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

401–410 of 644 posts

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

#401

Post by giarc »

99_00 wrote: post #4

Talking about this study on Youtube is forbidden according to their TOS. "Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following: Treatment misinformation: Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

It's likely a CYA situation. There were people that took aquarium chloroquine after Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID.

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

#402

Post by ALittleLight »

bonzini wrote: post #379
ALittleLight wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important thing to know about that study is they are testing time to recovery for people with mild covid. I'm not anywhere near an expert, but two things stood out to me reading this study. First, time to recover in the ivermectin group was 10 days versus 12 in the placebo. The paper calls this "not significant" but it's not clear to me whether that's statistically not significant, and if so, why wouldn't it be, or i…

> why wouldn't it be Because you only gave the average time of recovery but not the standard deviation.

I didn't see the standard deviation reported in the paper. Is it?

I did see the innerquartile range and it was the same for both the ivermectin group and the placebo. To me that suggests that variation in outcomes is probably similar between the two groups.

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

#403

Post by xattt »

nicoburns wrote: post #296
actually_a_dog wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are there any specific “trench innovations” that come to mind?

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

#404

Post by fda_hates_u »

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 would be no emergency use authorization allowed if there was an existing possible treatment.

https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download#page12

Go to page 12 in the PDF (document page 8) then read section D.

Pharma companies could not distribute experimental treatments unless they lied to us about existing useful drugs. Reminder:

Pfizer: Phase 3 trial estimated end date 2023 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

Moderna: estimated end date 2022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427

Johnson & Johnson (it’s actually a Janssen Product which is a subsidiary of J&J): estimated end date 2023 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04505722

AstraZeneca: estimated end date 2023 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746

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

#405

Post by spfzero »

raphlinus wrote: post #349
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

Ok, I was confused by this line of reasoning, so did some digging. I believe it's one of the popular antivax disinfo conspiracy theories. Here's my reading. The line of reasoning hinges on the vaccines being "experimental" and only being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization, as opposed to a full approval. The FDA policies for EUA indicate they're only to be used when there is no adequate, approved, and av…

I think what has separated the policy around Covid, vs. say the flu, is the death rate. If the death rate were closer to the flu, or below some threshold that takes spread into account, the response would have been much different.

If a better treatment was available that would lower the death rate that much, it would change the equation.

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

#406

Post by AnimalMuppet »

temp8964 wrote: post #294
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well... it's the law, and yet the lines aren't quite where we expect them to be.

Have you ever seen an informercial or something talking about a drug to fix something, and then it says something like "this drug has not been proven effective for this use"? That's pushing the line but not crossing it. Those people don't get arrested.

But if you said "Ivermectin is safe and effective for treating Covid", then you've probably crossed it. If you're making money from it, then you may have worse problems than Youtube banning your videos.

I don't know what Bret Weinstein says. If he says "this looks like it may work", he's probably OK. If he says "it's been shown to work", I would be surprised that the FDA hasn't done something.

[Edit: If he says "it's been shown to work" and he's selling it, that's where the FDA will almost certainly step in. If he says it but isn't himself selling it... I don't know how they respond to that.]

Disclaimer: IANAL.

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

#407

Post by void_mint »

_ea1k wrote: post #384
ryantgtg wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can (or could until recently?) get topical ivermectin from pet stores, no prescription. Humans use it to self-diagnose and self-treat rosacea. So there is the risk that people will buy and ingest it.

That risk is not reduced by suppression.

You're suggesting that reducing awareness won't reduce abuse? That seems impossible.

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

#408

Post by void_mint »

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…

> IMO YouTube isn't medically qualified to censor ongoing research or debate, just stick a disclaimer and be done with it.

Youtube is qualified to say "This use of this drug is unresearched/unproven by the sources we build guidelines around", as are all private companies.

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

#409

Post by galangalalgol »

jean_valje4n wrote: post #390
injb wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The conspiracy angles are coming from those who have been misled into thinking it has been more successful than it really has been, which leads to confusion about why it’s not being used everywhere. No, the "conspiracy angles" are coming from people who have seen youtube videos and HN posts disappearing just for discussing it.

Well a lot of people with biochem background also have a lot of skepticism about it too. Ivermectin works by interrupting nerve function of helminths(parasites). covid is a virus, not a multicellular organism with nerves. I'm not saying ivermectin is useless, but why it would work for covid doesn't make sense (yet at least). Maybe it has some other mechanism to slow down covid that isn't fully understood.

there were some studies that seemed to show that it shrank melanomas. my guess is it is triggering the immune system response. but i just write software, so dont go chugging horse dewormer instead of seeing a doctor because this smart guy on hn said it would get rid of your melanoma.

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

#410

Post by void_mint »

Heyso wrote: post #352
unparagoned wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one. Since doctors don't go to YouTube to find out what to do. Until there is solid evidence for a drug noone should be going to YouTube to decide what to do, expecially when we have many proven low risks vaccines.

So much low risk, that pharmaceutical compagny made sure to have no liability if something bad happen.

All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Company also does not have a G.

They are low risk, as has been proven over and over again.

Post reply on HN