6 ms·

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 remotel

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

nekt 5y ago
Well you're wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ "Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2."
- analyte123 5y ago
  Computer docking simulations don't prove anything and are only possibly useful for initial drug screening.
  - nekt 5y ago
    He said ivermectin was not found to block TMPRSS2. I linked a nih study that said it did. Now its about proving its efficacy against sars-cov-2? I believe this is called "moving the goalposts". And there we have it - in silico is fine for this new substance that will likely have a huge price tag. Not fine for an existing generic. Far fewer people are buying this nonsense these days.
    - capnrefsmmat 5y ago
      For what it's worth, that is not an NIH study; it may be listed on PubMed but it appears to be conducted by researchers at the Integrative Biochemistry & Immunology Laboratory, Department of Animal Science, Kazi Nazrul University. PubMed indexes most biomedical literature, not just research conducted by the NIH. And again, computer simulations suggesting that ivermectin may interact with a specific protein is not the same as saying that it indeed does do so in human tissue.
      - nekt 5y ago
        Im unsure of what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say ivermectin has no impact on TMPRSS2? Ok here is another the google machine gave me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372205/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372205/ What is most telling about all of this is that there is no honest discussion. My only initial comment was that this blocks the same protein that ivermectin does. Multiple studies confirm this, its easy to search for them, and it has been the hypothesized mechanism by which ivermectin may show some efficacy. Does ivermectin block TMPRSS2 or not?
        unanswered 5y ago
        No, no. You have to give a source! Like CNN, or MotherJones! Until then there's no way to know the truth about whether ivermectin blocks this protein or not. I mean there isn't even really a right answer to that question, until we hear it from reliable sources!
        nekt 5y ago
        All of this was flagged. Unbelievable. Welp chalk this site up as another disgusting hive of censorship.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Because you're waving around a study that did not test Ivermectin.
        space_fountain 5y ago
        He's saying that none of these studies have shown in the real world that ivermectin effects TMPRSS2. And I've been trying to have an honest discussion from the beginning. I said I'd failed to find what you were claiming, but tried to make it clear that I was listening if you did have some evidence. Luckily you did, but analyte123 pointed out it was weak. This paper seems to to be a survey of other papers so doesn't actually provide any new evidence itself. It also has a few grammar issues which makes me more skeptical of it, but whatever. The claim made as I understand it is that there is only very weak evidence that `ivermectin` might effect `TMPRSS2` (aka computer models). Since we've done randomized controlled trials we can be fairly confident that ivermectin doesn't work to treat covid. The best evidence I've heard of for it working came from cell cultures where at very high concentrations it was able to prevent covid from entering cells so maybe the mechanism there even is related to TMPRSS2, but I'm just not really sure of what discussion you were expecting. Your comment read to me like you see this as vindication that ivermectin is likely to be an effective drug, when it sounds like TMPRSS2 has been consistently targeted as a treatment for covid by a number of different drugs and you've still only shown at best weak evidence that ivermectin even effects it
analyte123 5y ago
As far as I can tell ivermectin has only been "studied" against TMPRSS2 in silico. The better-studied purported mechanism of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 involves something called importin [1]. On the other hand, bromhexine, which is a cough medicine used OTC around the world does inhibit TMPRSS2 and may have action against SARS-Cov-2 [2]. Bromhexine is a prodrug for ambroxol, which is also an OTC cold medicine in much of the world. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32983936/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32983936/
- WithinReason 5y ago
  > in silico you mean they only studied it in a computer simulation?
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    correct
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Already in 2020 (I forget just how early), __ice9 on twitter was pointing out bromhexine and stressing the importance of blocking both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 binding ("dual-entry inhibition"). This is not an area I personally know about, but it's worth bringing up for the enthusiasts for censorship. https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1368634545717788677 https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1368634545717788677 If it works, the OTC nature is important. Hard for any drug to be very effective if the get-an-appointment-see-a-doctor-get-a-prescription-get-it-filled system takes you well past peak viral load before you even start using it.
newbamboo 5y ago
From the featured article “Janetka co-founded a biotechnology startup company called ProteXase Therapeutics” I guess you could see what their business plan is?
- space_fountain 5y ago
  But that doesn't incentive say a PHD candidate at Harvard to agree right? They're not making any money from this new startup and they'd probably get a lot of positive news coverage if they could show a cheap cure to covid. Certainly now things are a bit locked in place so it would be harder, there would be some repetitional damage at stake, but I'm just very unconvinced a cabal of biotech startups really has the power to keep a lid on something like this
thehappypm 5y ago
"some quick googling"? Do better than this.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I mean it really isn't on me to source someone else's claim. That's why I ask them to provide a source.
ralusek 5y ago
I have no opinion whatsoever regarding whether or not ivermectin's purported mechanism of action against COVID is valid. However, this: > It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about is not true. There are two incentives to lie about this, if you are in any way associated with drug or vaccine manufacturers. 1.) Ivermectin is out of patent and dirt cheap; basically not profitable at all 2.) Emergency use authorization for the vaccines relied on there being no available alternative treatment Again, I have no opinion regarding whether or not ivermectin is remotely useful for COVID. But there are plenty of incentives aimed against any older generic being repurposed.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  You're discussing incentives that maybe some major drug companies might have, but they aren't the only ones around. I guess, the more accurate position is that there are strong upper bounds to how effective a secretly suppressed drug could be. Imagine that ivermectin just cured covid for a minute. The would be incredibly easy to prove in a study. I mean just observational studies would be glaringly obvious. What ambitious young scientist wouldn't want curing covid on their resume? So you have to believe, either the vast majority of scientists, the press, or government are complicit in this conspiracy and I don't see strong incentives for any of those groups.
  - ralusek 5y ago
    Well that's the thing, is that there are literally millions of people in entire countries being prescribed it. India has dished out millions of doses for COVID, and there are many doctors and researchers completely convinced by clinical evidence. It's not as if there are no people picking up a signal, or that no studies are showing utility, it's that the available studies are methodologically questionable. But as you are aware, there are more formal studies taking place at the moment, and the official scientific consensus is that we don't yet know. Again, my argument against you was that you said that there was no motivation against it, and I said that wasn't true.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  > 2.) Emergency use authorization for the vaccines relied on there being no available alternative treatment That's simply so factually wrong it's tough to take it as serious. having a treatment that might lessen the severity of some percentage of the people that get covid has absolutely nothing to do with a prophylactic EUA for a vaccine that is wildly efficacious against mild and severe covid cases and stop you from getting it in the first place. Let's do a thought experiment even if that were true... that would mean the other vaccines that are under an EUA would have been revoked the moment Pfizer got their full approval which didn't happen. This is "there are naval insignias on the flags therefore we are not a constitutional democracy" level of conspiratorial thinking. > 1.) Ivermectin is out of patent and dirt cheap; basically not profitable at all that's the reason they threw it at the virus in the first place. They were looking for anything that might help.

nekt 5y ago

Well you're wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ "Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2."

analyte123 5y ago
Computer docking simulations don't prove anything and are only possibly useful for initial drug screening.
- nekt 5y ago
  He said ivermectin was not found to block TMPRSS2. I linked a nih study that said it did. Now its about proving its efficacy against sars-cov-2? I believe this is called "moving the goalposts". And there we have it - in silico is fine for this new substance that will likely have a huge price tag. Not fine for an existing generic. Far fewer people are buying this nonsense these days.
  - capnrefsmmat 5y ago
    For what it's worth, that is not an NIH study; it may be listed on PubMed but it appears to be conducted by researchers at the Integrative Biochemistry & Immunology Laboratory, Department of Animal Science, Kazi Nazrul University. PubMed indexes most biomedical literature, not just research conducted by the NIH. And again, computer simulations suggesting that ivermectin may interact with a specific protein is not the same as saying that it indeed does do so in human tissue.
    - nekt 5y ago
      Im unsure of what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say ivermectin has no impact on TMPRSS2? Ok here is another the google machine gave me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372205/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372205/ What is most telling about all of this is that there is no honest discussion. My only initial comment was that this blocks the same protein that ivermectin does. Multiple studies confirm this, its easy to search for them, and it has been the hypothesized mechanism by which ivermectin may show some efficacy. Does ivermectin block TMPRSS2 or not?
      - unanswered 5y ago
        No, no. You have to give a source! Like CNN, or MotherJones! Until then there's no way to know the truth about whether ivermectin blocks this protein or not. I mean there isn't even really a right answer to that question, until we hear it from reliable sources!
        nekt 5y ago
        All of this was flagged. Unbelievable. Welp chalk this site up as another disgusting hive of censorship.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Because you're waving around a study that did not test Ivermectin.
      - space_fountain 5y ago
        He's saying that none of these studies have shown in the real world that ivermectin effects TMPRSS2. And I've been trying to have an honest discussion from the beginning. I said I'd failed to find what you were claiming, but tried to make it clear that I was listening if you did have some evidence. Luckily you did, but analyte123 pointed out it was weak. This paper seems to to be a survey of other papers so doesn't actually provide any new evidence itself. It also has a few grammar issues which makes me more skeptical of it, but whatever. The claim made as I understand it is that there is only very weak evidence that `ivermectin` might effect `TMPRSS2` (aka computer models). Since we've done randomized controlled trials we can be fairly confident that ivermectin doesn't work to treat covid. The best evidence I've heard of for it working came from cell cultures where at very high concentrations it was able to prevent covid from entering cells so maybe the mechanism there even is related to TMPRSS2, but I'm just not really sure of what discussion you were expecting. Your comment read to me like you see this as vindication that ivermectin is likely to be an effective drug, when it sounds like TMPRSS2 has been consistently targeted as a treatment for covid by a number of different drugs and you've still only shown at best weak evidence that ivermectin even effects it

analyte123 5y ago

As far as I can tell ivermectin has only been "studied" against TMPRSS2 in silico. The better-studied purported mechanism of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 involves something called importin [1]. On the other hand, bromhexine, which is a cough medicine used OTC around the world does inhibit TMPRSS2 and may have action against SARS-Cov-2 [2]. Bromhexine is a prodrug for ambroxol, which is also an OTC cold medicine in much of the world. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32251768/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32983936/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32983936/

WithinReason 5y ago
> in silico you mean they only studied it in a computer simulation?
- weaksauce 5y ago
  correct
abecedarius 5y ago
Already in 2020 (I forget just how early), __ice9 on twitter was pointing out bromhexine and stressing the importance of blocking both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 binding ("dual-entry inhibition"). This is not an area I personally know about, but it's worth bringing up for the enthusiasts for censorship. https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1368634545717788677 https://twitter.com/__ice9/status/1368634545717788677 If it works, the OTC nature is important. Hard for any drug to be very effective if the get-an-appointment-see-a-doctor-get-a-prescription-get-it-filled system takes you well past peak viral load before you even start using it.

newbamboo 5y ago

From the featured article “Janetka co-founded a biotechnology startup company called ProteXase Therapeutics” I guess you could see what their business plan is?

space_fountain 5y ago
But that doesn't incentive say a PHD candidate at Harvard to agree right? They're not making any money from this new startup and they'd probably get a lot of positive news coverage if they could show a cheap cure to covid. Certainly now things are a bit locked in place so it would be harder, there would be some repetitional damage at stake, but I'm just very unconvinced a cabal of biotech startups really has the power to keep a lid on something like this

thehappypm 5y ago

"some quick googling"? Do better than this.

space_fountain 5y ago
I mean it really isn't on me to source someone else's claim. That's why I ask them to provide a source.

ralusek 5y ago

I have no opinion whatsoever regarding whether or not ivermectin's purported mechanism of action against COVID is valid. However, this: > It also just isn’t the sort of thing there would be incentive to lie about is not true. There are two incentives to lie about this, if you are in any way associated with drug or vaccine manufacturers. 1.) Ivermectin is out of patent and dirt cheap; basically not profitable at all 2.) Emergency use authorization for the vaccines relied on there being no available alternative treatment Again, I have no opinion regarding whether or not ivermectin is remotely useful for COVID. But there are plenty of incentives aimed against any older generic being repurposed.

space_fountain 5y ago
You're discussing incentives that maybe some major drug companies might have, but they aren't the only ones around. I guess, the more accurate position is that there are strong upper bounds to how effective a secretly suppressed drug could be. Imagine that ivermectin just cured covid for a minute. The would be incredibly easy to prove in a study. I mean just observational studies would be glaringly obvious. What ambitious young scientist wouldn't want curing covid on their resume? So you have to believe, either the vast majority of scientists, the press, or government are complicit in this conspiracy and I don't see strong incentives for any of those groups.
- ralusek 5y ago
  Well that's the thing, is that there are literally millions of people in entire countries being prescribed it. India has dished out millions of doses for COVID, and there are many doctors and researchers completely convinced by clinical evidence. It's not as if there are no people picking up a signal, or that no studies are showing utility, it's that the available studies are methodologically questionable. But as you are aware, there are more formal studies taking place at the moment, and the official scientific consensus is that we don't yet know. Again, my argument against you was that you said that there was no motivation against it, and I said that wasn't true.
weaksauce 5y ago
> 2.) Emergency use authorization for the vaccines relied on there being no available alternative treatment That's simply so factually wrong it's tough to take it as serious. having a treatment that might lessen the severity of some percentage of the people that get covid has absolutely nothing to do with a prophylactic EUA for a vaccine that is wildly efficacious against mild and severe covid cases and stop you from getting it in the first place. Let's do a thought experiment even if that were true... that would mean the other vaccines that are under an EUA would have been revoked the moment Pfizer got their full approval which didn't happen. This is "there are naval insignias on the flags therefore we are not a constitutional democracy" level of conspiratorial thinking. > 1.) Ivermectin is out of patent and dirt cheap; basically not profitable at all that's the reason they threw it at the virus in the first place. They were looking for anything that might help.