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

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

#541

Post by spadez » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 8:16 AM UTC

mikedilger wrote: post #536

robbiep wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your absurdist attempts aside, the important thing to consider with a prophylactic medication is the therapeutic index. Let’s take vaccines. Covid itself has a risk of harm of around 1:100 for older age groups of requiring hospitalisation. Risk of harm for vaccines is established at around 1:200,000. Ivermectin? There is no good data on the therapeutic index however it is a toxic substance with a low therapeutic inde…

Risk of serious harm from vaccines from a country where I trust the people a lot more than Americans is 1:3571 (based on 446,380 doses). Where are you getting the 1:200,000 from? https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...

125 serious AEFI in 446,380 doses. 1:3571 indeed.

But here too the reporting is open to anyone, and is voluntary. So chances of large under reporting is present here as well. Which is a bit scary..

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

#542

Post by spadez » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 8:21 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #525

darwingr wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll answer, assuming you asked with some good faith. Not every statement of doubt or disfunction is an allegation of conspiracy. Dexamethasone effectively treats the late, inflammatory stage of COVID19 where most virus is dead but still physically present. The promise of other licensed medications is partially from their antiviral properties which means they're only expected to be effective as early stage medication…

You've managed to miss the point entirely. The point is that Ivermectin worked, Merck would be pushing it hard because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to make an existing drug you already make then get through R&D and clinical trials for a brand new drug which doesn't yet exist.

Isn't the patent for Ivermectin expired already? So can't anyone produce the pills?

If that is the case, its pretty obvious why they are not supporting it..

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

#543

Post by spadez » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 8:28 AM UTC

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?

Couple of them are described here..

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/01/27/does-lockdown-work-...

Under the heading "The damage inflicted by medical ideas"

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

#544

Post by mikedilger » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 8:30 AM UTC

mikedilger wrote: post #536

robbiep wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your absurdist attempts aside, the important thing to consider with a prophylactic medication is the therapeutic index. Let’s take vaccines. Covid itself has a risk of harm of around 1:100 for older age groups of requiring hospitalisation. Risk of harm for vaccines is established at around 1:200,000. Ivermectin? There is no good data on the therapeutic index however it is a toxic substance with a low therapeutic inde…

Risk of serious harm from vaccines from a country where I trust the people a lot more than Americans is 1:3571 (based on 446,380 doses). Where are you getting the 1:200,000 from? https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...

Let me add that these reports don't show cause, just correlation. Attempting to determine cause is very speculative and tenuous, and so all adverse events should be reported. So long as everyone understands the vaccines don't actually cause this many adverse events. To be fair, the same goes for COVID-19: deaths associated with COVID-19 are not necessarily caused by COVID-19.

That point being addressed, I would expect the elderly to have a lot more background adverse events, such as death. If we live 28835 days on average, 15 people in this vaccinated group are expected to die every day from non-vaccine causes, and heavily weighted towards the elderly. But I'm not even seeing death as a side-effect, and the number of adverse events among the elderly (who got the vaccine first and have had the lions share of vaccine administration) is actually less than among younger groups. This perplexes me and if anyone thinks they know the answer to this riddle, please share.

[Oh wait... there aren't as many elderly people. hits head]

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

#545

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #329

If Ivermectin saved anyone, Brazil wouldn't be hotbed for COVID that it is right now. Doctors are prescribing Ivermectin to pretty much anyone who arrives with any signs that appear to be COVID-related. Some people are even taking it by themselves as a form of "prevention". It has not worked as the numbers clearly show.

[deleted]

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

#546

Post by codeflow2202 » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

javagram wrote: post #463

wumpus wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is just partially true. The studies you mention are on late treatment (and often on very high dosages). The data points to good efficacy for early treatment though. It seems clear that the only use for HCQ is during the viral multiplication phase which is not what the large studies have been looking into (they never look into early treatment for some reason).

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

#547

Post by stewbrew » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:20 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #540

stewbrew wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're commenting on a metaanalysis that summarizes 15 published trials, aren't you? Maybe you should spend less time on YouTube inspired guessing. Social media isn't relevant here. YouTube is not the center of the Galaxy. Medical doctors don't make their decisions based on YouTube videos -- at least I hope so. Edit: sorry for the wrong position in the thread. Should have gone to the parent post.

> You're commenting on a metaanalysis that summarizes 15 published trials, aren't you? The worrying split here is on HN I get to read 15-study meta-analysis posted by Steph C, int13 Labs CEO. On YouTube, a PHD holder in a medical field discussing the same 15 study meta-anlysis might expect to have their video pulled. It is quite worrying that the powers-that-be at YouTube are taking this radically anti-speech approac…

In a sea of bullshit videos, the minions who screen this stuff probably have difficulties to distinguish some phd (in what field?) choosing the wrong channel and bullshit.

Anyway, the original statement was that there are no trials - this in a comment on a meta-analysis.

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

#548

Post by Nursie » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 9:35 AM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #484

Nursie wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rallying round a drug like a football club That’s what gets to me too, and this is the major issue I had with Trump saying anything about anything. He was floundering to look like he had a plan and the moment he mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. It was massively irresponsible. It should be left to medical science, which is doing pretty damn well with vaccinations and treatments like dexamethasone.…

> mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. Trump first mentioned it as a possibility and investigation and that he was taking it after consulting with his doctor. That's it. The media made you think otherwise. Telling the public what drugs he's on is fine.. shouldn't we know what drugs POTUS is taking? And the people who politicized it were medical journals who published fake studies with no data or vetting…

He shouldn’t have mentioned it at all.

It was massively irresponsible for a political leader to bring up anything that wasn’t actually shown to work at that point, and the ensuing shitstorm was entirely predictable.

The responsible, statesmanlike thing to do would have been to tell the public all the stuff that he was doing behind the scenes to find solutions, not throw out something specific but unproven.

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

#549

Post by jiofih » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 10:00 AM UTC

effie wrote: post #486

jiofih wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube and Facebook are public platforms. Nobody benefits from the general public being sold unsubstantiated theories of miracle medicine X before there is scientific consensus. My beetroot-cures-cancer video has no right to be there either.

We are talking about scientists presenting important evidence about existing and useful treatments, and about the public discussing it, and about large companies censoring that debate. That is not anywhere near "selling miracle cures". Discussing good news, even if they may be incomplete or inaccurate is beneficial to many people.

Most of these videos are not “evidence” being presented, but merely opinions or advocacy. The general public has no need to “discuss” unproven treatments. Evidence is presented through studies and medical journals.

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

#550

Post by argvargc » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 10:15 AM UTC

robbiep wrote: post #521

argvargc wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Your absurdist attempts aside, the important thing to consider with a prophylactic medication is the therapeutic index. Let’s take vaccines. Covid itself has a risk of harm of around 1:100 for older age groups of requiring hospitalisation. Risk of harm for vaccines is established at around 1:200,000. Ivermectin? There is no good data on the therapeutic index however it is a toxic substance with a low therapeutic inde…

Huh? Ivermectin has been in use for decades and administered in the billions of doses and had only a handful of associated deaths in that time. How to safely dose it is extremely well-known and established.

If you look at any vaccine adverse events reporting system, you do indeed find the 1:200,000 number - as that's indeed where it came from - for all ~70 previous vaccines on the schedule (and adjusted for under-reporting - the raw numbers in the systems are in the 1 in millions in most cases).

The COVID-19 vaccines however, unadjusted, are in the low 1 in 10,000's.

Check any reporting system independent of country/region, you'll find the same massive safety disparity between COVID-19 vaccines and all other vaccines being tracked.

So, basically everything you've said is wrong.