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

331–340 of 644 posts

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

#331

Post by Nursie »

jiofih wrote: post #213
ppf wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> rallying round a drug like a football club

That’s what gets to me too, and this is the major issue I had with Trump saying anything about anything. He was floundering to look like he had a plan and the moment he mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. It was massively irresponsible.

It should be left to medical science, which is doing pretty damn well with vaccinations and treatments like dexamethasone.

If Ivermectin can be helpful that’s great, and if it’s not then never mind, let’s evaluate other things. But it seems like people need to latch onto something, and then their ego and tribal allegiances won’t let it go.

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

#332

Post by kcplate »

_Wintermute wrote: post #310
kcplate wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Frankly, I’m not that interested enough to make the effort, and don’t care. Especially considering your go to is to insult people you don’t know just because they slightly disagree with you.

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

#333

Post by [deleted] »

laverya wrote: post #327
bsder wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Please, there are a ton of antiviral drugs without an understood mechanism. We don't even know how Acetaminophen (Tylenol) works!

[deleted]

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

#334

Post by lvs »

dang wrote: post #45
guscost wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here’s the correct response to you: Money.

You've posted something like 9 unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in this thread. That has a seriously damaging effect on discussion, especially when the topic is divisive as this one is. I'm sure you don't intend that, but the effects work that way regardless of intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... . If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.ht…

I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.

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

#335

Post by PragmaticPulp »

ajb wrote: post #324
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…

" But since there hadn't been a randomized trial " This is not true. A quick search shows 71 trials covering ivermectin, of which 6 of which are complete, interventional[1], and have results https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ivermectin&cond=... [1] This should mean an RCT, but I haven't time to read through each and check they are

Yes, it has been explored, trialed, and experimented with quite significantly.

The results show that there might be something there, but it’s not a miracle cure.

The conspiracy angles are coming from those who have been misled into thinking it has been more successful than it really has been, which leads to confusion about why it’s not being used everywhere.

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

#336

Post by PragmaticPulp »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #268
jiofih wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Known to be safe as in “you may get hepatitis”.

The best way to prevent this from happening would be to allow doctors to prescribe it, so people don't screw up the dose by buying it from veterinary supply stores. You may get myocarditis from the vaccines, but that doesn't stop anyone from calling them "safe."

Doctors can prescribe it off-label. At least in the United States.

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

#337

Post by throwaway4good »

hosteur wrote: post #285
throwaway4good wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then he really should know better than to self-medicate and encourage others to do the same.

He did not encourage others to do that.

I think he is very much doing so. In particular as a safe alternative to the mRNA vaccines which he describes as dangerous.

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

#338

Post by beervirus »

dang wrote: post #312
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.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562573 .

Why?

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

#339

Post by h0l0cube »

stordoff wrote: post #295
atlgator wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it works or not, there's no money to be made from Ivermectin. It's a very cheap generic drug. Why else would they stamp out all possible investigations of it just to ascertain truth?

Is the same not true for dexamethasone[1], which was the first successful finding from the RECOVERY trial[2]? That's how I've repeatedly seen it described[3] (FWIW, I was treated with dexamethasone for Covid-19 in October 2020). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethasone [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RECOVERY_Trial [3] "A cheap and widely available drug can help save the lives[...]" https://www.bbc.co.uk/new…

One could argue there's money to be lost if it displaces vaccines as a method of treatment (assuming it's affects are as lasting)

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

#340

Post by weaksauce »

adrianmonk wrote: post #168
weaksauce wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-threate…

Also, I simply wouldn't assume the FDA considers a treatment (this drug) an alternative to something that prevents the disease (vaccines). They both are used for the same disease but in different ways. They are only alternatives in a very broad sense.

yeah agreed. literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists. I don't understand why they need it to be true so badly; doesn't pass any of the sniff tests under even a little scrutiny.

Even if it fit all those criteria for being an alternative it's not like it's some kind of thing that couldn't be amended if they really needed/wanted to. saddens me how reactionary everyone is.

Edit: also I forgot to make the point in my replay above... it's not like having three vaccines under is preventing another vaccine from getting EUA so even under this logic framework it is nonsense. are they hinging it on the fact that it's an approved drug for some other disease?

Post reply on HN