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

Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#31

Post by papandada »

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.

Everyone takes it, routinely? Or gets prescribed it easily in the case of certain symptoms?

My surface-level, limited perception in a couple countries I have friends/family in (Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria) is that there's little to no testing, but also not apparently a hospital emergency. Then again, these same people also seem to go to their local hospital for what is understood as typhoid and malaria every year or two at least. As a born and raised North American I get told by them that's normal.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#32

Post by dreyfan »

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.

Low population density, a largely outdoor existence, and a very low rate of testing and reporting.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#33

Post by marton78 »

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.

Higher Vitamin D levels due to more exposure to sunshine is a possible explanation.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#34

Post by OminousWeapons »

lambdaba wrote: post #28
geofft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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…

> 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).

This is not true. Governments were and are being hammered by their inability to manage COVID. There is a massive incentive to find a therapeutic that can treat the infected rather than just a vaccine, which is how crazes surrounding Ivermectin and other unproven therapeutics got started to begin with. Not only that, but generic therapeutics that could be easily manufactured and transported to poorer nations are clearly the best option to solve this problem. Vaccines were the hardest sell and the worst option for governments given their long developmental timeline, the FUD surrounding them, and the clear complexities surrounding distribution and scarcity.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#35

Post by Azsy »

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 with Ivermectin studies is that people will actually review them, so no academic can build a reputation on fraudulent data. Since there is no way to fake thousands of data point, now expensive research studies and clinical trials are getting done, all the research studies that get done will be of higher budget and subject to being called "basic science"

How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts that some scientists will just make shit up, publication bias exists, and they can draw the wrong conclusions, like that one on Ivermectin?

P.S. I would be happy if Ivermectin turned out to work, but statistically you expect a few false positives to emerge from doctors in the field doing small studies that agree and appear to point to a cure. If Ivermectin was as effective as say, antihistamine pills, you would get a flood of agreement.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#36

Post by silver-arrow »

pfisch wrote: post #27
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.

Curing serious disease? That’s rich.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#37

Post by jeffbee »

vixen99 wrote: post #19

As an observation not an argument, irrespective of what comes to be accepted as to the efficacy of ivermectin, there seem to be an awful lot of doctors and other professionals across the world prepared to trash their personal reputations & sometimes their careers if "claims about the drug are based on shoddy science—but that science is entirely unremarkable in its shoddiness." is true.

The mectin hucksters are hopeful that their careers will be sufficiently boosted by their repeated appearances on Joe Rogan and that tens of millions of cognitively-impaired COVID-19 survivors will be easily duped into throwing money away on their next scam.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#38

Post by shlant »

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?

> all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science"

This is not true. Keep an eye out for TOGETHER[1], I-TECH[2], PRINCIPLE[3] and ACTIV-6[4] results (with TOGETHER already having dropped IVM for futility)

[1] https://www.togethertrial.com/

[2] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04920942

[3] https://www.principletrial.org/

[4] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#39

Post by shlant »

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.

grifters are making millions off of selling HCQ, IVM, and consultations:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...

https://archive.md/eyopT

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#40

Post by dralley »

silver-arrow wrote: post #36
pfisch wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curing serious disease? That’s rich.

What do you mean?

Smallpox is extinct, diptheria, pertussus and polio are nearly extinct, and measles mumps and rubella would be nearly extinct if not for pockets of antivaxers creating a constant stream of outbreaks.

Go look up how many diseases these people killed prior to the vaccines, and then a few years after. You are absolutely taking for granted what we've accomplished through the use of vaccines.

Post reply on HN