Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by kcplate » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

andreilys wrote: post #75

hannob wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread is literally under a scientific publication investigating the effectiveness of Ivermecitin, but yeah, basically like Galileo Galilei. Except not at all.

Any discussion of ivermectin on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and twitter is met with ceremonial bans or deletion. Even when the discussion is between doctors or is part of a senate hearing (see: dark horse podcast with Bret and Cory, and Cory’s testimony to the senate which have both been taken off YouTube) So yes it is an apt comparison.

In the 16th century falling out of favor with the church’s conventional wisdom could affect your social standing and livelihood.

In 2021 falling out of favor with your social media platform’s conventional wisdom could affect your social standing and livelihood.

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

#292

Post by actually_a_dog » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

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…

> There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence....

> ....there hadn't been a randomized trial the drug

You don't see the contradiction here?

Edit: because it must be made 100% obvious, clinical trial results are the definition of evidence in medical science.

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

#293

Post by oblib » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

raphlinus wrote: post #276

atlgator wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So is dexamethasone, and that's used world-wide for seriously ill Covid patients. What's the explanation for why dexamethasone was allowed but ivermectin is being suppressed?

Basically it's been that there had been no studies to prove it works for covid. It's been used mostly in poorer countries that have had it on hand because it's relatively inexpensive. Doctors in those countries have been sharing info with each other and that's how it started being used a lot.

During that time gather data for this use was begun and it's taken this long to gather enough, over enough time, to prove its efficacy according to the standards required.

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

#294

Post by temp8964 » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

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.

The issue isn't the drug . It's the claim . The drug could be legal for use in the US, and there would still be an issue (unless there were studies good enough to pass FDA scrutiny that demonstrated the drugs effectiveness). In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid. Now, the other questions are whether Youtube should be considered "in the US", and whether Youtube should be an enf…

Honest question. Why do they need to ban this claim? Because U.S. doctors follow YouTube video suggestions when they prescribe drugs?

> In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid.

Is this a law or just your opinion? Are we expecting Bret Weinstein to be arrest in coming days?

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

#295

Post by stordoff » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

atlgator wrote: post #266

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?

Is the same not true for dexamethasone[1], which was the first successful finding from the RECOVERY trial[2]? That's how I've repeatedly seen it described[3] (FWIW, I was treated with dexamethasone for Covid-19 in October 2020).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexamethasone

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RECOVERY_Trial

[3] "A cheap and widely available drug can help save the lives[...]" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061281

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

#296

Post by nicoburns » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #292

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…

> There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence.... > ....there hadn't been a randomized trial the drug You don't see the contradiction here? Edit: because it must be made 100% obvious, clinical trial results are the definition of evidence in medical science.

That's not really contradictory. Lots of covid treatments have been discovered in hospital settings by doctors trying desperately to find something to help their patients.

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

#297

Post by bookofsand » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

emn13 wrote: post #261

void_mint wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

Not sure if I got this correctly. The argument is that no rational conversation of public interest can be hosted by youtube, in order to protect the public from the sensationalistic garbage youtube cynically promotes? And the solution is to let the machine rampage freely, but drastically censor certain points of view?

Worse, youtube outcompetes traditional mass-media for ad dollars by exploiting precisely the sensationalism engine. The net result is an uninformed population fed sensationalism on all cylinders, with rampant censorship decided by a tiny clique. I have some doubts whether this is a recipe for a stable prosperous society.

Edit. Of course the bulk of the conversation should happen on technical grounds in the medical media in relative obscurity. But given the high profile of the covid pandemic, should a therapeutic drug with a stack of studies backing claims of positive impact, be discussed in mass-media?

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

#298

Post by dang » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #287

dang wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've posted something like 9 unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in this thread. That has a seriously damaging effect on discussion, especially when the topic is divisive as this one is. I'm sure you don't intend that, but the effects work that way regardless of intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... . If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.ht…

I disagree strongly. Conflict-avoidant platitudes have much less substance.

Something else having less substance does not make your comments substantial.

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

#299

Post by apineda » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

boredprograming wrote: post #235

throwkeep wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Well the covid vaccine comes with some caveats to me most crippling to freedoms being the vaccine passports that seemingly all nations are already implementing. Having various viable treatments would obviously put an end to that. Since ivermectin has a long history of safety and already largely available its reasonable that interest is strong.

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

#300

Post by unparagoned » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

bmarquez wrote: post #176

void_mint wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Ivermectin is a prescription drug in the United States. A doctor would most likely reject the request if a patient asked for it solely on a YouTube recommendation. So to answer your question, a prescribing doctor. IMO YouTube isn't medically qualified to censor ongoing research or debate, just stick a disclaime…

Bret implied he got it from a potentially dodgy source. He was also pointing out "risks" with the vaccine. Even in comments you had people saying they were going to avoid the vaccine and take this drug instead.