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

31–40 of 193 posts

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

#31

Post by orra »

tombert wrote: post #23
ashtonkem wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mRNA vaccines look extremely promising too. It’s entirely possible that some classes of cancer will be effectively eliminated in our lifetime because of it, along with HIV and/or Malaria. The latter would probably be the biggest reduction in human death and misery since the invention of the Polio vaccine

I've been saying for roughly a year now that if nothing else good can come from Covid, we at the very least are dumping a ton of time and resources and research into mRNA vaccines. I know basically nothing about virology, but I remember hearing a podcast a million years ago talking about mRNA vaccines, and I remember after it was over thinking "if this is even half as cool as it sounds to a lay person, the implicatio…

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.

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

#32

Post by artificialLimbs »

nuerow wrote: post #25
ccn0p wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find fact checkers quite interesting in the way they've been deployed over the last few years. As if one source is the "truth" and that settles things. Usually when you get to the end of "false" claims, you find some tidbits that make you wonder... such as: "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 re…

> 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.

Not op, but "We don't know" != "False"

Also, op does not claim "no one showed this actually works." Your comment is not in good faith.

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

#33

Post by raphlinus »

ashtonkem wrote: post #6
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…

mRNA vaccines look extremely promising too. It’s entirely possible that some classes of cancer will be effectively eliminated in our lifetime because of it, along with HIV and/or Malaria. The latter would probably be the biggest reduction in human death and misery since the invention of the Polio vaccine

A really excellent survey on the prospects for mRNA technology from Derek Lowe: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/what-mrna-good-and...

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

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mschuster91 wrote: post #30
ashtonkem wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mRNA vaccines look extremely promising too. It’s entirely possible that some classes of cancer will be effectively eliminated in our lifetime because of it, along with HIV and/or Malaria. The latter would probably be the biggest reduction in human death and misery since the invention of the Polio vaccine

I wonder if the final stage will rather be direct production and injection of tailored antibodies instead of going around the corner by having ordinary cells express proteins that then trigger the immune system.

> direct production and injection of tailored antibodies instead of going around the corner by having ordinary cells express proteins that then trigger the immune system

Triggering the immune system does a lot more than produce a single wave of antibodies.

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

#35

Post by [deleted] »

ccn0p wrote: post #20
robflynn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-067310377629

I find fact checkers quite interesting in the way they've been deployed over the last few years. As if one source is the "truth" and that settles things. Usually when you get to the end of "false" claims, you find some tidbits that make you wonder... such as: "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 re…

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by ccn0p »

nuerow wrote: post #25
ccn0p wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find fact checkers quite interesting in the way they've been deployed over the last few years. As if one source is the "truth" and that settles things. Usually when you get to the end of "false" claims, you find some tidbits that make you wonder... such as: "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 re…

> 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. They're convinced.

But it's not hard to find lots of front-line doctors who are seeing success with Ivermectin. Even the 4th-to-last paragraph in the factcheck article (that I cited) admits that Ivermectin "acts like a protease inhibitor" which is how the new patented "covid pills" will also act.

If you follow many of these voices like I do, you see patterns that they aren't really even claiming that the new drug is exactly like Ivermectin. So even framing the question like this is a failure and doesn't capture the actually-useful voices out there. Probably just the Twitter mobs which always seem like the majority these days, but are far from it.

This doesn't prove anything, nor am I claiming that Ivermectin works, but advancing the conversation is so much more nuanced than framing something and then calling it false. We, dear Hacker News readers, should know this better than most.

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

#37

Post by gizmo686 »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #32
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.

Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" Also, op does not claim "no one showed this actually works." Your comment is not in good faith.

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 the body of the article is simply wrong.

The comment about Ivermectin still being studied and not yet known to be effective is not relevant to the claim under review, but merely added to provide the reader with context.

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

#38

Post by nuerow »

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.…

> But it's not hard to find lots of front-line doctors who are seeing success with Ivermectin.

If that was true then how do you explain the fact that so far no study was able observe or reproduce that effect under a controlled environment?

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

#39

Post by ccn0p »

gizmo686 wrote: post #37
artificialLimbs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" Also, op does not claim "no one showed this actually works." Your comment is not in good faith.

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 checkers" by nature of their name have a greater responsibility to Internet discourse than the random comment thread or opinion article because they claim to be an authoritative source.

I can't help but think of the Ministry of Truth.

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

#40

Post by nuerow »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #32
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.

Not op, but "We don't know" != "False" Also, op does not claim "no one showed this actually works." Your comment is not in good faith.

> Not op, but "We don't know" != "False"

That's not what the fat checker states. At all.

The fact checker states, and I quote:

> however, it has yet to be proven that it can treat COVID-19."

"It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all.

Post reply on HN