Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#21

Post by superflit2 » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #7

jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

> The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. How then do you explain the numerous off-patent drugs that are currently in widespread production by the major drug companies?

Imagine that you are creating a new patented drug that you could charge a lot and the whole govts in the world needed.

Then have this other drug without patent that could do the same? or 80%?

People got enraged about the Epi-Pen patent price gouging years back imagine what would happen if some rigorous study confirm that ivermectin is as good as or better?

This is a sample on how media distorts the narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHzGH3aLSgc

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#22

Post by lambdaba » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #16

jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

As I understand it, the largest produce of ivermectin is... one of the largest drug companies. Which doesn't have a COVID-19 vaccine, and whose website openly states that you should not take ivermectin for COVID-19. Your theory just doesn't make any sense.

It's way too cheap, iirc Dr. Kory was estimating it would cost like $12 per person to use Ivermectin as a preventative, and this is at current prices.

Also, said company, Merck, is in the process of releasing a new drug that will cost in the thousands.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#23

Post by NoPie » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #14

ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

Because in order to end a debate and quantify what "proper research" is, you have to have rules for the debate and establish in advance what proof is enough. In the eyes of the world governments, the debate is already over. There isn't clear evidence that it works. There's also a straightforward answer already. Whether you believe this is because they're subservient to Big Pharma or because they actually are looking…

Exactly. The odds that any new research will find ivermectine effective are very low.

If the odds were higher, the government could grant monopoly rights to a willing pharma company. In fact they did this with another very old treatment for gout – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine One company was granted monopoly, they did studies, confirmed that cochicine is effective, gathered more information about safety. It also lead to significant price increase (2000%).

I don't think any serious pharma company would be willing to accept such an offer for ivermectine.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#24

Post by marklubi » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

kdtop3 wrote: post #20

ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

I think the point of the article is that if some government DID spend the money to properly research this, it would take time, as in MANY years. I remember many decades ago that Vitamin E was thought to be a great supplement to reduce coronary heart disease etc. It was then studied by following 10,000 people for 4.5 years [1] and it was determined that the hint of benefit seen in observational studies turned out to b…

> it would take time, as in MANY years

So just like the time required to create the COVID vaccines that are "safe" and "effective"?

Snark aside, I'm exhausted hearing how hard it is to do some things, but other's are "science" and don't warrant further exploration.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#25

Post by User23 » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

And why is Covid not really a thing in subsaharan Africa where everyone takes ivermectin anyway, because it’s a marvelous antiparasitic drug.

You’d think the poorest parts of Africa with the worst medical systems in the world would be hit harder, but they’re not. And it’s probably not genetic since the African diaspora is hit hard by covid.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#26

Post by geofft » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

lambdaba wrote: post #22

jcranmer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the largest produce of ivermectin is... one of the largest drug companies. Which doesn't have a COVID-19 vaccine, and whose website openly states that you should not take ivermectin for COVID-19. Your theory just doesn't make any sense.

It's way too cheap, iirc Dr. Kory was estimating it would cost like $12 per person to use Ivermectin as a preventative, and this is at current prices. Also, said company, Merck, is in the process of releasing a new drug that will cost in the thousands.

$12 per person per what unit of time? $12 gets you like three tablets. That's according to some claimed protocols enough to (probably) get you out of the hospital alive, but that's not a long-term preventative.

Meanwhile, the government pays about $20 per dose of the vaccine. The difference between $12 and $20 is not substantial.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#27

Post by pfisch » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

d1a2n wrote: post #15

The Actually Real Scandal About Ivermectin is something like the anthropic principle but about the fact that I know that nothing positive about Ivermectin would ever be allowed on the Atlantic. Is Ivermectin at best barely above useless for covid? Maybe. Is it crucial and it's a crime against humanity for being suppressed? Maybe, and I'm inclined to say probably because the same people who lie about everything are mi…

The people saying ivermectin works are the same people saying hcq worked last year.

The people pushing the vaccine are the only people who have consistently been curing serious illnesses for the last 100 years.

The ivermectin group are the people who have been pushing snake oil for the last 1000 years and cured nothing.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#28

Post by lambdaba » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #26

lambdaba wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way too cheap, iirc Dr. Kory was estimating it would cost like $12 per person to use Ivermectin as a preventative, and this is at current prices. Also, said company, Merck, is in the process of releasing a new drug that will cost in the thousands.

$12 per person per what unit of time? $12 gets you like three tablets. That's according to some claimed protocols enough to (probably) get you out of the hospital alive, but that's not a long-term preventative. Meanwhile, the government pays about $20 per dose of the vaccine. The difference between $12 and $20 is not substantial.

The dose for prevention is a fraction of the dose for people already infected. Maybe per year? I don't know, I don't recall the details, but even so that's without the economies of scale that would intervene if it was a worldwide effort.

Re: vaccines, JP Morgan estimated Pfizer alone will make $100B from vaccines. I don't think manufacturing Ivermectin is complex enough that it would net ANY profit, the effort would be organized completely differently.

Lastly, I don't think this is a conspiracy, either for money or politics, going for vaccines was just the easiest sell for both people and governments, and doing anything different would have been extremely difficult (see Sweden and lockdown policies).

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#29

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #25

jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

And why is Covid not really a thing in subsaharan Africa where everyone takes ivermectin anyway, because it’s a marvelous antiparasitic drug. You’d think the poorest parts of Africa with the worst medical systems in the world would be hit harder, but they’re not. And it’s probably not genetic since the African diaspora is hit hard by covid.

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#30

Post by geofft » Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #25

jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

And why is Covid not really a thing in subsaharan Africa where everyone takes ivermectin anyway, because it’s a marvelous antiparasitic drug. You’d think the poorest parts of Africa with the worst medical systems in the world would be hit harder, but they’re not. And it’s probably not genetic since the African diaspora is hit hard by covid.

There's a whole lot of other possible confounding hypotheses here: more frequent outdoor activity, increased ventilation in buildings, increased sunlight, lower population density, lower spread from international travelers, less robust reporting, the "worst medical systems in the world" resulting in a smaller relative fraction of the population at high risk of covid surviving everything else, less cultural offense at being told to wear a mask, etc.