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

561–570 of 644 posts

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

#561

Post by iammisc »

XorNot wrote: post #523
iammisc wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

All the times Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-t... Trump ongoingly and repeatedly pushed hydroxychloroquine, criticized published research showing it was ineffective, and most likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced. It was not a one off thing, and it was not "m…

> likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced.

White house physician said he was on it.

Also studies are mixed on it's efficacy. The ones showing it was supposedly harmful were fake.

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

#562

Post by iammisc »

Nursie wrote: post #548
iammisc wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Trump was unstatesmanlike... Sure I can agree.

But his opposition outright lied and they knew it.

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

#563

Post by Nursie »

iammisc wrote: post #562
Nursie wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trump was unstatesmanlike... Sure I can agree. But his opposition outright lied and they knew it.

Don’t care.

You’re just proving my point that it became more about sticking to your side and cheering for your team rather than relying on the medical evidence. This sort of stuff should not have been brought into the political sphere in the first place.

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

#564

Post by effie »

jiofih wrote: post #549
effie wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Witness testimony is evidence, these are respectable and accomplished people. You are wrong about the needs of the public. Public does need to be able to communicate about this. There are levels of evidence, not everything is presented through medical journals. However, there are papers in those journals too, see the article that this discussion is associated with.

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

#565

Post by rualca »

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…

> It is quite worrying that the powers-that-be at YouTube are taking this radically anti-speech approach.

Where you see "radical anti-sperch approach" I see a vestigial amount of false positives within a constant stream of crackpot and outright insane, anti-infellectual fearmongering-fueled conspiracy theories.

And let's face it: since when do appeals to authority pass off as a reliable indicator that the author is not a crackpot conspiracy theorist? I mean, during the past year the world had to endure a good share of people abusing their medical licenses to peddle bullshit conspiracy theories.

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

#566

Post by forgingahead »

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 isn't true. A recent study showed significant results in using HCQ: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/throat-spray-a...

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

#567

Post by perryizgr8 »

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).

> I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).

This is an anecdote, and it is dangerous to generalize from it. I have several family members who seemed to respond well to Ivermectin, and recovered better than their initial condition would have indicated.

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

#568

Post by tootie »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #498
tootie wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't really. There's as much evidence as we had for hydroxy chloroquine. So, some but unconvincing. And since it's been widely deployed by several desperate governments you'd think we'd know more by now. Here's a breakdown of what we've learned: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... Here's the latest bad news: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/science/coronavirus-iverm...

Both the articles you cite mainly complain about lack of data, but they both predate the study posted here. The NY Times is 3 months old. This study may or may not be good, but neither article address that question.

The social media bans were over people making completely unjustified pronouncements about it's value. Same as the guys claiming HCQ was extremely effective when the data was completely inconclusive. Anyone saying we should widely deploy Ivermectin is spreading dangerous disinformation. Actually relevant and accurate information is being shared and published freely.

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

#569

Post by thu2111 »

nszceta wrote: post #502
RachelF wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a good overview of why posts disappear: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-di...

I would like this translated into normal English. This is the basis of the argument of why posts disappear from the article, and I don't understand what the author is trying to say at all: > One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics. Arguments about the efficacy of mask use or ventilators, or the viability of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroqui…

I can see how that might prove difficult for a non-native speaker. Here's a version written in less fancy English.

During COVID times, scientists have become political. Many scientific arguments were not written about in the American media, because journalists assumed that the truth was the opposite of whatever Donald Trump was saying. Tech firms mostly did the same thing. This means discussion of conspiracy theories and real scientific debates have both been suppressed, and now take place "underground" i.e. in non-mainstream forums.

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

#570

Post by 13years »

manwe150 wrote: post #557
13years wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week" This is what is extremely disturbing. This result of the control of information occurring in our society. What's more, it is not just the literal control, but the social conditioning. Within the group of those who have known for a long time, there is a reluctance to share that with anyone else as society will apply any number of taboo labels to such individuals…

I heard the earth was flat only a few months ago too—it does not make either claim any more likely to be true. And FWIW, I have seen many ivermectin articles on HN (check my past comments), and all seem to say roughly the same thing, so they get rather annoying in my feed at this point.

"I heard the earth was flat only a few months ago too—it does not make either claim any more likely to be true."

It is not about the validity, it is that you can not even evaluate that which you have not heard.

The level of censorship varies greatly by media and platform.

Post reply on HN