Antiviral compound blocks SARS-CoV-2 from entering cells • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by windsignaling » Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 3:59 AM UTC

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #178

tragictrash wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you can't be trusted to not infect the people around you, yeah get the hell out. Its literally the only pragmatic way to deal with it.

Bad faith argument here. The current vaccines are not like the MMR vaccine, for example. Vaccinated people can still contract and spread coronaviruses. So, a vaccine subscription where everyone needs shots every 6-12 months is not the _only_ pragmatic way to deal with it; it's just the option that's being shoved down all Americans' throats right now, ostensibly for the benefit of major pharma companies and other more…

> Vaccinated people can still contract and spread coronaviruses.

This statement should always come with information about the relative rate at which it occurs.

One "can still" get pregnant despite using contraception. This is not an argument against using it, because the relative rate is far lower than if one did not use it at all.

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

#192

Post by unraveller » Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

bananabiscuit wrote: post #182

pacerwpg wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is from the fact check and it sounds to me like they're treating the claims fairly and not using a ridiculous version. 'Several posts circulating online wrongly suggest that the pills are the same because ivermectin also acts like a protease inhibitor and keeps the virus from replicating. Ivermectin continues to be studied in relation to COVID-19, however, it has yet to be proven that it can treat COVID-19. Imag…

They are dancing around the fact that ivermectin is indeed a 3CL protease inhibitor, despite that the molecule is very different from the new anti-virals being developed, and despite that 3CL protease inhibition was not primarily what made ivermectin an anti parasitic. That’s how you know these fact checks are bullshit propaganda. They obviously did their research, but they will discuss everything short of the thing…

So who subversive-checks the fact-checker publications? I hope no-one since the idea of an outsourced fact-checker is farcical and we shouldn't fall for any factception play.

Just because they label themselves as meta-news fact-checkers doesn't mean we forget news includes meta news or that fact-checking is an act of bias-prone publication.

The eternal problem of news is one of defining the level of controversy accurately, if we could do that there'd be no need for more than one news publication. And yet somehow no-one that benefits from constant fact-checker approval mentions that these fact-checkers act entirely like syndicated news publications with a lower word count (which doesn't make any claims of being a single-source-of-truth more valid). They are only blunting the minds of their audience by their omissions.

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

#193

Post by LMYahooTFY » Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

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?

Perhaps I should have spoken more precisely, but I don't get the impression you're trying to seriously consider whether ivermectin is useful.

https://ivmmeta.com/

Preemptively, if you're interested in picking apart why one RCT can't be compared in any way to a collection of studies, only some of which are RCTs, I'm not.

> But what's going on is that people are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the vaccine

*some people

You're effectively strawmanning, and choosing not to engage with the actual doctors who don't advocate this. Which is practically all of the ones I can find. But by all means, please link me all of the doctors stating we should use ivermectin as an alternative. I'll bet I can link a lot more that aren't.

The website I linked above even explicitly states this in bold, on the front page.

>which is detrimental when the vaccine is proven to be our best tactic against death/serious illness.

The trial you're citing seems to indicate there was no observed effect on mortality.