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

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#51

Post by peter422 »

ekianjo wrote: post #37
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.

> 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.

How many doses of ivermectin are needed? If it is billions of doses for the vaccine, it is tens of billions of ivermectin, because you would have to take it regularly prophylacticly (forever?).

The ivermectin paste everybody is using for a few doses costs $7. People aren't paying wholesale costs for these drugs.

You can't say they pharma companies that make the vaccines are evil and only want money, but the other pharma companies that produce ivermectin are only promoting the drug out of the goodness of their hearts.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#52

Post by mc32 »

bississippi wrote: post #10

I posted this previously but HN moderated my personal story. —> Story of how I came close to losing my life and how Ivermectin saved me. Ivermectin just saved my life. I woke up with thick mucous and blood that I couldn’t extricate or cough up and called my doctor and the hospital. They threw up their hands and said there is nothing we can do, monitor your saturation levels and let us know if you feel faint. And with…

Until relatively recently, wasn't talking about ivermectin in conjunction with covid basis for suspension from Twitter?

If so, and Ivermectin is useful in treating people with Covid under specific circumstances, are Twitter not responsible for spreading disinformation which could have prevented people from having _some_ treatment?

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#53

Post by SailingSperm »

geofft wrote: post #48
SailingSperm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency *and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.*

If ivermectin was found to be safe and effective and got FDA approval itself, the vaccines of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J would need to get full approval - meaning longer and more rigorous clinical trial and safety testing. (not that they haven't gone through a certain level of those things, just the bar is set lower with EUAs)

p.s. Sounds like you talked to your doctor about supplementing VitD - but you're mistaken to say there aren't any downsides (especially for regular high doses of D) --- It can cause hypervitaminosis D which in turn causes hypercalcemia (a buildup of calcium in your blood). Just saying as it may be worth double checking :)

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#54

Post by SailingSperm »

mc32 wrote: post #52
bississippi wrote: post #10

I posted this previously but HN moderated my personal story. —> Story of how I came close to losing my life and how Ivermectin saved me. Ivermectin just saved my life. I woke up with thick mucous and blood that I couldn’t extricate or cough up and called my doctor and the hospital. They threw up their hands and said there is nothing we can do, monitor your saturation levels and let us know if you feel faint. And with…

Until relatively recently, wasn't talking about ivermectin in conjunction with covid basis for suspension from Twitter? If so, and Ivermectin is useful in treating people with Covid under specific circumstances, are Twitter not responsible for spreading disinformation which could have prevented people from having _some_ treatment?

It's still apart of youtubes guidelines. [1]

YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.

If your content violates this policy, we’ll remove the content and send you an email to let you know.

*Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19

*Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19

*Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19

[1]https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#55

Post by Phaedor »

tmn wrote: post #50
geofft wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

Like how hydroxychloroquine was suppressed in mainstream channels? Like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine also had some initial positive studies, but when large scale studies were done it was shown to actually cause more deaths than not taking it.

Brett Weinstein has made a lot of dubious claims so I am skeptical to what he says. He at one point has claimed that Ivermectin is 100% effective when taking prophylactically based on a single study that has received a lot of criticism for having numbers that dont make sense. To me it seems that he needs to be more critical of the sources he uses.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#56

Post by injinj »

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…

> people who view science through obtuse political lenses

It's not really that surprising. Prescribing Opioids like candy, outlandish prices for things like Insulin, bankrupting poor and uninsured for end of life treatments, covering up the gain of function research funded by the NIH, censoring all kinds of stuff, beginning with their President and probably a few of their friends. I'm sure some of those anti-vaxxers have friends who had COVID and came through it ok. And now, trust us, take this experimental vaccine without any backup plan in case it has adverse effects lasting a couple of weeks. Loss of work, maybe a hospital bed to pay for, etc.

The vaccine would better tolerated with a national health care plan and letting people take Ivermectin if they want it. At the moment, CVS won't fill a Ivermectin prescription, even though it quite safe, but they will fill up your pain pills no problem. I do think that the vaccine is marvelous, but I'm not naive to the failings of our medical system.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#57

Post by geofft »

SailingSperm wrote: post #53
geofft wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency * and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.* If ivermectin was found to be safe and effectiv…

Isn't "adequate" the key word there, though?

We do have an alternative that works in theory - if everyone wore an N95 (or knockoff, even!) mask at all times in public, indoors and outdoors, and if all restaurants did takeout only, the risk of transmission would be extraordinarily low. And it's not zero even with the vaccine. The vaccine does different things from masks, though.

I think money-grubbing Big Pharma execs who were recently regulators on the other side of the revolving door would easily be able to argue that ivermectin (or vitamin D, or whatever), useful as it may be, is not an adequate alternative to the vaccine, just (as you put it) another facet in a multifaceted approach, and the vaccine still needs an EUA.

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#58

Post by tzs »

seattle_spring wrote: post #12
jeffbee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday in a local paper they featured a front-page story about some dipshit who won't get vaccinated, refuses to wear a mask, and is covered in tattoos from his jaw to his ankles. The rate of severe reactions to tattooing (amputations and whatnot) is 2 in 10000.

Citation needed for that tattoo stat. I'd believe 1 in 5k have a minor infection; I seriously doubt that many are getting amputations or related.

It appears he may have the rate right for severe reactions, but has too narrow a definition of "severe". See "Severe Adverse Events Related to Tattooing: An Retrospective Analysis of 11 Years", Indian J Dermatol. 2012 Nov-Dec; 57(6): 439–443 [1].

> The incidence of severe adverse medical reactions has been estimated as 0.02%. Infectious and non-infectious severe reactions have been observed. The consequences were medical drug therapies and surgery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519250/

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#59

Post by native_samples »

honksillet wrote: post #13

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

Well, about that ...

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea...

"Richard Smith was ... for many years the chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and a member of the board of the UK Research Integrity Office."

"Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond. It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary."

So a former Chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee thinks medical research is filled with fraud. How reliable can it be really?

Re: Ivermectin Systematic Study: Inconclusive

#60

Post by maxerickson »

SailingSperm wrote: post #53
geofft wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

The thing also with the vaccines and ivermectin possibly causing an issue for big phrama vaccines is that - The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. EUAs may be granted only during a public health emergency * and when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.* If ivermectin was found to be safe and effectiv…

Ivermectin would have to go through similar approval to put treatment of Covid on the label, so no.
Post reply on HN