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

411–420 of 644 posts

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

#411

Post by void_mint »

bookofsand wrote: post #297
emn13 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sensat…

> but drastically censor certain points of view?

When a "point of view" is having random unqualified people abuse medications, yes.

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

#412

Post by robbiep »

BrissyCoder wrote: post #391
spacial wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in Brazil, the president (Borsalino) is promoting ivermectin as covid treatment. I can tell you is not working at all. I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).

How do you know he wouldn't be dead if they hadn't been taking it?

Because a prophylactic means taking it regularly in order to avoid catching it, with the implication of the poster’s statement being that ivermectin, which carries significant risks when taken by a human at various doses, was the cause of the person going to ICU

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

#413

Post by argvargc »

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.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

The mechanism by which Ivermectin works does make sense, and has been well-established. Look up any of the many binding studies on pubmed for example.

Regardless of this, the results of the great many RCT's speak for themselves.

https://ivmmeta.com

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

#414

Post by roenxi »

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…

> The fact the interview between Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory was banned from youtube for non-WHO/CDC/NIH approved covid treatments is a tragedy.

Banning academics from talking on a platform is a high-risk strategy. It was always possible YouTube would do more harm than good implementing their stupid policy.

Note that their ban might be taking out anyone who wants to talk about Ivermectin neutrally or negatively because of the risk of being censored. It is possible (probable, even) that YouTube is now presenting a biased sample of videos sampled only from people who believe strongly enough in the drug to try and circumvent the ban.

My guess is that if Ivermectin turns out to be useless despite the evidence, a lot of the buzz I've heard will have been generated by YouTube squelching debate meaning that only the pro- side even attempts to get the message out on social media. Because I've only heard of wall-to-wall positive coverage on YouTube and I don't trust the consistency.

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

#415

Post by raphlinus »

xattt wrote: post #403
nicoburns wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The thing that most immediately comes to mind is Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who recognized that the standard treatment protocols were over-intubating people for hypoxemia, and that overly high pressures of ventilators were causing damage. He faced a great deal of resistance within his institution at the time, and was quite controversial in taking his case to Twitter and Youtube. Since then, he's been vindicated, and protocols have been changed.

I post this because I think it's the exception that proves the rule. Dr. Kyle-Sidell is a physician of great perception and insight. For every one of him, there are no doubt hundreds of "hydroxychloroquine doctors" who peddle bullshit without scientific basis to the harm of their patients. But the existence of doctors like him does boost the "maverick doctor bucking the institution" narrative.

[1]: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156

[2]: https://elemental.medium.com/how-one-covid-19-doctor-became-...

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

#416

Post by argvargc »

spacial wrote: post #314
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…

Well, in Brazil, the president (Borsalino) is promoting ivermectin as covid treatment. I can tell you is not working at all. I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).

That a widely-disputed "leader" is "promoting" a treatment in a country as diverse and with as many systemic issues as Brazil, has no necessary bearing nor indication of that treatments actual use or resultant efficacy.

That you have a friend that took it and went to the ICU is similarly meaningless. What dosage did he take? What other predispositions did he have? How badly was he exposed? What other treatments were used? Did he keep taking it throughout, or not? You say he's recovering now, would he have died without it, then?

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

#417

Post by argvargc »

robbiep wrote: post #412
BrissyCoder wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know he wouldn't be dead if they hadn't been taking it?

Because a prophylactic means taking it regularly in order to avoid catching it, with the implication of the poster’s statement being that ivermectin, which carries significant risks when taken by a human at various doses, was the cause of the person going to ICU

Exactly. Just because someone doesn't dose something correctly, doesn't mean there is necessarily anything wrong with it.

Shall we ban water? Sometimes people don't dose that correctly either, and drown.

What a dangerous substance!

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

#418

Post by effie »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #305
nicoburns wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And those were later validated by evidence from clinical trials. Until clinical trials involving significant numbers of patients are available, there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science. That's the contradiction.

> there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science.

What the hell are you trying to say? That doctors treating patients observations can be dismissed because they don't talk the academic language or their results don't follow academic guidelines?

There is more to medicine than just clinical trials.

Many different things can count as evidence, even if they are not up to your academic standard. Doctors observations, population-level improvements, and studies of different cohorts.

There are levels of evidence, there is strong evidence based on reports of observable ivermectin benefit to profylaxis and some benefit in treatmeant of early infections.

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

#419

Post by [deleted] »

jeremys00 wrote: post #364
mcguire wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to do this again? Hydroxychloroquine was debunked months ago. " Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123. opens in new tab.) " https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105…

Hey mate for what it's worth and you might say not much and may be right, the argument I ear goes as follow: the trials showing the ineffectiveness of HCQ use protocols that are inconsistent with the protocols the advocate of HCQ propose. To my understanding, the proponents tend to say that HCQ is effective when administered as soon as first symptoms (day 0 to 3 I believe). There are also dosage issues and combinatio…

[deleted]

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

#420

Post by RachelF »

injb wrote: post #371
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it has been explored, trialed, and experimented with quite significantly. The results show that there might be something there, but it’s not a miracle cure. 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.

> 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.

Here's a good overview of why posts disappear:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-di...

Post reply on HN