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

431–440 of 644 posts

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

#431

Post by ipaddr »

raphlinus wrote: post #415
xattt wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protoc…

These days youtube would ban him.

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

#432

Post by doesnotexist »

rubatuga wrote: post #283
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…

> Here is an RCT in JAMA finding it ineffective: For treating what? This study looked at trying to reduce mild COVID-19 symptoms. In fact, the current strongest evidence is for prophylaxis, as well as treating more severe cases. Also the study didn’t show that it was ineffective, it showed that it couldn’t disprove the null hypothesis. Please get your facts straight, before throwing a link to a overly specific RCT to…

State the null hypothesis

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

#433

Post by effie »

jacquesm wrote: post #357
epicureanideal wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why instead of censoring podcasts like Bret Weinstein when he brings on guests to discuss ivermectin, other experts should engage in debate with him. When people who are credible scientists (like many of his guests) get censored it can reasonably look suspicious. I'm not saying he's correct, I'm just saying the right answer is debate. A person who is willing to have a calm, 3 hour discussion on a topi…

No, the other experts are at work, and don't have time to debate every person out there who has a following. This pandemic is not yet over and guys like Weinstein are all noise and no signal. Keep enough Weinsteins engaged and progress on this front (real progress, not imaginary progress) will grind to a halt.

Other experts are at work... so let the youtube with no science credentials or credibility judge and censor vocal scientists instead? How is that a desirable process?

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

#434

Post by cblconfederate »

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…

How can it be not safe since it s a very widely used antiparasitic

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

#435

Post by boredprograming »

effie wrote: post #430
boredprograming wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccines are a miracle drug. Less than one in a million people that have gotten both doses of mRNA vaccines have died of COVID. It's one of the biggest infectious disease success stories since the invention of penicillin

Maybe, but do you know how many have died from the vaccine-induced side effects? How could we find this number?

Yes. Basically none. The vaccines have been given to almost a billion people. And side effects have been tracked. How can we find this number? We already have it.

If there was anything dangerous within even 3 orders of magnitude of those that have died because they didn't get the vaccine it would be front page news.

Get vaccinated

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

#437

Post by cblconfederate »

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…

last year's reports about ivermectin were from 3rd world countries, and they were not rct. i guess that contributed to dismissing it.

OTOH there was a lot of hype around remdesivir, despite it being barely effective. Pharma is really a weird world

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

#438

Post by wrycoder »

fda_hates_u wrote: post #404
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/NCT…

That would depend on the efficacy of the existing possible treatment. Ivermectin is 70%, so it's not as effective as a vaccine. But it's a hell of lot better than nothing.

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

#439

Post by effie »

jiofih wrote: post #213
ppf wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next we'll find that the cheap and well-understood hydroxychloroquine is actually relatively effective Covid-19 treatment! It's disturbing how much the suppression of Covid "wrong-think" over the last year has resulted in useful results and information only very slowly coming out (and generally, in the process, giving a feeling of vindication to the conspiracy theorists). I have always been, and continue to be, again…

> against the idea that this is such a novel emergency we just need to ignore all the processes that we know and trust There is a pretty well trodden path for new medicine to prove their effectiveness, which all Covid measures have gone through. If ivermectin, hydroxichloroquine or any other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted. The reason discussions have been censored…

> other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted.

That is quite naive, the "due course" here would mean very costly trials that usually big pharma pays for. I'm not holding my breath for them to pay for that.

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

#440

Post by ALittleLight »

gfodor wrote: post #423

- ivermectin works - ivermectin might work - we should censor people suggesting ivermectin might work Three different claims. Notice people talking about them all as if they were the same claim.

I think censoring people responsibly discussing Ivermectin is deplorable. It might be a good idea to censor people advocating for using horse-Ivermectin, or selling fake Ivermectin, but there is no excuse for censoring a reasoned discussion of the facts.

I am ambivalent about whether or not it does work. I have read articles that make it seem promising and I have read articles that suggest it does very little or nothing. Not sure how to come to a conclusion there. However, everything I have read does seem to agree that it is safe to take and cheap so it certainly seems reasonable to try.

Post reply on HN