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

Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#871

Post by swader999 »

tsol wrote: post #843
swader999 wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had one vaccine dose with severe issues. So maybe I'm skeptical, I won't get a second or third dose. Most people in this camp will just use ivermectin. Including myself, it works and is safe.

The antiviral mechanism of Ivermectin involves the inhibition of nuclear transport by importin α/β1 in the host. It can and has lead to death when improperly dosed.

The size of dose you are talking about would be only possible to take if you were contemplating suicide.

You left a lot out in regards to the mechanisms of action: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203399/

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#872

Post by spydum »

jollybean wrote: post #758
UnFleshedOne wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difference is one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid, so you balance chance of vax complications vs chance of getting covid multiplied by chance of getting bad case of covid. So 1 * P(bad vax) vs P(getting covid) * P(bad covid case). While most of other proposed treatments are after you already got it. So P(bad side effects) vs 1 * P(bad covid case). Depending on your prio…

Well, kind of. 1) There really is no such thing as 'Vaccine Risk' in the material sense, any more than we would us language such as 'Flying Risk'. Esp. in the US where thee is no AZ vaccine, the risk is negligible. 'The Vaccine Risk' in the minds of many people isn't consistent with the reality, and it's a major communications problem. Anti-vaxxers are internalizing and propagandizing a degree of risk that just isn't…

Most people see themselves as healthy and thus in the pool of "very unlikely to have complications from COVID-19" pool. Argue with that however you want (people being dishonest with their own perception of health), but that's how they see it. So taking preventative measures because it is forced down their throats seems hostile. Made worse that 1) vax won't stop the spread, or we would have seen that by now, and 2) we need to boost the vax every few months? That sounds highly suspect to a lot of people.

If you were at risk, you can get vaccinated, why force a healthy person? (The answer is mostly for the folks who can't vaccinate, but those folks are screwed any way you look at this pandemic if we are honest).

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#873

Post by dekhn »

gpcr1949 wrote: post #865
dekhn wrote: post #777

Damn, the structure has 3 fluorines. This particular structure is stable, but in general, fluorine chemistry is tricky. Obligatory classic: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...

trifluoroacetyl is a pretty stable substituent, as far as the fluorines go. trifluoromethyl as a substituent is a classic "medicinal chemist's favorite" and will not be labile. for example: efavirenz, fluoxetine, celecoxib all have a TFM. It's true fluorine chemistry is generally tricky, including some organofluorine chemistry, on the other hand in this case trifluoroacetic acid, trifluoroacetyl chloride etc are comm…

I'm fairly certain that all of those compounds derive from some fluorine gas that was incorporated into the source molecules.

The molecule I worked with in grad school, 5FU, contains a fluorine, it's a very effective anticancer drug which ultimately came from fluroacetyl which is highly toxic. In fact most of the molecules I worked with in grad school that had fluorine were toxic specifically because of fluorine. Not because they were unstable bonds, but because F is very effective in nucleoside analogs. So you can imagine why I am a bit wary of F and just in general don't think of F as being particularly compatible with life.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#874

Post by tsol »

stevev wrote: post #558

I do think early treatments are important and that we have strong case studies to support the effectiveness of Ivermectin and high dosage of Vitamin D intake. https://c19early.com/

I posted this higher up but..

Teres no reason to believe ivermectin does help. Firstly the study that Ivermectin-for-covid is based on in vitro(cell-in-petri-dish) studies of rhesus monkey liver cells[1]. Additionally. Rhesus monkeys have differing bodies sizes and in order to get an equivalent dose in humans would require overdosing on ivermectin, which can and has lead to death. Ivermectin targets the host nuclear transport importin α/β1 heterodimer in host tissue, exerting effects directly on cells of the human body.[2]

1- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7129059/

2- http://dicyt.uto.edu.bo/observatorio/wp-content/uploads/2020...

As for vitamin D. That's an interesting one. Vitamin D isn't only correlated with better covid-19 outcomes, it's associated with better cancer outcomes, as well as flu outcomes. It's also associated with better outcomes in HIV, malaria, and car crashes. It's associated with a lower ALL cause mortality[A]. Impressive stuff. Now either it's the fountain of youth, or as they like to say in the sciences this is a case of "correlation does not equal causation". Now it probably won't hurt to take, but there's more to it than that. Considering about 42% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D[B] it's not a bad idea to supplement, but that also points to another correlation-- the portion on the population that has sufficient vitamin d levels either goes out often enough to synthesize it naturally, or simply is the type to go out of their way and supplement it. So two groups that will have greater physical health than the average person. This could explain why people with sufficient vitamin D do better than with covid than the average person

[A] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4103214/

[B] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#875

Post by j2bax »

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #726
0x7E3 wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems a bit revisionist. To my knowledge, Donald Trump was always a vocal supporter of the Covid vaccine. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden were the ones sowing doubt about it - right up until they won the election. Harris, in particular, described Trump as irresponsible for advocating for Project Warpspeed and suggesting that people should take a Covid vaccine before it had gone through the full approval process. I t…

Trump didn’t make the vaccine a wedge issue, he made COVID a wedge issue by repeatedly calling it a political lie (which resulted in vaccines becoming a wedge issue). I suspect the confusion between your perspective and that of the previous commenter is a result of the difficulty Trump experienced in trying to promote a vaccine for an illness he was himself at the same time claiming does not exist.

He also clung to and promoted a bunch of other unproven treatments leading up to the vaccine… why should anyone have trusted him by this point in the pandemic?

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#876

Post by loceng »

acdha wrote: post #849
pjkundert wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misinformed: c19early.com c19ivermectin.com 128 studies, 83 peer-reviewed. The money quote, from ivmmeta.com: - There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion. So, ... stop spreading misinformation?

No, I’m not. You’re citing notorious disinformation sites whose anonymous creators are relying on you seeing big numbers and not noticing the problems with methodology and analysis. When actual experts look at those studies, the results have not held up. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... > Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ , https://c19ivermectin.com/ , https://tratamiento…

And clearly you haven't looked at or for well done meta-analysis of the Ivermectin studies that manage for and exclude or put less value on the poorer studies - the conclusions which show high reduction in mortality, highest if used as prophylactic.

Have you spent any time researching the opposing view that you're adamant about?

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#877

Post by emodendroket »

sokoloff wrote: post #679
HWR_14 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Less than two years from lab to clinic is highly unusual. I assume like most other COVID vaccines/treatments, the timeline is shrunk by going straight to more expensive phases of the trial instead of having preliminary ones of escalating cost and confidence. Or at least prepping for them. For instance, all the vaccines started setting up commercial production around the same time they started trials, because it's no…

This has interesting implications when we consider how much money drug companies “should” be paid for inventing important new life-saving medicines. I frequently hear/read complaints of "that's outrageous [that this medicine costs $X]!" Well, maybe it is; maybe it isn't, but if you make sure it costs $X/100, I can be pretty sure you'll get less drug R&D.

It's not really this simple since you can directly subsidize/incentivize R&D if that's the goal.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#878

Post by emodendroket »

anamax wrote: post #846
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharma companies in the US spend about twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D [1]. Recent data compiled by the House Oversight Committee shows the biggest pharma companies spent $56 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than they did on R&D over the past five years [2]. Very little of the ridiculous prices that US citizens pay for medicine (directly or via insurance) actually goes towards R&D. [1] http…

Advertising includes drug samples given to doctors, which many/most of them give to patients who can't afford said drugs. How many of them are you willing to cut off?

I find myself very skeptical that "free samples of really expensive drugs given to indigent patients" constitute very much of the budget there.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#879

Post by ceejayoz »

a45a33s wrote: post #748
deanCommie wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Less than two years from lab to clinic is highly unusual. If approved, I believe this would be the fastest lab-to-approval for a small molecule drug in the history of the FDA. It's sad that we all know people are going to use this fact to reject taking this medication while still chugging horse paste.

"horse paste" has been approved for human use for over 30 years. not sure how expecting proper testing for new medicines became some conspiracy theory thing.

As an antiparasitic.

If you do a liver transplant for a congestive heart failure patient, you’ll lose your license, even if liver transplants are a neat and useful procedure.

Re: Pfizer's oral Covid-19 antiviral cuts hospitalization, death by 85%

#880

Post by emodendroket »

Retric wrote: post #870
anamax wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising includes drug samples given to doctors, which many/most of them give to patients who can't afford said drugs. How many of them are you willing to cut off?

Those free samples very much make treatment less affordable. They don’t need to hand out samples when their treatment is the only option, they need to advertise to out compete generics. It’s shockingly effective, look at say prescriptions for patented opioids vs the vast numbers of equally effective generics. Doctors are extremely susceptible to advertising just like most people, the difference is it’s not their mone…

In the case of doctors it's more high-touch than plain old ads anyway. The representative stops by and chats them up, maybe they get some sponsored continuing education (which is of course designed to push expensive products), etc.
Post reply on HN