Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfodor | Hacker News Reader

This is phenomenal news - I'm also curious how the various tribalist memes evolve. Will the vaccine maximalists who ridiculed "horse paste" when the data was still weak in part because a pill-based regime would undermine the message that vaccines ought to be mandatory embrace this much needed second tier therapeutic? Will the anti-vaxxers who will inevitably see this as the goal of a big pharma conspiracy covering up the efficacy of their drug of choice demonize this treatment despite the fact it conflicts with their fears of a vaccine conspiracy and will undermine the justification of mandates? Get the popcorn.

edit: Maybe this should be marketed as Ivermectin 2? I bet that would get more unvaccinated people to take it.

View on HN

Not exactly going to be the same thing.

Merck is applying for EUA use of this medication for Covid-19, something that Ivermectin never had. In addition, further studies didn't show Ivermectin to be useful for Covid. The study that first looked at Ivermectin has been proven to be not useful.

If another study came out opposing the Merck data, then we'd have to dig in as well to find out why, and see if either study was faulty, and if more studies are required or not.

This is how science and medicine works.

There is a large group of people that see disproving studies/claims to mean that some higher power is holding back the miracle cure. That's what happened with Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc. This is not how science and medicine should be viewed.

My guess is that:

- anti-vaxxers will eagerly take the pill, but believe that Merck covered up Ivermectin's efficacy to get this drug to market. the claim the vaccine's EUA was held up by lack of evidence of such pills will be memory holed

- the pro-mandate authoritarians will swallow the pill (figuratively, pun intended) when the powers that be celebrate this as a success and it begins being widely deployed.

in other words, we all win. the failure mode is if a divisive political figure takes a strong position on the pill being safe or not safe. fortunately I don't see this happening.

I don't think it's a win that a significant portion of the population will only take a medication if it's wrapped in a conspiracy theory.

Well that ship already sailed. My point about the win is that the memetics of a safe, effective pill imply to me that it will actually be widely adopted by unvaccinated and will also calm a lot of people down who currently are having a bit of a mental crisis over the existence of said unvaccinated people. So we should be happy for several reasons of this news.

I probably fall into the "vaccine maximalist" category, having family who fall into high-risk categories (age, immune-compromised).

This doesn't change my feelings. The existence of a treatment doesn't negate the importance of vaccination. It does make me hopeful that a return to normal may come sooner than later, as any new treatments reduce the risk of my family dying should they, despite their best efforts, become infected.

People who are vaccine maximalists are those who hear news like this pill and primarily are concerned about its effect on vaccinations, as opposed to being happy we now have multiple effective defensive and offensive measures against the virus, which was always going to be necessary for us to return to normal.

The existence of a treatment doesn't negate the importance of vaccination.

I never would have thought that statement was controversial in any way. I'd say the same thing for measles too.

But here we are. Humans are weird.

The vaccine maximalists ridicule "horse paste" because many people are literally buying and ingesting products intended for livestock.

In his Nobel-prize lecture, the Merck scientist William Campbell, talks about how Ivermectin was always intended to be used in humans.

Two relevant quotes from his speech are, "I had always insisted that our written departmental objectives would include the development of new drugs for control of parasites in humans" and "The end of ivermectin is nowhere in sight."

Check it out: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/campbell/lec...

I'm not talking about ivermectin itself. I'm talking about how people are literally going to livestock supply stores, buying products that contain ivermectin but come in forms and dosages intended for livestock, and ingesting those (even when intended for topical usage), based entirely on internet advice and without any kind of doctor oversight.

That's where "horse paste" mockery comes from.

Maybe they couldn't get a doctor to prescribe them the human pill because of all the politicization so they took the "horse paste" version.

You seem to have first hand knowledge of all these people's situations, are you following people to the livestock supply stores or talking out of your ass from stories you read on Reddit?

Most people that I know have that have took Ivermectin were taking the human pill. Only on the internet and news media have I seen people talking about horse paste.

Also, some vet meds are okay for humans (as long as you dose correctly), yeah you shouldn't take them, but that doesn't stop some of my liberal friends I know from taking horse tranqs (ketamine).

The only reason that they want an ineffective pill that doctors rightly won't prescribe, but not a safe and effective vaccine, is as you say, "politicization".

It's still a bad idea, on multiple levels: taking Ivermectin for COVID in the first place, taking the horse paste version, self-administering, and guessing the dose.

No, your first sentence shows you're lacking an understanding. They genuinely fear the vaccine and believe Ivermectin works. If it was exclusively about politics they'd embrace the vaccine since both Trump and Biden are pro-vaccine.

Taking Ivermectin for COVID from a doctor as an objectively "bad idea" is ridiculous, because it has been widely prescribed around the world for COVID. At best, it is a "marginally pointless idea."

It's been well-documented in the news, including people being hospitalized after overdosing on the stuff:

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/15002/person-hospitaliz...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/25/iverme...

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

Since you cited the hilarious poison control story, you might enjoy this analysis: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-pl...

At least one of those was debunked, but yeah the same news that said that someone was convinced to drink fish bowl cleaner because T recommended hydroxychloroquine when it turned out she was trying to poison her husband. It's a smear campaign and if people are taking it, it's because they can't get the human form. It's perfectly safe to take the human form and people take it preventively.

You'd think the HN crowd would be for elective controlled drug consumption and against pushing people into black/grey markets.

Kinda rich coming from the people who try to use ketamine (omg horse tranqs!) for everything.

Ivermectin is useful for control of parasites in humans (1) and other animals such as horses, but the grandparent is also correct, people are "literally buying and ingesting products intended for livestock" - from the veterinary aisle (2), and self-administering random doses not safe for humans, with bad consequences (3). It's sheer lunacy to do that. If it was effective for COVID-19 (a virus, not parasite), then medical staff would be administering correct doses.

1) https://www.who.int/tdr/news/2018/moxidectin-approved-as-tre...

2) https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/store-only-le...

3) https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

Ivermectin is not just for control of parasites, the anti-viral properties it has is because it's a protease inhibitor. It prevents certain viruses from binding to cells.

How effective it is at inhibiting binding is the question. This pill in the article and Pfizer's prophylactic are most likely more effective since it's not a by product but the intent. Also more profitable because of patents.

Nah, not many are, it's being prescribed by doctors on the hope that maybe it kinda sorta works. (It probably doesn't.) It's a safe and widely used drug so on net it isn't a terrible idea if you have an extremely high risk person. Though my understanding is the evidence in favor has gotten weaker over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com