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

511–520 of 644 posts

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

#511

Post by darwingr »

raphlinus wrote: post #257
swader999 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the wrong side to look at this from. These are just people on the fringe with little influence and funding. If ivermectin was authorized as a viable treatment the vaccines receiving emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been possible. There were and still are billions on the line.

I'm having difficulty understanding this line of reasoning. What does the authorization of ivermectin have to do with the vaccines? Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu have been approved for treating influenza, and that has had no effect on the recommendation that people get their flu shots.

Someone else answered correctly saying an EUA can't be issued if an already licensed drug can help. I would further that point by saying to actually go dig up the true source of that policy on the FDA's website in your country (not someone's summary or interpretation). It's a great exercise that will leave you with some sort of ground truth in this mess.

Same as in coding, you eventually reach a point where you learn that when in doubt, you must read the source.

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

#512

Post by dragonwriter »

atlgator wrote: post #266
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…

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?

> Why else would they stamp out all possible investigations of it just to ascertain truth?

Dozens of (mostly Phase 2 and 2/3 combined) ivermectin trials as a Covid therapeutic are ongoing, no one has stamped them out.

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

#513

Post by dragonwriter »

h0l0cube wrote: post #339
stordoff wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Vaccines are not a method of treatment.

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

#514

Post by dragonwriter »

darwingr wrote: post #510
stordoff wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The same is NOT true for dexamethasone, well not exactly, since there was no directly competing drug. Dexamethasone, which you can probably confirm, is useful in the later stages of COVID where there's an inflammatory response. Since no other proposed medications were seeking an EUA as a "late stage" therapeutic, there's no chance the already approved Dexamethasone would have blocked the issuance of an EUA. That's at…

> Being already fully licensed medications, that could put the issuance of an EUA for vaccines or Remdesivir in jeopardy.

Remdesevir is fully approved in the US.

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

#515

Post by gls2ro »

darwingr wrote: post #507
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.

It's an approved drug. Fully licensed and considered to have a wide safety profile. Doctors don't need permission for off-label use. It's just not a thing. We're in strange territory where doctors (professionals) have been demoted to nurses and they can't profess.

In my country, ivermectin it is an approve drug but not for COVID. Like a lot of other drugs which are approved as being safe but that does not mean they are good for COVID.

So I don't see how your argument contradicts the one you are replying which says there is no an overwhelming amount of evidence for ivermectin as a good treatment for COVID.

I am also not against being used by doctors who have the time for trying it and seeing if works. As we don't have a wide available treatment which we know for sure (with a high probability) that will cure COVID then maybe trying various scenarios could be a way to cure more people. But we have to take into consideration that giving one treatment means not giving other treatments so it is not an easy choice.

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

#516

Post by cma »

Izkata wrote: post #506
tootie wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't really. There's as much evidence as we had for hydroxy chloroquine. So, some but unconvincing. And since it's been widely deployed by several desperate governments you'd think we'd know more by now. Here's a breakdown of what we've learned: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... Here's the latest bad news: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/science/coronavirus-iverm...

In the hundreds of HCQ studies out there, eyeballing it about 2/3 of them show some sort of positive result [0]. Early treatment with the dosage on the lower end of the tested spectrum has 100% positive results [1]. It was odd a week ago to see some of the media suddenly decide to report on one of these [2], like the "HCQ Bad!" blinders had finally been removed. [0] https://c19hcq.com/ [1] https://hcqmeta.com/ [2] ht…

HCQ needs to be good enough to overcome the heart risk though.

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

#517

Post by darwingr »

_Wintermute wrote: post #114
throwkeep wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they? No, because it's out of patent. There's little profit to be made. Merck is instead pushing a new drug that they will have a monopoly on. "Merck Announces Supply Agreement with U.S. Government for Molnupiravir, an Investigational Oral Antiviral Candidate for Tre…

Dexamethasone is off patent, it's cheap and widely available, it's also the standard of care for covid-19 patients on respiratory support. What's the difference between dexamethasone and hydroxycholoroquine/ivermectin/next-consipracy-theory? It's been proven to work. There's no conspiracy, just pharmacology is hard, and people's random hunches typically don't work out.

I'll answer, assuming you asked with some good faith. Not every statement of doubt or disfunction is an allegation of conspiracy.

Dexamethasone effectively treats the late, inflammatory stage of COVID19 where most virus is dead but still physically present.

The promise of other licensed medications is partially from their antiviral properties which means they're only expected to be effective as early stage medications.

So that's the difference. Different application. In the same way you wouldn't use Dexamethasone as an interchangeable treatment with monoclonal antibodies or remdesivir, which are also early stage treatments.

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

#518

Post by lvs »

effie wrote: post #496
lvs wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you're referring to, but I'm going to infer that either your information sources are poor and/or you are incredibly susceptible to the power of suggestion.

Ask and it shall be given to you. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-adm...

I have no idea how this is relevant to guidance on an anthelminthic drug, but it seems you believe you have axes to grind, so I'll let you grind them alone.

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

#519

Post by cracker-news »

dang wrote: post #167
oDot wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very unfortunate.

That's an illusion; it only seems that way when you judge by specific prominent cases that you care about. Turning off flagging on HN would have the same effect as turning off the immune system in a human body, only faster.

Horseshit and you know it. You must see by now, if you have any decency, that HN is a hellhole of idiots masquerading as experts and that anyone half-way intelligent outside of the software world would never stick around here.

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

#520

Post by XorNot »

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.

Ah the "well we're not responsible if the fuel tank catches fire, the problem is you crashed the car" defense.
Post reply on HN