Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

astralcodexten.substack.com

191–200 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not pardoned. You could have edited that, but decided not being rude wasn't worth the effort of deleting a single sentence? Maybe just don't write the first condescending thing that pops into your mind. If ivermectin worked as an antiviral prophylactic, it's another tool to use with better stability in storage and transportation, it's cheaper, and immediately useful for places that don't have refrigeration or…

Not the idea of Ivermectin as prophylactic is stupid, but believing this is the case, as many people clearly do, in my opinion merits that verdict.

Beyond the social media hype there is almost no rational reason to believe that. I even have a problem with writing "almost no", because I don't really trust what I've seen in that regard on face value.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask, completely sincerely, what approach you would settle on for trying to discriminate truth from fiction if you believed you couldn't get reliable information from reading 30-odd studies?

Isn't the correct answer to wait for more reliable studies? Which is what most "anti-ivermectin" folks were saying to begin with? If your primary goal is to have a miracle cure in hand that would allow you to push back against vaccine mandates, then this approach probably won't sit well. But if you are interesting in actually finding truth, than waiting for larger, more robust studies was the answer.

Why wait? Why not take ivermectin as a precautionary therapeutic given it is well tolerated with low risk of side effects?

There's a chasm between the epistemic question of "does this drug really work?" and the pragmatic question of "does a risk-reward analysis under uncertainty say that I should take this mostly safe drug that might slightly reduce my covid severity?"

FWIW, I wouldn't take ivermectin either as a prophylactic or therapeutic, the evidence just isn't strong enough, but I don't really fault anyone that would add it into the stack of treatments upon a diagnosis in the hopes of a small net benefit.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#193

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.

Anything that edges you closer to an optimum health state is also beneficial to a certain degree to avoid corona infection.

So zinc and vitamine D which enhance and modulate the immune system are recommended.

It's not as clearcut as you make it seem. The current vaccines lose their effectiveness over time and are significantly less effective against the delta variant to start with.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for every story like yours - and I know of a few of those - there are examples of people who were absolutely convinced that their child had 'x' or 'y' when it in fact wasn't the case. It is great that you had the perseverance to see this through, and unfortunately it isn't rare at all that local medical care is not up to speed with rare diseases or misdiagnosing a rare disease as a more common one. I lost a siste…

Indeed, the oath is a theatre prop and not much more. I reside in Israel these days, which has a system similar to NL ttbomk. The doctors that treat you (in the public system) are not incentivized other than to cure you, except perhaps through the occasional marketing cruise. But high up ministry of health people have been indicted (including through corona) for pushing and in some cases mandating useless treatments…

> WHO recommends against remdesivir. FDA and IMOH promote it as a wonderdrug. Who would you trust?

My GP.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#195
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

"You don't need to wear masks" was bad advice from well-meaning people who should've known better. The researchers who did know better couldn't push past deeply-entrenched anti-miasma attitudes quickly enough. "Use social distancing and isolation to avoid COVID and get vaccinated as quickly as possible" is good advice from well-meaning people who do know better. Sorry it's unpleasant, but if the USA behaved rationall…

Nobody in their right mind would have predicted before the pandemic that some of the most developed countries in the world will have some of the highest death counts. I fear this will be deeply ingrained in the social consciousness and lead to further divisiveness down the line.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#196
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. "I have reviewed these studies, they seem sound and there are no real downsides to taking Ivermectin. I can't think of any reason not to take it. I don't recommend taking it, maybe I haven't thought of something" is a position a reasonable person could come to after browsing through the available evidence. Are you absolutely sure a video like that would be k…

But most of them aren't sound. Those that aren't are still weak evidence and not really block-buster. Also, "there are no real downsides" is misinformation. If you let on that you are an expert when you aren't, and say "I reviewed them" then that's misinformation. Some is in the gray area, but even the gray area actually causes the kind of harm these policies try to prevent.

I can't speak for Youtube, but that's my take.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#197
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.co…

"Sold out" is a real problem. More people than we want to admit see corruption coupled with big media as a enemy, not a thing to be trusted. Many ordinary people flat out do not know when to trust, so they don't.

They then seek others and continue to have conversations, and they find others lacking trust resonates and that opens the door for a lot of BS normally and easily seen.

Just an example of the difficulty we now face:

Hiding YouTube dislikes will, among other effects, serve to help big corporate media compete against new media.

Hiding the dislikes also breeds more mistrust. This is unavoidable no matter how reasoned the move is.

Public trust in corporate media is really low, and the younger a potential user of that media is the worse those metrics are.

Had that same media held more closely to journalism, rather than access journalism, which is essentially a sales job, the trust problems we struggle with today would not have grown into the chronic problem it all is today.

You identified politicians committing similar abuse of the public trust.

Look at Russiagate. Basically, it flat out did not happen the way many believed it did. Back when that started, many and myself included went to the original documents, saw speculation and in some cases saw it helpfully color coded, and turned on the news only to see all that elevated to fact.

That scared me frankly.

What can one conclude?

I do not see how judging others helps right now. Not saying anyone did here, but I am saying that is happening a lot and when it happens the door for good info to find it's way home gets closed. Advocates render their efforts far less potent.

Secondly, the lack of trust really can't be assigned to people. We have a lot of "they are stupid" type discussion, judgement and rationalization going on and very little of that is helpful.

ie: 70 million people voted for...

The people who had a far better position of authority and trust denigrated that themselves, and for dollars and ratings.

All that is a real mess!

How can authorities, who have abused public trust be counted on to fact check and improve on misinformation without amplifying the already chronic trust problems they created?

In a more basic sense, how can we improve on public trust at all?

I am not sure how that is done quickly.

Longer term, we need media that makes informing people a priority. And doing that likely means a move away from the current AD and access based media we have now.

Given how things are right now, the more important thing is to avoid judgement of others and encourage more and better information exchange. We will not know what reaches people, until it does.

Once it does, we need those people to continue seeking better information so we see more people making better choices more of the time.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the 1960's smoking was already considered very bad for your health, in fact a large 1951 study amongst the doctors themselves pretty much proved that, but that didn't stop lobbying and advertising by the Tobacco companies, including the use of actors posing as doctors from continuing to push the false narrative and if not for some pretty heavy legal restrictions they would still be doing this today (and they still do, in some countries).

And real doctors promoting smoking goes back much further than that, all the way to the early 1900's.

It's that kind of activity that undermines the authority the profession, but it's the wrong conclusion to make that if doctors were wrong about smoking they are also wrong about everything else. Usually they are not.

https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/media/articles/smokin...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#199
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you care about your mothers' health then you shouldn't engage in quackery. > The way someone gets ivermectin is to walk a doctor through the evidence they've seen and then ask them to prescribe it. That is factually incorrect, no doctor in their right mind will allow the patients to effectively prescribe their own controversial and in some cases downright dangerous medicine.

Is that not what the ADS we see on TV are helping patients to do?

I am being dead serious here. Confused.

And to be clear, it should not work that way at all.

I think it does work that way a lot more than many of us would care to admit.

Happy to be shown I am wrong.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#200

This is wonderfully fun stuff to read: 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 - but my hat is off to them...Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale, this is the most impressive act of science communication…

I want to know who's behind those sites, the fact that nobody knows who's behind them is shady. Or is having sites pushing meta-studies about anything normal and I just missed it?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN