Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

merck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 294 posts

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#101

Post by gfodor »

crooked-v wrote: post #36
gfodor wrote: post #25

This is phenomenal news - I'm also curious how the various tribalist memes evolve. Will the vaccine maximalists who ridiculed "horse paste" when the data was still weak in part because a pill-based regime would undermine the message that vaccines ought to be mandatory embrace this much needed second tier therapeutic? Will the anti-vaxxers who will inevitably see this as the goal of a big pharma conspiracy covering up…

The vaccine maximalists ridicule "horse paste" because many people are literally buying and ingesting products intended for livestock.

Nah, not many are, it's being prescribed by doctors on the hope that maybe it kinda sorta works. (It probably doesn't.) It's a safe and widely used drug so on net it isn't a terrible idea if you have an extremely high risk person. Though my understanding is the evidence in favor has gotten weaker over time.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#102

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

hunterb123 wrote: post #94
crooked-v wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about ivermectin itself. I'm talking about how people are literally going to livestock supply stores, buying products that contain ivermectin but come in forms and dosages intended for livestock, and ingesting those (even when intended for topical usage), based entirely on internet advice and without any kind of doctor oversight. That's where "horse paste" mockery comes from.

Maybe they couldn't get a doctor to prescribe them the human pill because of all the politicization so they took the "horse paste" version. You seem to have first hand knowledge of all these people's situations, are you following people to the livestock supply stores or talking out of your ass from stories you read on Reddit? Most people that I know have that have took Ivermectin were taking the human pill. Only on t…

The only reason that they want an ineffective pill that doctors rightly won't prescribe, but not a safe and effective vaccine, is as you say, "politicization".

It's still a bad idea, on multiple levels: taking Ivermectin for COVID in the first place, taking the horse paste version, self-administering, and guessing the dose.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#104

Post by [deleted] »

carbocation wrote: post #37

I think it's disappointing that this thread has devolved into a political discussion that is hardly related to the topic. The scientific/medical achievement here seems significant. As an MD, the difference between calling in a script for a pill and arranging for outpatient infusion therapies is vast.

[deleted]

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#105

Post by dbcooper »

photochemsyn wrote: post #55

Some interesting points on the nature of our pharmaceutical patent system... (and while the cohort in this study does seem a bit small, the conclusions appear to be fairly valid): > "Molnupiravir was invented at Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE), LLC, a not-for-profit biotechnology company wholly owned by Emory University, and is being developed by Merck & Co., Inc. in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics." >…

Why do people here always want to reduce the equity and income of pharma and biotech scientists?

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#106

Post by yupper32 »

gfodor wrote: post #99
yupper32 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly going to be the same thing. Merck is applying for EUA use of this medication for Covid-19, something that Ivermectin never had. In addition, further studies didn't show Ivermectin to be useful for Covid. The study that first looked at Ivermectin has been proven to be not useful. If another study came out opposing the Merck data, then we'd have to dig in as well to find out why, and see if either study was…

My guess is that: - anti-vaxxers will eagerly take the pill, but believe that Merck covered up Ivermectin's efficacy to get this drug to market. the claim the vaccine's EUA was held up by lack of evidence of such pills will be memory holed - the pro-mandate authoritarians will swallow the pill (figuratively, pun intended) when the powers that be celebrate this as a success and it begins being widely deployed. in othe…

I don't think it's a win that a significant portion of the population will only take a medication if it's wrapped in a conspiracy theory.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#107

Post by jrockway »

photochemsyn wrote: post #55

Some interesting points on the nature of our pharmaceutical patent system... (and while the cohort in this study does seem a bit small, the conclusions appear to be fairly valid): > "Molnupiravir was invented at Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE), LLC, a not-for-profit biotechnology company wholly owned by Emory University, and is being developed by Merck & Co., Inc. in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics." >…

I don't think investing money necessarily transfers the ownership of things bought with that money to the investor. The government could put in their contract "we get all your drugs that you invent" if they wanted that. But this would be like startup VCs getting 100% of your company, or your bank getting the appreciation on your house when you sell it, etc. They could ask for those things, and you could say no... and most people do say no.

The government wants to focus research into particular areas, not compete with the pharmaceutical companies. (At least the money isn't for making a new advertising platform, which is probably something a VC would fund in a heartbeat. Drug discovery is too risky for them.)

You may disagree with that, but that's their intent. If you want the government to be discovering drugs and testing them, definitely tell your elected representatives that that's what you want, and the system can change. (Or get rich from an advertising platform and do it yourself! ;)

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#108

Post by [deleted] »

crooked-v wrote: post #80
barbinbrad wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In his Nobel-prize lecture, the Merck scientist William Campbell, talks about how Ivermectin was always intended to be used in humans. Two relevant quotes from his speech are, "I had always insisted that our written departmental objectives would include the development of new drugs for control of parasites in humans" and "The end of ivermectin is nowhere in sight." Check it out: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medi…

I'm not talking about ivermectin itself. I'm talking about how people are literally going to livestock supply stores, buying products that contain ivermectin but come in forms and dosages intended for livestock, and ingesting those (even when intended for topical usage), based entirely on internet advice and without any kind of doctor oversight. That's where "horse paste" mockery comes from.

[deleted]

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#109

Post by LurkingPenguin »

frostirosti wrote: post #65
LurkingPenguin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You need to account for the fact that some percentage (perhaps large) of healthcare workers already survived COVID and have natural immunity. Since the science is demonstrating that natural immunity is as durable and robust as vaccine immunity (if not more durable and robust), one would have to ask what the rationale is for firing workers who have natural immunity (as verified by a past COVID diagnosis or presence…

> do not want to be vaccinated What's the reason for this? The vaccine has been approved fully by the FDA and hundreds of millions of people have received it. > 2. ... Sure, and people who have had covid and get it again as well. But why risk sick days, lost productivity, severe illness when there's an effective, safe alternative. The capital cost of caring people who get sick with covid is far higher on a per capita…

> do not want to be vaccinated What's the reason for this? The vaccine has been approved fully by the FDA and hundreds of millions of people have received it.

It's none of your business why they don't want to be vaccinated. If science demonstrates that COVID survivors have strong immunity, why should they be forced to be vaccinated as well? We do not force people who can show immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella to get the MMR vaccine.

From the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

> You do not need measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine if you meet any of these criteria for presumptive evidence of immunity*:

> You have laboratory confirmation of past infection or had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.

> Sure, and people who have had covid and get it again as well. But why risk sick days, lost productivity, severe illness when there's an effective, safe alternative. The capital cost of caring people who get sick with covid is far higher on a per capita basis for those who are unvaccinated.

You are distorting the science by trying to lump people who survived COVID in with the unvaccinated. They are not the same group.

From Israel: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

> SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Re: Antiviral Molnupiravir Reduces Risk of Hospitalization/Death by ~50 Percent

#110

Post by inglor_cz »

photochemsyn wrote: post #55

Some interesting points on the nature of our pharmaceutical patent system... (and while the cohort in this study does seem a bit small, the conclusions appear to be fairly valid): > "Molnupiravir was invented at Drug Innovations at Emory (DRIVE), LLC, a not-for-profit biotechnology company wholly owned by Emory University, and is being developed by Merck & Co., Inc. in collaboration with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics." >…

Regarding your edit: there isn't any shortage of covid-exposed people right now.

Often, trials lag because not enough participants fulfilling the criteria can be recruited. This is especially pronounced in rarer diseases.

Plus, you will know outcomes of covid pretty quickly. Compared to diseases such as Alzheimer or multiple sclerosis, covid develops fast.

Post reply on HN