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

211–220 of 644 posts

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

#211

Post by vimy »

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.…

Most regions that use ivermectin have significantly less deaths. Example: https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1334228581870931968

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

#213

Post by jiofih »

ppf wrote: post #205
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…

Next we'll find that the cheap and well-understood hydroxychloroquine is actually relatively effective Covid-19 treatment! It's disturbing how much the suppression of Covid "wrong-think" over the last year has resulted in useful results and information only very slowly coming out (and generally, in the process, giving a feeling of vindication to the conspiracy theorists). I have always been, and continue to be, again…

> against the idea that this is such a novel emergency we just need to ignore all the processes that we know and trust

There is a pretty well trodden path for new medicine to prove their effectiveness, which all Covid measures have gone through. If ivermectin, hydroxichloroquine or any other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted.

The reason discussions have been censored is precisely because people have been rallying around a drug like a football club before they’ve had their effectiveness scientifically proven, and demanding to skip the traditional due diligence.

And for some context: this paper was submitted to a mainstream journal in March and rejected for lack of evidence. This publisher who picked it up is not exactly a reputable one (and will benefit immensely from citations of this study).

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

lettergram wrote: post #193
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 risk…

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by DoreenMichele »

rolph wrote: post #127
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.

ivermectin effects chloride channels in neurons of parasites. in mammals ivermectin effects nuclear transport protiens responsible for mediating signal peptide transport to the nucleus. the in vivo concentration corresponding to EC50 was reported in the range of 2. to 5. micromolar this is a very problematic dose, for humans; this drug targets host, and pathogen, albeit by different mechanisms. https://en.wikipedia.o…

ivermectin effects chloride channels in neurons of parasites.

in mammals ivermectin effects nuclear transport protiens responsible for mediating signal peptide transport to the nucleus.

So that first statement makes some kind of sense to me. That second one doesn't quite parse for me.

Can anyone kind of explain that in layman's terms?

(Thanks to everyone who has indulged my curiosity. I'm just trying to better understand the piece that most directly answers my question here.)

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

#216

Post by fuckyah »

lettergram wrote: post #193
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 risk…

And there you have it! Why is ivermectin censored? Because otherwise they had to stop administering the experimental vaxx.

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

#217

Post by jsnell »

wrycoder wrote: post #189
jsnell wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you got the first dose of vaccine and then presented with COVID (that does happen), a short course of ivermectin immediately could likely do you some real good.

That is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand: whether use of this drug would have prevented EUAs for vaccines. It clearly would not have, this is just a pure conspiracy theory.

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

#218

Post by raphlinus »

throwaway4good wrote: post #203
boredprograming wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. It may work, but that's why you get recommendations for "vaccine made me magnetic" and other garbage like that whenever you search for videos. It's the same group that was pushing hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug

It is and it is weird. What do these people (the promoters) get out of it? Attention? A more dedicated following?

I think the most useful lens to understand the sociology of these kinds of questions is religious belief. And there is no shortage of people out there who want to convince others of their belief.

The narrative for "the Ivermectin story" is particularly compelling, as it involves brave maverick doctors working selflessly to get the word out, suppression and censorship by shadowy organizations (big pharma fearing competition, the big Internet companies just lusting after the power of thought-control), and the empowerment of people to take medical decisions into their own hands.

Incidentally, this was the exact same narrative as HCQ, and is being pushed by a lot of the same people. The end of the story may turn out differently, as the evidence on HCQ is overwhelming that it doesn't work, so you only see dead-enders pushing it, but there is a good chance that Ivermectin will turn out to be at least moderately effective, though the jury is still out.

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

#219

Post by dragonwriter »

monoideism wrote: post #204
azinman2 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Wrong - there are countries it’s being widely used in. For example, India and many Easter European countries (and some S. American???). We need effective vaccines and therapeutics. I don’t understand this push to discredit any therapeutic before reasonable research has even been conducted.

> I don’t understand this push to discredit any therapeutic before reasonable research has even been conducted.

No such thing exists. There are literally dozens of therapeutics in trials , and a few actually approved and in non-trial general use (dexamethasone, remdesevir, and favilavir, in various jurisdictions) — for both, see [0] — the ones that tend to get strongly negative treatment are hydroxychloroquine (not actually in trials) and ivermectin (in Phase 2/3 trials), both on the basis of unsupported scams around both earlier in the pandemic, not any general aversion to therapeutics.

[0] https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/...

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

#220

Post by ryantgtg »

bmarquez wrote: post #176
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? Ivermectin is a prescription drug in the United States. A doctor would most likely reject the request if a patient asked for it solely on a YouTube recommendation. So to answer your question, a prescribing doctor. IMO YouTube isn't medically qualified to censor ongoing research or debate, just stick a disclaime…

You can (or could until recently?) get topical ivermectin from pet stores, no prescription. Humans use it to self-diagnose and self-treat rosacea. So there is the risk that people will buy and ingest it.
Post reply on HN