Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwkeep | Hacker News Reader

> Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary.

What is their vested interest in a generic, cheap, decades old, off patent drug? Vested interests tend to be in new, patented treatments. That's where big pharma profit is. So let's try a rephrase: Many people pushing patented treatments have a vested interest in proving off patent alternatives are unnecessary.

For example, here's Merck warning against using Ivermectin for Covid-19:

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use...

Then a few months later, "Merck Announces Supply Agreement with U.S. Government for Molnupiravir, an Investigational Oral Antiviral Candidate for Treatment of Mild to Moderate COVID-19"

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-...

View on HN

Being proven right. That’s the anti-vac crowd’s dearest interest.

That's the wrong side to look at this from. These are just people on the fringe with little influence and funding.

If ivermectin was authorized as a viable treatment the vaccines receiving emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been possible. There were and still are billions on the line.

I'm having difficulty understanding this line of reasoning. What does the authorization of ivermectin have to do with the vaccines? Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu have been approved for treating influenza, and that has had no effect on the recommendation that people get their flu shots.

It's the way that emergency authorisation use works with FDA. They won't issue that if there are other safe viable treatments. These vaccines got that approval because these other options were suppressed.

>Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu

None of them are as effective as Ivermectin (allegedly). It is only logical that efficacy is also important.

Someone else answered correctly saying an EUA can't be issued if an already licensed drug can help. I would further that point by saying to actually go dig up the true source of that policy on the FDA's website in your country (not someone's summary or interpretation). It's a great exercise that will leave you with some sort of ground truth in this mess.

Same as in coding, you eventually reach a point where you learn that when in doubt, you must read the source.

Ok, but let's not get confused. This is different than being an anti-vaxxer. You can speak up for something like Ivermectin AND be a pro-vaxxer. The most prominent voice on this is Bret Weinstein (biology PhD), who is more vaccinated than average. He and his wife and kids are vaccinated for the typical things plus typhoid, rabies, yellow fever... They are pro-vaccine and so am I. Vaccines are one of the best inventions ever.

You can, but you'd have to have some proof.

And so far we do not have any. So until then this story is pushed way further than it has any right to. Weinstein thrives on the censorship, but the fact of the matter is that there simply is no proven efficacy and until then this has no business being promoted to a mainstream audience who might get themselves into a lot of trouble, or who might forego getting vaccinated.

In my case that is far from the case. The implications of an effective treatment such as ivermectin are huge in that a) Covid passports go away b) Deaths and illnesses due to covid get reduced greatly c) It puts a spotlight on why these treatments have not had government sponsored clinical trials considering the ramifications. Incompetence in our governments in regards to these kinds of situations should not be tolerated. For example in Canada the province of BC allowed a trial to commence in may of this year and yet has not started. almost 2 years after the start of this thing? ivermectin has proven safe over the 40 years its been in use and if we try similar doses (which is the recommended for covid) there is all gain and no loss to test even as small trials. I would have certainly taken it since I had severe effects from covid. d) We don't have to have a phase 3 vaccine trial be a public trial where normally that is phase 4

We already have a drug that's 99% effective at keeping you out out hospital. And it's only a single/double dose. It's the COVID vaccine.

Any other treatment is basically unnecessary at this point because COVID deaths in vaccinated people are less than 1 in a million.

That's why anti-vaxxers are so vested in other treatments. It's the only way they can rationalize not getting vaccinated

Well the covid vaccine comes with some caveats to me most crippling to freedoms being the vaccine passports that seemingly all nations are already implementing. Having various viable treatments would obviously put an end to that. Since ivermectin has a long history of safety and already largely available its reasonable that interest is strong.

But not for this particular application, and not in the doses where apparently it has some effect on COVID. And that is the problem with promoting this, as long as you weren't aware of that you probably should not be part of the army of 'useful idiots' of the anti-vax crowd.

I don't think this comment really addresses my point. From what I've seen the dosages (at least for prophylaxis) are similar to what you would normally take. No I don't think it should be rammed down peoples throats without solid evidence but neither should the vaccine. The fact is vaccines take around 7 years to exit trials and so yes I'm hopeful for a proven alternative that's not on trial but the likelihood as far as I'm convinced is nil.

Create the problem, bring an unecessary solution nobody would have accepted otherwise. Step 3, profit !

Vaccines and covid are going to come back every year for sure.

for all the talk of "vaccine passports", not a single state has done it. Biden said he wasnt going to do it months ago. Not a single country has done it in all of the earth.

if I was so worried about such a thing i might start to think maybe I was being manipulated to fear something that didnt exist.

Nobody has implemented vaccine passports. And nobody will.

But the idea of a treatment even close to effective as a vaccine is attractive to those that believe that in such magical thinking

Ivermectin might be cheap but the vaccine is literally free if you're in the US. There's zero reason to not get it, and zero reason to hang onto hope that alternatives will work. We already have an extremely effective treatment, so effective it can wipe of the virus entirely, and its totally free.

Our government under Trump bought the vaccine en masse for a few dollars a dose. Those that refuse such a miracle treatment when the rest of the world dies of COVID are a stain on America's sheen

These are extreme arguments with little legroom for nuance. If you are so sure then so be it. There's more than enough news on this countering most of your re-assurances.

> for all the talk of "vaccine passports", not a single state has done it

New York's Excelsior Pass is a vaccine passport, and has been called such by New York Times and other sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/nyregion/excelsior-pass-v...

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/new-york-s-excels...

Nope, that is not the only way. You have side effects. And you have the fact that the vaccine is still in test phase. What are the long term side effects, we don't know. And unless they are obvious we will never know, because vaccine are like a religion too many. You don't question a religion.

You're indirectly admitting that I'm right. The anti vaccine crowd is desperate for a non vaccine cure, because the vaccine is so incredibly effective their beliefs fall apart otherwise

We can believe the vaccine works but that the risk is too great to take it because it's so new. And for the record, I think the alternatives are also too risky.

The vaccine is empirically way more dangerous than every other vaccine commonly given. I did the vaccines but I don't understand why we can't be honest about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com