3]: https://youtu.be/teJ1wXyEf1Q?t=1905

[4]: https://youtu.be/kz1Ja5zH1n8?t=1720

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

#142

Post by sveiss »

desine wrote: post #56
goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. The doctor who promoted Hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatment, Dr. Zelenko, is still banned from Twitter for spreading COVID disinformation. There's both actual conspiracies in this world, and well poisoning to damage the conversations. When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you shou…

> You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment.

Veklury (remdesivir) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of Covid-19 in hospitalized individuals on October 22, 2020. This was a full approval, not an emergency use application: https://www.fda.gov/media/137574/download

We've continued using the vaccines under the existing EUAs even after a treatment was approved.

The FDA has granted additional EUAs for other treatments, even after that date: four more, not counting a sedative agent, per https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-... .

In fact, the FDA has even granted an EUA for a vaccine after approving Veklury: the Janssen/J&J vaccine received its first EUA on February 27, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/146303/download

Even if ivermectin was a perfect treatment for Covid, and even if an approved treatment would pull all the vaccines off the market -- despite that not happening after the FDA approved Veklury -- by the time ivermectin made its way through the approval pipeline to be labelled for this indication, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines would very likely have received approval as well. So there's no "billions of vaccinations" at risk should another treatment be found to be effective and approved.

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

#143

Post by void_mint »

bookofsand wrote: post #88
void_mint wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.

There are at least two questions to ask: * If X died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Assumption: Ivermectin has a net negative effect. Assumption: X relied on Ivermectin exclusively, rejecting the current standard of care procedures. * If X died because Youtube censored "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" videos, who's to blame? Assumption: Ivermectin i…

This post entirely misunderstands YouTube's position in the whole situation though. YouTube removes content advertising the use of drugs outside of their (at least, at the time of posting the video) prescribed usage. YouTube is not meant to be a message board for "Does ___ work for ____ illness? Let's see!".

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

#144

Post by void_mint »

spadez wrote: post #51
void_mint wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.

>If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, which in all probability is happening right now, and has been going on for many months, if not for the censorship of W.H.O, Youtube and media?

> But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin,

Entirely irrelevant when discussing YouTube, which we're doing now. YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.

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

#145

Post by ceejayoz »

flenserboy wrote: post #86
belltaco wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The sudden drop in Covid cases in India as the clearest indicator to me. Nah that's just confirmation bias and rumors. It wasn't effective at all, otherwise India wouldn't have taken it off the recommended drugs list.

That's rather credulous.

So's the idea that ivermectin must be the explanation for India's COVID spike abating.

Spikes abated all over the world, more than once in most countries, without ivermectin.

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

#146

Post by zanethomas »

MilnerRoute wrote: post #126

I Googled Ivermectin meta-analysis. But instead of finding the article we're discussing now, I found a different meta-analysis. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v... It concluded Ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have effect on AEs or SAEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat CO…

compare to duckduckgo results

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=+Ivermectin+meta-analysis&a...

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

#147

Post by reedjosh »

glenra wrote: post #138
reedjosh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a large body of evidence in the opposite direction as well. I just pulled the following from Bret Weinstein's show notes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group: https://bird-group.org The BIRD Recommendation on the Use of Ivermectin for Covid-19: Executive Summary: https://bird-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bird-execu... Carvallo et al 2020. Stu…

Nearly all of your links are broken. I think you copy-pasted the text of links that had been truncated with a "...", where the part prior to "..." is not sufficient to constitute a valid web address. For instance, the link for Carvallo et al 2010 should be this, which resolves: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd... ..rather than this, which doesn't: https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/up

Thank you! I've fixed them.

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

#148

Post by peytn »

99_00 wrote: post #4

Talking about this study on Youtube is forbidden according to their TOS. "Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following: Treatment misinformation: Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

> Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will alter a person’s genetic makeup

Wow, that’s insane. Time to report some talks on somatic hypermutation…

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

#150

Post by weaksauce »

desine wrote: post #56
goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. The doctor who promoted Hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatment, Dr. Zelenko, is still banned from Twitter for spreading COVID disinformation. There's both actual conspiracies in this world, and well poisoning to damage the conversations. When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you shou…

> You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment.

Per the FDA: ""Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.""

And that falls apart under some scrutiny... it says "adequate, approved, and available alternatives." "adequate" being efficacious which is debatable without testing. "approved" which that drug is absolutely not approved for covid use. "available" being enough supply which is debatable if it turns out to be effective and widely used. I see no reason why the EUA for the vaccines would be threatened by this drug also being used in an EUA fashion. if they are going for actual approval for that drug it would take as long as the vaccine to get.

> When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you should not be surprised.

I think that when you look at everything through the conspiratorial lens... all you see are conspiracies.

Post reply on HN