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

Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

healtheuropa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #50
ceejayoz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Viagra is clinically tested and FDA approved specifically for erectile dysfunction.

And it also happens to lower blood pressure which is the condition it was originally developed to treat. So if you have high but not "give this dud an Rx" high blood pressure, want Viagra and your doctor is a bro...

Sure. They were able to demonstrate to the FDA's satisfaction that it had a beneficial use outside the original intent of developing the drug. That's not unusual, but there's also a procedure you go through.

The FDA specifically warns against using ivermectin to treat COVID. So does its manufacturer (https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use...). Comparing the two scenarios is silly.

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#52

Post by rbanffy »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #38
rbanffy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I copied it out of your quote. It's there, right in the middle of his confused flow of thought. What is your interpretation? Is he still talking about light when he mentions the injection right after the disinfectant?

He's comparing the light to the disenfectant, and intrigued by the idea of "injecting" the light to do the same job that a disenfectant does on a surface. "so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of *the light*, the way *it kills it in one minute*." I mean, the comprehension here is not that difficult. Maybe you need to brush up o…

"And then I see the disinfectant" is a very strange construction to refer to the effect of light, but you are entitled to "your truth" it seems, at least according to the current doublethink norms the GOP follows.

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#53

Post by swader999 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #35
adflux wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, same thing with calling ivermectin horse medicine instead of representing it accurately, a nobel prize winning medicine of which billions of doses have been safely administred to humans. Good journalism is hard to find nowadays. But journalism infested with politics is worse, and so widespread nowadays.

> a nobel prize winning medicine For treating parasites . Give a heart transplant to a kid with a cold and you'll get yelled at, too, despite it being a wonderful procedure to have in our medical quiver.

That's a lazy dismissal. This paper describes twenty ways in which ivermectin can mitigate corona virus infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#54

Post by angelzen »

uncoder0 wrote: post #46
hammock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The root of the criticism is that a sitting president wields a lot or authority and is not supposed to tout experimental treatments. I hope the irony of this is not lost on readers.

"Boosters for all Americans" -Sitting President "Boosters only for people at high risk and/or over 65" -FDA a couple days later

This is interesting, and not in a good way. I'm not sure FDA as we know it can survive a two-track regime, where some medicine is fast tracked and/or cleared of legal liability. Sooner or later most new medicine will end up on the fast track, it's in the logic of large bureaucratic bodies.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/top-fda-regulators-b...

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#55

Post by adflux »

ceejayoz wrote: post #48
adflux wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the intentional misrepresentation of facts which I am referring to. I have no problems with journalists writing science backed articles about using ivermectin for treating covid19. I have problems with journalists intentionally calling it horse dewormer as if that is only what it is. So your analogy really doesn't make sense here.

I'm noting that calling it "Nobel Prize winning medicine" is just as technically accurate and potentially misleading as calling it "horse dewormer". You're doing the same thing you're complaining about.

From the intro on Wikipedia: Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981;[12][13] William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.

When you are referring to this in regards to covid19, calling it horse dewormer is intentionally mispresenting an argument in an attempt to discount it.

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#56

Post by iammisc »

happytoexplain wrote: post #18
mercy_dude wrote: post #7

Not to start a political off topic war, but the then sitting president of the US was heavily mocked for suggesting treatment options with UV be evaluated. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavir...

That's charitable. He was mocked (unjustly, as all presidents are), but criticized (justly) for taking simple observations (UV kills the virus, disinfectant kills the virus) and extrapolating medically in a way that the president should not do in a public statement, and that's even regardless of the sloppiness of his descriptions.

Trump was not just mocked unjustly... words were inserted into his statement by major, reputable news sources, such as the New York Times, which was one of the first to begin using the word 'bleach' (which is actually dangerous to inject) instead of the stated word 'disinfectant' (which is non-specific enough to be less dangerous).

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/coronavirus-bleac...

IMO, this is incredibly irresponsible. Antibiotics are a disinfectant, which are completely safe to inject. Other anti-virals are also safe to inject. The Times took the word 'disinfectant', which while perhaps used incorrectly, does not immediately suggest doing any actual dangerous action, and, instead of restricting their criticism to the fact that no known COVID injectable disinfectant exists, they linked the word to actually dangerous 'cures'. While doing so, they popularized an otherwise fringe movement, and made baseless claims connecting this movement to Trump's motivations behind saying the word (the fact that such a group lobbied Trump is not in any way evidence that this is why he used that word... lots of groups lobby presidents all the time).

Joe Biden and Obama are and were surely mocked as well, but not by the likes of the New York Times, WaPo, and other major news outlets. I mean... is the New York Times running articles on Brandon? I don't think so.

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#57

Post by ceejayoz »

adflux wrote: post #55
ceejayoz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm noting that calling it "Nobel Prize winning medicine" is just as technically accurate and potentially misleading as calling it "horse dewormer". You're doing the same thing you're complaining about.

From the intro on Wikipedia: Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981;[12][13] William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications. When you are referring to this in regards to covid19, calling it horse dewormer is intentionally mispresenting an argument in an attempt to discount it.

> When you are referring to this in regards to covid19, calling it horse dewormer is intentionally mispresenting an argument in an attempt to discount it.

"Nobel Prize winning medication" is similarly a misrepresentation in the context of COVID.

It's both a Nobel Prize winning medicine, and horse dewormer. It's also a human antiparisitic. None of these individually describe it completely, but there's one thing it's not currently - a proven COVID treatment.

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#58

Post by throwawaymedia »

ceejayoz wrote: post #35
adflux wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, same thing with calling ivermectin horse medicine instead of representing it accurately, a nobel prize winning medicine of which billions of doses have been safely administred to humans. Good journalism is hard to find nowadays. But journalism infested with politics is worse, and so widespread nowadays.

> a nobel prize winning medicine For treating parasites . Give a heart transplant to a kid with a cold and you'll get yelled at, too, despite it being a wonderful procedure to have in our medical quiver.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28864889

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#59

Post by adflux »

happytoexplain wrote: post #23
adflux wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, same thing with calling ivermectin horse medicine instead of representing it accurately, a nobel prize winning medicine of which billions of doses have been safely administred to humans. Good journalism is hard to find nowadays. But journalism infested with politics is worse, and so widespread nowadays.

I rarely (maybe never?) saw any journalist say that all ivermectin is horse medicine. However, people did take horse medicine because of the similarly irresponsible use of ivermectin as another weird political side-taking thing, the same way people bought UV products to use on themselves or ingested disinfectant. So, I think the criticism is mostly fair.

Bunch of articles on CNN... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/21/us/mississippi-poison-con... for instance.

Re: Harnessing the benefits of UVA light treatment in Covid-19 patients

#60

Post by [deleted] »

happytoexplain wrote: post #18
mercy_dude wrote: post #7

Not to start a political off topic war, but the then sitting president of the US was heavily mocked for suggesting treatment options with UV be evaluated. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavir...

That's charitable. He was mocked (unjustly, as all presidents are), but criticized (justly) for taking simple observations (UV kills the virus, disinfectant kills the virus) and extrapolating medically in a way that the president should not do in a public statement, and that's even regardless of the sloppiness of his descriptions.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN