6 ms·

I'm given to understand it can be very helpful if you also have worms. It's good at fighting worms, that's what it is, and if you're comorbid with COVID and wor

I'm given to understand it can be very helpful if you also have worms. It's good at fighting worms, that's what it is, and if you're comorbid with COVID and worms it makes pretty good sense :) Beyond that, I suspect nah…

WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
Ivermectin is also apparently a potent protease inhibitor. Inhibition of protease sabotages viral replication. Does that change the picture for you?
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Not at dosages a Human would survive.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  It's not potent against SARS-CoV-2 though. Here's a comparison with the Pfizer drug: https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlovid-compare-ivermectin-15967 https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlov...
- Mvandenbergh 5y ago
  At what IC50?
- vintermann 5y ago
  Even if it was, (I don't know why you believe that), protease inhibitors need to match the enzymes a virus uses. It would be very odd and surprising if a pharmaceutical with a completely different mechanism and purpose would just happen to inhibit coronavirus proteases.
- martneumann 5y ago
  Man, aren't people tired of reposting the same things? This was only shown in a petri dish at very high concentrations. You could say the same about a number of chemicals which we also would not survive in that concentration. I do not understand why people want Ivermectin to work so badly.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    As far as I can tell it's either a desire for a certain political team to be right, people wanting to be contrarian above all else, and a belief that if an authority says something is likely false it's a conspiracy.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      Correct, but not for the reason you may think. As a non-American, I can tell you the only people around me who are really sure about this new unknown disease one way or other are those who follow the American news too much. They're really defensive about their positions as well well. It seems American media has nailed how to really brainwash the masses. It seems to involve a story where they really shame some people for being stupid (the people don't actually have to be stupid, just should be presentable as such with loaded questions, clever editing... what have you) and then while the people are experiencing second hand embarassment for the person, feed them what they need to think to not be ridiculed in mass media like this. This seems to work way too well and it seems they use it ALL THE TIME. Almost every "comedy news show" or opinion piece seems to be formatted like this.
      - cymian 5y ago
        Exactly.
  - maupin 5y ago
    Sadly, I do.
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    > I do not understand why people want Ivermectin to work so badly. In Brazil, ivermectin working means the president was right. That's why there is such a big effort in Brazil to make it work.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      And India.
- rsfern 5y ago
  You’re describing use as an antiviral, comparable to paxlovid. I don’t think that is the proposed mechanism for this prophylactic ivermectin treatment. If you have a reference you could share, that would be helpful. > Ivermectin does inhibit the same protease that PF-07321332 does, but, as is the case for viral replication, it requires a concentration that is not achievable by oral dosing. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pfizer-new-covid-19-protease-inhibitor-drug-is-not-just-repackaged-ivermectin/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pfizer-new-covid-19-proteas...
- m0llusk 5y ago
  Protease inhibitors are amazingly powerful, but also very difficult to make work in practice. Many protease inhibitors have been developed and abandoned.
loonster 5y ago
This is a much better take than what is being broadcast by the MSM. Ivermectin is not a dangerous drug in the dosages recommended. By the MSM declaring Ivermectin to be dangerous, it makes their statements about the inefficiency seem suspect.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  I've taken their comments to be "Believing Ivermectin as a cure against covid is dangerous in the same sense that believing rubbing butter on your elbow is a cure against covid." (People turn down legit treatments, and are more lackadaisical about spreading it as they believe there is a universal cure) Along with "Taking ivermectin in dosages at for the body weight of large animals puts people at high risk of overdose." (Which many people have done) Both of those statements seem true to me.
  - artificialLimbs 5y ago
    >> is dangerous in the same sense that believing rubbing butter on your elbow is a cure against covid. So we should follow the CDC recommended advice of not doing anything until it’s bad enough to be hospitalized as a good alternative? >> Taking ivermectin in dosages at for the body weight of large animals puts people at high risk of overdose. Are you talking about that single mass media article that was later completely retracted because it was discovered to have been completely made up, or are there other instances?
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      > So we should follow the CDC recommended advice of not doing anything until it’s bad enough to be hospitalized as a good alternative? I think the relevant alternative in this case might be getting vaccinated (which presumably the CDC recommends) which is sufficient to avoid hospitalisation in most cases. It's not everyone, but a lot of the people promoting ivermectin seem to be motivated by wanting to avoid the vaccine.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      No, we should follow the CDC advice to get vaccinated, with well documented efficacy against COVID-19 mortality, rather than the popular alternative of not taking the vaccine but instead relying on self prescribing a medication thought only to be effective in treating a comorbidity you probably don't have.
shatnersbassoon 5y ago
Casually announcing that everyone in this city has worms on the basis of zero evidence and deciding you can therefore ignore this paper is not the win you think it is.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  "Everyone" is not necessary. That the only successful such studies are in areas with high incidences of Ivermectin-treatable parasitosis is a notable coincidence, isn't it? Ivermectin failed in large studies with populations that didn't have worms.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    I don’t know why you were downvoted, so would like to add some support to this comment. Plenty of people on HN have seen this publication.
    - marcodiego 5y ago
      Probably Brazillian HNers. This subject became a matter of faith in Brazil.
      - skinkestek 5y ago
        FWIW for many it is also seems to be a matter of faith to proclaim that Ivermectin does not work, and this has been going on since the drug was first linked to the Trump camp. The irrationality in this regard seems to match the irrationality of the concerns over masks in the pro Trump camp. (I'm in the middle. Triple vaccinated, never took Ivermectin but find it really ugly that every single discussion about it ends in a flag, downvote and shouting competition that makes it impossible to find out what the facts are. The best I've found so far is Scott Alexanders findings but I guess there could be a lot more to learn if people weren't so busily either shouting or flaggind down the stories.)
        5y ago
evgeniysharapov 5y ago
Just because a drug could treat pulmonary hypertension, doesn't mean it could not be effective at treating erectile dysfunction.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  But there is a known reason why that drug works in both cases. The big issue with ivermectin is that there isn't any known mechanism that would help. Lab trials showed that the dosage required to kill the virus was far higher than a human would be able to take. So if it does work, it has to be through some unknown path.

WaxedChewbacca 5y ago

Ivermectin is also apparently a potent protease inhibitor. Inhibition of protease sabotages viral replication. Does that change the picture for you?

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Not at dosages a Human would survive.
maxerickson 5y ago
It's not potent against SARS-CoV-2 though. Here's a comparison with the Pfizer drug: https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlovid-compare-ivermectin-15967 https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlov...
Mvandenbergh 5y ago
At what IC50?
vintermann 5y ago
Even if it was, (I don't know why you believe that), protease inhibitors need to match the enzymes a virus uses. It would be very odd and surprising if a pharmaceutical with a completely different mechanism and purpose would just happen to inhibit coronavirus proteases.
martneumann 5y ago
Man, aren't people tired of reposting the same things? This was only shown in a petri dish at very high concentrations. You could say the same about a number of chemicals which we also would not survive in that concentration. I do not understand why people want Ivermectin to work so badly.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  As far as I can tell it's either a desire for a certain political team to be right, people wanting to be contrarian above all else, and a belief that if an authority says something is likely false it's a conspiracy.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    Correct, but not for the reason you may think. As a non-American, I can tell you the only people around me who are really sure about this new unknown disease one way or other are those who follow the American news too much. They're really defensive about their positions as well well. It seems American media has nailed how to really brainwash the masses. It seems to involve a story where they really shame some people for being stupid (the people don't actually have to be stupid, just should be presentable as such with loaded questions, clever editing... what have you) and then while the people are experiencing second hand embarassment for the person, feed them what they need to think to not be ridiculed in mass media like this. This seems to work way too well and it seems they use it ALL THE TIME. Almost every "comedy news show" or opinion piece seems to be formatted like this.
    - cymian 5y ago
      Exactly.
- maupin 5y ago
  Sadly, I do.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  > I do not understand why people want Ivermectin to work so badly. In Brazil, ivermectin working means the president was right. That's why there is such a big effort in Brazil to make it work.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    And India.
rsfern 5y ago
You’re describing use as an antiviral, comparable to paxlovid. I don’t think that is the proposed mechanism for this prophylactic ivermectin treatment. If you have a reference you could share, that would be helpful. > Ivermectin does inhibit the same protease that PF-07321332 does, but, as is the case for viral replication, it requires a concentration that is not achievable by oral dosing. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pfizer-new-covid-19-protease-inhibitor-drug-is-not-just-repackaged-ivermectin/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pfizer-new-covid-19-proteas...
m0llusk 5y ago
Protease inhibitors are amazingly powerful, but also very difficult to make work in practice. Many protease inhibitors have been developed and abandoned.

loonster 5y ago

This is a much better take than what is being broadcast by the MSM. Ivermectin is not a dangerous drug in the dosages recommended. By the MSM declaring Ivermectin to be dangerous, it makes their statements about the inefficiency seem suspect.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
I've taken their comments to be "Believing Ivermectin as a cure against covid is dangerous in the same sense that believing rubbing butter on your elbow is a cure against covid." (People turn down legit treatments, and are more lackadaisical about spreading it as they believe there is a universal cure) Along with "Taking ivermectin in dosages at for the body weight of large animals puts people at high risk of overdose." (Which many people have done) Both of those statements seem true to me.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  >> is dangerous in the same sense that believing rubbing butter on your elbow is a cure against covid. So we should follow the CDC recommended advice of not doing anything until it’s bad enough to be hospitalized as a good alternative? >> Taking ivermectin in dosages at for the body weight of large animals puts people at high risk of overdose. Are you talking about that single mass media article that was later completely retracted because it was discovered to have been completely made up, or are there other instances?
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > So we should follow the CDC recommended advice of not doing anything until it’s bad enough to be hospitalized as a good alternative? I think the relevant alternative in this case might be getting vaccinated (which presumably the CDC recommends) which is sufficient to avoid hospitalisation in most cases. It's not everyone, but a lot of the people promoting ivermectin seem to be motivated by wanting to avoid the vaccine.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    No, we should follow the CDC advice to get vaccinated, with well documented efficacy against COVID-19 mortality, rather than the popular alternative of not taking the vaccine but instead relying on self prescribing a medication thought only to be effective in treating a comorbidity you probably don't have.

shatnersbassoon 5y ago

Casually announcing that everyone in this city has worms on the basis of zero evidence and deciding you can therefore ignore this paper is not the win you think it is.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
"Everyone" is not necessary. That the only successful such studies are in areas with high incidences of Ivermectin-treatable parasitosis is a notable coincidence, isn't it? Ivermectin failed in large studies with populations that didn't have worms.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  I don’t know why you were downvoted, so would like to add some support to this comment. Plenty of people on HN have seen this publication.
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    Probably Brazillian HNers. This subject became a matter of faith in Brazil.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      FWIW for many it is also seems to be a matter of faith to proclaim that Ivermectin does not work, and this has been going on since the drug was first linked to the Trump camp. The irrationality in this regard seems to match the irrationality of the concerns over masks in the pro Trump camp. (I'm in the middle. Triple vaccinated, never took Ivermectin but find it really ugly that every single discussion about it ends in a flag, downvote and shouting competition that makes it impossible to find out what the facts are. The best I've found so far is Scott Alexanders findings but I guess there could be a lot more to learn if people weren't so busily either shouting or flaggind down the stories.)
      - 5y ago

evgeniysharapov 5y ago

Just because a drug could treat pulmonary hypertension, doesn't mean it could not be effective at treating erectile dysfunction.

jjeaff 5y ago
But there is a known reason why that drug works in both cases. The big issue with ivermectin is that there isn't any known mechanism that would help. Lab trials showed that the dosage required to kill the virus was far higher than a human would be able to take. So if it does work, it has to be through some unknown path.