Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by analyte123 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

analyte123

Computer docking simulations don't prove anything and are only possibly useful for initial drug screening.

View on HN

He said ivermectin was not found to block TMPRSS2. I linked a nih study that said it did.

Now its about proving its efficacy against sars-cov-2?

I believe this is called "moving the goalposts".

And there we have it - in silico is fine for this new substance that will likely have a huge price tag. Not fine for an existing generic.

Far fewer people are buying this nonsense these days.

For what it's worth, that is not an NIH study; it may be listed on PubMed but it appears to be conducted by researchers at the Integrative Biochemistry & Immunology Laboratory, Department of Animal Science, Kazi Nazrul University. PubMed indexes most biomedical literature, not just research conducted by the NIH.

And again, computer simulations suggesting that ivermectin may interact with a specific protein is not the same as saying that it indeed does do so in human tissue.

Im unsure of what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say ivermectin has no impact on TMPRSS2? Ok here is another the google machine gave me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372205/

What is most telling about all of this is that there is no honest discussion. My only initial comment was that this blocks the same protein that ivermectin does. Multiple studies confirm this, its easy to search for them, and it has been the hypothesized mechanism by which ivermectin may show some efficacy.

Does ivermectin block TMPRSS2 or not?

He's saying that none of these studies have shown in the real world that ivermectin effects TMPRSS2. And I've been trying to have an honest discussion from the beginning. I said I'd failed to find what you were claiming, but tried to make it clear that I was listening if you did have some evidence. Luckily you did, but analyte123 pointed out it was weak.

This paper seems to to be a survey of other papers so doesn't actually provide any new evidence itself. It also has a few grammar issues which makes me more skeptical of it, but whatever. The claim made as I understand it is that there is only very weak evidence that `ivermectin` might effect `TMPRSS2` (aka computer models). Since we've done randomized controlled trials we can be fairly confident that ivermectin doesn't work to treat covid. The best evidence I've heard of for it working came from cell cultures where at very high concentrations it was able to prevent covid from entering cells so maybe the mechanism there even is related to TMPRSS2, but I'm just not really sure of what discussion you were expecting.

Your comment read to me like you see this as vindication that ivermectin is likely to be an effective drug, when it sounds like TMPRSS2 has been consistently targeted as a treatment for covid by a number of different drugs and you've still only shown at best weak evidence that ivermectin even effects it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com