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

301–310 of 644 posts

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

#301

Post by actually_a_dog »

emn13 wrote: post #246
Wistar wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember it differently as not a "lab leak hypothesis" but a claim that the virus was not from nature but was a man-made virus, to wit: "I can present solid scientific evidence to our audience that this virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a man-made virus created in the lab." — Dr. Li-Meng Yan on the Tucker Carlson show.

Exactly - the problem isn't the consideration of a lab leak as a possible source, it's the presentation of that theory embellished well beyond what's plausible without any evidence - and then suggesting it's not just a far out there possibility, but actually the most likely source. And all that when it was a convenient diversionary tactic - looking for a scapegoat. Let's not forget that not only is the lab leak theor…

Exactly. Let's also not forget that for this virus to have escaped, there would have had to have been incredibly lax safety procedures. That doesn't mean that wasn't the case, just that we would have had trained researchers and technicians working with viruses similar to other viruses that have jumped species and caused serious disease under the equivalent of BSL-1 (i.e. no precautions). BSL-2 is required for procedures where a potentially human-infectious virus may be aerosolized.

For the zoonotic leap hypothesis, all you need is for some people to be near some sick bats. Which one is simpler?

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

#302

Post by Gwypaas »

seventytwo wrote: post #58

Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine.

Not even the new, just haven't been picked on up on HN earlier. The sciency Covid-19 subreddit was all over it last summer when HCQ had been proven ineffective.

https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/search/?q=Ivermectin&sort=t...

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

#303

Post by nicoburns »

Wistar wrote: post #208
beervirus wrote: post #197

Let’s not forget the censorship of the lab leak hypothesis. A few months ago it was a racist theory that constituted thoughtcrime and couldn’t be mentioned, and now the mainstream thinking is that it’s the most likely explanation.

I remember it differently as not a "lab leak hypothesis" but a claim that the virus was not from nature but was a man-made virus, to wit: "I can present solid scientific evidence to our audience that this virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a man-made virus created in the lab." — Dr. Li-Meng Yan on the Tucker Carlson show.

There are really two separate lab leak hypotheses:

1. That it was made in the lab and accidentally released

2. That it was made in the lab and released intentionally as some kind of biowarfare or population control.

(1) has been discussed as a definite possibility by credible scientists since day 1 (and although it's true that the mainstream media didn't really pick up on it, I don't see much evidence that they intentionally buried it)

(2) is straying very heavily into conspiracy theory territory.

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

#304

Post by yumraj »

oblib wrote: post #286
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…

I've been monitoring this for a long time now. I have ivermectin on hand for deworming my two mini burros. Of course, you're not supposed to use it on humans but they say that about fish mox too. But as time went on it was pretty clear to me that it was working to prevent covid from becoming severe in the countries that were using it for that because they had nothing much else to use. I saw many reports of it working…

How do you know that that dosing did not interfere with you developing proper immunity?

In fact, CDC recommends taking fever reducing medicine only once you develop fever after a vaccine and not before vaccination for just this reason.

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

#305

Post by actually_a_dog »

nicoburns wrote: post #296
actually_a_dog wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence.... > ....there hadn't been a randomized trial the drug You don't see the contradiction here? Edit: because it must be made 100% obvious, clinical trial results are the definition of evidence in medical science.

That's not really contradictory. Lots of covid treatments have been discovered in hospital settings by doctors trying desperately to find something to help their patients.

And those were later validated by evidence from clinical trials. Until clinical trials involving significant numbers of patients are available, there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science. That's the contradiction.

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

#306

Post by unparagoned »

newsclues wrote: post #255
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.

Who is to blame when YouTube censors life saving recommendations and people needlessly die?

No-one. Since doctors don't go to YouTube to find out what to do. Until there is solid evidence for a drug noone should be going to YouTube to decide what to do, expecially when we have many proven low risks vaccines.

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

#307

Post by kkwteh »

bsder wrote: post #274
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…

Because ivermectin is conspiracy theory land. If you don't have a proven, understood mechanism (which ivermectin doesn't for a virus like Covid) then you have to rely on trials, and those just don't stand up. Quoting Derek Lowe on this: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... > If you haven’t had to mess with drug discovery for a living, it’s understandable that you hear that Some Person Somew…

There are plausible mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against the Covid virus being explored. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5/figures/1

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

#308

Post by nicoburns »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #301
emn13 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly - the problem isn't the consideration of a lab leak as a possible source, it's the presentation of that theory embellished well beyond what's plausible without any evidence - and then suggesting it's not just a far out there possibility, but actually the most likely source. And all that when it was a convenient diversionary tactic - looking for a scapegoat. Let's not forget that not only is the lab leak theor…

Exactly. Let's also not forget that for this virus to have escaped, there would have had to have been incredibly lax safety procedures. That doesn't mean that wasn't the case, just that we would have had trained researchers and technicians working with viruses similar to other viruses that have jumped species and caused serious disease under the equivalent of BSL-1 ( i.e. no precautions). BSL-2 is required for proced…

Coronaviruses were being studied in a BSL-4 lab in Wuhan. That is ~100 metres from the meat market which was supposedly the epicentre of the original outbreak. Theoretically the safety standards would be very high. But all it takes is one slip-up. And it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. Seems pretty simple to me.

The zoonotic leap is definitely plausible too. But there you have to explain how the virus mutated to be infectious to humans. Whereas the lab is known to have intentionally modified the coronaviruses it was studying to be infectious to humans.

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

#309

Post by actually_a_dog »

nicoburns wrote: post #308
actually_a_dog wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Let's also not forget that for this virus to have escaped, there would have had to have been incredibly lax safety procedures. That doesn't mean that wasn't the case, just that we would have had trained researchers and technicians working with viruses similar to other viruses that have jumped species and caused serious disease under the equivalent of BSL-1 ( i.e. no precautions). BSL-2 is required for proced…

Coronaviruses were being studied in a BSL-4 lab in Wuhan. That is ~100 metres from the meat market which was supposedly the epicentre of the original outbreak. Theoretically the safety standards would be very high. But all it takes is one slip-up. And it wouldn't be the first time that has happened. Seems pretty simple to me. The zoonotic leap is definitely plausible too. But there you have to explain how the virus m…

Sure, I'm not denying the plausibility of either scenario. But, which one is more likely: a virus jumped from animal to human, just as has happened many times before in history (and, without our help, for that matter), or safety procedures were not being followed in a lab that studies viruses with the very highest level of safety controls? How many times has the latter happened compared to the former?

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

#310

Post by _Wintermute »

kcplate wrote: post #277
_Wintermute wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are ya now? Actually “people like me” don’t believe that random people like you are what you claim to be when posting under an anonymous name on the internet. So no, we don’t just believe the BS we are being told on the internet.

I'm not going to dox myself, but check my comment history if you want. Unless you think I've spent the last several years posting about pharmacology, pharmaceutical companies and PhDs in some elaborate ruse.
Post reply on HN