200,000
Peter Fairbrother
peter at tsto.co.uk
Fri Sep 18 05:53:49 PDT 2020
On 18/09/2020 01:22, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> On 16/09/2020 21:59, jim bell wrote:
>>> Also, search 'covid ivermectin'
>>
>> Doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well. Promoted by many of the same
>> people who promoted chloroquine, incidentally.
>
>
> Why do you say that "[ivermectin] doesn't seem to work, or at least not very well" ??
It is far easier to investigate drugs in cell cultures than in whole
humans, so researchers try many drugs in cell cultures to see if they work.
That doesn't mean they will work in humans (or not work in humans, you
can miss potential treatments too), but it is fairly easy to do and
gives some hints about what may work.
You can also try a lot more different drugs in cultures than you could
try in humans.
Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit COVID replication in cell culture.
It is very effective at doing this. But only at levels which are too
high for use in humans.
So, the theory goes, give it a try in humans at the highest sustainable
doses and see if it works. A bit of a hail-mary, but it costs very
little and the drug is already medically and legally characterised as
safe, so you don't have to do safety testing and the trials are even
cheaper and easier and quicker.
Unfortunately politics has gotten involved, and politicians have
invested political capital in the effectiveness of ivermectin. This
complicates matters.
Scientists have methods to find out whether a drug is safe and effective
but they take time (and cost lives). When politics (or finance, or
reputation) become involved that process is disrupted, and answers
become nebulous, at least temporarily.
Clinical trials of ivermectin have begun. Afaik no real big trials have
completed, but early reports are not encouraging - I don't mean they are
discouraging, but if it worked spectacularly we would have heard the
trials people going yeah yeah yeah by now.
If you do search for 'covid ivermectin' in google, on the first page you
won't find any positive reports from the trials people of its use in
humans. [1]
It might still work a little: though I doubt it personally, that is
still possible. I hope it does. But it isn't a spectacular success,
unlike dexamethasone and conjecturally [2] vitamin D, because if it was
by now the trials people would be doing handstands and cartwheels - and
they aren't.
BTW this is almost the same story of chloroquine in COVID. Works well at
too-high-for-humans doses in cell culture, is perhaps
over-enthusiastically reported by the cell-culture guys, gets picked up
by politicians, but, as expected, doesn't work well, or possibly at all,
in humans.
I say "as expected" because both were hail-mary's, we pretty much knew
from the start they were unlikely to work in humans at tolerable doses.
If you read the papers carefully you will see that, but perhaps you have
to read them carefully and know how such papers are written.
As to the cell-culture-guy / political-pickup issue, the cell culture
guys were excited not only by a vague hope of a treatment but also
because they were learning things about how the virus works. In a
hit-it-and-see-if-it-breaks kind of way, but sometimes that can be
illuminating.
As to the politicians, I guess they either don't have real science
advisors or they ignored them.
Peter Fairbrother
[1] There was a positive report by Prof Mehra etc, but it was widely
disbelieved and has been withdrawn. As has his chloroquine paper. It
looks like he, or the statistics company, just made stuff up -
scientists can be mistaken and even lie too, though that is (supposed to
be) the cardinal sin.
There have been other positive reports, especially from Australia,
Florida and Utah, but these have been mostly anecdotal. Hey if people
can say COVID doesn't exist, other people can also say that x or y cures
it. Doesn't make them right.
If you look carefully you may find that quite a few the people who once
said ivermectin cures 100% are now saying, well, maybe it helps.
There are reasons why we do double-blind trials, even though they may
cost lives. Anecdotal reports are unreliable.
[2] We know that people who lack vitamin D are more likely to die from
COVID, but we don't actually know that giving people who lack it vitamin
D will make them have a higher survival rate. It seems likely, and I
assume so, but correlation does not imply causation, and we just don't
know for sure. It is just an assumption.
OT: Have you noticed, the "we expect that politicians lie" meme has
grown to the extent that politicians now use the expectation to get away
with outrageous lies and similar behaviours?
"Hey, I'm a politician, you expect me to lie".
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list