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

231–240 of 644 posts

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

#231

Post by hannob »

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?

> Unfortunately medical experts are not allowed to discuss this in public

I've heard and read quite a bunch of them discuss this in public in the past, they must've been unaware that this is illegal. Or maybe it just isn't.

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

#232

Post by jiofih »

raphlinus wrote: post #141

For the curious, reasonably recent discussions from several TWiV episodes on Ivermectin. [3] is quite recent (Jun 9). [4] reviews a study which is mildly encouraging. I think it's fair to say that the jury is still out, and it does deserve more investigation. Fun fact: Vincent Racaniello's wife worked on Ivermectin at Merck, and on a recent livestream (the 6/16 one) he suggested it would be reasonable to take it, esp…

Known to be safe as in “you may get hepatitis”.

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

#233

Post by leesalminen »

belltaco wrote: post #152
andreilys wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Merck is developing a new anti-viral drug that would be much more profitable than Ivermectin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-03-25/merck-mrk...

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

#235

Post by boredprograming »

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…

We already have a drug that's 99% effective at keeping you out out hospital. And it's only a single/double dose. It's the COVID vaccine.

Any other treatment is basically unnecessary at this point because COVID deaths in vaccinated people are less than 1 in a million.

That's why anti-vaxxers are so vested in other treatments. It's the only way they can rationalize not getting vaccinated

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

#236

Post by oDot »

dang wrote: post #167
oDot wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very unfortunate.

That's an illusion; it only seems that way when you judge by specific prominent cases that you care about. Turning off flagging on HN would have the same effect as turning off the immune system in a human body, only faster.

Didn't mean it wasn't useful, just that it has unfortunate side effects

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

#237

Post by raphlinus »

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 think it's important to distinguish two things, which look similar on the surface but are quite different. One is the ability to listen to the scientific discussion taking place on whether Ivermectin is effective. That is reasonable and is a good thing.

The other things is pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. And to be clear, "Ivermectin might work and there are good studies in favor of it" is not in that category, but "Ivermectin is the cure" is.

I think the Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein podcast[1] is on the border between these two (with a bit of motte and bailey). But to get more insight into how it's landing, check the comments to that video. Lots of people finding ways to procure it, conspiracies, and a strong overlap with antivax.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs

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

#238

Post by jiofih »

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.

The medical experts at Frontiers of Pharmacology, the #2 journal in the field, rejected the paper due to lack of rigor.

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

#239

Post by dang »

mgamache wrote: post #195
mgamache wrote: post #9

Countdown to Tess Lawrie being attacked 3,2,1....

keep downvoting. She's already had her Twitter account suspended. https://twitter.com/marybethpf/status/1404880155537985541

Can you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? If you have substantive information to share, please share it thoughtfully. If you post like you're doing in this thread, it's just pouring fuel on the flames, and no one learns anything from that.

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

Moreover, you discredit your own view by posting like this, which isn't in your interest—and if your view happens to be correct, then you're actually discrediting the truth as well, and that's a harmful thing to do. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

ds206 wrote: post #199
void_mint wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But drug commercials on TV are? I mean, why can't a doctor talk about the benefits of a certain drug with a "but talk to your own doctor first"? How is that any different?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN