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

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

#451

Post by ghoward » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

boredprograming wrote: post #370

raphlinus wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. Anybody trying to rationalize not getting one of the extremely effective vaccines will be grasping at straws for any other effective treatment. It's a natural outcome. The vaccines are as effective as the one that eliminated smallpox. To be against it, you need some serious FUD

FUD like the fact that the vaccines have had no completed studies on their long-term effects? Or being part of a demographic that has a low risk from COVID?

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

#452

Post by effie » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

lvs wrote: post #130

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…

WHO statement: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-adv...

WHO has very low credibility at this point.

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

#453

Post by ghoward » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:25 AM UTC

boredprograming wrote: post #435

effie wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about long-term effects of the vaccines?

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

#454

Post by effie » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #154

Turing_Machine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not their parent, and neither is YouTube. Besides the scads of dubious (or outright dangerous) health-related videos on other topics, YouTube has videos of people flying "wing suits" and engaging in many other risky activities.

You're not YouTube's parent, to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own website.

Youtube is the dominant medium, we are stakeholders and should have a say.

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

#455

Post by rossjudson » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #431

raphlinus wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you know that?

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

#456

Post by apineda » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #354

apineda wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But not for this particular application, and not in the doses where apparently it has some effect on COVID. And that is the problem with promoting this, as long as you weren't aware of that you probably should not be part of the army of 'useful idiots' of the anti-vax crowd.

I don't think this comment really addresses my point. From what I've seen the dosages (at least for prophylaxis) are similar to what you would normally take. No I don't think it should be rammed down peoples throats without solid evidence but neither should the vaccine. The fact is vaccines take around 7 years to exit trials and so yes I'm hopeful for a proven alternative that's not on trial but the likelihood as far as I'm convinced is nil.

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

#457

Post by guywhocodes » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

void_mint wrote: post #410

Heyso wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is low risk tho? Russian roulette is technically low risk PI've never before heard of people dying from vaccines so the usual safety bar for vaccines is obviously incredibly much higher than what we have here.

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

#458

Post by apineda » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:35 AM UTC

boredprograming wrote: post #421

apineda wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

for all the talk of "vaccine passports", not a single state has done it. Biden said he wasnt going to do it months ago. Not a single country has done it in all of the earth. if I was so worried about such a thing i might start to think maybe I was being manipulated to fear something that didnt exist. Nobody has implemented vaccine passports. And nobody will. But the idea of a treatment even close to effective as a va…

These are extreme arguments with little legroom for nuance. If you are so sure then so be it. There's more than enough news on this countering most of your re-assurances.

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

#459

Post by rossjudson » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:37 AM 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…

Must be a bunch of idiots working over there on YouTube, huh? Sounds like you have some inside knowledge about Google's resourcing of and attention paid to the COVID epidemic worldwide.

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

#460

Post by effie » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 1:37 AM UTC

raphlinus wrote: post #237

ds206 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'd rather not listen to other scientists, doctors, and pharmacologists with real world experience with these drugs for your own research purposes? I mean, if you had YouTube videos explaining your research results, I would watch it.

I think it's important to distinguish two things, which look similar on the surface but are quite different. One is the ability to listen to the scientific discussion taking place on whether Ivermectin is effective. That is reasonable and is a good thing. The other things is pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. And to be clear, "Ivermectin might wor…

> pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists.

How do you know the audience are nonscientists? Why would that be so bad,are nonscientists to be kept dark until 100% agreement among scientists is reached?

Science advances on many fronts, not just in peer reviewed papers.