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

261–270 of 644 posts

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

#261

Post by emn13 »

void_mint wrote: post #143
bookofsand wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

This post entirely misunderstands YouTube's position in the whole situation though. YouTube removes content advertising the use of drugs outside of their (at least, at the time of posting the video) prescribed usage. YouTube is not meant to be a message board for "Does ___ work for ____ illness? Let's see!".

You're spot on. But beyond that, the idea that there's any kind of general public enlightenment to be had by spreading the most impactful (not necessarily accurate) videos by algorithmic selection in the face of considerable uncertainty and risk is absurd.

The youtube algorithm and social platform is not some kind of careful dialog for mutual enlightenment. People aren't trying to rationally assess conflicting and limited evidence, and youtubes algorithm certainly doesn't reward any such painstaking work.

As such on youtube which is what this is about, any such discussion is not at all likely to inform; yet because convincing tales sell better, whatever claims are made, are likely to sound convincing to at least some people - truth and honesty are entirely orthogonal issues here, or worse actively selected against (because they're usually messy, unclear, and thus boring).

And thus on youtube the appropriate strategy is at a bare minimum draconian censorship. I mean, ideally they'd dump the sensationalism-boosting algorithm, but that ideal is obviously not a viable request to a platform that depends on user engagement (of any kind) for its survival.

Just because we don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare doesn't mean all speech is necessarily a value-add, nor that there aren't any social dynamics that can reliably induce harmful speech. The world isn't that simple.

So while it's reasonable for people to seek certainty in uncertain times, that doesn't mean youtube is the place for everybody to debate ideal drug regimens.

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

#262

Post by stephc_int13 »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #241
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 have downvoted you, because I believe that it is a complete fabrication to claim that the mainstream thinking is "that it's the most likely explanation". As far as I can tell, most experts have settled on "unlikely but possible". I would be happy to "undown" you if you can provide evidence.

I don't think we can say that this question is settled yet.

The origin of SARS-COV2 is still a mystery and there is not enough evidence to support any explanation so far.

The initial violent pushback and recent relaxation around the lab leak hypothesis is suspicious, but it might be unrelated to the truth.

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

#263

Post by gcbirzan »

slumdev wrote: post #249
brokensegue wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is not how science works

Actually, it does. It starts with data. Sure, we can't conclude from his N=1 experiment that it definitely works. But Youtube wants to conclude from N=0 that it definitely doesn't work, and they don't want the peasantry asking questions.

It doesn't start with "my wife didn't get sick after getting treatment X". This is not data, this is noise.

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

#264

Post by Wistar »

emn13 wrote: post #250
blumomo wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Where exactly is this positive evidence it leaked from the Wuhan lab - and not just emails that considered the possibility it might have?

Nowhere, man.

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

#265

Post by AndrewBissell »

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…

> And here is Merck, that sells Ivermectin, but whose vaccine didn’t make it through clinical trials, discouraging the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use...

If Ivermectin worked on COVID-19, the manufacturer of Ivermectin that has made no money on vaccines for COVID-19 would probably be pushing it wouldn't they?

You are misinformed. Merck has a particular formulation of Ivermectin that they sell but the vast majority of it is made off patent by other manufacturers for very little profit. If they had an exclusive patent on a drug that they could make any flimsy case for effectiveness against Covid I'm sure they would be pushing it, the way Gilead has with remdesivir.

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

#266

Post by atlgator »

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…

Whether it works or not, there's no money to be made from Ivermectin. It's a very cheap generic drug. Why else would they stamp out all possible investigations of it just to ascertain truth?

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

#267

Post by rolph »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #215
rolph wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ivermectin effects chloride channels in neurons of parasites. in mammals ivermectin effects nuclear transport protiens responsible for mediating signal peptide transport to the nucleus. the in vivo concentration corresponding to EC50 was reported in the range of 2. to 5. micromolar this is a very problematic dose, for humans; this drug targets host, and pathogen, albeit by different mechanisms. https://en.wikipedia.o…

ivermectin effects chloride channels in neurons of parasites. in mammals ivermectin effects nuclear transport protiens responsible for mediating signal peptide transport to the nucleus. So that first statement makes some kind of sense to me. That second one doesn't quite parse for me. Can anyone kind of explain that in layman's terms? (Thanks to everyone who has indulged my curiosity. I'm just trying to better unders…

the nucleus of a eukaryotic; mammalian cell [a.k.a. humans] is surrounded by a membrane, this membrane has a number of protiens studded into it, some are channels, others "do backflips" to transport things across the nuclear membrane.

why do this ?.... protiens are made outside of the nucleus and must be inserted into the nucleus.

some of these are structural protiens, others are enzymes, and others are signals to the nucleus to switch operations for the time being, constantly chasing after homeostasis.

Ivermectin disrupts signal transport protien, and becomes cytotoxic, in higher doses due to its effect on the genetic expression signaling system.

[ADNDM] the claim is that CoV2019 infects a cell then produces a protien that enters the host nucleus and ultimately modulates interferon production, by the infected cell, and that Ivermectin can disrupt this.

when covid imports a specific protien this lowers the signal the infected cell attempts to give surrounding cells that there is an invader, and to harden up molecular defenses.

the problem is that the cell relies on this nuclear transport of signals for proper functioning, so you cant just block it, and expect the host to be spared cytotoxic effect.

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

#268

Post by AndrewBissell »

jiofih wrote: post #232
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”.

The best way to prevent this from happening would be to allow doctors to prescribe it, so people don't screw up the dose by buying it from veterinary supply stores.

You may get myocarditis from the vaccines, but that doesn't stop anyone from calling them "safe."

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

#269

Post by azinman2 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #253
vimy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most regions that use ivermectin have significantly less deaths. Example: https://twitter.com/jjchamie/status/1334228581870931968

That chart shows that state being the lowest death toll both before and after ivermectin treatment, which would seem to point to some serious confounding factors in this analysis.

Not to mention dramatic changes else where as well, and that’s assuming this data is accurate. It’s also from very early in the pandemic, when we didn’t know as much generally. Plus correlation =! causation. Could be far better making behaviors there, or all kinds of other factors. That’s why you need randomized double blind clinical trials, done by experts. This arm chair “analysis” is just bad science.

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

#270

Post by AndrewBissell »

gustavodemari wrote: post #244
_Wintermute wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some people in Brazil did this. What happened? They got drug-induced hepatitis by wrong usage of Ivermectin.

Why are they getting the dose wrong? Are doctors refusing or being prevented from prescribing the drug, leaving them to seek out unsafe alternatives like veterinary formulations?
Post reply on HN