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

281–290 of 294 posts

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

#281

Post by twofornone »

kortex wrote: post #190
twofornone wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies. This is the part of Merck's statement that really rubs me the wrong way, and suggests to me that this communication was released with an agenda. The implication is that one of our safest, 60+ year old medications is suddenly potentially dangerous, and this press release is all too convenient when you consider that Merck was working on newer and more profit…

The dosing regime purported to be most effective against covid is way higher than the antiparasitic therapeutic window, so the safety history is not as applicable.

Based on a single in vitro study. In isolation such a study is good indication that in vivo dosing is impractical (though a 35x dose is still far under the ld50 for ivermectin[0]), but given that there are dozens of studies suggesting positive effect and the complexity of human/viral biology, the effective dose in vivo may be far lower than the in vitro study indicated.

To be clear I'm not suggesting with certainty that ivermectin works, but I need a better explanation than "these 2 dozen+ studies are all low quality and/or use manipulated/fake data" before I'm willing to rule it out and jump on this bandwagon.

0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835698/ [see section titled Toxicology]

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

#282

Post by thatcat »

akira2501 wrote: post #168
jrockway wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The government could put in their contract "we get all your drugs that you invent" if they wanted that. "The government" isn't an entity that can unilaterally decide anything. I think it's incredibly revealing that very little of this process is understood or publicized.

There is a clear path for taking ip that is beneficial for national security

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

#283

Post by guilhas »

ceejayoz wrote: post #255
guilhas wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The PREP Act designation means that claims related to coronavirus vaccines are covered by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which was set up to handle vaccine lawsuits. ... The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA" OK... beca…

Can you explain why you think the “Countermeasures Injury COMPENSATION Program” doesn’t include compensation?

They say in the same article, 0 have been compensated from the 600 that already applied

Also the the PREP Act states that liability is limited so only very special cases will be compensated under "pandemic state of emergency"

It is a bit like "Democratic Republic of North Korea", being in the name doesn't actually have to mean it

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

#284

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

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." >…

The trial was stopped early because the results were overwhelmingly positive, and thus it was considered unethical to leave the placebo group untreated.

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

#285

Post by parineum »

photochemsyn wrote: post #280
parineum wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly, this patent should be assigned to the federal government, not to Merck Would Merck have done the research if they didn't get to own the patent?

Merck didn't do the research, Emory did the research. Now, maybe you're thinking, would Merck finance the clinical trial of like 1000 people if they didn't get exclusive licensing right to the Emory-owned patent? Well, perhaps in a non-exclusive licensing situation, other pharma outfits, or a consortion, or how about the federal government? would pay for the clinical trials. I'd guess this situation - competitive man…

> or how about the federal government

This is the answer I was fishing for. If you want the government to own the patents, they should do the work.

If they outsource some of the work in exchange for the patents, perhaps the work that they are outsourcing is specialized and difficult for them to achieve.

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

#286

Post by b9a2cab5 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #279
b9a2cab5 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the entire reason Merck and co don't pour money into foundational and/or exploratory research is because it's unprofitable. Giving the money to universities to do the research instead of doing it themselves doesn't change that. This is why things like DARPA exist in the defense industry: to fund exploratory research that would otherwise be unprofitable. Government is already "profiting" by getting novel lifesavin…

Bell Labs was hardly unprofitable, was it? So Merck can fund its own Bell Labs, can it not? Just invert the current typical R&D : S&M budget at any pharma outfit, which is like 1 : 3 at present (research vs. marketing). Yes, they may have to cut shareholder dividends, yes a more competitive market will mean lower profits. However we are talking about people's lives here, and I don't care about Merck's shareholder div…

AT&T was a national monopoly. Merck has a monopoly on a few drugs. The difference is huge.

> lower profits... I don't care about Merck's shareholder dividends

Aaand we're back to terrible incentives. You can't force people to do things that don't have incentives. Even the Soviet Union had incentives. The more you mandate regulation, the more people will find ways around it, either by finding creative ways around your regulations or just moving to other nations with more friendly policies (e.g. China, Europe). The only regulations that work are the ones where peoples' incentives are aligned with what government wants to achieve.

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

#288

Post by crooked-v »

logicalmonster wrote: post #153
crooked-v wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and is this a goalpost that can ever be achieved? It could absolutely be achieved. Literally the only thing keeping things from going back to more-or-less normal conditions right now is that there are many unvaccinated people getting extremely ill from COVID and filling up ICUs.

Again, what are normal ICU levels? As far as I'm aware, ICU staffing is modified to achieve close to 100% capacity at all times with minimal spare beds, whether pre-Covid or post-Covid. If this is the case, then there's no scenario possible, regardless of what happens with Covid, where hospitals report anything but "few ICU beds are available".

Normal ICU levels are levels lower than "every available nurse and doctor is busy with ICU patients".

It's really not that complicated. Under normal conditions capacity can usually scale to meet the needs of the local community. Under COVID conditions, all theoretical capacity is already taken by COVID patients.

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

#289

Post by musicale »

coryrc wrote: post #274
barbazoo wrote: post #162

Disclaimer: I'm not promoting Ivermectin here, don't get me wrong. I just want to cover my bases as this announcement is definitely going to be used by people to support their conspiracy theory. Earlier this year Merck the manufacturer of Ivermectin issued this [0] statement saying that Ivermectin isn't useful for preventing/treating Covid-19 and people shouldn't take it. Some people explained that with the fact that…

We wouldn't need to spend $1000/dose if people just got the free vaccine!

The vaccine is free to patients, but the US government negotiated a price of about $20 per dose of the Pfizer vaccine and insurers can be charged $150-$190 per dose.

Pfizer reported $10.6B in net income in the first half of 2021, up $3.6B from 2020 - largely due to the Covid vaccine.

I'm not complaining though. $60 (2 shots + booster) to drastically reduce the chance of dying from covid seems worth it. Hospitalization can also cost $10K+ per night.

Not to mention that high vaccination rates probably helped California move past the delta peak.

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

#290

Post by labawi »

BobbyJo wrote: post #251
callmeal wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Merck makes a boatload of money off of this, the taxpayers will indeed be taking a cut. Merck's effective tax rate was 15% in 2019 and 20% in 2020[0] They make boatloads of money by underpaying their taxes [1]: In 2004 Merck disclosed that it might owe the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) some $2 billion after the agency notified the company that it was disallowing deductions Merck had taken since 1993 relatin…

That's 15%-20% we the taxpayers own then :)

By that logic, they would own a similar share of Papa John's, your corner grocery, and companies funded by VCs or banks instead of public funds.

Then is the investment return fair? Do people kind-of get health and Merck gets their fleece?

Post reply on HN