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

51–60 of 193 posts

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

#51

Post by vmception »

nuerow wrote: post #40
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.

> 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.

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

[yet].

There are studies ongoing. Not in the anti-vaxxer "I'm still doing research" sense, but in the sense that there are actual non-Facebook studies ongoing. Even that AP fact checker article mentions that.

When the context says there are studies ongoing and yet to be proven is mentioned, it means that the conclusion has not been drawn.

In isolation, when yet to be proven is written with no other context, it means what you interpreted: that nobody has ever seen it work, and we need a nice way to say that.

The fact checker and this conversation both accurately conveyed how different ivermectin is from what Pfizer is developing: the compounds are different, the molecules are different, everything is different. They don't say the result is different. Ivermectin - a completely different compound and molecule - has a hypothesis and limited result showing it functions as a protease inhibitor. It does omit where there are similarities being studied and what those hypothesis are.

This is actually new information to me and I found that looking for a response to you. This isn't about Ivermectin or laughing at Republicans turn their whole states blue from a lack of oxygen as well as the remaining population, its just about what is omitted from the fact checking article.

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

#52

Post by sdenton4 »

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…

Why keep reading an article that's placed wrong information front and center? The false info should lower your prior on anything else the article says...

Unless of course you're just looking to confirm your biases, in which case you'll find whatever you want to find.

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

#53

Post by raphlinus »

vibrato2 wrote: post #41
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.

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

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

#54

Post by naasking »

nuerow wrote: post #38
ccn0p wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Technically not correct. Most blinded, randomized controlled trials showed improvements in symptoms and timeline [1,2,3, among others], but they are generally underpowered and so many consider the results to be not compelling. All the headlines you may have read that ivermectin studies found no results are way overblow; science journalism has never been great to begin with, and now politics has thoroughly infected this so signal to noise on this question is terrible. Some better trials are underway now, so we'll see.

Not surprising, the patentable drug got a decent trial since pharma actually has a much bigger financial incentive there.

[1] https://ejmo.org/pdf/A%20Comparative%20Study%20on%20Ivermect...

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030006052110135...

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...

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

#55

Post by naasking »

nuerow wrote: post #40
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.

> 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.

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

This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who looked into it ever saw it work.

[1] https://ivmmeta.com/

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

wongarsu wrote: post #24
gizmo686 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I imagine the willingness to get tested would also be a lot higher if the result of a positive test was a reasonably quick antiviral treatment instead of weeks of quarantine. Sure, there will always be sceptics, but for large parts of people, organisations and governments having less perverse incentives might improve things a lot.

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by LurkingPenguin »

mywittyname wrote: post #45
wongarsu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the willingness to get tested would also be a lot higher if the result of a positive test was a reasonably quick antiviral treatment instead of weeks of quarantine. Sure, there will always be sceptics, but for large parts of people, organisations and governments having less perverse incentives might improve things a lot.

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 feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination.

Does every discussion of about post-exposure prophylaxis have to have comments about vaccination?

> And it works great without the constant need for testing.

A primary reason for testing has been to help stop the spread of the virus (test positive = isolate), not necessarily to let people with mild symptoms or no symptoms know that they're infected.

Vaccinated individuals can still spread the virus and some people are at higher risk even when vaccinated, so testing is still of value.

> 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.

That's quite an assumption. Without passing judgment about his decision not to get vaccinated and to throw the kitchen sink at COVID once he was infected, Joe Rogan is an example of a person who is willing to treat an infection but not get vaccinated. I doubt he's the only one.

> Additionally, in my experience, physicians aren't terribly concerned about infections in vaccinated individuals.

Vaccination certainly reduces the incidence of hospitalization and death, and the data to date suggests that vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop "long COVID" symptoms. But there's still a lot we don't know. Research indicates that individuals with breakthrough infections can have viral loads that are as high as unvaccinated individuals, and some percentage report courses of illness that are virtually identical to a typical course of illness in unvaccinated individuals (respiratory symptoms, extreme fatigue, etc.) so I think it's premature to make too many assumptions. Especially since in immunologically naive people, some with "mild" or even largely asymptomatic infections also report lasting issues too.

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

#59

Post by raphlinus »

naasking wrote: post #55
nuerow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> "It is yet to be proven" means, quite literally, anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all. This claim is quite literally false. If no one saw an effect, then we wouldn't still be talking about it. Most of the studies listed here [1] all claim to have seen it work. You can of course claim these are poor or unconvincing studies for various reasons, but they still falsify your claim that no one who lo…

Your link is an oft-debunked misinformation campaign[1].

In my opinion, the best current review is the Cochrane review[2]. And indeed, I think "anyone who looked into it never saw it work, ever. At all" is overstating the case. There is weak evidence that it works. That could easily go one of two ways: a highly powered RCT (like ACTIV-6) could show that it doesn't work at all, or we could find that it shows some improvement but is definitely not a silver bullet.

[1]: https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...

[2]: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

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

#60

Post by space_fountain »

nekt wrote: post #56

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Some quick googling doesn’t back this up and my understanding is that ivermectin has only shown itself to be effective at doses that are higher then are remotely safe. It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about. Probably then the straightforward story is true no it’s only effective as prescribed as treatment for parasites. If you’d like to provide some sources though or more explanation that would be great.

Note that TMPRSS2 has been a potential target for treating covid basically since the beginning, so some one lying and claiming it as a mechanism of action isn’t surprising

Post reply on HN