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

471–480 of 644 posts

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

#471

Post by bhk »

cblconfederate wrote: post #437
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…

last year's reports about ivermectin were from 3rd world countries, and they were not rct. i guess that contributed to dismissing it. OTOH there was a lot of hype around remdesivir, despite it being barely effective. Pharma is really a weird world

Hmmm... did YouTube ban discussion of Remdesivir and delete videos that included this guy?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-drug-...

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

#472

Post by mgamache »

jsnell wrote: post #217
wrycoder wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are missing the point. We now have some idea of the effectiveness. No one wanted to hear anything about Ivermectin for most of the past year. The world economies have lost trillions and some large portion of the 3.8 million dead were needless. Pharma companies knew there was a potential for Ivermectin and worked to discredit it because it was a threat.

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

#473

Post by effie »

jacquesm wrote: post #348
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.

Seconded. The whole Ivermectin saga does not deserve the attention that it is getting, those that are relentlessly pushing it are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic and lead to people getting ill and some fraction of those will die. I've read up on this thing as much as I could and it's quite simple: there is at this point in time zero hard evidence that it works in humans…

> are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic

Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is needed will prolong the epidemic more than if they took the vaccine?

Maybe it will do the opposite, as 1) natural immunity may be stronger, last longer 2) some number of non-vaccinated people getting sick, getting isolated and taking effective treatment may on the whole infect less people than if that same number of people gets vaccinated and then interacts with other people and potentially spread the infection more because they don't get strong symptoms.

I'm not saying that you are incorrect, just that the argument that getting vaccinated solves the epidemic quicker isn't clear.

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

#474

Post by 6nf »

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. "…

The dosage recommended for Covid is just the standard dose of 0.2mg/kg and is NOT a 'much higher dose' which was only used in one trial.

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

#475

Post by 6nf »

jacquesm wrote: post #365
joe_the_user wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is not correct, the dosage recommended now is 0.2mg/kg which is just the standard treatment dose when used for parasites.

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

#476

Post by muyuu »

jacquesm wrote: post #356
Ivdg3 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The creator of mRNA vaccines disagrees with you: > What happens to confidence in public health and USG if ivermectin turns out to be safe and effective for COVID, and the genetic vaccines turn out to have signficant safety issues? This looks like a very plausible scenario from where I sit. https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1403836354098872322

Mr. Malone is a very eminent scientist who has one serious problem in this particular case: he really doesn't like big pharma earning billions over what he considers to be his invention.

uhm he doesn't have problems with the system or the concrete tech used by Moderna and AZ, only with the dubious testing of these vaccines

his research becomes more important if these sort of vaccines become a silver bullet for medicine and basically end the modern flu and entire families of coronavirus; he could be looking at a Nobel prize

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

#477

Post by dang »

effie wrote: post #418
actually_a_dog wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science. What the hell are you trying to say? That doctors treating patients observations can be dismissed because they don't talk the academic language or their results don't follow academic guidelines? There is more to medicine than just clinical trials. Many different things can count as evidence, even if they are not up to your academic standard. Docto…

Please don't cross into flamewar, especially on divisive topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#478

Post by javagram »

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…

Only SARS was studied at BSL-4.

Bat coronaviruses were studied at BSL-2 as they were not believed to be dangerous to humans. Reference: the head of the WIV covid lab. https://news.yahoo.com/chinas-bat-woman-center-pandemic-1814... “ Shi said that bat viruses in China could be studied in BSL-2 labs because there was no evidence that they directly infected humans, a view supported by some other scientists.”

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

#479

Post by 6nf »

hannob wrote: post #78

This looks less ridiculous than the last metaanalysis on Ivermectin that was posted here. Still if you look at it there's some reason for caution. Not all of the included studies were RCTs, some were not blinded. If you look at the "Risk of Bias"-Table there are really only three studies that could qualify as high quality. I'm waiting for judgement from medical experts.

Ivermectin is extremely safe, over a billion doses take by humans over the last several decades. Safer than Tylenol.

If you catch covid and you're in a danger group, I would just take it. The evidence that I can see is strong enough to risk 'tylenol' level dangers.

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

#480

Post by 6nf »

MilnerRoute wrote: post #126

I Googled Ivermectin meta-analysis. But instead of finding the article we're discussing now, I found a different meta-analysis. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v... It concluded Ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have effect on AEs or SAEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat CO…

Google results for Ivermectin is inorganic
Post reply on HN