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

71–80 of 193 posts

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

#71

Post by JamesBarney »

vibrato2 wrote: post #41
orra wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We developed several working vaccines, and in record time. A triumph of scientific engineering. I too am very hopeful for mRNA vaccines, although I don't know how much I should temper my expectations. The idea of curing certain cancers, not just preventing them, is wild.

Except we had to change the definition of “working vaccine” to fit these new therapies. Traditionally a vaccine has to keep efficacy for a year. We haven’t got a year of data but the efficacy has dropped significantly

It's efficacy as measured as "chances of getting sick" declines significantly, but it's still pretty effective.

But the protection against hospitalization and death is still very robust even after almost a year.

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

#72

Post by raphlinus »

naasking wrote: post #68
raphlinus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fair. The Cochrane review links to many of the same studies, for what it's worth.

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

#73

Post by LurkingPenguin »

space_fountain wrote: post #67
LurkingPenguin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> I think the “vaccinated individuals can have high viral loads” line is particularly bad

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v...

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim...

How is a statement about what some researchers are finding "particularly bad"? If vaccinated individuals routinely have viral loads as high as those seen in unvaccinated individuals, it warrants more research into how the virus affects their bodies and what, if any, risks they might face both short term and long term.

According to one study[1], vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID by 49%. Given that some studies have found the incidence of long COVID is in the double digit percentages[2], exploring this issue is not purely academic. It is pertinent to the hundreds of millions of vaccinated individuals who are still at risk of infection, even if their risk of hospitalization and death has been significantly reduced.

Science works when we ask and investigate important questions. It doesn't work when we ignore these questions because we're afraid of the optics and how they might be misconstrued by some people.

In fact, when it comes to COVID generally, it seems evident to me that shying away from difficult questions has had the opposite of the intended effect. It has probably caused more people to adopt anti-science views and reject beneficial measures like vaccination.

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-02/...

[2] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/more-than-one-thir...

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

#74

Post by thehappypm »

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…

"some quick googling"? Do better than this.

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

#75

Post by thehappypm »

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…

It's almost like we're emerging into a world just like the world when antibiotics were invented, but for antivirals. We basically had just a small handful of treatments for viruses, now there's a huge pipeline all of a sudden. Maybe in the future, having effective antivirals for just about any virus will be the norm, not the exception.

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

#76

Post by Symmetry »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #62
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…

> 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 irr…

It's too bad we couldn't arrange it so that one vaccine could be the "Trump vaccine" that Republicans could get and another could be the "Fauci vaccine" for Democrats. Then people could express their political affiliations in their medical choices but still get vaccinated. There were a lot of Democratic politicians talking about not trusting rushed vaccines a year ago and if that could have focused on specific vaccines and kept going maybe we'd be in a better place today with regards to vaccinations.

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

#77

Post by randomopining »

nekt wrote: post #56

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Ivermectin doesn't have any legit studies with large samples to show that it's even that useful against covid.

Also, what happened to hydroxychloroquine? That was the big thing in 2020. guess 2021 is ivermectin.

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

#78

Post by space_fountain »

thehappypm wrote: post #74
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…

"some quick googling"? Do better than this.

I mean it really isn't on me to source someone else's claim. That's why I ask them to provide a source.

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

#79

Post by nekt »

randomopining wrote: post #77
nekt wrote: post #56

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Ivermectin doesn't have any legit studies with large samples to show that it's even that useful against covid. Also, what happened to hydroxychloroquine? That was the big thing in 2020. guess 2021 is ivermectin.

I am not making any claims of any of these substances effectiveness in treating covid. I'm just pointing out that this substance claims to block the same human protein ivermectin does. We can all make of that what we will.

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

#80

Post by capnrefsmmat »

nekt wrote: post #69
analyte123 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For what it's worth, that is not an NIH study; it may be listed on PubMed but it appears to be conducted by researchers at the Integrative Biochemistry & Immunology Laboratory, Department of Animal Science, Kazi Nazrul University. PubMed indexes most biomedical literature, not just research conducted by the NIH.

And again, computer simulations suggesting that ivermectin may interact with a specific protein is not the same as saying that it indeed does do so in human tissue.

Post reply on HN