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

361–370 of 644 posts

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

#361

Post by beervirus »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #241
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 have downvoted you, because I believe that it is a complete fabrication to claim that the mainstream thinking is "that it's the most likely explanation". As far as I can tell, most experts have settled on "unlikely but possible". I would be happy to "undown" you if you can provide evidence.

Now that we’re allowed to talk about it, it’s certainly the most likely in the Occam’s Razor sense.

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

#362

Post by rbanffy »

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!

“then you have to rely on trials, and those just don't stand up.”

The trials for all those antiviral drugs show they work. As do with Acetaminophen.

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

#363

Post by dragonwriter »

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!

> > 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

Yes, but they have trials that stand up.

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

#364

Post by jeremys00 »

mcguire wrote: post #200
desine wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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/10.105…

Hey mate for what it's worth and you might say not much and may be right, the argument I ear goes as follow: the trials showing the ineffectiveness of HCQ use protocols that are inconsistent with the protocols the advocate of HCQ propose.

To my understanding, the proponents tend to say that HCQ is effective when administered as soon as first symptoms (day 0 to 3 I believe). There are also dosage issues and combinations with other drugs, and they say that HCQ is ineffective administered late.

In the first paper you propose, patients treated are already hospitalized (day 14 or fewer still probably not day 0 to 3). The fourth paper states (when following the link the to protocol) that hospitalisation is a condition for eligibility. That's not first symptoms.

The third papers talks about "initiated medication a median of 5.9 days after symptom onset". So not 0 to 3 days?

The second paper you propose talks about administering HCQ as post-exposure prophylaxis. It seems outside of the scope to me.

There are other issues on this debate, dosage, drug combinations, I can't talk about that, this website does:

https://hcqmeta.com/

This person resumes the argument this way:

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/how-to-rig-research-...

(Note that the fourth paper on your list is the RECOVERY trial he's no a fan of)

What do you think about this? Also what about intelligent design?

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

#365

Post by jacquesm »

joe_the_user wrote: post #227
analyte123 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the EMA link says that current evidence for ivermectin is insufficient and it cannot currently be recommended outside of trials. This not the same as claiming that it does not work or that it is hazardous, although many journalists can seemingly not tell the difference. The FDA’s advisory is mostly about people overdosing on veterinary ivermectin. They emphasize that overdose and medication interactions are…

It seems it is you who is misrepresenting the ema link. Key quote: " Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded. "…

Yes, this is the key item. In vitro there has been some success but at dosage far higher (double digits) than what the safe dose is, and no in vivo trial has been done at those dosages (and likely never will due to the risks involved).

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

#366

Post by 0-_-0 »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #292
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…

> 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.

There are degrees of evidence, it's not binary

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

#367

Post by lvs »

dang wrote: post #360
lvs wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've addressed that here and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564376

This community is not equipped to have this discussion, as evidenced by the discussion.

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

#368

Post by Heyso »

4bpp wrote: post #315
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? How about the person who took it? We are presumably talking about adults, who we supposedly simultaneously trust with choosing a government that decides over life and death for millions in their own country and abroad.

I agree, people are responsible of themselves. The idea of blaming youtube for acting on information shared on its platform. Is the same level as blaming your microwawe fabricant for killing your cat you put inside.

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

#369

Post by raphlinus »

lvs wrote: post #334
dang wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm with you on this. I've put a nontrivial amount of effort into commenting (including reading a lot of source material and watching video clips), and there has been some interesting discussion, but I'm not convinced it's been worth it.

My suggestion is to be more selective about sources, and perhaps to have an explicit policy. Individual papers tend not to be good sources, as people just use them as weapons to prop up their opinion. Mainstream media pieces aren't either, as they lack intellectual depth. I suggest blog posts by experts (David Gorski, Derek Lowe), pieces by top science journalists (Helen Branswell, Kai Kupferschmidt, Jon Cohen). Note I am not saying only mainstream views should be represented, quite the contrary. If and when Alina Chan posts something long form on lab leak (likely, as she's working on a book), that's a great candidate for spurring intellectually curious discussion.

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

#370

Post by boredprograming »

raphlinus wrote: post #349
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

Ok, I was confused by this line of reasoning, so did some digging. I believe it's one of the popular antivax disinfo conspiracy theories. Here's my reading. The line of reasoning hinges on the vaccines being "experimental" and only being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization, as opposed to a full approval. The FDA policies for EUA indicate they're only to be used when there is no adequate, approved, and av…

Yes. Anybody trying to rationalize not getting one of the extremely effective vaccines will be grasping at straws for any other effective treatment. It's a natural outcome.

The vaccines are as effective as the one that eliminated smallpox. To be against it, you need some serious FUD

Post reply on HN