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

101–110 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#101

Post by joshuamorton »

roenxi wrote: post #45
bayesian_horse wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion it should be an argument, especially for people who don't have that expertise. Also, even the "moderately convincing" evidence is in my opinion not nearly enough. It might be if Covid-19 were a modestly important disease with only a few labs and clinics running working on it. But it's not. Throw enough shit against the wall, eventually something will stick by chance. This is a globally distributed exper…

> In my opinion it should be an argument, It is a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority . To make an argument, there needs to be an argument.

Most of that wikipedia article is devoted to pointing out that most of the time "argument from authority" is legitimate.

And to the extent that the article does say that even a legitimate authority needs to present an argument, in this context, they have!

Like the situation here is medical experts have said "hmm these studies that appear to show ivermectin's effectiveness are fraudulent and suspicious".

Like, with the exception of the complete theory that ivermectin studies in some nations are naturally confounded by the presence of worms, the arguments he's made about the unreliability of the ivermectin data is the mainstream argument about the unreliability of ivermectin data. He even cites a number of experts whose analysis he sometimes relies on!

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#102

Post by cbakt »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
m0zg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's science working as intended: theories getting replaced by better theories. There is plenty that we are probably going to find out more about in the future that will invalidate some of what we believe today to be true. But that's fine, as long as we stick to the scientific method that will all come out, even if it takes a while. Science has brought us further in 400 years than anything that came before. Right n…

There would have been no carnage with polio. Vaccines have a demonstrable and long lasting effect and the disease is more severe for all age groups, so people would have taken the vaccine.

Polio, measles etc. are entirely different.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#103

Post by throwawayacc2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #91
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? I think he has a point. We live in a society that is geared around profit. That is literally how our society functions. Economic activity is incentivised by the profit motive, important national metrics like GDP focus primarily on profit driven output and growth, even engineering or medical problems are often framed in economic terms like cost/benefit. I think it’s silly in this kind of context to ignore the profit motive.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#104

Post by bobcostas55 »

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

What would you say about the FDA's recent approval of aduhelm? Do we know that it works "for certain"? Or is the FDA not part of the medical science establishment?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#105

Post by matthewmacleod »

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…

A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it"

A number of people—probably not including myself, if I'm honest—would take this statement more seriously if it wasn't a complaint that a thing which has already happened, and continues to happen, isn't happening.

Seriously. There are trials for any number of medications underway, including Ivermectin. There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#106

Post by jacquesm »

cbakt wrote: post #96
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…

[flagged]

Sweden, the country where the authorities apologized for messing up, that Sweden?

People on average gained 10 kg? Really, I have no idea where you get this nonsense but clearly you are not interested in a factual debate but in one that gives you what you want: the ability to ignore this pandemic as though it doesn't exit.

There are no ICU beds for the gerontocracy, there are simply ICU beds, and there is a limited number of them, they will have a COVID patient in them or someone else, and in case of surplus they might be free.

The medical authorities and the politicians should not be confused.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#107

Post by Pyramus »

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.

"Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible. Pharma companies are always trying to convince people to use expensive patented drugs instead of equally good generic alternatives. Ivermectin believers probably heard about this from the many, many good articles by responsible news outlets, discussing the many, many times pharma companies have tried to trick people into using more expensive patented medications. Like this ACSH article about Nexium. Or my article on esketamine. Given that dozens of studies said a drug worked, and elites continued to deny it worked, and there are well-known times where elites lie about drugs in order to make money, it was an incredibly reasonable inference that this was one of those times.

If you have a lot of experience with pharma, you know who lies and who doesn’t, and you know what lies they’re willing to tell and which ones they shrink back from. As far as I know, no reputable scientist has ever come out and said ‘esketamine definitely works better than regular ketamine’. The regulatory system just heavily implied it."

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#108

Post by jacquesm »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #103
jacquesm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again... really, please just stop.

Why? I think he has a point. We live in a society that is geared around profit. That is literally how our society functions. Economic activity is incentivised by the profit motive, important national metrics like GDP focus primarily on profit driven output and growth, even engineering or medical problems are often framed in economic terms like cost/benefit. I think it’s silly in this kind of context to ignore the pro…

[flagged]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#109

Post by VBprogrammer »

roenxi wrote: post #6

This is exactly the sort of thing that YouTube, Twitter, et al are suppressing. Someone thoughtfully listening seriously to what the proponents of Ivermectin are saying, weighing it up and saying "looks good but you forgot...". You can't get this sort of excellent rebuttal without allowing a site like https://ivmmeta.com/ into the debate.

I wonder if YouTube would have been better to implement a no medical advice policy. Not a no advice which runs contrary to the official guidelines policy.
Post reply on HN