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

391–400 of 644 posts

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

#391

Post by BrissyCoder »

spacial wrote: post #314
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…

Well, in Brazil, the president (Borsalino) is promoting ivermectin as covid treatment. I can tell you is not working at all. I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).

How do you know he wouldn't be dead if they hadn't been taking it?

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

#392

Post by laverya »

dragonwriter wrote: post #363
laverya wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right, but trials are all that matter - there's a huuuuuuge list of drugs where we "know the mechanism" and it turns out that they still don't actually work despite that.

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

#393

Post by Heyso »

sveiss wrote: post #142
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…

> You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. Veklury (remdesivir) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of Covid-19 in hospitalized individuals on October 22, 2020. This was a full approval, not an emergency use application: https://www.fda.gov/media/137574/download We've continued using the vaccines under the existing EUAs even after a treatment was approved. The FDA has granted additiona…

Remdisivir is a scam.

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

#395

Post by atlgator »

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…

Yes and the UK discovered its benefit. The US has done nothing to investigate whether generic drugs will treat COVID19. The research is being conducted in the UK and EU where the financial incentives are different.

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

#396

Post by spfzero »

MilnerRoute wrote: post #375
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.

Here's an observation. I've seen at least three "pro-Ivermectin" posts on the front page in the last six days. Does it seem like that's been balanced with any posts discussing its inefficacy (which is apparently the medical community's dominant view)? I also remember today's Ivermectin post being flagged. Does that mean the moderators then chose to unflag it (despite the fact there'd already been at least two earlier…

It doesn't seem to me that the dominant view here is that Ivermectin is ineffective, just that it has not yet been proven to be effective, for a certain definition of "proven". With time and stronger studies, that may well be proven, or not.

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

#398

Post by weaksauce »

ds206 wrote: post #351
weaksauce wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reactiona…

"literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists." Literally? Everyone? LOL this is why there are so many normal people in this thread saying "at least let's have a discussion!" Your sentiment is the reason (imo) that these discussions are so hard to have, no offense.

yes in fact literally everyone that pushes the "they are stopping the because big pharma wants to make all the money on vaccines" is an antivaxxer or a conspiracy theorist that I have seen in the wild... including my brother so this is a topic I am not taking lightly.

nowhere did I say that this treatment couldn't be effective and no where did I say that they shouldn't look into it as an alternative because I think all tools should be on the table. I am simply saying the part about the EUA thing being pushed by antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists.

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

#399

Post by swader999 »

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…

The several newly minted billionaire Pfizer execs are certainly happy Ivermectin is only just recently starting to get a decent look.

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

#400

Post by cesarb »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #394

It doesn’t even matter whether either hcq/zinc and ivermectin 100% effective or even work at all. We still have no options for early treatment, and therefore both/either should have been used heavily

> It doesn’t even matter whether either hcq/zinc and ivermectin 100% effective or even work at all. There were no alternatives for early treatment, and therefore both/either should have been used heavily

The possible outcomes are not only in the range between "100% effective" and "not work at all"; beyond that point on the line there's also "it's harmful", and it's known that these drugs do have negative side effects (in fact, IIRC one of the reasons for the early hope that HCQ would work was that its harmful side effects were already known, and less harmful than the then observed effects of the disease it was supposed to treat). Worse, "using heavily" a drug increases the chance and severity of its side effects.

And even for "not work at all", there's still a harmful effect, in that people can delay or avoid seeking more effective treatments, believing that whatever they're taking would work.

Post reply on HN