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

Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

medicine.wustl.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 193 posts

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#61

Post by UncleOxidant »

gizmo686 wrote: post #12
raphlinus wrote: post #5

I'm starting to get pretty optimistic. There seem to be a bunch of antivirals with very different mechanisms of action - this one blocks entry of the virus to cells, Molnupiravir fucks up accurate replication of the virus (nucleoside analog), others are protease inhibitors, which are very effective against HIV. There's a caveat, most treatments that look promising don't pan out, but there are a lot in the pipeline an…

A limiting factor for the effectiveness of anti-virals for Covid is time. Maximum viral load happens often happens before any symptoms are present, and the most severe diseases occurs weeks after infection as a result of the bodies inflammatory response instead of the virus itself. This means that by the time you know that a patient will have severe Covid-19, it is likely too late for any treatment that is based on i…

Given that time is of the essence with antivirals, we need to give people lateral flow antigen tests they can take at home (very accurate if they come up positive) as well as some kind of pre-presciption (show the pharmacist your positive test result and get the antivirals or some such). Waiting for a doctors appointment will take too much time.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#62

Post by UncleOxidant »

mywittyname wrote: post #45
wongarsu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the willingness to get tested would also be a lot higher if the result of a positive test was a reasonably quick antiviral treatment instead of weeks of quarantine. Sure, there will always be sceptics, but for large parts of people, organisations and governments having less perverse incentives might improve things a lot.

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. And it works great without the constant need for testing. I have to imagine that anyone willing to undergo treatment at the very start of getting covid, would have also been willing to be vaccinated. The vaccine-hesitant aren't going to go for treatment until the outlook is dire. Additionally, in my experienc…

> The vaccine-hesitant aren't going to go for treatment until the outlook is dire.

Many of them seem quite willing to get ivermectin (whether it works or not is another issue). This is a tribal thing: one tribe has determined that the vaccine isn't something their tribe gets, but many of them seem willing to try other treatments that are acceptable to the tribe. (and yes, that's not rational, but humans are often irrational)

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#63

Post by nekt »

space_fountain wrote: post #60
nekt wrote: post #56

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Some quick googling doesn’t back this up and my understanding is that ivermectin has only shown itself to be effective at doses that are higher then are remotely safe. It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about. Probably then the straightforward story is true no it’s only effective as prescribed as treatment for parasites. If you’d like to provide some sources though or more explanatio…

Well you're wrong.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

"Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2."

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#64

Post by analyte123 »

space_fountain wrote: post #60
nekt wrote: post #56

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Some quick googling doesn’t back this up and my understanding is that ivermectin has only shown itself to be effective at doses that are higher then are remotely safe. It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about. Probably then the straightforward story is true no it’s only effective as prescribed as treatment for parasites. If you’d like to provide some sources though or more explanatio…

As far as I can tell ivermectin has only been "studied" against TMPRSS2 in silico. The better-studied purported mechanism of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 involves something called importin [1]. On the other hand, bromhexine, which is a cough medicine used OTC around the world does inhibit TMPRSS2 and may have action against SARS-Cov-2 [2]. Bromhexine is a prodrug for ambroxol, which is also an OTC cold medicine in much of the world.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32983936/

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#65

Post by bananabiscuit »

robflynn wrote: post #10
whatanorigtht wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is helpful. Ivermectin works so well Pfizer is copying it.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-067310377629

Just like every other 「fact-check」 I’ve seen recently, this just attacks the most weak and absurd version of the fact. The reason people are saying it’s repackaged ivermectin is not because it’s literally the same chemical in new packaging, but because the mechanism of action for Pfizer’s new antiviral (3CL protease inhibitor) is something that Ivermectin also does.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#66

Post by analyte123 »

nekt wrote: post #63
space_fountain wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some quick googling doesn’t back this up and my understanding is that ivermectin has only shown itself to be effective at doses that are higher then are remotely safe. It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about. Probably then the straightforward story is true no it’s only effective as prescribed as treatment for parasites. If you’d like to provide some sources though or more explanatio…

Well you're wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ "Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2."

Computer docking simulations don't prove anything and are only possibly useful for initial drug screening.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#67

Post by space_fountain »

LurkingPenguin wrote: post #58
mywittyname wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. And it works great without the constant need for testing. I have to imagine that anyone willing to undergo treatment at the very start of getting covid, would have also been willing to be vaccinated. The vaccine-hesitant aren't going to go for treatment until the outlook is dire. Additionally, in my experienc…

> I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. Does every discussion of about post-exposure prophylaxis have to have comments about vaccination? > And it works great without the constant need for testing. A primary reason for testing has been to help stop the spread of the virus (test positive = isolate), not necessarily to let people with mild symptoms…

Edit: My understanding of the science here was at least slightly wrong. Please see the reply from LurkingPenguin and eventually my reply to them

I think results like vaccinated individuals “can” have viral loads as high as unvaccinated individuals are next to useless. I need to know how likely I am to have high viral loads and my understanding of the science there is that vaccines still do a decent job of lowering the odds. I know you aren’t really arguing against vaccination here, but it seems like it needed to be said and I think the “vaccinated individuals can have high viral loads” line is particularly bad

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#68

Post by naasking »

raphlinus wrote: post #59
naasking wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who lo…

Your link is an oft-debunked misinformation campaign[1]. In my opinion, the best current review is the Cochrane review[2]. And indeed, I think "anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all" is overstating the case. There is weak evidence that it works. That could easily go one of two ways: a highly powered RCT (like ACTIV-6) could show that it doesn't work at all, or we could find that it shows some impr…

Sure, don't take ivmmeta.com analysis at face value, but I was pointing out that they link to numerous legitimate studies which did find positive results, thus refuting the OP's claim that nobody who looked into this ever found anything.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#69

Post by nekt »

analyte123 wrote: post #66
nekt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you're wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ "Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2."

Computer docking simulations don't prove anything and are only possibly useful for initial drug screening.

He said ivermectin was not found to block TMPRSS2. I linked a nih study that said it did.

Now its about proving its efficacy against sars-cov-2?

I believe this is called "moving the goalposts".

And there we have it - in silico is fine for this new substance that will likely have a huge price tag. Not fine for an existing generic.

Far fewer people are buying this nonsense these days.

Re: Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells

#70

Post by newbamboo »

space_fountain wrote: post #60
nekt wrote: post #56

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Some quick googling doesn’t back this up and my understanding is that ivermectin has only shown itself to be effective at doses that are higher then are remotely safe. It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about. Probably then the straightforward story is true no it’s only effective as prescribed as treatment for parasites. If you’d like to provide some sources though or more explanatio…

From the featured article “Janetka co-founded a biotechnology startup company called ProteXase Therapeutics”

I guess you could see what their business plan is?

Post reply on HN