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

591–600 of 644 posts

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

#591

Post by raarts »

wrycoder wrote: post #438
fda_hates_u wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be no emergency use authorization allowed if there was an existing possible treatment. https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download#page12 Go to page 12 in the PDF (document page 8) then read section D. Pharma companies could not distribute experimental treatments unless they lied to us about existing useful drugs. Reminder: Pfizer: Phase 3 trial estimated end date 2023 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT…

That would depend on the efficacy of the existing possible treatment. Ivermectin is 70%, so it's not as effective as a vaccine. But it's a hell of lot better than nothing.

Doctors often combine multiple drugs/treatments. Not every single part of the combination needs to be as good as a vaccine.

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

#592

Post by ratsmack »

roenxi wrote: post #414
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…

> The fact the interview between Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory was banned from youtube for non-WHO/CDC/NIH approved covid treatments is a tragedy. Banning academics from talking on a platform is a high-risk strategy. It was always possible YouTube would do more harm than good implementing their stupid policy. Note that their ban might be taking out anyone who wants to talk about Ivermectin neutrally or negatively be…

>Because I've only heard of wall-to-wall positive coverage on YouTube and I don't trust the consistency.

Where else can it be discussed? No major media would allow it on their networks for fear of the cancel mobs coming with torches and pitchforks.

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

#593

Post by raarts »

raphlinus wrote: post #276
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?

So is dexamethasone, and that's used world-wide for seriously ill Covid patients. What's the explanation for why dexamethasone was allowed but ivermectin is being suppressed?

Maybe because you cannot use it as a prophylactic, so it doesn't threaten EUA for vaccines?

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

#594

Post by ratsmack »

stewbrew wrote: post #547
roenxi wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're commenting on a metaanalysis that summarizes 15 published trials, aren't you? The worrying split here is on HN I get to read 15-study meta-analysis posted by Steph C, int13 Labs CEO. On YouTube, a PHD holder in a medical field discussing the same 15 study meta-anlysis might expect to have their video pulled. It is quite worrying that the powers-that-be at YouTube are taking this radically anti-speech approac…

In a sea of bullshit videos, the minions who screen this stuff probably have difficulties to distinguish some phd (in what field?) choosing the wrong channel and bullshit. Anyway, the original statement was that there are no trials - this in a comment on a meta-analysis.

> the minions who screen this stuff

That's quite an elitist statement. My belief is that a majority of the people that view videos of technical discussions have the capability to understand the context. The ones that do not grasp the subject are far more unlikely to watch the video.

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

#595

Post by spacial »

argvargc wrote: post #576
spacial wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shut the f** up. The president and all his ball suckers are promoting misinformation since the beginning. people are eating ivermectin and HCQ as candies, and you keep saying should be that ivermectin is saving people? I lost another friend yesterday and we got 500k deaths. IF THERE WAS ANY GOOD USE OF any of these "miracles" drugs I'd be happy. People are dying because of these misinformation. Show me any good artic…

59 peer-reviewed studies listed here, of 97 total: https://c19ivermectin.com/ Eg, one of the most recent peer-reviewed meta-studies, whose authors include advisors to the WHO, just published in the Journal of American Therapeutics: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/...

you are better than that.

C19ivermectin.... c19study... all the same psyops.

there were no BANS on any of these medicines because of the pandemic. think about vaccines..

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

#597

Post by pbak »

manwe150 wrote: post #557
13years wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week" This is what is extremely disturbing. This result of the control of information occurring in our society. What's more, it is not just the literal control, but the social conditioning. Within the group of those who have known for a long time, there is a reluctance to share that with anyone else as society will apply any number of taboo labels to such individuals…

I heard the earth was flat only a few months ago too—it does not make either claim any more likely to be true. And FWIW, I have seen many ivermectin articles on HN (check my past comments), and all seem to say roughly the same thing, so they get rather annoying in my feed at this point.

Nice "motte-and-bailey" argument. But a little transparent, no ?

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

#598

Post by pbak »

rossjudson wrote: post #455
ipaddr wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days youtube would ban him.

How do you know that?

Have you read the headline ?

They banned an interview with the inventor of mRNA vaccine tech for saying it might be dangerous and needs more caution and study.

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

#599

Post by pbak »

tootie wrote: post #568
WillPostForFood wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the articles you cite mainly complain about lack of data, but they both predate the study posted here. The NY Times is 3 months old. This study may or may not be good, but neither article address that question.

The social media bans were over people making completely unjustified pronouncements about it's value. Same as the guys claiming HCQ was extremely effective when the data was completely inconclusive. Anyone saying we should widely deploy Ivermectin is spreading dangerous disinformation. Actually relevant and accurate information is being shared and published freely.

As per the latest meta study of June 6, for over on whole year, 549 authors in 60 conclusive studies published on medRxiv, Nature, Wiley (basically the usual medical research forums) during the last year => free and shared, as you asked.

Malone, Weinstein, Kory and al. were banned for two videos made one and two weeks ago talking among other this of this meta study.

That's hardly spreading disinformation, or am I wrong somehow ?

Several point of comparison :

Improvements with Ivermetcin were 76% for early treatment, 46% for late treatments, 85% for Prophylaxis for a 70% average over almost 19K patients. Ivermetcin was forbiden for Covid use in several western countries, and it's distribution forbidden to retail pharmacists (Switzerland is one).

Budesonide and Remdesivir were authorized with respectively averages of 17% and 31% improvement only over 3.5K patients, and it's use promoted everywhere as the miracle drug.

Dr. Raoult's initial HCQ announcement in early February was for 22 cases - very anecdotal and ridiculously insufficient. Later on, by the end of 2020 the hospital he's directing covering the southern third of France had treated 40K+ cases, with broadly similar results. We still hear the same "HCQ was debunked", somehow, and HCQ is still forbiden for Covid use in several countries.

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

#600

Post by pbak »

wrycoder wrote: post #438
fda_hates_u wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be no emergency use authorization allowed if there was an existing possible treatment. https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download#page12 Go to page 12 in the PDF (document page 8) then read section D. Pharma companies could not distribute experimental treatments unless they lied to us about existing useful drugs. Reminder: Pfizer: Phase 3 trial estimated end date 2023 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT…

That would depend on the efficacy of the existing possible treatment. Ivermectin is 70%, so it's not as effective as a vaccine. But it's a hell of lot better than nothing.

You have reversed the logical sequence.

You can't know how efficient a vaccine is without a trial. You need an authorization first to do that. But you wouldn't get an authorization if something exists, even "only" 70% better, because that 70% would make Covid less lethal than the yearly flu.

Hence 70% is enough to block emergency vaccines trial authorization.

Post reply on HN