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

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#21

Post by bayesian_horse »

robbedpeter wrote: post #9
mint2 wrote: post #3

Okay it was too long for me and I got side tracked. Is his opinion in the end that ivermectin helps if you have worms? I got to the point where he talked about the studies showing no benefit were all from areas with low prevalence of worms and the studies showing benefits were all places with high prevalence of worms.

It looks like it definitely helps if worms are a problem, and maybe possibly helps without, to the extent that further research is justified, but not so much that we should dose the world with ivermectin just in case.

And I would add that there are now two drugs who are known to work better, in addition to monoclonal antibodies and multiple vaccines with more than 7 billion doses administered for over a year...

Ivermectin MIGHT work... but really... let's move on.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#23

Post by jacquesm »

roenxi wrote: post #14
jacquesm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, ivmmeta.com will get passed on from person to person that wants to sustain their delusion and the website here will be preaching to the choir.

I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.

This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe, but there have been many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past. It's just that you don't have the background knowledge to digest them, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to believe that there is some kind of miracle cure that 'they' are suppressing.

Now consider that this is just one example of a class of such issues and that there is an enormous echo chamber for such bullshit which extends right into hackernews.

The way it works:

- posit some bullshit miracle cure

- recruit useful idiots to help promote the issue, sow division

- downplay all of the arguments against, make it seem like it is the establishment that does this

- eventually, give up and move on to the next miracle cure

- go back to step one

It is interesting to see that it is the same people that over-and-over-again allow themselves to be recruited like this. Note that you were making 'pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday' without knowing what you are talking about.

Why were you making those comments?

What were you trying to achieve by amplifying something that made no sense?

Don't you feel any responsibility for pushing such stories when the end result can be that people end up harming themselves or others on account of this?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#24

Post by jmnicolas »

Interesting read, I appreciate that the author isn't dogmatic and is open to discussion.

However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth.

Pfizer and Moderna combined are making more than $1000 every second (stop and calculate how much money that makes for a year, that's mind boggling). Do they have an incentive to lie?

The fact that the discussion is immediately shut down and doubt isn't allowed is a big red flag. Let me quote the author:

> Here this question is especially tough, because, uh, if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout “horse dewormer!” at you and compare you to Josef Mengele. But good doctors aren’t supposed to care about such things. Your only goal is to save your patient. Nothing else matters.

He's funny, but the underlying reality is very sad.

Add to this the power grab by politicians toward totalitarianism, color me very skeptical about the situation.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#26

Post by jacquesm »

roenxi wrote: post #20
bayesian_horse wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most scientists/doctors believe it to not work against Covid-19" wasn't a serious argument for you? It is a strange phenomenon that people are so ready to disagree with people who spent decades achieving exactly that kind of knowledge.

That literally isn't an argument. It is a statement. And if anyone who said "many scientists/doctors believe it to work against Covid-19" is getting banned, then that statement has 0 signal. As Scott points out in this article, without knowing about the parasitic worm situation https://ivmmeta.com/ is both reasonable and moderately convincing.

This article doesn't move the needle at all for those that have a basic understanding of the mechanisms at work and who don't fall for the first conspiracy theory that gets lobbed their way.

What you should do instead is to listen to your medical authorities who even if they do make mistakes have your best interests at heart, contrary to those that are pushing the quackery in an attempt to further destabilize our societies. You made yourself a willing collaborator in that, something to think about.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#27

Post by roenxi »

jacquesm wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.

This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe, but there have been many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past. It's just that you don't have the background knowledge to digest them, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to believe that there is some kind of miracle cure that 'they' are suppressing. Now consider that this is just one example of a class of such issues and that there is an…

> This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe...

I discounted a highly biased echo chamber in social media and more traditional media and went with 30-odd studies that appear to have been assembled in good faith even now. I changed my mind immediately on seeing "Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence".

You are describing how you want me to be thinking, not how I am thinking.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#28

Post by jacquesm »

roenxi wrote: post #27
jacquesm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe, but there have been many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past. It's just that you don't have the background knowledge to digest them, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to believe that there is some kind of miracle cure that 'they' are suppressing. Now consider that this is just one example of a class of such issues and that there is an…

> This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe... I discounted a highly biased echo chamber in social media and more traditional media and went with 30-odd studies that appear to have been assembled in good faith even now. I changed my mind immediately on seeing "Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when hon…

I have a pretty good memory for comment histories and you've been pushing this for far more than it is worth.

That this single article would change your mind is fortunate, but I do not suspect that to hold true for the bulk of the conspiracy peddlers that remain.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#29

Post by jacquesm »

robbedpeter wrote: post #15
beebmam wrote: post #8

"It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong!" - I know this is said tongue-in-cheek, but this mischaracterizes the medical scientists who have been working themselves to the bone trying to understand this virus and disease. Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain (or at least, we're very explicit about the cla…

"A lot of what you're seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about, consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science," "And that’s the reason why I say people who then criticize me about that are actually criticizing science" It's a problem with differentiating science from the scientists, and when someone mistakes the…

The attacks on Fauci are despicable. Note that he's anything but a weaselly political hack, but he did get replaced by one during the Trump reign. The man has more integrity than the bulk of that particular administration.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#30

Post by m0zg »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #18
roenxi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.

"Most scientists/doctors believe it to not work against Covid-19" wasn't a serious argument for you? It is a strange phenomenon that people are so ready to disagree with people who spent decades achieving exactly that kind of knowledge.

Most scientists/doctors believed at one point that ulcers were caused by "stress". My father lost half his stomach to an ulcer surgery. Nowadays ulcers are cured with antibiotics in the span of a week. Don't put much stock in what crowds "believe" to be true, _especially_ when _not_ believing it means they can't work in their field.
Post reply on HN