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

91–100 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#91

Post by jacquesm »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #84
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.

Again... really, please just stop.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#92

Post by esun »

shusaku wrote: post #90

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…

Maybe even just an intro to stats course in early high school would help?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#93

Post by mewpmewp2 »

jesterson wrote: post #79
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 $…

> 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. That's an excellent point - unfortunately people who are easily labeled as "anti-vaxxers" and perceived as uneducated anti-scince crowd q…

I still don't know whether Ivermectin works or not, but mainstream media calling it horse paste is absolutely disingenuous and what increases distrust from me. It's as if they are incapable of understanding that same substance could be used for multiple species for multiple different conditions and in fact it has been used for multiple species.

So anyone calling it horse paste, horse medicine or even focusing on that makes me question their intelligence.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#94

Post by nzmsv »

nzmsv wrote: post #58
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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Chain got too deep to reply.

We did adopt his methods, but many years and hundreds of deaths too late, and not before declaring him insane for his beliefs and putting him in an asylum.

What I'm saying is that authority has a dark side. Sometimes the establishment is actually wrong. Regardless of right or wrong, it always chooses to erase its critics. Some of us disagree with the erasure, even in cases where the critics are wrong.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#95

Post by WithinReason »

lolspace wrote: post #75

> This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret Why are they hiding their identity? That means that it can be anyone who does this. ----------------- But even more important. The website also claims that each of the following individual medicines works:…

The problem is likely to be with the scientific approach of the studies included (they are not filtered) than the meta-analysis itself.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#96

Post by cbakt »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#97

Post by cbg0 »

havkd wrote: post #85
cbg0 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's actually not, as it can induce temporary blindness if you overdose on it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#98

Post by fallingknife »

jacquesm wrote: post #70
fallingknife wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah, I agree, that in the case of a pandemic, the health authorities interests are pretty well aligned with a member of the general public. However, there are always issues in this kind of situation when the authorities got it wrong. In a political environment, changing course is seen as an admission of being wrong, and a loss of face. So we continue on with the initial policy. We are currently facing this problem as all experts seem to agree that covid will be endemic, but we are still flailing around with (increasingly half-assed) prevention measures as if we are still going to stop the virus. I disagree that pursuing herd immunity was a bad decision. With every day the pandemic drags on, Sweden's decision is looking better and better.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#99

Post by tdrdt »

"...everyone still PCR positive by day 7 so it was impossible to compare groups"

Eh, isn't this what a PCR-test does: detect RNA? A medicine doesn't magically remove virus RNA. It might break down the virus or block it's ability to reproduce but the RNA will still be detected.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#100

Post by mewpmewp2 »

stonogo wrote: post #82
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…

Supposedly they are not buying everyone off. Look, 2008 happened, why couldn't similar thing that happened in financial industry happen in medicine industry?

The motivations, rushing of everything could be just aligned enough to cause all of this. Safety studies excluding some participants, some important data. All you'd have to pay off is to exclude certain data, for which there are ALREADY reports coming out for. For example Maddie de Garay's injuries excluded, there's report of someone else's vaccine injury being excluded from the original study.

BMJ coming up with the article of falsified data etc.

The way Pfizer reportedly conducted side effect studies. E.g. asking participants to report their side effects on 7th day in the app without any freeform text or custom symptoms - only predetermined symptoms. For any custom symptom you had to contact the doctors, who may have just ignored you or determined your symptoms to be irrelevant since they didn't have motivation or time to deal with you.

Pfizer just pressuring subcontractors just enough for them to provide data that favours vaccine safety, and there's just not enough time to double check everything so all of it just flies by.

Mainstream media has reported absolutely none of it. None of the excluded participants, nothing about the BMJ article. Nothing about how Pfizer conducted the studies. Everyone is clueless about that. There's already so much PR built towards hating "anti-vaxxers" and considering them uneducated and unintellectual, so the word "vaccine" is already associated in everyone's mind as something good, safe and effective. The PR is already there, you just have to work out something that you could call "vaccine", and help out people in the current very desperate situation.

Very few are actually closely looking into the data and there are actually plenty of scientists and doctors talking about it, but they are getting debunked using very superficial arguments and just finding anything slightly wrong or misleading about what they are saying and they are immediately considered "debunked".

Similarly during 2008, very few people were predicting this crash and everyone just wanted to pretend together that everything was going well. All the experts, economists etc. And human anatomy is somehow simpler than financial system?

Post reply on HN