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

91–100 of 193 posts

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

#91

Post by ralusek »

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…

I have no opinion whatsoever regarding whether or not ivermectin's purported mechanism of action against COVID is valid.

However, this:

> It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about

is not true.

There are two incentives to lie about this, if you are in any way associated with drug or vaccine manufacturers.

1.) Ivermectin is out of patent and dirt cheap; basically not profitable at all

2.) Emergency use authorization for the vaccines relied on there being no available alternative treatment

Again, I have no opinion regarding whether or not ivermectin is remotely useful for COVID. But there are plenty of incentives aimed against any older generic being repurposed.

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

#92

Post by LurkingPenguin »

space_fountain wrote: post #83
LurkingPenguin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 re…

Welp, this is making me realize I was just wrong. My understanding of the science was something like you can find asymptomatic vaccinated individuals with similar viral loads to asymptomatic unvaccinated people, which is a bit meaningless when you're choosing a threshold for "infected" and when random chance will just see some people at any level. So to be clear it's not that I think the questions shouldn't be invest…

> Because essentially what this means right is that they sampled people's viral loads, and then cut out everyone below a value they choose to mean "infected".

Huh? Please cite the part of the study you're referring to to argue that the title of the study means the exact opposite of what it says.

Every manufacturer of a PCR test specifies a Ct cutoff above which the result is considered false.

> It's still true that even if I had symptoms because I'm vaccinated my odds of having a high viral load are much lower. Presumably if you didn't remove all the samples with less than some concentration you'd see significant differences.

The study says the exact opposite:

> There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct-values of vaccinated (UeS: 23.1; HYT: 25.5) vs. unvaccinated (UeS: 23.4; HYT: 25.4) samples. In both vaccinated and unvaccinated, there was great variation among individuals, with Ct-values of 30 in both UeS and HYT data (Fig. 1A, 1B). Similarly, no statistically significant differences were found in the mean Ct-values of asymptomatic (UeS: 24.3; HYT: 25.4) vs. symptomatic (UeS: 22.7) samples, overall or stratified by vaccine status (Fig. 1B). Similar Ct-values were also found among different age groups, between genders, and vaccine types (Supplemental Figure 1).

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

#93

Post by spfzero »

LurkingPenguin wrote: post #73
space_fountain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

I think partly what's going on is that some people have immune systems that have a hard time generating an effective response, whether or not they area vaccinated. Vaccination gives the immune system a chance to respond and memorize, as best it can. If it can't do that effectively, there is higher likelihood of a serious outcome.

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

#94

Post by sterlind »

Symmetry wrote: post #76
UncleOxidant wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vaccin…

My partner is ex-Christian Scientist (a faith-healing cult that doesn't believe in disease or medicine.) Zir whole family finally relented and got vaccinated, but they all got J+J. I don't know why that vaccine in particular (maybe because it's single-shot, so they only have to deal with hypocrisy once?) but that vaccine is popular with that cohort.

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

#95

Post by randomopining »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #82
randomopining wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Based on what metric? The vaccines were authorized under emergency use with trial participants comparable to samples conducted with Ivermectin. How is it not worth considering for a drug that's already known to be safe to administer and cheap? Beyond that, there are practicing doctors advocating that they've had good results. This should be more than enough to consider it's use, and not dismiss it as some 'thing of t…

"The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020."

Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it?

I agree that it should be able to be studied and probably used. But what's going on is that people are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the vaccine... which is detrimental when the vaccine is proven to be our best tactic against death/serious illness.

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

#96

Post by nekt »

unanswered wrote: post #88
nekt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im unsure of what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say ivermectin has no impact on TMPRSS2? Ok here is another the google machine gave me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372205/ What is most telling about all of this is that there is no honest discussion. My only initial comment was that this blocks the same protein that ivermectin does. Multiple studies confirm this, its easy to search for the…

No, no. You have to give a source ! Like CNN, or MotherJones! Until then there's no way to know the truth about whether ivermectin blocks this protein or not. I mean there isn't even really a right answer to that question, until we hear it from reliable sources!

All of this was flagged. Unbelievable. Welp chalk this site up as another disgusting hive of censorship.

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

#97

Post by AshamedCaptain »

ccn0p wrote: post #36
nuerow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually when you get to the end of "false" claims, you find some tidbits that make you wonder... such as: Could you please explain what exactly did you interpreted from a statement that boils down to "no one showed that this actually works"? The fact check looks pretty cut and dry to me.

The problem with "fact checkers" is you can design them any way you want to get the answer you want. Here's how this is done with this one: Yes, the claim that Pfizer's new pill is "just repackaged Ivermectin" is certainly verifiably false, so the second line of the article can claim false followed by a supporting expert quote to drive it home. Statistically something like 95% of readers will stop there. Case closed.…

It is not hard to find lots of front-line doctors who have success with sugar pills (see: homeopathy). This means absolutely nothing.

People always seem to have trouble with statistics when stuff is not digital-like clear cut. In many areas (e.g. anything involving social studies), your noise levels are huge. The fact that you hear "some success stories" usually means that there is absolutely nothing, rather than indicative of something. When there is interest (and thus publication bias), the noise level actually increases.

For something in medicine to be actually plausibly effective, what you need to hear is more like "few failure stories". "Some success stories" doesn't even start to cut it. Our current research/publish system just cannot be used to identify treatments that have low effectiveness (which may actually be a good thing). We went over this topic not long ago in HN.

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

#98

Post by angelzen »

ralusek wrote: post #87
angelzen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Molnupiravir [interferes with] accurate replication of the virus At first glance this sound like a really bad idea, given that the #1 concern is future covid mutations.

It specifically causes non-viable mutations. Therefore, the concern isn't currently that it'll cause mutations in the virus and create new strains, but rather that we have to be very confident that it isn't resulting in mutagenicity in mammalian cells. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8136050/

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

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

#99

Post by sterlind »

gizmo686 wrote: post #22
dangerlibrary wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ImmuneMist is already facing warnings of regulatory action for their false claims re: covid https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/warning-letters/warning-lett...

As is XLear https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/warning-letters/warning-lett...

Some nasal sprays do seem to be effective as prophylaxis for COVID infection. I'm not sure about Xlear, but povidone-iodine nasal sprays seem effective and are already used as prophylaxis by dentists.

See:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=pov... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarti...

They're not FDA-approved for this but as long as you're taking other precautions, they can't hurt right?

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

#100

Post by russdill »

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…

And I'm going to hazard a guess that the likelihood of not getting early testing correlates strongly with the likelihood of not getting vaccinated.
Post reply on HN