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

Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#31

Post by jbotz »

oblio wrote: post #27
rargramble wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because that goes against the narrative of demonizing ivermectin as some sort of dangerous drug. There's a reason all these outlets have been pushing the idea that it's a "horse dewormer."

What's the angle, though. Cui bono?

It's cheap? No US-based pharma corps are reaping big profits from it?

Btw., I live in Brazil, and I went with one of my daughters to see a GP a few days ago because she had symptoms of respiratory illness and was worried it might be Covid (she had had recent contact with peers who afterward tested positive). The physician told her to get a test, and if it were positive (it wasn't) she should take Vitamin C, N-acytilcholine, Ivermectin, and Hydroxychloroquine. I'm not saying that I think this makes sense, just reporting what a Brazilian physician said 5 days ago.

I also want to add that I'm fairly convinced that Ivermectin is probably useless for Covid, but I raise livestock and am a big fan of Ivermectin as a medication of first resort for my animals, and in some cases for ourselves as well... long before Covid I've taken Ivermectin for diverse parasitic infections with good results and no adverse effects.

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#32

Post by felipeqq2 »

aaron695 wrote: post #6

> hoping to stave off COVID-19, but in a few rare cases that move prompted liver failure Ivermectin does not cause liver failure. There is no evidence of this. The Tweet about the one patient does not say the patient is getting a liver transplant, and they are not sure why there was liver issues. It can cause liver injury in a really small amount of cases, which should self correct. (I assume people do not think temp…

> Ivermectin does not cause liver failure. There is no evidence of this.

The ivermectin was taken on high daily doses. Many people would take it even without symptoms and a diagnosis. If you take any drug that much, be prepared for liver issues. That liver transplant thing is increasingly happening with a large number of people, not one or two.

The Brazilian Senate is currently investigating how these "kit" drugs were delivered. In some cases, they gave it to patients without family consent, and forged their death certificates, so "liver failure" or "Covid-19" would not appear in the statistics. It is also currently investigated who would benefit from this (large Ivermectin producers multiplicated their production after these incentives, and the president is known for elaborating corruption schemas around Covid-related agendas).

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#33

Post by smorgusofborg »

tinus_hn wrote: post #28
smorgusofborg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to believe that vaccines stop an adequate proportion of the infections between vaccinated individuals to believe full vaccination would end the pandemic[1]. But you don't even have to believe that when it comes to the relevance of the pandemic. Looking at the number of people who are vaccinated (or bellow vaccination age) and go to hospital or die in my country it would be a severe but acceptable flu season.…

Ah, the old ‘vaccinations will prevent mutations’ fantasy. Even if you believe it is possible to vaccinate the entire human population world wide and that vaccinations prevent infections, covid spreads through animal reservoirs. Are you suggesting we can vaccinate all animals?

Mutation in animals typically lower it's viability in humans. So the question is if I have been vaccinated and there aren't enough unvaccinated people to jam hospitals, why do I continue to care about viruses in animal populations that are just like any other virus that might pop up the next time someone licks a bat?

If I'm willing to take any sort of vaccine for it when it becomes viable again in humans, then I'm safer once it is purely in animals than I was before it was present in humans.

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#34

Post by tinus_hn »

smorgusofborg wrote: post #33
tinus_hn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the old ‘vaccinations will prevent mutations’ fantasy. Even if you believe it is possible to vaccinate the entire human population world wide and that vaccinations prevent infections, covid spreads through animal reservoirs. Are you suggesting we can vaccinate all animals?

Mutation in animals typically lower it's viability in humans. So the question is if I have been vaccinated and there aren't enough unvaccinated people to jam hospitals, why do I continue to care about viruses in animal populations that are just like any other virus that might pop up the next time someone licks a bat? If I'm willing to take any sort of vaccine for it when it becomes viable again in humans, then I'm sa…

I don’t know why you continue to care. All I see are people clinging to their precious mask mandates and pushing for vaccine booster shots, with the ‘hospitals are filling up’ and ‘the unvaccinated cause mutations’ excuses. But as has been known from at least a year ago, hospitals are filling up with the vulnerable population so that would leave no reason for vaccine mandates on the not vulnerable population, like young people, and vaccinations do not prevent mutations.

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#36

Post by incrudible »

smorgusofborg wrote: post #26
incrudible wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…but there are highly vaccinated populations with high infection rates, right? If the vaccines actually stopped infections, this should not be possible. There is a brief window (1-2 months) where the vaccines reduce infections by up to 95%, but that number drops quickly. After six months, there is virtually no reduction.

> …but there are highly vaccinated populations with high infection rates, right? Israel is about the highest examined and it is not high enough to know how a control group of vaccinated verse unvaccinated individuals would fare in a place where any other individual was vaccinated or bellow 12. 95% was in a retail lock down environment. In the current environment I am having hundreds of interactions a week with the un…

The paper also examined individual counties in the US and found no correlation. There have been numerous outbreaks within fully vaccinated groups. You can speculate that these outbreaks would've been even bigger if these groups weren't vaccinated, but ultimately the virus spreads no matter what. The word "stop" to me implies an end to viral spread, not an indeterminate amount of reduction - that's a "slowdown".

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#37

Post by oblio »

jbotz wrote: post #31
oblio wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the angle, though. Cui bono?

It's cheap? No US-based pharma corps are reaping big profits from it? Btw., I live in Brazil, and I went with one of my daughters to see a GP a few days ago because she had symptoms of respiratory illness and was worried it might be Covid (she had had recent contact with peers who afterward tested positive). The physician told her to get a test, and if it were positive (it wasn't) she should take Vitamin C, N-acytilc…

Vaccines are cheap.

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#38

Post by javagram »

ciconia wrote: post #12
dfdz wrote: post #2

I think everyone (who is reasonable) agrees the vaccine is the most effective tool we have against covid based on current scientific studies However this article about Ivermectin is not well reasoned: > As infection rates soared, some people were taking excessively high doses of the medicine every day, hoping to stave off COVID-19, but in a few rare cases that move prompted liver failure. >Other patients were unknowi…

> I think everyone (who is reasonable) agrees the vaccine is the most effective tool we have against covid based on current scientific studies. Vaccination is perhaps the best solution in the short term, but to me it seems that preventive public health measures might be more effective over the long term. We know that the severe cases mostly happen to people who are already medically vulnerable (overweight, diabetic,…

> Governments could have used the last two years to execute on policies to reduce these chronic diseases: better food, better air quality, better water quality, a less stressful lifestyle.

Governments have been working on these problems for decades already. Food/obesity is only getting worse in rich countries, air quality and water quality have seen marked improvements over the last half-century from lead reduction, decommissioning coal plants, emissions regulations for cars etc.

However expecting government to dramatically reduce the number of overweight people suffering from diabetes in just 2 years without extreme authoritarian measures (e.g. concentration camp where they monitor your food intake) is pretty much just fantasy. Many different methods have been tried all over the world like education, food labeling, soda taxes, etc. and people continue to be fat when they can access and freely buy modern foods.

The nice thing about a vaccine is that it’s far easier and cheaper to use and deploy than any of these other improvements. A vaccine costs $1 to $100 per person, while transitioning the entire economy to solar, wind, and nuclear power within a few years to improve air quality would cost what, $10,000s per person? If even possible at all.

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#39

Post by incrudible »

simtel20 wrote: post #4
dfdz wrote: post #2

I think everyone (who is reasonable) agrees the vaccine is the most effective tool we have against covid based on current scientific studies However this article about Ivermectin is not well reasoned: > As infection rates soared, some people were taking excessively high doses of the medicine every day, hoping to stave off COVID-19, but in a few rare cases that move prompted liver failure. >Other patients were unknowi…

Clinics distributed a box of pills with no proven efficacy for the SARS CoV-2 virus, but with significant downsides, and with no tracking. This was not a controlled experiment, this was negligent homicide, recklessly endangering a population by abusing their misplaced faith in careless medical and pseudo-medical "professionals".

The same happened with Remdesivir, a drug that is much more expensive and has more severe side-effects than Ivermectin. This isn't "pseudo-medicine", it's just how medicine works. If there's an emergency and some small trial suggests that there's an effect for minimal risk, you roll it out and see what happens.

Re: Brazil's tragic ivermectin frenzy is a warning to the US, experts say

#40

Post by javagram »

incrudible wrote: post #16
bb88 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying something is safe and effective doesn't make it so. That said, the numbers of death and continued infections don't lie. Brazil was ivermectin happy, but it didn't stop the infections and subsequent deaths. What is stopping infections and deaths? The vaccine. That's pretty clear. So why aren't you 100% behind the vaccine? Are you too wrapped up with your stance with Ivermectin that you can no longer change your…

The vaccines are not stopping infections. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

Other studies show the vaccines provide between 40-70% reduction in COVID-19 Delta infections.[0]

Looking at your link, it looks like the comparisons they make are purely based on COVID case counts and vaccination percentages. There are other factors that need to be considered: counties with higher vaccination rates in the USA are also likely to have a higher rate of testing, due to the politics of COVID (people who are more afraid of COVID are both more likely to be vaccinated and more likely to get a test when sick). At the country scale, it seems like something similar may be going on: they compare Portugal and Israel with the poorer countries of South Africa and Vietnam and state their case rates are similar. But different countries are using different policies which may affect the infection rate there. For instance, Vietnam has used lockdowns and border closures in recent months to slow the spread of the virus,[1] while Portugal with its high vaccination rates has recently removed almost all COVID restrictions.[2]

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/covid-protection-for-the-ful...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Vietnam#M...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/portugal-lift-most-rema...

Post reply on HN