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

61–70 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#61

Post by fallingknife »

jacquesm wrote: post #26
roenxi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soc…

> who even if they do make mistakes have your best interests at heart

They, like every other person, have their own best interest at heart, which, if you're lucky, aligns with yours. "Just listen to the authorities" is probably the worst advice ever given.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#62

Post by jacquesm »

Joking_Phantom wrote: post #46

Love the final explanation for how ivermectin can be incidentally good for COVID-19 patients, even if it does nothing to COVID-19 directly. In fact, as the author cites from another researcher, the trials are a strong piece of evidence for "add[ing] ivermectin to mass drug administration programs." In other words, global medical welfare, where we just give everyone a bunch of a cheap and effective medications to coun…

That depends on the side effects and the dose required+. So no, you can't just draw that conclusion.

+ edit: , etc...

Thanks Cthulhu_.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#63

Post by jacquesm »

roenxi wrote: post #57
bayesian_horse wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…

Going through one of those studies from https://ivmmeta.com/ on YouTube would be a risky proposition for a YouTuber. It goes against YouTube's medical misinformation policy [0]. It is pretty clear that a study with that sort of effect size could encourage someone to take Ivermectin. Particularly the "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19 " would be a worry depending on how the cens…

> Now it turns out, laughably in hindsight, that the effect is probably whether people had parasites or not and I hadn't thought of that.

No, that's just a hypothesis. To move that to 'probably' would require a very carefully designed study.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#64

Post by akvadrako »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #21
robbedpeter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those other drugs cant compete on price.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#65

Post by roenxi »

jacquesm wrote: post #53
nzmsv wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this an example of some rigid and ineffective thinking patterns? Article publishes sound arguments, doesn't talk down to the audience, admits problems with appeals to authority... and converts a conspiracy believer! ...No way, there is no way that can possibly work, the others are way too dumb, and the convert is a bad person... basically anything to just go back to pretending appeals to authority work. Despite…

I've been following with some amazement the number of conspiracy peddlers on HN for the last 18 months or so and one case of conversion isn't going to make me overly happy. It is a bit like the story about the lie getting halfway around the world before the truth puts their shoes on, in the extreme long term the truth will come out, meanwhile, the damage is done. This guy until yesterday wanted his mother to take som…

You could try spreading the truth instead of bullying people? I do care about my mothers health you know. And if a doctor isn't convinced by a large number of studies I want them to explain why not rather than call me a conspiracy peddler.

The way someone gets ivermectin is to walk a doctor through the evidence they've seen and then ask them to prescribe it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#66

Post by bayesian_horse »

robbedpeter wrote: post #50
bayesian_horse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bit most people are interested in is the potential prophylactic effect, not so much treatment once you have it (at least the people who are following the science and not buying into the weird cute claims.) It having an apparent antiviral effect during treatment indicates there's a possibility for mechanism of action that can prevent catching covid. It might be noise in the data, but studying it in large trials is…

A prophylactic effect would be, pardon me, stupid. There is even less evidence for that, and the vaccines clearly work better.

Also you'd need to take Ivermectin continously for the next few years?? Compounding the cost and potential risks from sideeffects. Ivermectin is quite safe, but there are some risks, all drugs can go wrong every once in a while.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#67

Post by DoreenMichele »

Joking_Phantom wrote: post #46

Love the final explanation for how ivermectin can be incidentally good for COVID-19 patients, even if it does nothing to COVID-19 directly. In fact, as the author cites from another researcher, the trials are a strong piece of evidence for "add[ing] ivermectin to mass drug administration programs." In other words, global medical welfare, where we just give everyone a bunch of a cheap and effective medications to coun…

In fact, as the author cites from another researcher, the trials are a strong piece of evidence for "add[ing] ivermectin to mass drug administration programs." In other words, global medical welfare, where we just give everyone a bunch of a cheap and effective medications to counteract the most prolific diseases.

When they invented antibiotics, people began predicting "the end of disease." Fast forward a few decades and we have the rise of scary antibiotic-resistant infections.

Medical stuff doesn't work the way most people would like to imagine it does. This sounds like a terrible thing to conclude. I'm rather unsettled to see it lauded here on HN.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#68

Post by raxxorrax »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
raxxorrax wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It got political, but he still doesn't capture the gist and whole of the argument. You cannot argue against an imaginary position which he still espouses. There are just democrats and conservatives for him. That is a deep socialization which depending on age might be a permanent affliction. But that isn't reflective of every position against a vaccination (or additional measures), it is more the explanation of a naiv…

This isn't an accident or a simple case of being wrong: this is a case of a fairly orchestrated campaign. That it has a lot of footsoldiers that aren't aware that they are being used is a real pity and a problem. The big question to me is how will we deal with the next round of bullshit cures that is undoubtedly waiting in the wings to play on those exact same feelings? Are people going to do this again, or will they…

Maybe, although without further evidence accusation of conspiracies will fly back into your face.

The site might look professional, but it still could just be another true believer. If you frenetically ban the content, more people will believe the message and more importantly disbelieve yours since it "obviously" cannot stand scrutiny.

And there are real problems here, the infrastructure to censor certain message on social media got quite effective and to believe tech companies as government contractors won't use it to spread falsehoods is naive. Not by conspiracy, it is just a dynamic government will certainly show.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#69

Post by bayesian_horse »

akvadrako wrote: post #64
bayesian_horse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those other drugs cant compete on price.

They may with them being in the WHO patent pool.

Also a free drug that probably doesn't work isn't all that competitive...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#70

Post by jacquesm »

fallingknife wrote: post #61
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soc…

> who even if they do make mistakes have your best interests at heart They, like every other person, have their own best interest at heart, which, if you're lucky, aligns with yours. "Just listen to the authorities" is probably the worst advice ever given.

In the case of a pandemic it is probably pretty good advice, unless you are of the opinion that your authorities are acting against your interest.

The problem with this pandemic is that a lot of people in places of power have made mistakes, sometimes really bad ones (for instance, such as pursuing herd immunity) rather than to follow the WHO expert advice. This could easily be construed as authorities acting against your best interests and in fact in quite a few places people have died that need not have died at all.

But there is a difference between 'political authorities' and 'medical authorities', the WHO has been fairly consistent and sensible in their advice to date, what political authorities locally do with that advice is another matter entirely, that runs the gamut of Bolsonaro to Boris Johnson to Jacinda Ardern and everything in between.

Post reply on HN