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

171–180 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#171

Post by jesterson »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #105
jesterson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way.

There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms.

> The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying

That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#172

Post by pjc50 »

Tycho wrote: post #118

How similar to Ivermectin is the new Pfizer covid drug?

Paxlovid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PF-07321332 protease inhibitor;

Ivermectin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin binds to chloride channels and is a nerve poison for invertebrates.

The molecular layouts look completely different.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#173

Post by vmception »

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…

This is interesting, it is similar to how doctors just include gonorrhea treatment for women that expect to bear children. Instead of embarrassing any particular woman who would suddenly have something to explain to the partner, they just give it to many amongst the cocktail of various other obscure sounding drugs.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#175

Post by pjc50 »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #120
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. I think this is an extremely jaded take, resulting from growing up in a post-antibiotics society. The risk factor for those "scary antibiotic-resistant infections" is still an order of magnitude less than the class of diseases antibiotics almost total…

> infectious diseases were almost totally knocked off the leading causes of death.

Well, until 2020. Then we had another infectious disease. Which is why we're having this conversation.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#176

Post by vmception »

capableweb wrote: post #130
jacquesm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good rule is to simply wait. Bad science has a way of being negated over the longer term. But if you want results today you could always try to replicate the experiment (which is one of the reasons why asking scientists to show their data in raw from should be mandatory in my opinion).

> Bad science has a way of being negated over the longer term. Humans started to experiment with Lobotomy around 1930s and it wasn't until after 1950s that we started to realize that it probably did more harm than good. António Egas Moniz even won a Nobel Prize for "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses". Yes, bad science will probably be negated over long term, but what about the harm…

They're saying, instead of waiting 18 months to figure out the best decision for you and your family instead of jumping to a conclusion based on political affiliation correlated to the part of the country you happen to live in, wait 20 years because science iz kewl.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#177

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#178

Post by beagle3 »

jacquesm wrote: post #146
roenxi wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is only a fallacy when you are an expert as well... This is wrong to the point where you really might want to take a deep breath. The point of experts is they have thought about a field more and are better at making sound arguments in that field. "Most scientists/doctors believe..." is literally, exactly and unambiguously a fallacious argument. The only thing that matters is why they would believe that. And if t…

No, if you are not a doctor your opinion on any of this doesn't matter at all, it's that simple. Probability dictates that any doctor - let alone most doctors' - opinion trumps yours and everybody else that parrots you, because they will be right far more often than you about medical things. You may be better at interpreting the statistics than your doctor friends but you are not better at medicine, are not wired int…

I admire your conviction.

And I suspect you would have had the same conviction about smoking had you lived in the 1960s and noticed that many doctors recommended smoking.

No, it does matter why a doctor believes what they believe. The vast majority of them just follow the official top down advice. And some actors, notably tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, have been using that to subvert science (to great effect and profit) for decades.

Which, again, I note, is not a statement about IVM or HCQ or Cominraty - it’s about the reasons for your own convictions, which seem to completely ignore decades of evidence.

It does not at all matter that doctors know better than me about 99% of medical things. When I have a specific issue, it is far more likely I can know more about it by spending 100 hours studying, than a trained doctor does without studying. It is likely he would know more than me if he spent 5 hours, but it is very unlikely that he has.

I haven’t disagreed with doctor about many things in my life. But in the 3 or so things which I found vitally important to research, and in which I came to a different conclusion than the specialists, I was proven right.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#179

Post by rmbyrro »

> Mainstream medicine has reacted with slogans like “believe Science”. I don’t know if those kinds of slogans ever help, but they’re especially unhelpful here.

To me such slogans are a disservice. Science should not be a matter of belief by definition.

This way of promoting science is what brings belief-centric discussions to an arena that cannot benefit from beliefs.

I remember one presidential debate in the US where the interviewer asked Trump: "Do you believe the science of climate change?"

Making such question is an absurdity and reflects the almost religious way these subjects have been considered lately.

No scientific field, study or conclusion should be a matter of belief.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#180

Post by majou »

jacquesm wrote: post #122
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the vaccines in this context. The discussion is a lot more nuanced than that.

Sure... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29140176 and so on.

I found the second thread re: vaccine hesitancy decent. The myocarditis incidence seems higher than reported to me too.

I'd also be curious if any studies could be made on needle aspiration being important or not.

Post reply on HN