Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#81

Post by fallingknife » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

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…

> Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain

Medical science made the claim that multiple sclerosis was "female hysteria," until imaging technology was able to see the damage. A doctor I know today claims that a lot of patients symptoms are really psychological and everyone at work is annoyed when they come in. When I brought up the case of multiple sclerosis, and maybe many patients have disorders which are not known to medical science because they are dismissed in the same way, I was met with a "that's ridiculous" defense. When I pressed further and ask for evidence on that point, I was given the fact that these patients with unexplained symptoms are highly correlated with anxiety. When I asked if having an undiagnosed medical disorder, and being told by doctors who clearly don't want to help you, and are clearly annoyed you are there, that it's all in your head might give someone anxiety, it was not well received. Medical science comes to all kinds of BS conclusions about the unknown without a shred of evidence.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#82

Post by stonogo » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:19 AM UTC

jmnicolas wrote: post #24

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 $…

Mind boggling? $1k/s is around $31 billion. First of all, just Pfizer brought in more money than that last year -- around $10 billion more. But let's set that aside for now, because they're slated to bring in twice as much this year.

You think Pfizer and Moderna are somehow coordinating a global censorship campaign to defend that income? Sure, Pfizer's projects $82 billion in revenue is real money. But it's less than half of Amazon's income. Facebook brings that much in every year. Apple and AT&T crush these numbers, but nobody's going around deleting every tweet about how Mac OS has gone downhill or AT&T's cell service sucks.

In other words, it's just not enough money to have this kind of pull. Even if Pfizer and Moderna were lying their asses off to everyone who would listen, they just don't have the cash to buy off every medical expert and microbiologist of any standing -- and even if they did, the relevant government agencies can't accept hush money and aren't particularly interested in advancing some cartoonish corporate ruse.

Biological and medical research is a competitive field; most of these people slogged through six or eight years of underpaid postdoctoral work just to build the qualifications to participate in meaningful research as PI. Are there crooks who will take a check to parrot a party line? Sure. Is that common enough to enable the kind of overwhelming consensus we see today? Absolutely not ... but let's say I'm wrong: there just isn't enough money to pull it off.

This is why the current crop of conspiracy nuts insists the scheme isn't just about profits but also about some kind of vague assault on unspecified civil liberties -- it's necessary to ascribe actual evil to the movitation before it's even remotely believeable.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#83

Post by darrenf » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:20 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67

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…

> 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.

Indeed, this exact thing is headline news in the UK today from our Health Security Agency - don't take antibiotics unless you definitely have something treatable by them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59310099

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#84

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:21 AM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #60

Funny how all this article ends up saying it's all a matter of trust. Which is exactly what medecine has always been about, and why ultimately you end up getting prescriptions by you own doctor, that you have a bound with and that you trust. The most insane thing that happened with this pandemic ( at least in europe) is how we decided to throw all this through the window and let states impose medical decisions on peo…

It's about what makes money. There's no money to be made from Ivermectin as you can't patent it. Money is what orchestrates the studies and the PR for any medicine.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#85

Post by havkd » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

cbg0 wrote: post #54

tehjoker wrote: post #22

We have multiple vaccines and two (EUA) proven oral treatments now.

Yes, but the sneaky government is offering those freely, so that's very suspicious to some folks that would rather have "the good stuff" off of the black market.

Ivermectin is completely safe (even if it doesn’t work). The rest of treatments, well, we will know in a few years or decades.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#86

Post by DoreenMichele » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

darrenf wrote: post #83

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Indeed, this exact thing is headline news in the UK today from our Health…

Parasites are notoriously hard to treat. They are harder to treat than bacterial infection.

Places with lots of parasitic infections need better infrastructure and general hygiene to prevent infection. They don't need all the locals actively breeding drug-resistant parasites. Parasites are enough of a nightmare without cavalierly passing out drugs for funsies.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#87

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #72

roenxi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. But that's a fine point in that case. And most people who talk about these studies will violate the policy by a wide margin, rather than doing a well rounded analysis. You can't deliberately encourage people to take Ivermectin. But JUST citing a study wouldn't do that. Especially not with all the debunking of the other stuff.

I assume you haven't been enough on YouTube to see how many videos keep getting removed that contradict MSM.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#88

Post by nzmsv » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

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…

As an engineer, sometimes I say "ship it!" to code that doesn't make me happy but works and solves a real problem.

Edit: I meant this to go with debating techniques, not cures. There are people for whom no amount of saying "why can't you just listen to Dr. Fauci" is going to work. We can say they are bad people, but that doesn't work very well for getting them to agree either.

You are right to call out above that there were other anti-Ivermectin arguments before and roenxi might not have had the background to understand them. That's exactly the point: here we have an argument that he can understand, and it's effective. This is good science journalism. The kind that doesn't work (too much moralizing or too confusing for the general audience) is bad journalism.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#89

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:26 AM UTC

nzmsv wrote: post #88

jacquesm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As an engineer, sometimes I say "ship it!" to code that doesn't make me happy but works and solves a real problem. Edit: I meant this to go with debating techniques, not cures. There are people for whom no amount of saying "why can't you just listen to Dr. Fauci" is going to work. We can say they are bad people, but that doesn't work very well for getting them to agree either. You are right to call out above that the…

I hope that that only goes for things that you can oversee the risks of and that you would refrain from giving medical advice to your relatives assuming that you are not a doctor.

"move fast and break stuff" is the wrong attitude for medicine and aerospace.

But a solution is better than no solution, and of all the countermeasures that we had available in March 2020 we only used a fraction.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRHH6e-y6I

note the date on that video.

As to your edit: no, here we have an argument that he thinks he understands, that's not the same thing. The argument as presented is at best a hypothesis, it isn't proof of anything, just one more theory that may or may not end up being the right one explaining the sometimes observed effect, assuming it really was observed in the first place.

This is precisely what makes this discussion so tiring: people will be swayed one way or the other based on arguments that they have no way of understanding unless they were trained in that particular field.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of politicians that fall into the same trap, leading to terrible examples of wishful thinking, outright quackery and conspiracy amplification. The harm that this is causing is substantial.

So even if this article swayed one person I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find people who get the opposite out of it, because hey 'x' has now joined the establishment, must have sold out.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#90

Post by shusaku » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

Such good writing. I was anxious about trying to read it all, but he kept me hooked to the end.

> I think it’s important to address ivermectin support on its own terms - as a potentially plausible scientific theory in a debris field of confusing evidence, which should be debated to the usual standards of scientific debate. I’ve tried to do that above.

This is also how I’ve kind of tried to view things, yet I continue to be disappointed. The studies shown here were way worse than I imagined. Just like when someone in my personal life says to me they’re skeptical of the vaccines. I want to take them seriously, I’m waiting for them to talk to give well reasoned arguments about hard choices and uncertainty, but it ends up being arguments one can dismiss with five minutes of research.

I predict that over the next 100 years bioethics will dominate the discourse. I want people to be ready to challenge the status quo and experts going forward. But covid has really shown that we’re not even remotely prepared. What will it take, four years of mandatory biology and philosophy for high school students?