Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

journals.lww.com

611–620 of 644 posts

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

#611
post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is needed will prolong the epidemic more than if they took the vaccine? Maybe it will do the opposite, as 1) natural immunity may be stronger, last longer 2) some number of non-vaccinated peo…

Modulo a few hundred thousand deaths those mechanisms have the same outcome. If you're ok with that by all means, go push herd immunity through infection.

There are effective treatments available now, it is not clear that well-treated infections would lead to more deaths than vaccinations.

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

#612
post #518
post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask and it shall be given to you. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-investigator-adm...

I have no idea how this is relevant to guidance on an anthelminthic drug, but it seems you believe you have axes to grind, so I'll let you grind them alone.

It's examples of how WHO is unreliable on multiple fronts.

Regarding ivermectin, this is documented here. https://ivmmeta.com/#who

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

#613
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This community is not equipped to have this discussion, as evidenced by the discussion.

Seeing HN used to promote garbage is going to cause good people to leave, and that in turn is going to accelerate the degree to which garbage will end up on the homepage and so on. This is a downward spiral.

This is not the way to handle this. There are better ways to handle this.

You seem to be on a tear today. FYI, I added my flag here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27577500

As well as adding a flag to one of the comments in that discussion that attacked you. I don't leave a lot of flags on HN. For various reasons, I'm pretty conservative in my use of flags.

I'm surprised to see this particular piece where I am currently commenting got so many upvotes and so many comments. I asked about the mechanism of how this drug works and got some meaningful engagement and also some really worthless engagement, in my opinion.* And then I lost interest. I couldn't readily see a meaningful connection.

But you are basically talking about censorship. Censorship grows interest in the forbidden topic. I wholly disagree with your position here.

If this is the garbage you claim it is -- and it may well be, I just don't know the topic well enough to affirmatively agree with you -- then there are vastly better ways to kill it without harming freedom of speech.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562715

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

#614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, that's FUD. You can't have a completed long term study when a vaccine has not been on the market for a long enough term. That's pretty obvious.

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

#616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the EMA link says that current evidence for ivermectin is insufficient and it cannot currently be recommended outside of trials. This not the same as claiming that it does not work or that it is hazardous, although many journalists can seemingly not tell the difference. The FDA’s advisory is mostly about people overdosing on veterinary ivermectin. They emphasize that overdose and medication interactions are…

It seems it is you who is misrepresenting the ema link. Key quote: " Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded. "…

That excerpt could be interpreted in two ways:

1) Beware of overdosing, because extrapolating from in-vitro studies will yield dosages that are unsafe.

2) We know the dosage required for Ivermectin for be effective, and it is too high.

The first is fact-based and uncontroversial. The second would be completely unfounded and would contradict earlier parts of the statement, so the reasonable assumption is the first interpretation.

Appeals to authority are problematic to begin with. Appeals to authority that misconstrue the authorities (FDA, EMA, and Merck in this case) are counter-productive.

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

#617
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…

Telling the world that you’re taking an unapproved drug, and recommending it for everyone, while being a public figure is not a “trivial statement”. It becomes political the moment that statement is made, since now it’s his word vs the medical establishment. And that’s not gonna be a technical discussion.

> medical journals who published fake studies

There is someone else who thrives on calling things “fake” when they disagree with his opinions…

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

#618
post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This comment above is fake.

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

#619
post #589
post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is the medical evidence for significant virus-related health benefits (to anyone) of general surgical-style mask wearing?

There is massive amounts of evidence for that. Even the standard flu nearly disappeared due to these hygiene measures. But what’s the point if you’re going to say those studies are fake?

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

#620
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing Roman et al. > Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have effect on AEs or SAEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v... I would prefer to see a single RCT with at least a few t…

This is one of those cases where it's helpful, in fact indispensable, to remember that there is exactly one thing we're optimizing for on HN, namely intellectual curiosity: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... . The fact that we have a clear guiding principle is my favorite thing about moderating HN because how the hell would one decide these things otherwise. It seems clear that the commun…

Not sure if this is too far down in your inbox, but I will write nonetheless...

> This is one of those cases where it's helpful, in fact indispensable, to remember that there is exactly one thing we're optimizing for on HN, namely intellectual curiosity...

Dang, respectfully, is it not true that "we are optimizing for" is a function of not only moderation, but the inherent (lack of) capabilities of rather feature sparse threaded internet discussions with upvotes/downvotes/flagging?

There's no doubt, "it is what it is", but perspectives upon reality that are limited to only how reality currently is overlooks how reality could be, such as if moderation here was not so good (a portion you seem to see clearly, as ample evidence exists elsewhere) or if the features of a forum were strategically expanded (a portion you may not see so clearly, since afaik there's not really anything much more sophisticated out there).

As you say in another comments:

> To repeat, lest anyone misunderstand: my remarks are limited to HN, which is the space I've observed enough to speak about. I'm not saying HN is an exception, and I'm not saying it isn't an exception; I don't know.

> Edit: two more points. First, I think there's a perspective bias here. We all assume that we're the smart one capable of making judgments about what the dumber ones might think, but literally everyone sees themselves that way. That shows not only that we can't all be right about that, but—more interestingly—that this entire line of thinking is invalid. It's a hard-wired unreliable narrator.

As you clearly know, human judgment (even that of intelligent people) is highly unreliable, and this unreliability is typically invisible to the individual. I believe that features could be added to forum software that could improve upon this situation, over and above the manual moderator moderation and downvote mechanisms that are currently our only defences.

> Second and last, if HN readers aren't smart enough to make up their own minds, then this place is fucked, so we might as well make a Pascal's wager.

Or, we could transform the fabric of reality, which is to some arguably significant degree composed of the forum software that facilitates communication between nodes (human minds) within this system.

Of course, I am not insisting that you do this, I am only offering it as an idea for your consideration.

Post reply on HN