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

111–120 of 193 posts

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

#111

Post by [deleted] »

raphlinus wrote: post #53
vibrato2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I call bullshit. Antibodies wane but the memory cell response is robust and holds up over what looks to be a pretty long period (studied intensively for 6 months but with no sign of decline). Here's a new paper that shows that in detail (paper itself is dense but Twitter thread is fairly accessible): https://twitter.com/rishirajgoel/status/1448711946010710023 By basically all measures, these vaccines work better than…

[deleted]

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

#112

Post by ashtonkem »

nekt wrote: post #79
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.

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.

In political discussions we call this the “anti-anti” position. If you’re not making any claims that Ivermectin works, why are you wasting so much energy and karma attacking those that think it doesn’t work?

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

#113

Post by ashtonkem »

ccn0p wrote: post #39
gizmo686 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top-line claim in the linked fact-check is "Pfizer’s new pill to treat COVID-19 is just ivermectin repackaged". The claim is explicitly countered by claims in the fact check: "They are dramatically different molecules. The drugs are different in their structure and their molecular size". I have not fact-checked the fact check, but to suggest that the headline claim of "false" is misleading or inconsistent with th…

Thanks for the response. You're right, but, I'm not trying to say that the headline claim of "false" is misleading with the body of the article . I'm trying to say something more nuanced... that the headline claim of "false" is misleading from the actual conversations happening out there right now. Which in a way is not a problem with just fact checkers, but the Internet as a whole. BUT... In my opinion, "fact checke…

So basically someone proved their position thoroughly with regards to this singular claim, but you’re still skeptical towards the fact checkers because …? Kinda seems like the fact checkers were right here, and yet you still persist for whatever reason.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

space_fountain wrote: post #107
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…

He's saying that none of these studies have shown in the real world that ivermectin effects TMPRSS2. And I've been trying to have an honest discussion from the beginning. I said I'd failed to find what you were claiming, but tried to make it clear that I was listening if you did have some evidence. Luckily you did, but analyte123 pointed out it was weak. This paper seems to to be a survey of other papers so doesn't a…

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by adolph »

tombert wrote: post #48
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.

I haven't even heard about the curing cancer part, that's awesome if it's true. I think I'm going to temper my expectations to "faster and more vaccines increasingly exotic diseases" for now. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong though.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a way to get immune cells called T cells (a type of white blood cell) to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells. CAR T-cell therapy is also sometimes talked about as a type of cell-based gene therapy, because it involves altering the genes inside T cells to help them attack the cancer.

...

In CAR T-cell therapies, T cells are taken from the patient's blood and are changed in the lab by adding a gene for a man-made receptor (called a chimeric antigen receptor or CAR). This helps them better identify specific cancer cell antigens. The CAR T cells are then given back to the patient.

https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects...

Right now this is done in a very personalized and labor intensive way. I think the thought is mRNA is potentially a gigafactory compared to artisanal methods.

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

#116

Post by bluGill »

subsubzero wrote: post #85
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 agree, but vaccines in this case have their definite drawbacks as seen in vaccine-heavy Israel in that their effectiveness wears off after a few months. I have personally heard of a number of pretty bad breakthrough cases where a person has had a fever for almost a month, another was extremely sick and there are still people who are afraid of covid for this very reason(and they are vaccinated). Having an effective…

Lets be careful there. While vaccines do wear off, they are not wearing off nearly as fast as most people using that line are saying.

Also, Isreal is no longer vaccine heavy. They were an early leader, but many other countries exceed their vaccine rates these days.

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

#117

Post by walterbell »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #104
spfzero wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this is very unlikely to significantly explain what we’ve seen. It’s much more likely just the natural result of artificial immunity waning much more rapidly than naturally acquired. As well as the fact that natural immunity involves exposure to the whole virus and therefore much broader types of epitopes for the immune system to “learn”.

In addition, intramuscular vaccines only provide blood/serum antibodies, while nasal infection also provides nasal/mucosal antibodies. Those who recover from Covid infection gain sterilizing immunity (less than 1% will be reinfected) that stops future infections in the upper respiratory tract.

That's why the CDC website says Covid (leaky, non-sterilizing) vaccines only provide protection (in blood) against serious illness, not infection (in nose). A future nasal vaccine may provide sterilizing immunity (what most people assume they are getting from a "vaccine", like their personal experience with the MMR vaccine).

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

#118

Post by pfdietz »

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…

If the antivirals are highly effective one could really slam the immune system to stop any damaging response without the virus again going out of control.

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

#119

Post by angelzen »

raphlinus wrote: post #53
vibrato2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I call bullshit. Antibodies wane but the memory cell response is robust and holds up over what looks to be a pretty long period (studied intensively for 6 months but with no sign of decline). Here's a new paper that shows that in detail (paper itself is dense but Twitter thread is fairly accessible): https://twitter.com/rishirajgoel/status/1448711946010710023 By basically all measures, these vaccines work better than…

Great link, summarizing recent research showing strong post-vaccination long-term B cell response.

Then Twitter surfaces a recent breakthrough infection study among 620k US veterans in the "More Tweets" section: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1448815262522773520 After six months from initial vaccination (Mar-Aug) the J&J vaccine appears to have zero (!) VE against infection. Pfizer is holding at a modest 53% against infection. Worse, the curve has the same shape as J&J, merely 2 months delayed.

In spite of very promising cellular and molecular studies, I am left scratching my head: are the vaccines any good at preventing infection in the long term, where we define long term as a few years down the road? The question is somewhat rhetorical, as we don't have epi studies from 2025 yet.

PS. I am more than happy to make a distinction between infection and severe infection. The main reason I pay attention to VE against infection are vaccine mandates and the whole stigma buildup against unvaccinated people.

PS2. > the flu vaccine, which for some reason doesn't attract the same sort of criticism.

People are free to get or not get a flu vaccine. Not getting a covid vaccine means loss of livelihood, loss of basic liberties and social ostracism.

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

#120

Post by bluGill »

randomopining wrote: post #95
LMYahooTFY wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

There wasn't. Once you eliminate the studies that made up their data it is clear ivermectin doesn't work in the few studies that are left so nobody would bother doing a big study.

Post reply on HN