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

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#41

Post by SailingSperm »

cyanydeez wrote: post #38
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…

Wide spread use of an effective prophylactic would help a lot in reducing case numbers and spread. This is about using a multifaceted approach to get covid under control. Wearing a mask or socially distancing today wont protect you in 6months either in a direct sense, but doing those things can assist in reducing the prevalence of the virus which does decrease your likelihood of contracting it.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#42

Post by sorethescore »

bississippi wrote: post #17

I posted several times how Ivermectin saved my life. The mods at HN have immediately removed by comment as soon as I posted it. Goes to show they are being told to extinguish any sign of dissent over Covid treatment. Scary

You do understand that a single anecdote is neither compelling nor conclusive. Many people recover from covid naturally. That's why we do science so that we don't have to take the word of random people on the internet

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#43

Post by throwawaybchr »

Ivermectin is interesting because the in vivo indications seem to suggest that to replicate the same result in humans, the dose would need to be pretty high.

High doses of Ivermectin are likely harmful.

Regulators assume people will take high doses, so they use a sleight of hand and issue a blanket notice about effectiveness and safety, under the assumption that people will take horse-strength doses.

Safe prophylactic doses should probably be studied, but instead studies like the Oxford one are being done at the critical stage.

It's a strange form of gaslighting where it is like pretending to mishear what is being suggested and then acting on that misrepresentation, as if to disprove what was actually said.

The actual claim is never addressed nor studied. Practicing doctors continue to prescribe it in India and elsewhere.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#44

Post by tmn »

geofft wrote: post #31
NomeChomsky wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 slightl…

Regarding your last sentence, 'If ivermectin is actually effective.." Pharma execs wouldn't have to push for it? They would just tell their family member to take it. I know anecdotes are not medical studies, but I know two people who caught covid, were feeling relatively 'incapacitated'. They were prescribed ivermectin by a doctor I know personally. They took it and started getting significantly better very quickly. Just anecdotes, but it's real life data point for me (high confidence). Not for you as you cannot know if I'm telling the truth unfortunately.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#45

Post by rafaelm »

powera wrote: post #14

I've done my own "literature review" [ https://www.notion.so/The-Cure-for-COVID-19-e052c9d829d34bc4... ], and "Inconclusive" is correct. It's astonishing that after 18 months of COVID and 12 months of rumors this type of question is unanswered. So we have one band of Twitterati saying it is the "Crime of the Century" that Ivermectin is not being used, and another band saying you'd have to be an idiot to take horse pi…

Whatever the results of the Oxford study, the goalposts will be moved to fit the conspiracy theories. Especially since Oxford is involved in one of the vaccines...

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#46

Post by rafaelm »

bississippi wrote: post #17

I posted several times how Ivermectin saved my life. The mods at HN have immediately removed by comment as soon as I posted it. Goes to show they are being told to extinguish any sign of dissent over Covid treatment. Scary

I know two people that died from covid early this year even though they were taking ivermectin. Anecdotal, I know...

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#47

Post by geofft »

tmn wrote: post #44
geofft wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 slightl…

Regarding your last sentence, 'If ivermectin is actually effective.." Pharma execs wouldn't have to push for it? They would just tell their family member to take it. I know anecdotes are not medical studies, but I know two people who caught covid, were feeling relatively 'incapacitated'. They were prescribed ivermectin by a doctor I know personally. They took it and started getting significantly better very quickly.…

What I mean is that it would be hard to collectively keep a secret that ivermectin works. Your acquaintance's doctor happened to prescribe it - but I'm guessing most doctors would not. So this pharma exec (or researcher, or whomever) would need to tell their family to go find a doctor willing to prescribe it, or would send information to the doctor to convince them to prescribe it, or something. And that would leak.

Also I'm mostly referencing the idea, which I believe I've seen in some of these papers, that people should take ivermectin on an ongoing basis to protect against getting infected in the first place. If I were a pharma exec who knew that ivermectin secretly worked, I wouldn't want my family to get sick at all if I could help it - I'm pretty sure no paper is claiming it's 100% effective, it just reduces the chance of poor outcomes. So I'd have to tell them to find a doctor willing to prescribe ivermectin even before they're sick, and that would definitely leak.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#48

Post by geofft »

SailingSperm wrote: post #41
cyanydeez wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wide spread use of an effective prophylactic would help a lot in reducing case numbers and spread. This is about using a multifaceted approach to get covid under control. Wearing a mask or socially distancing today wont protect you in 6months either in a direct sense, but doing those things can assist in reducing the prevalence of the virus which does decrease your likelihood of contracting it.

Yes, but if the proposal is "everyone takes ivermectin and they get the vaccine when vaccines are available locally," that's strictly more profitable for pharma companies than "everyone gets the vaccine when vaccines are available." There's no reason for Big Pharma to suppress that, if it worked.

(Speaking of vitamin D, I personally did exactly that with vitamin D + vaccine. My doctor told me a few years back I was low on vitamin D and should supplement anyway, and the vague evidence that it maybe helps against covid was enough for me to decide to take it regularly at a high dose, because there aren't really any downsides besides getting through my bottle faster. But I also got the vaccine!)

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#49

Post by bb88 »

ekianjo wrote: post #39
honksillet wrote: post #13

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

Is there any conflict of interest declared anywhere in that paper? Could not find any paragraph about this.

Declaration of interest link right under the title.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#50

Post by tmn »

geofft wrote: post #47
tmn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your last sentence, 'If ivermectin is actually effective.." Pharma execs wouldn't have to push for it? They would just tell their family member to take it. I know anecdotes are not medical studies, but I know two people who caught covid, were feeling relatively 'incapacitated'. They were prescribed ivermectin by a doctor I know personally. They took it and started getting significantly better very quickly.…

What I mean is that it would be hard to collectively keep a secret that ivermectin works. Your acquaintance's doctor happened to prescribe it - but I'm guessing most doctors would not. So this pharma exec (or researcher, or whomever) would need to tell their family to go find a doctor willing to prescribe it, or would send information to the doctor to convince them to prescribe it, or something. And that would leak.…

So I hope I'm not talking past you, my perspective on the situation seems to somewhat oppose your intuition. Ivermectin is not a tightly kept secret. It has just been suppressed in the mainstream channels. Bret Weinstein has discussed this.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/take-...

That website lists doctors who will hotline you a prescription. Maybe it's harder outside the US, but I know you can get off branded forms of it (perhaps those are worth less confident in?)

I would argue the secret isn't being kept. It just circulates in one silo and not all silos of our reality schism.

Post reply on HN