Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

journals.lww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 644 posts

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#81

Post by jsnell »

spadez wrote: post #69
jsnell wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The sudden drop in Covid cases in India as the clearest indicator to me. What's the alleged connection here? Are you claiming that some non-trivial number of patients in India were treated with this? How many, and at what point after being infected? And just how did the treatment affect the case numbers? Generally you'd expect the vast majority of secondary infections to happen before the diagnosis, not after, so a…

>Are you claiming that some non-trivial number of patients in India were treated with this Yes, example from two states. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-prade... https://www.news18.com/news/india/mortality-rate-much-lower-... The testimony video in this page cites examples in many other countries https://covid19criticalcare.com/

I see no numbers on how many people were treated on either of the first two links, and certainly don't intend to comb through the dross on the third link. So do you actually have a number? It doesn't need to be exact, just a credible source on the order of magnitude will be enough. Are we talking a thousand, a million, or a billion here?

To reduce R by a factor of 2 by the use of a prophylactic drug, you'd need to have half of the population on a regime of the drug. It seems pretty obvious that did not happen if this kind of reporting is the most impactful there is. Just think of the logistics of trying to do that! India has a population of 1.4 billion.

On the other hand, if they only gave the snakeoil to e.g. a single digit number of millions of people the reduction in the number of infections would be imperceptible.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#82

Post by throwaway192021 »

goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

My mom is on dialysis, has diabetes and hypertension. Recently for a surgery we had to do a covid test. Dad also took the test. Both were positive.

The nephrologist prescribed ivermectin for mom. She had mild fever for 3 days and recovered. Dad had no obvious symptoms and recovered(he was not prescribed ivermectin, hence did not take it). The govt doctors don't prescribe it just vitamin c, zinc and dolo. This is india btw.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#83

Post by desine »

enkid wrote: post #70
desine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. The doctor who promoted Hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatment, Dr. Zelenko, is still banned from Twitter for spreading COVID disinformation. There's both actual conspiracies in this world, and well poisoning to damage the conversations. When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you shou…

Source for the EUA stuff? Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? The problem isn't that some of these things might be viable, the problem is we don't know which of the literally hundreds of treatments are actually going to be viable when going through the proper testing and approval process. You can't just scream conspiracy when there much better explanations

>Source for the EUA stuff?

https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/e/Emerg...

(PDF warning)(section III, the first list, point #4)

>Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments?

Dozens? Hundreds? of doctors speaking out, including videos posted to youtube, that they saw great effectiveness in the trial. The people promoting it weren't a bunch of nobodys, despite what the nightly news told you. There were plenty of frontline workers with actual experience. But that likely won't satisfy your request for a source - which is fine. We all appeal to authority as we see fit. I saw many actual doctors saying "this is effective", and I saw many large corporations working together to shut that conversation down.

Do you have any evidence it's not effective?

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#84

Post by alaxsxaq »

enkid wrote: post #70
desine wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. The doctor who promoted Hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatment, Dr. Zelenko, is still banned from Twitter for spreading COVID disinformation. There's both actual conspiracies in this world, and well poisoning to damage the conversations. When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you shou…

Source for the EUA stuff? Source that HCQ and zinc are viable treatments? The problem isn't that some of these things might be viable, the problem is we don't know which of the literally hundreds of treatments are actually going to be viable when going through the proper testing and approval process. You can't just scream conspiracy when there much better explanations

This is from the FDA website.

"Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

You should probably drill into this if you are interested, but the phrasing most often referenced by people talking about effective therapeutics and the lack of approval by the FDA is, "there are adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#85

Post by reedjosh »

gmnash wrote: post #76

It's banned on YouTube because of multiple authoritative sources indicating it's not a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Here is the FDA's stance: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... Here is the European equivalent of the AMA advising against it's use: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-iv... Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: https://jamanetwork…

There's a large body of evidence in the opposite direction as well.

I just pulled the following from Bret Weinstein's show notes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs

British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group: https://bird-group.org

The BIRD Recommendation on the Use of Ivermectin for Covid-19: Executive Summary: https://bird-group.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/bird-execu...

Carvallo et al 2020. Study of the efficacy and safety of topical ivermectin+ iota-carrageenan in the prophylaxis against COVID-19 in health personnel. J. Biomed. Res. Clin. Investig., 2. https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pd...

Cobos-Campos et al 2021.Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Efficacy of ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2. Clin Res Trials, 7: 1-5. https://www.readkong.com/page/potential-use-of-ivermectin-fo...

Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 93 studies, 55 peer reviewed, 56 with results comparing treatment and control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com

Karale et al 2021. A Meta-analysis of Mortality, Need for ICU admission, Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Adverse Effects with Ivermectin Use in COVID-19 Patients. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/04/202...

Kory et al 2021. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28(3): e299: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Nardelli et al 2021. Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Is the fear of failure withholding potential life-saving treatment from clinical use?. Signa Vitae, 1: 2. https://oss.signavitae.com/mre-signavitae/article/20210508-3...

Yagisawa et al 2021. Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19. The Japanese Journal of Antibiotics, 74: 1. https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1...

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#86

Post by flenserboy »

belltaco wrote: post #52
goldemerald wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While randomized trials are certainly the gold-standard for determining if you should give a new drug to treat an arbitrary disease, that process is far too conservative during a pandemic where a huge majority of the world cannot access proper medical care. Ivermectin is already massively produced, used throughout the world, and cheap to manufacture (compared to new anti-Covid drugs). Even months ago before the benef…

>The sudden drop in Covid cases in India as the clearest indicator to me. Nah that's just confirmation bias and rumors. It wasn't effective at all, otherwise India wouldn't have taken it off the recommended drugs list.

That's rather credulous.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#87

Post by belltaco »

desine wrote: post #56
goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. The doctor who promoted Hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatment, Dr. Zelenko, is still banned from Twitter for spreading COVID disinformation. There's both actual conspiracies in this world, and well poisoning to damage the conversations. When you look at the amount of money these companies stand to make from producing billions of vaccinations, you shou…

Dr. Zelenko held studies that 'showed' that HCQ had 100% cure rate by excluding people that moved to an ICU from the treatment group. The studies turned out to be complete bunk. He's a fraud.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#88

Post by bookofsand »

void_mint wrote: post #15
goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.

There are at least two questions to ask:

* If X died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame?

Assumption: Ivermectin has a net negative effect. Assumption: X relied on Ivermectin exclusively, rejecting the current standard of care procedures.

* If X died because Youtube censored "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" videos, who's to blame?

Assumption: Ivermectin is effective in certain cases, and X's life could have been saved if Ivermectin were used, possibly in conjunction with other standard procedures, up to and including vaccination.

The point of public conversation is to asses the cost/benefit tradeoffs of different courses of action, especially in presence of incomplete information. Additionally, reliable cost/benefit tradeoffs heavily inform the design of future information gathering campaigns. Given the public's heightened interest in Covid, it is unclear how to have necessary cost/benefit conversations other than in public. Censoring such conversations is potentially costing lives and is eroding the public's trust in the authorities.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#89

Post by kcplate »

_Wintermute wrote: post #50
kcplate wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that is the “theory” behind the censorship, but I’d suspect the true number of people choosing to do that is a lot smaller than people think. And frankly…if not censoring kills a few idiots and saves many more by allowing the medical professionals to fine tune a treatment, that’s a lot better than killing many to save a few idiots by making potential lifesaving treatment experimentation off limits.

How are youtube videos by people who haven't studied biology since high school going to help medical professionals to fine tune a treatment?

How are censoring YouTube videos from scientists who do this for a living going to help medical professionals fine tune a treatment?

It’s not just the laymen getting censored. It’s everyone.

Also, no offense, but how little faith do you put in our medical professionals and scientists that you think they can’t discern the difference between wheat and chaff?

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#90

Post by MilnerRoute »

mgamache wrote: post #16
13415 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without randomized trials you cannot recommend a drug because you cannot exclude confounders. It seems wrong to me to even speak of "overwhelming evidence" without a randomized trial or other sound ways to control or identify for confounders (e.g. causal models).

Actually a meta analysis can offer better evidence then a single RCT. https://ascopost.com/issues/june-10-2014/randomized-trials-v...

Wait a minute... This post is a debate between two opposing viewpoints. So it also makes the exact opposite point:

The primary difference between a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis is that the former “provide the highest level of evidence because they contain the least amount of bias. Randomized controlled trials reduce bias, while meta-analyses increase bias."

This Hacker News story is about a recent meta-analysis. But an actual randomized control trial of Ivermectin in March (on 476 patients) found the duration of symptoms on treated and untreated patients "was not significantly different."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Post reply on HN