6 ms·

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

by nekt 5y ago

randomopining 5y ago
Ivermectin doesn't have any legit studies with large samples to show that it's even that useful against covid. Also, what happened to hydroxychloroquine? That was the big thing in 2020. guess 2021 is ivermectin.
- nekt 5y ago
  I am not making any claims of any of these substances effectiveness in treating covid. I'm just pointing out that this substance claims to block the same human protein ivermectin does. We can all make of that what we will.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    In political discussions we call this the “anti-anti” position. If you’re not making any claims that Ivermectin works, why are you wasting so much energy and karma attacking those that think it doesn’t work?
- LMYahooTFY 5y ago
  Based on what metric? The vaccines were authorized under emergency use with trial participants comparable to samples conducted with Ivermectin. How is it not worth considering for a drug that's already known to be safe to administer and cheap? Beyond that, there are practicing doctors advocating that they've had good results. This should be more than enough to consider it's use, and not dismiss it as some 'thing of the year to dismiss'.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    "The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020." Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it? I agree that it should be able to be studied and probably used. But what's going on is that people are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the vaccine... which is detrimental when the vaccine is proven to be our best tactic against death/serious illness.
    - LMYahooTFY 5y ago
      >Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it? Perhaps I should have spoken more precisely, but I don't get the impression you're trying to seriously consider whether ivermectin is useful. https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ Preemptively, if you're interested in picking apart why one RCT can't be compared in any way to a collection of studies, only some of which are RCTs, I'm not. > But what's going on is that people are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the vaccine *some people You're effectively strawmanning, and choosing not to engage with the actual doctors who don't advocate this. Which is practically all of the ones I can find. But by all means, please link me all of the doctors stating we should use ivermectin as an alternative. I'll bet I can link a lot more that aren't. The website I linked above even explicitly states this in bold, on the front page. >which is detrimental when the vaccine is proven to be our best tactic against death/serious illness. The trial you're citing seems to indicate there was no observed effect on mortality.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      > Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it? There wasn't. Once you eliminate the studies that made up their data it is clear ivermectin doesn't work in the few studies that are left so nobody would bother doing a big study.
    - __blockcipher__ 5y ago
      Fun fact: the trial you referenced failed to show any benefit of COVID vaccination in reducing all-cause mortality in the population they studied: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... > During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. There was actually one more death in the experimental group, albeit that's not significantly significant. So some combination of the following must be true: (1) The vaccination is effective at reducing COVID mortality, but COVID mortality for people in the trial was such a joke that eliminating 95% of COVID mortality doesn't actually change one's risk of dying in a non-negligible manner (2) The vaccination is effective at reducing COVID mortality, which does spare lives, but it ends up killing just as many from adverse events / side effects (3) The vaccine isn't effective and they doctored the numbers. My money is mostly on (1) with a sprinkling of (2), personally. --- And since people like to be binary thinkers, this is where I mention that I'm not an Ivermectin shill and as a medical nihilist I'm strongly skeptical of treatments in general. And while I haven't looked at the IVM data very much at all, what I have seen is incredibly weak evidence at best, as well as a bunch of really crappy associative arguments from the IVM crowd ("Africa uses IVM and Africa has less COVID mortality than the US!" as if that proves anything) To quote (slightly paraphrased) the great Jacob Stegenga: > If we consider the ubiquity of small effect sizes in medicine, the extent of misleading evidence in medical research, the thin theoretical basis of many interventions, and the malleability of empirical methods, then our confidence in medical interventions ought to be low.
space_fountain 5y ago
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
- 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.

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

by nekt 5y ago

This blocks TMPRSS2 which is the exact protein ivermectin blocks.

Ivermectin doesn't have any legit studies with large samples to show that it's even that useful against covid. Also, what happened to hydroxychloroquine? That was the big thing in 2020. guess 2021 is ivermectin.

nekt 5y ago
I am not making any claims of any of these substances effectiveness in treating covid. I'm just pointing out that this substance claims to block the same human protein ivermectin does. We can all make of that what we will.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  In political discussions we call this the “anti-anti” position. If you’re not making any claims that Ivermectin works, why are you wasting so much energy and karma attacking those that think it doesn’t work?
LMYahooTFY 5y ago
Based on what metric? The vaccines were authorized under emergency use with trial participants comparable to samples conducted with Ivermectin. How is it not worth considering for a drug that's already known to be safe to administer and cheap? Beyond that, there are practicing doctors advocating that they've had good results. This should be more than enough to consider it's use, and not dismiss it as some 'thing of the year to dismiss'.
- randomopining 5y ago
  "The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020." Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it? I agree that it should be able to be studied and probably used. But what's going on is that people are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the vaccine... which is detrimental when the vaccine is proven to be our best tactic against death/serious illness.
  - LMYahooTFY 5y ago
    >Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it? Perhaps I should have spoken more precisely, but I don't get the impression you're trying to seriously consider whether ivermectin is useful. https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ Preemptively, if you're interested in picking apart why one RCT can't be compared in any way to a collection of studies, only some of which are RCTs, I'm not. > But what's going on is that people are looking for an ALTERNATIVE to the vaccine *some people You're effectively strawmanning, and choosing not to engage with the actual doctors who don't advocate this. Which is practically all of the ones I can find. But by all means, please link me all of the doctors stating we should use ivermectin as an alternative. I'll bet I can link a lot more that aren't. The website I linked above even explicitly states this in bold, on the front page. >which is detrimental when the vaccine is proven to be our best tactic against death/serious illness. The trial you're citing seems to indicate there was no observed effect on mortality.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    > Wow so there was an ivermectin study with 44k people? Where is it? There wasn't. Once you eliminate the studies that made up their data it is clear ivermectin doesn't work in the few studies that are left so nobody would bother doing a big study.
  - __blockcipher__ 5y ago
    Fun fact: the trial you referenced failed to show any benefit of COVID vaccination in reducing all-cause mortality in the population they studied: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... > During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. There was actually one more death in the experimental group, albeit that's not significantly significant. So some combination of the following must be true: (1) The vaccination is effective at reducing COVID mortality, but COVID mortality for people in the trial was such a joke that eliminating 95% of COVID mortality doesn't actually change one's risk of dying in a non-negligible manner (2) The vaccination is effective at reducing COVID mortality, which does spare lives, but it ends up killing just as many from adverse events / side effects (3) The vaccine isn't effective and they doctored the numbers. My money is mostly on (1) with a sprinkling of (2), personally. --- And since people like to be binary thinkers, this is where I mention that I'm not an Ivermectin shill and as a medical nihilist I'm strongly skeptical of treatments in general. And while I haven't looked at the IVM data very much at all, what I have seen is incredibly weak evidence at best, as well as a bunch of really crappy associative arguments from the IVM crowd ("Africa uses IVM and Africa has less COVID mortality than the US!" as if that proves anything) To quote (slightly paraphrased) the great Jacob Stegenga: > If we consider the ubiquity of small effect sizes in medicine, the extent of misleading evidence in medical research, the thin theoretical basis of many interventions, and the malleability of empirical methods, then our confidence in medical interventions ought to be low.

space_fountain 5y ago

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

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.