Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

cochranelibrary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#31

Post by geofft »

NomeChomsky wrote: post #24
MilnerRoute wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another quote from this paper: "Ivermectin showed no evidence of an effect on increasing or decreasing mortality at 28 days, the most important outcome during this pandemic, neither in inpatients (two studies), outpatients (two studies), or the preventive setting (one study). The certainty for this finding was very low. The same accounts for clinical worsening up to 28 days in an inpatient setting and up to 14 days i…

They chose 14 studies of more than 50 available. Their method for screening studies looks biased towards finding an inconclusive result. Bear in mind that 'bias' with regard to ivermectin is less likely to come from doctors than it is pharma companies. Doctors stand to gain nothing from the efficacy of ivermectin since it's a generic drug on the market since 1987. Pharma companies have a lot to lose if it's proven ef…

Assuming it works, you have to take ivermectin constantly, and the pro-ivermectin studies generally only say that it reduces mortality / severe outcomes, not thy it significantly prevents infection or transmission. So if the world goes the ivermectin route, there's still a lot of value in the vaccines, and until the virus is eradicated we have to keep taking ivermectin.

This is an obvious financial win to any slightly competent evil pharmaceutical - e.g., make some small chemical variant of ivermectin, patent it, and p-hack a bit. Or just manufacture the generic and sell lots of it; plenty of companies have a good business selling aspirin, which literally grows on trees.

I'm not buying the "big pharma is trying to censor it" angle. Also, like any conspiracy theory, it requires a whole lot of people to be perfectly loyal and silent. If ivermectin is actually effective, some pharma exec with family in a part of the world with poor vaccine access is going to push for it.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#32

Post by peter422 »

NomeChomsky wrote: post #29
stonogo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American Journal of Therapeutics paper you linked includes falsified data from a since-retracted paper. It is also the only literature review that indicated Ivermectin does anything at all against COVID-19. If you remove the falsified data, you will see that the drug no longer seems effective.

Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain. The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of p…

A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests?

Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#33

Post by geofft »

NomeChomsky wrote: post #4

Other studies, with a larger sample of studies, found a moderate certainty of effect even when controlling for a study which later removed. https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Another study from Queen Mary University also found certainty of effect https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353195913_Bayesian_... Study in Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine shows certainty of effect. h…

> If ivermectin - a $3 treatment - proves to be effective then the emergency use Authorization for novel Covid therapies goes out the window.

No, they don't, because the vaccines still prevent you from getting infected in the first place. If ivermectin (or hydroxychloroquine, or Vitamin D, or whatever) had been discovered to work last year, I would have taken it but I would also have gotten the vaccine, because every story I've heard from survivors sounds like it was a deeply unpleasant experience. And I probably would have paid more for the vaccine than the government-negotiated rates, too.

Also, those government-negotiated rates are about $20. A $3 treatment, as an ongoing preventative measure for the whole population, can easily add up to more than $20!

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#34

Post by peter422 »

bississippi wrote: post #27
bississippi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not trolling. Woke up scared to DEATH ! 3 weeks ago to date. blood and mucus in the sink and back of throat. I only had one steroid. All of the treatment was primarily Ivermectin. I am unbelievably lucky to be alive.

Due to lockdowns and remote work I gained unhealthy weight and the morning I woke up with that thickest mucus and blood in my entire life I knew I have become one of those people I read on the newspapers. Basically the hapless feeling of being handed the death warrant. I am still shaking as I write this. No need to troll. I’m sharing my story so others don’t need to needlessly die. They can research and seek treatmen…

I'm glad you got better. I wish you good health going forward.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#35

Post by dv_dt »

peter422 wrote: post #32
NomeChomsky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain. The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of p…

A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests? Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.

Wouldn’t one also perhaps analyze manufacturers of drugs may be given during a course of treating covid on a hospitalization? Ivermectin is a very very cheap drug, used in bulk with livestock for worming, and likely with low margins.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#36

Post by SailingSperm »

peter422 wrote: post #32
NomeChomsky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain. The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of p…

A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests? Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.

I think you're coming to a strange conclusion in what you've said...Ivermectin is out of patent - far less money can be made from it. US pharmaceutical company Merck – one of the manufacturers of patent-free Ivermectin actively discourages use of ivermectin -- Also Merck signs $356M deal to supply US with experimental coronavirus drug. These are the financial interests you should be looking at.

https://swprs.org/merck-claim-exposing-big-pharma-lobbyists/

Vaccine prices have been increasing.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/health/1...

Additionally, 'one $5 vaccine' is just wrong. There is already 3rd booster shots being administered in Israel with the pfizer vaccine as its effectiveness is diminished with the delta strain (and Epsilon..no doubt till Omega) ...The possibility of these vaccines being used similar to annual/bi annual flu booster shots is far from 0.

Nor is your comparison a fair one...It isn't a split between use the vaccine or have everyone require days of medical care (that would of course cost more...Not necessarily to the benefit of pharma companies though) -- IF ivermectin was a effective (even just 5%) prophylactic OR treatment/therapy against severe covid symptoms (let alone possibly doing both of these things) that certainly would affect the profits of phara companies getting contracts and sales of their patented offerings.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#37

Post by ekianjo »

peter422 wrote: post #32
NomeChomsky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. The removed study was just one of 50. The study already had a control for bias attached to it. Even if the study is removed the effect remains certain. The hit job on that study was also coordinated. The study was done by an Egyptian doctor in the middle of a pandemic. An actual doctor on the front line trying to save lives. They way he has been sullied in the name of protecting the financial interests of p…

A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests? Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.

> Also the vaccines are pretty cheap

cheap times billions of doses is not cheap anymore. And Pfizer and co continuously increased the prize of the vaccines without any pushback.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#38

Post by cyanydeez »

honksillet wrote: post #13

For those not in the medical field, Cochrane does high quality literature reviews and is a reliable source.

for those who keep repeating some strange conspiracy theory, explain how this drug would be more successful than a vaccine that absolutely is effective and is available prior to anyone getting any trace of covid.

sure, theres a lack of vaccines in undeveloped country and this coukd be a stop gap, but so could vitamin D. Theres no reality where i take ivermictin today and 6 months from now im protected. most vaccines for mostm people, that is the routine and normal expectations.

its a medical curiousity and so is vitamin D, but this false idea that its going to some how displace vaccines is antivaxx wishfulfillment. wake up, antivax is a viral meme bourne by ignorant and transmissible by people who view science through obtuse political lenses and no drug will penetrate that viscious type of stupidity because its spreas by super spreaders like russia, american theology and republican monied interest.

the real viral threat is the meme and ivermictan wont stop that either. people arnt antimask because theres a vaccine.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#40

Post by bb88 »

SailingSperm wrote: post #36
peter422 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of the ivermectin studies were paid for by pharma companies that make ivermectin. Do they have any financial interests? Also the vaccines are pretty cheap. Which do you think is cheaper, one $5 vaccine or multiple days of medical care? If the goal was maximizing money to a pharma company, you certainly don't want to prevent people from getting sick.

I think you're coming to a strange conclusion in what you've said...Ivermectin is out of patent - far less money can be made from it. US pharmaceutical company Merck – one of the manufacturers of patent-free Ivermectin actively discourages use of ivermectin -- Also Merck signs $356M deal to supply US with experimental coronavirus drug. These are the financial interests you should be looking at. https://swprs.org/merc…

To be fair, Insulin is out of patent, and yet prices have still gone up.
Post reply on HN