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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by jollybean »

spydum wrote: post #872
jollybean wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, the vaccine is fairly detrimental to the spread of COVID.

Overwhelmingly, the numbers of people in Hospitals are unvaxxed.

In BC, the last report I saw for a region had almost 100% of people below 50 in intensive care unvaxxed, almost the same numbers for seniors.

Rates of spread are actually coming down even while business activity expands, vaccines are a potent part of this. Not perfect, but a major component.

So again: COVID is a community problem, less so an individual one. 'Stopping the Dominos' from dropping is much better than trying to lift all the dominos up after they fell with drugs.

"So taking preventative measures because it is forced down their throats seems hostile."

It's not hostile to the 80-90% of people in most advanced nations who have basic civil maturity. It's a mild distraction with obvious individual and group benefits, to the point where I have a hard time understanding lack of participation (yes, it's very easy to understand hesitancy and hostility to being required to do something, but not to the level where people actually would avoid doing something obviously beneficial).

I remember when smoking was banned indoors, I get that people were a begrudged, but I think in reality most people 'got it'.

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

#932

Post by pjkundert »

thehappypm wrote: post #814
pjkundert wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that they are both potent protease inhibitors. Other than that, you mean?

Why would a parasite drug have protease inhibition properties? Parasites don’t have protease enzymes

That’s why it was spectacularly interesting to begin with!

Why would an anti parasitic drug exhibit any measurable response? Yet, it did.

That is when I realized that science was, if not dead, then severely wounded.

No interest at all, from the “scientific” people.

Now, it turns out we probably know why; it happened to (probably accidentally) be a potent protease inhibitors - and that happened to be important.

We could have found this out a year ago, and begun exploiting this attack vector.

But, no: everyone who found this interesting and worthy of further study was derided and threatened with job losses.

What a shit-show.

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

#933

Post by HelloMcFly »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #664
HelloMcFly wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that to be some sort of counter-argument or opposing view for anything I said? Regardless of the answer, I'm not interested in debating the wisdom of taking dog medicine in unstudied doses for an unstudied treatment with unstudied effectiveness that has a clearly documented ability to strip the lining of your intestines. You want be a trailblazer with every Facebook remedy? Be my guest.

You know IVM has been around since the 70s? People take it all of the time. It’s a very studied drug, on the list of WHO’s 100 most essential medicines. The inventor won the noble prize for it. The cultivated animosity towards it is more of a result of propaganda. With this much money at stake, it’s easy to see who might actually be pushing that propaganda.

Let's make it explicit: I personally know people - including one direct and one extended family member - involved in this Facebook-science culture. I have seen the videos they are following, I know they are taking the medicine for an unresearched purpose in recommended dosages without any cited scientific reasoning to support.

I'm not anti-Ivermectin anymore than I'm anti-any prescribed drug. I give it to my dog. My dad has used it, under the guidance of a doctor.

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

#934

Post by kmeisthax »

toyg wrote: post #76
savant_penguin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's here in _two_ years

One one side: great job, pharma industry! We're gonna live forever! On the other side: what are you folks not curing, with your magic powers, just because you know you won't be able to make a buck from it...?

The second statement is equivalent to arguing that cut-throat capitalists aren't that cut-throat.

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

#935

Post by addicted »

azinman2 wrote: post #688
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…

And that was due to the wisdom of operation warpspeed. Trump is under credited for this (whether his idea or not, he could claim it as such). What’s shocking to me is that he hasn’t been more pro-vax given we have the vaccines we do because of his administration.

Warp Speed had nothing to do with this.

Pfizer/BioNTech weren’t part of Warp Speed. And the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines were ready and had begun trials before they were part of Warp speed.

The only vaccine it might have had an impact on was potentially Moderna. But even Moderna had the vaccine ready well before the Trump administration even believed that the virus did not only affect Chinese people.

Finally, Warp Speed was not a brilliant new idea they came up with. It was part of the pandemic response plan the Obama administration had prepared many years ago. The difference is that if they had actually followed the plan warp speed would have been activated well before.

Pretty much the only thing that the Trump administration can be uniquely credited for is picking the name. Which, as we can see from the fact that the majority of current vaccine skeptics are worried about the speed at which the vaccines were created, was a terrible choice for a name.

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

#936

Post by addicted »

lrem wrote: post #769
snarf21 wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the similiarity of COVID-19 to other coronaviruses also a speed up? We are not starting from complete scratch in that case.

Aren't we? I thought that until SARS the scientific consensus was that coronaviruses are not interesting. And SARS died out too quickly to achieve much. But I might have not paid enough attention.

I’m pretty sure the reason Moderna was able to develop a vaccine so quickly (Feb 2020?) was because they already knew the spike protein to target from the original SARS outbreak.

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

#937

Post by gonational »

School-Cotton wrote: post #910
gonational wrote: post #907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this means all the people who waited to see how deadly this brand new technology and "vaccine" was will now know that it was never necessary. Not to mention that the "vaccine" does not prevent the spread, only purportedly reduces the symptoms.

The vaccine neither outright prevents spread nor severe symptoms, but it dramatically reduces the probability of both.

It increased the risk of spread by increasing viral load up to 157 times. This fact is not up for debate.

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

#938

Post by curryst »

jdhn wrote: post #445
GhettoComputers wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the market for this? The assumption is that you give it ASAP and people want to take it. If people aren’t interested in vaccinations they may not want it either, and the vaccines are already very effective at preventing these issues.

I'd say that this will appeal to people who are covid vaccine skeptical. If you're skeptical of the mRNA vaccines, you'd probably be in favor of this treatment than the vaccines.

Or they'll say that the supply chain issues have forced the US to start using larger 5G spyware-mindcontrol whatevers, so they now they need people to take a pill.

Or that big pharma wasn't making enough money off ivermectin, so they invented a new pseudo-drug or something.

When you believe that core institutions are worse than inept and actively work against you, you can justify anything. I'd call it a coin toss whether they're for or against.

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

#939

Post by short12 »

adrr wrote: post #914
refurb wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible take. Your first source vaguely tries to estimate promotional spending (not advertising as you deceitfully claim). Promotional spend has a positive ROI (or you wouldn’t do it). So spending $1B in promotion gets your $1B+ in sales (it’s self funding). Plus stock buybacks and dividends are being criticized? Returning money to investors is “bad”? Who do you think provides capital for drug development? The Grena…

But does it really increase sales? We’re talking drugs that are prescribed by a doctor. Or do people not buy and take their statins unless they see a tv ad?

Probably because the people will name-drop that particular brand. It's up to the doctor to responsibly prescribe it, whom probably heard of the drug because of other forms of marketing or flat out kickbacks

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

#940

Post by short12 »

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?

All of them. Having some drugs laying around and handing them out as medication is wildly irresponsible
Post reply on HN