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

461–470 of 644 posts

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

#461

Post by effie »

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

> And side effects have been tracked. How can we find this number? We already have it.

Oh, that is great! Where can I find this tracker and the reports of side-effects? And this number we have, what is it? Can you write it here?

Should I rely for this information on my TV news?

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

#462

Post by effie »

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.

> All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda.

Please read this site terms of use. Post only substantive comments that contribute to discussion and avoid name-calling, and shallow dismissals.

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

#463

Post by javagram »

wumpus wrote: post #447
actually_a_dog wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be nice to make a list of things that appeared to work in hospitals and then failed randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine is a good example. Lots of doctors were trying it and thought it seemed to help. Due to the interest in the drug several RCTs of it were performed and it was shown to have no effect on patient recovery or prophylaxis of covid.

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

#464

Post by Fomite »

ALittleLight wrote: post #402
bonzini wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They provide it in the form of a hazard ratio:

"hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.32]"

So statistically, those on ivermectin recovered 1.07 times as quickly as those on placebo, but the uncertainty bounds are from 0.87 times as fact to 1.32 times as fast.

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

#465

Post by dolni »

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.

Is that sort of like how the normal process for vaccine approval is the _definition_ of "safe", and yet government officials and media keep insisting that vaccines approved on an emergency use basis are "safe"?

The scientific method is a process. Evidence is just one part of the bigger picture.

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

#466

Post by javagram »

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…

Dexamethasone is an approved drug recommended by the FDA for treatment of Covid and it didn’t stop the vaccine EUA. The vaccines are 95-100% effective in trials, no other drug comes close.

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

#467

Post by spiffydave »

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.

"but why it would work for covid doesn't make sense"

This is the way many treatments work. For example, hydroxychloroquine was a treatment for malaria, but doctors found that some patients with autoimmune disease had their symptoms lessened or eliminated as they were treated for malaria.

So, it has become a milder treatment for autoimmune disease in some cases. The scientific community doesn't 100% understand why it's effective for autoimmune disease, but there you go. It seems to work in many cases.

I say this not as an expert, but as someone who has taken it and it has worked for me. I don't care that the mechanism is unexplained.

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

#468

Post by xanaxagoras »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #342

I present this post, the fact that it made the front page, and many of the comments on it, as evidence that the US is sliding into idiocy.

If your evidence were instead your own comment, I would whole heartedly agree.

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

#469

Post by maesij »

One thing that's not a conspiracy, people are getting censored for discussing Ivermectin with respect to Covid-19 treatment.

It's not surprising that foments distrust.

Tech should never have gotten into the business of censoring. It seems like a good way to get regulated.

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

#470

Post by edmundsauto »

argvargc wrote: post #417
robbiep wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The valuable part of your comment would have been more impactful if it weren't for the following 2 paragraphs about water.
Post reply on HN