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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by swader999 »

twofornone wrote: post #601
LMYahooTFY wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there are a frightening number of people who will say there's not enough data while Pfizer launches R&D for an entirely new drug to get it to market. Does no one else pay mind to the fact that pharmaceutical companies have zero interest in potential treatment options if they're not under patent anymore? Why do we trust them implicitly but suspect Apple does shady things like employ slave labor and suicide nets, o…

The real scandal would be that ivermectin worked and therefore invalidated the emergency vaccine authorization, but I doubt that will ever see the light of day given the coordinated media blitz against "horse paste".

All these quoted studies were under-powered or administered far too late and low dose and many only gave 3 does of ivermectin. It does work if you have a higher dose at .6 mg/kg, take it fairly early and as recommended by the NIH.

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

#832

Post by pjkundert »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #77
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #29

> Pfizer’s phase 2/3 trial randomized non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who were at high risk of progressing to severe illness to receive placebo or Paxlovid, a combination of the protease inhibitors Oh, a protease inhibitor you say? I was told those were horse dewormers by the media. This whole thing is bullshit. With this much money at stake we were never going to learn the truth.

Except this is studied and dosed appropriately vs. tacking a bunch of Ivermectin and shitting your intestines out based on a half-truth you read about from Facebook.

The LD50 for Ivermectin is 10mg/kg. The standard dosage range is .1-.5mg/kg. (from memory... YMMV)

So, you would have to guzzle 20 times the recommended dosage of a foul-tasting elixir to get near a lethal dose. It sticks around in your system for ~4days, so there could be a cumulative effect if you guzzle enough over a few day period.

But still, much less dangerous as Tylenol (toxic at 10g dose; typical therapeutic dose on the order of 1g):

Paracetamol poisoning was first described in the 1960s.[6] Rates of poisoning vary significantly between regions of the world.[8] In the United States more than 100,000 cases occur a year.[1] In the United Kingdom it is the medication responsible for the greatest number of overdoses.[7] Young children are most commonly affected.[1] In the United States and the United Kingdom, paracetamol is the most common cause of acute liver failure.[9][1]

And furthermore, since Ivermectin is a potent antiparasitic, many people are likely to experience Jarisch–Herxheimer reaction to the death of intestinal parasites, which indicates its working, not dangerous. So, take is slow if you also have parasites.

But, by all means, carry on believing what you're told to! ;)

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

#833

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#834

Post by oblio »

colordrops wrote: post #528
zionic wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The medical cartel has had 2 years to adapt at this point. How have they failed to scale capacity despite charging record prices?

If they scale then the politicians won't have an excuse to maintain their mandates. They were able to get navy ships with hundreds of beds scaled up in weeks at the start of the pandemic. The cost to society of the mandates is certainly more that it would cost to scale ICUs.

During WW2 the US managed to mass produce about as much fighter planes as it needed.

It couldn't mass produce fighter pilots, though.

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

#835

Post by geraneum »

claytongulick wrote: post #781
orra wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so certain. People who for whatever irrational reason don't want an mRNA vaccine can take a viral vector vaccine. Yet they don't.

I suppose some people would lump me in with "anti-vaxxer" because I don't want to get the Covid vaccine. I'm not anti-vax, btw. I have a medical condition that requires me to receive regular vaccination against several diseases, and I'm strict about doing that on time. I've made a calculated decision in the case of this specific vaccine based on that fact that I've now had Covid twice (first time was a bit nasty, sec…

I hear you and your argument sounds rational. I wonder what do you think about receiving it for the sake of potentially vulnerable people around you. Just to reduce the likelihood of spreading it to someone who, unlike you, might be in real danger.

I personally didn’t mind the side effects, but mainly got it because I thought: What if I get Covid and give it to someone and something happens to them? And then I thought that it still worths the risk.

Of course no one should blame you if you want to care for yourself but I’m interested to know your feelings on this.

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

#836

Post by pjkundert »

thehappypm wrote: post #817
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?

Can you find a neutral source? I’m really interested in ivermectin but nobody posts anything from neutral web sites.

So, you don't want to review the 128 independent studies, 89 peer-reviewed -- you want me to find you more neutral sources?

You're on your own, buddy! :)

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

#837

Post by comicjk »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #232
shusaku wrote: post #19

I think it’s hard to overstate what a big deal this is for science. This is a completely novel molecule that appears effective as an antiviral. This would a huge achievement for the field of drug design, and will hopefully lead to all kinds of great medicine.

If unvaccinated people all died or went to the hospital it would be impressive, the title is misleading or lying about it’s effectiveness. The null hypothesis would probably neutralize it’s effectiveness. They don’t use infection prevention which would be much higher for unvaccinated because in reality it’s probably not very effective against COVID. The control we also don’t know any statistics about.

This is a placebo-controlled trial. The statistical comparison shown (85% fewer hospitalizations & deaths in the treatment group) already takes into account the non-hospitalized cases in the control group.

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

#838

Post by pfisherman »

HWR_14 wrote: post #811
sokoloff wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

R&D is actually usually done outside of the major drug companies and is funded by the government. So I doubt it really will effect it. And most price hikes lately have been in pre-existing drugs. It's interesting to note that the Pfizer, AstroZeneca and J&J vaccines were all invented by 3rd parties.

Early stage R&D is the part that typically happens outside of big pharma, though all the big companies have their own proprietary early stage efforts/portfolios.

Even then govt funded stuff is mostly preclinical. Start ups mostly cover anything from animal studies to phase 1 / 2.

Late stage R&D, manufacturing, and marketing is extremely capital intensive and complex and is mostly done by large pharma companies, who either license the asset or enter some sort of partnership with the IP holder. And I am including regulatory approval, demonstrating value to payers, etc under marketing (e.g. it is not just advertising).

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

#839

Post by rajup »

jollybean wrote: post #710
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.

Unfortunately, it's the opposite. Anti-Vaxx people seem to absolutely love non-vax treatments. I don't know if the rationalization is sound, but I'm not sure it's really that. The anti-vaxx stigma pre-COVID I think has had it's toll. The notion of 'government pushing you to take something' as well. Whereas, 'you get sick, you take a pill' is an easy concept. My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if…

> My fear is that a lot of people won't bother with a vax if they think there's a 'cure'.

Interesting. Indeed, should people bother with a vax if there's a highly effective cure? Is it worth all the teeth-gnashing and hair pulling on the part of the medical establishment, political establishment and media about people who would rather get COVID than get the vaccine? IMO this cure (once it starts rolling out ofc) is a reason to start rolling back vaccine and mask mandates rather than impose more mandates.

[Disclaimer: Fully vaxxed, will take a booster, etc]

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

#840

Post by adminscoffee »

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...?

this is where my mind was going, trying to remain positive and less conspiracy theory though. but it's really not secret that some companies (presumably pharmaceutical companies as well) have to stay in business and sometimes in order to do so, many companies build products that wear out, see how gillette razors came about for more insight on that
Post reply on HN