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

151–160 of 644 posts

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

#151

Post by boredprograming »

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…

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

It may work, but that's why you get recommendations for "vaccine made me magnetic" and other garbage like that whenever you search for videos.

It's the same group that was pushing hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug

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

#152

Post by belltaco »

andreilys wrote: post #113
hannob wrote: post #78

This looks less ridiculous than the last metaanalysis on Ivermectin that was posted here. Still if you look at it there's some reason for caution. Not all of the included studies were RCTs, some were not blinded. If you look at the "Risk of Bias"-Table there are really only three studies that could qualify as high quality. I'm waiting for judgement from medical experts.

Unfortunately medical experts are not allowed to discuss this in public, so we’re left with back door meetings where Pharma execs will inevitably push outcomes that will be favorable for their bottom line. Who wants to invest billions of dollars into a new vaccine/anti-viral drug only to lose out on all that investment by Ivermectin which will not contribute a single cent to the Pharma execs year-end bonus?

Merck sells Ivrmectin and recently had their vaccine candidate fail, they might be behind this push for IVR, with all the behind the scenes PR for it and the questionable speciality anonymous websites in this thread.

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

#153

Post by [deleted] »

kitcar wrote: post #22
whoooooo123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin isn't a "veterinary drug", it's been used as a human medicine for decades.

The link I provided from the FDA says: "There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses."

[deleted]

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

#154

Post by belltaco »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #28
_Wintermute wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people are idiots and will try and self-medicate, potentially making themselves really ill.

You are not their parent, and neither is YouTube. Besides the scads of dubious (or outright dangerous) health-related videos on other topics, YouTube has videos of people flying "wing suits" and engaging in many other risky activities.

You're not YouTube's parent, to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own website.

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

#155

Post by dang »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #30
stephc_int13 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this extremely worrying, to be honest. They are legal and widely used drugs in most countries. They might not be miracle drugs to treat COVID-19, but I don't see the point in this ban.

Good, you should. This is a major problem that short circuited lots of brains because it was easy to follow the msm narrative which character assassinated anybody who didnt conform, then used that narrative to start censoring. Again on the censorship topic many of us had been ringing warning bells (some great if devolved convos during were had here when the big censorship push happened...) When are all you intelligen…

Ok, but the "wake up sheeple" approach is guaranteed to (a) not persuade, and (b) take the thread into a predictable rut. So please find a different approach to make your substantive points with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#157

Post by f38zf5vdt »

mikeytown2 wrote: post #129

N=1. Me and my 2 year old had covid. My wife started ivermectin and never got sick. Shared bed and sick 2 year old wants mommy. Ivermectin didn't work for me (diarrhea) but my fever went from 102.7 down to 99 12 hours after HQC after 6 days of a slow downward spiral (fever kept going up and up every day). So for me, my take is the drugs absolutely worked.

I had a raging case of COVID19, and deep into a 39C fever I began burning offerings and meat and honey to the moon. It was late at night, and I figured maybe the Moon God would be awake. There was no effect on the fever.

Once the dawn came, I gyrated wildly in the direction of the sun while burning incense. Within hours, my fever broke and was down to a lukewarm 38C! Now I see that COVID19 is the domain of the Sun God. I was a fool for praying to the moon the whole time.

My relatives had COVID19 too. Two were completely asymptomatic and two had moderate disease in a family of 4. Since half of COVID19 cases are asymptomatic, many people think because they're taking foo, it had effect bar against the disease and that is why they aren't sick. But it turned out they're just one of the lucky 1 in 2.

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

#158

Post by dang »

kcplate wrote: post #24

I think the future is going to look back on this pandemic and be simply amazed that the public allowed social media companies to dictate to the world what scientists and the people could and could not discuss. Much in the same way we look at the 16th century with Galileo and the Catholic Church.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562540.

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

#159

Post by dang »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #157
mikeytown2 wrote: post #129

N=1. Me and my 2 year old had covid. My wife started ivermectin and never got sick. Shared bed and sick 2 year old wants mommy. Ivermectin didn't work for me (diarrhea) but my fever went from 102.7 down to 99 12 hours after HQC after 6 days of a slow downward spiral (fever kept going up and up every day). So for me, my take is the drugs absolutely worked.

I had a raging case of COVID19, and deep into a 39C fever I began burning offerings and meat and honey to the moon. It was late at night, and I figured maybe the Moon God would be awake. There was no effect on the fever. Once the dawn came, I gyrated wildly in the direction of the sun while burning incense. Within hours, my fever broke and was down to a lukewarm 38C! Now I see that COVID19 is the domain of the Sun Go…

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially not on divisive topics.

We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting, and they're the lifeblood of conversation. Generally on HN the approach is to trust readers to be able to make their own minds.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these ones: "Don't be snarky.", "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.", and "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

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

#160

Post by analyte123 »

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…

Actually the EMA link says that current evidence for ivermectin is insufficient and it cannot currently be recommended outside of trials. This not the same as claiming that it does not work or that it is hazardous, although many journalists can seemingly not tell the difference. The FDA’s advisory is mostly about people overdosing on veterinary ivermectin. They emphasize that overdose and medication interactions are possible, veterinary ivermectin is not a good substitute for human ivermectin, and that ivermectin is not an approved treatment for COVID-19. Again, even within the paradigm of blindly listening to authoritative sources, this is not an assertion that normal doses of ivermectin for off-label use are dangerous and should be prohibited for prescription, let alone an order for tech companies to censor the mere mention of it.

When the FDA’s advisory came out, there were articles (eg [1]) referring to ivermectin-the-molecule as a “horse de-wormer” and drawing no distinction between animal and human use (and it has been proven safe and effective in humans, just not for COVID). The level of discourse around this feels like I am reading 90s drug war content.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/people-poisoning-themselves-...

Post reply on HN