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

201–210 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#201

Post by csee »

jacquesm wrote: post #151
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have I missed anything? I don’t think the discussion is about vaccines. For what is worth, I think both the vaccines and ivermectin work. I just think multinational profit driven companies are more incentivised to promote vaccines, which generate a huge profit, over ivermectin which doesn’t make that much of a profit.

If you think ivermectin works then you are essentially disqualified because as the article linked here nicely explains there are some hypothesis about how it might work if it works but there is no proof, in which case the medical establishment would be all over it, because they too want this pandemic to end asap. Whether they could make more profit off this probably factors for some people but on the whole the medica…

Don't use the word "proof". That's a word that's only appropriate in deductive disciplines like mathematics.

Also let's accurately represent what the article is saying:

"Again and again, more people are surviving (or avoiding complications) when they get the drug. It’s a pattern strong enough to common-sensically notice. But there isn’t an undeniable, unbreachable fortress of evidence."

This to me reads consistent with "ivermectin has a reasonably good chance of working a little bit but it isn't conclusive.", which is in contrast to your statement that thinking ivermectin works is equal to quackery.

Personally I think it's either a very small effect or no effect at all, but I don't think the quackery designation fits for people who simply believe that there's some small benefit there (although I do think that label fits for those that think it can replace vaccines)

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#202

Post by gardnr »

pjc50 wrote: post #172
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.

This study shows Ivermectin functions as a protease inhibitor https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

Here is the fact check evaluation from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-pfizer...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#203

Post by jacquesm »

ddingus wrote: post #197
jacquesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

I have slowly come to the conclusion that maybe we grew up a bit too fast with respect to media and social media in particular. In the past change to society came slow and we could internalize and stabilize it before the next round of changes appeared.

Now the changes are coming so fast and are so drastic that we as society - including our legal system - have no way of keeping up with it. Technology routinely moves from one phase to the next before the legal framework has caught up with it. This translates into effectively operating without a legal framework for a very important chunk of society.

That's dangerous territory. I don't have any solutions and I'm sure that there are plenty of people that disagree with me but I've gone from a technophile to being very skeptical about the degree to which I allow tech into my life. Familiarity breeds contempt, or something to that effect.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#204

Post by BaronSamedi »

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…

Ironically, if we apply your first statement generally you are likely excluding yourself from the debate.

"If you are not a logician your opinion on fallacies doesn't matter at all."

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#205

Post by jacquesm »

Pyramus wrote: post #195
jdub wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

This is true, at least, it is for me. I never expected that my country (far down the list in population) would be in the top 30 countries for COVID cases. Disappointment doesn't begin to describe it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#206

Post by mrow84 »

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…

I’m certainly no expert but isn’t the evolutionary timescale for parasites considerably longer than for bacteria? That would presumably lead to quite different consequences (though of course the evolutionary pressure, and thus the risk, is still there).

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#207

Post by pjc50 »

gardnr wrote: post #202
pjc50 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This study shows Ivermectin functions as a protease inhibitor https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ Here is the fact check evaluation from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-pfizer...

Yes, and that fact check evaluates to "false"?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#208

Post by jacquesm »

csee wrote: post #201
jacquesm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think ivermectin works then you are essentially disqualified because as the article linked here nicely explains there are some hypothesis about how it might work if it works but there is no proof, in which case the medical establishment would be all over it, because they too want this pandemic to end asap. Whether they could make more profit off this probably factors for some people but on the whole the medica…

Don't use the word "proof". That's a word that's only appropriate in deductive disciplines like mathematics. Also let's accurately represent what the article is saying: "Again and again, more people are surviving (or avoiding complications) when they get the drug. It’s a pattern strong enough to common-sensically notice. But there isn’t an undeniable, unbreachable fortress of evidence." This to me reads consistent wi…

You can think ivermectin works just fine. But what you shouldn't do is pass that on to others as fact in a game of Chinese whispers that ends with 'MSM and big pharma are in cahoots to deny us this cheap medicine that really works against COVID to protect the profits of big pharma'.

And that's exactly how it goes.

Quackery: "dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine."

You don't have the knowledge, you don't have the skill, so don't go around giving advice about non-proven cures (or in fact, about any cures).

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#209

Post by ncmncm »

adrianN wrote: post #126
LordDragonfang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The major reason why we have antibiotic resistant bacteria is because we use literal tons of the stuff for meat production and too many countries have too lax controls for antibiotic use in humans, which means they are taken for things were they don't help, or are not necessary, and are taken in the wrong dosage and for the wrong duration.

Malaria seems to develop resistance pretty fast. Are farm animals getting those treatments in their feed?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#210

Post by jacquesm »

gardnr wrote: post #185
jacquesm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe, but there have been many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past. It's just that you don't have the background knowledge to digest them, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to believe that there is some kind of miracle cure that 'they' are suppressing. Now consider that this is just one example of a class of such issues and that there is an…

> many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past I haven't seen any of these. I just run into irrational and offensive people like you that accuse me of wanting to drink bleach when I bring up the topic of Ivermectin. This article removed all doubt for me. I needed to see the thought process while pouring over the studies. You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people based on your political bias. Some peop…

> Some people want to understand.

So go study medicine, assuming you have 10 years to burn and are willing to take a massive pay cut.

The average HN'er probably knows how to program a computer and some of them may even know how to program one well.

If a guy that runs a fishing boat with not even the most basic idea about programming, hardware, software, satellite systems, general relativity and integrating all of the above into a working solution came to them with a request to really understand how his GPS works before he would put it to use we'd likely tell them to just trust the experts.

Post reply on HN