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

221–230 of 644 posts

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

#221

Post by arminiusreturns »

dang wrote: post #155
arminiusreturns wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

True enough, which is why I tend to steer away from that conversation here, for the most part, but some of the more recent things are so blatant and have deep impact on the tech community that I thinks its time to start talking about the subject, even if from a tech perspective.

Point taken dang, Ill try to make less meta and more substantive points in the future on this divisive topic.

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

#222

Post by dang »

wonnage wrote: post #179
sveiss wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't get EUA for the vaccines if there's a working treatment. Veklury (remdesivir) was approved by the FDA for the treatment of Covid-19 in hospitalized individuals on October 22, 2020. This was a full approval, not an emergency use application: https://www.fda.gov/media/137574/download We've continued using the vaccines under the existing EUAs even after a treatment was approved. The FDA has granted additiona…

It's hilarious how parent comment's opening sentence is a (easily debunked, as you've shown) conspiracy theory, and in the next breath they're trying to sound reasonable and Definitely Not a conspiracy theorist

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's hugely destructive of the threads, especially when the topic is divisive, and your comment adds no information, just poison. Please don't do that; instead, respond to bad information with accurate information, and weak arguments with stronger ones, without crossing into snark or personal attack. If you can't or don't want to do that, that's fine, but then please don't post.

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

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

#223

Post by pstuart »

void_mint wrote: post #144
spadez wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, which in all probability is happening right now, and has been going on for many months, if not for the censorship of W.H.O, Youtube and media?

> But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, Entirely irrelevant when discussing YouTube, which we're doing now. YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.

I disagree. It's merely a platform for content and needs to be evaluated independently per presentation.

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

#224

Post by blumomo »

Wistar wrote: post #208
beervirus wrote: post #197

Let’s not forget the censorship of the lab leak hypothesis. A few months ago it was a racist theory that constituted thoughtcrime and couldn’t be mentioned, and now the mainstream thinking is that it’s the most likely explanation.

I remember it differently as not a "lab leak hypothesis" but a claim that the virus was not from nature but was a man-made virus, to wit: "I can present solid scientific evidence to our audience that this virus, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus, actually is not from nature. It is a man-made virus created in the lab." — Dr. Li-Meng Yan on the Tucker Carlson show.

That could be what you call a „limited hangout“. You only admit what you can’t hide any longer.

Firstly it was a no-go to claim it came from the lab. „It came from a wet market“ was the only truth you were allowed to claim without getting censored. Now that Fauci‘s emails are visible, it becomes more evident that the origin is a lab.

Now you are only allowed to claim that it accidentally escaped from a lab.

What’s next? Maybe we will see new evidence coming out that it was created and released on purpose. Let’s wait and see what we will be allowed to say then on social media.

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

#225

Post by jiofih »

throwkeep wrote: post #209
boredprograming wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. What is their vested interest in a generic, cheap, decades old, off patent drug? Vested interests tend to be in new, patented treatments. That's where big pharma profit is. So let's try a rephrase: Many people pushing patented treatments have a vested interest in proving off patent alternatives are unnecessary. For exampl…

Being proven right. That’s the anti-vac crowd’s dearest interest.

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

#226

Post by janoc »

goldemerald wrote: post #27
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).

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…

Ivermectin has been trialed also and has been available on experimental basis even in Europe - and it was found ineffective and is not recommended anymore.

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

Also similar non-randomized evidence was strongly suggesting that hydroxychloroquine was very effective (e.g. Raoult in France) - until proper randomized trials found it was not effective at all.

So you really can't rely on such evidence. That someone gets better after they got some drug doesn't automatically mean they got better because of the drug. In the absence of controls for other factors (other drugs, spontaneous recovery on their own, etc.) it only means that the drug didn't make their affliction worse.

Not everything has to be immediately a conspiracy of big pharma (or worse).

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

#227

Post by joe_the_user »

analyte123 wrote: post #160
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…

It seems it is you who is misrepresenting the ema link.

Key quote: "Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded."

IE, the dose needed for covid could quite possibly be harmful.

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

#228

Post by _Wintermute »

ds206 wrote: post #210
_Wintermute wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a scientist, I'm a pharmacologist who's time is now mostly spent on covid research. I'm glad youtube is removing most of the dangerous nonsense, because people like you tend to believe it.

So you'd rather not listen to other scientists, doctors, and pharmacologists with real world experience with these drugs for your own research purposes? I mean, if you had YouTube videos explaining your research results, I would watch it.

I do listen to my colleagues, typically in pre-prints, journals and conferences. Youtube is pretty far down the list of places you would go for credible scientific information.

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

#229

Post by gustavodemari »

azinman2 wrote: post #183
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…

Lots of others have debunked this here. Yet with all this conspiracy stuff there’s a big elephant in the room that no one seems to ever talk about: Covid is a global virus. The FDA can block and approve whatever treatments in the US, but it has no authority in Brazil or Thailand. If all these conspiracy drugs worked well yet the FDA blocked it for some malicious intent, the rest of the world would approve and use it.…

In Brazil many people have used Ivermectin and our country is getting a record of 500.000 deaths of covid today. Also, here in Brazil we had many reports of people needing a liver transplant because they caught drug-induced hepatitis. So, in summary, 1. Ivermectin doesn't work and 2. it can cause severe health issues if used wrongly.

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

#230

Post by axguscbklp »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #194
dang wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We all know that anecdotes aren't statistical evidence. That doesn't make them offtopic. They're interesting They were interesting before they were weaponized by politicians. Then they became a threat. This crap doesn't belong here, dang. Seriously.

The Hacker News guidelines say:

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

There is nothing in there about censoring things because they have been weaponized by politicians or because they are a threat.

Post reply on HN