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

191–200 of 644 posts

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

#191

Post by ds206 »

azinman2 wrote: post #183
desine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lots of others have debunked this here. Yet with all this conspiracy stuff there’s a big elephant in the room that no one seems to ever talk about: Covid is a global virus. The FDA can block and approve whatever treatments in the US, but it has no authority in Brazil or Thailand. If all these conspiracy drugs worked well yet the FDA blocked it for some malicious intent, the rest of the world would approve and use it.…

Well, all the data we have is from outside the U.S. so I guess U.S. doctors in-the-know are trying to discuss it but getting shut down on U.S.-based social media.

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

#192

Post by _Wintermute »

kcplate wrote: post #89
_Wintermute wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are youtube videos by people who haven't studied biology since high school going to help medical professionals to fine tune a treatment?

How are censoring YouTube videos from scientists who do this for a living going to help medical professionals fine tune a treatment? It’s not just the laymen getting censored. It’s everyone. Also, no offense, but how little faith do you put in our medical professionals and scientists that you think they can’t discern the difference between wheat and chaff?

I am a scientist, I'm a pharmacologist who's time is now mostly spent on covid research. I'm glad youtube is removing most of the dangerous nonsense, because people like you tend to believe it.

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

#193

Post by lettergram »

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…

Ivermectin is a cheap drug, Mercer (who produces ivermectin) is trying to produce their own covid19 drug.

Further, if there are viable alternative treatments we shouldn’t be using a vaccine still in phase 2/3 trials that haven’t even been tested on animals... the entire emergency use authorization is only allowed if there aren’t safe alternatives.

Ivermectin is generally safe to take, and a known drug with known risks. If it was shown to be effective the vaccine rollouts should be stopped. So, there’s a lot of political and financial reasons to not publicize it.

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

#194

Post by CamperBob2 »

dang wrote: post #159
f38zf5vdt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a raging case of COVID19, and deep into a 39C fever I began burning offerings and meat and honey to the moon. It was late at night, and I figured maybe the Moon God would be awake. There was no effect on the fever. Once the dawn came, I gyrated wildly in the direction of the sun while burning incense. Within hours, my fever broke and was down to a lukewarm 38C! Now I see that COVID19 is the domain of the Sun Go…

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially not on divisive topics. We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting, and they're the lifeblood of conversation. Generally on HN the approach is to trust readers to be able to make their own minds. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you wouldn't mind reviewing…

We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting

They were interesting before they were weaponized by politicians. Then they became a threat.

This crap doesn't belong here, dang. Seriously.

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

#196

Post by f38zf5vdt »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #194
dang wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially not on divisive topics. We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting, and they're the lifeblood of conversation. Generally on HN the approach is to trust readers to be able to make their own minds. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you wouldn't mind reviewing…

We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting They were interesting before they were weaponized by politicians. Then they became a threat. This crap doesn't belong here, dang. Seriously.

Thank you.

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

#198

Post by raphlinus »

raphlinus wrote: post #141

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, esp…

Another great review from the last couple weeks, by Derek Lowe: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv...

Same tl;dr. It's possible it works, but the evidence for it is not strong.

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

#199

Post by ds206 »

void_mint wrote: post #144
spadez wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

But drug commercials on TV are? I mean, why can't a doctor talk about the benefits of a certain drug with a "but talk to your own doctor first"? How is that any different?

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

#200

Post by mcguire »

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…

We have to do this again? Hydroxychloroquine was debunked months ago.

"Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123. opens in new tab.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014

"After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

"Neither HCQ nor HCQ/AZ shortened the clinical course of outpatients with COVID-19, and HCQ, but not HCQ/AZ, had only a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...

"Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673. opens in new tab; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936. opens in new tab.)"

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

Shall we discuss creationism?

Post reply on HN