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

241–250 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#241

Post by Nursie »

jesterson wrote: post #171
matthewmacleod wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That's not evidence that scientific information about ivermectin is being withheld.

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

Not really. For a start nobody thinks it's a cure.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#242

Post by Nursie »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #93
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…

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…

People are literally buying veterinary pharmaceutical preparations though, and taking horse paste.

Sure, it's used in humans too. But there are people dosing with equine supplies.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#243

Post by user-the-name »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #17

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…

The paragraph you quoted is, alone, pretty much enough to dismiss this entire article outright. It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it.

He sees a slick and well-presented site on a topic that is not only politically fraught, but well known to have a massive propaganda effort behind it, and he just completely refuses to even consider questioning it as a source? That is reckless beyond words.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#244

Post by Nursie »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #143
Pyramus wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directly from the article: > "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…

What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably…

> Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective

Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#245

Post by notahacker »

bschne wrote: post #152
elcomet wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and 6 because Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz was suspicious of them.” That's a bit frightening, of course someone would be suspicious if results were going against his/her opinions

> I asked him about his decision-making, and he listed a combination of serious statistical errors and small red flags adding up. I was pretty uncomfortable with most of these studies myself, so I will err on the side of severity, and remove all studies that either I or Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz disliked From further up, though we don't _quite_ know the details, but it's not like he went "Oh well some random person disagre…

He also details the specifics that are wrong (or alleged to be wrong by Meyerowitz-Katz) with each paper in the post

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#246

Post by gardnr »

pjc50 wrote: post #207
gardnr wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Yeah. Reuters says it’s false. John Campbell, a retired nurse with a PhD in philosophy was fact checked on it as well. He has a response video: https://youtu.be/ObTAOvgd_JE

It doesn’t really matter given that ivermectin is not effective.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#247

Post by Nursie »

pieter_mj wrote: post #193
bayesian_horse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does "modulate the immune system" mean to you?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#248

Post by [deleted] »

elcomet wrote: post #134
robocat wrote: post #71

With a meta-analysis, if you detect a high number of fraudulent studies, shouldn’t that negatively affect your trust of the studies which you didn’t detect any problem with? Let us imagine you looked at 100 papers, and you could tell 99 of them had severe problems, and one looked OK. That information would make you suspicious that the one paper also had severe problems, but that you just didn’t detect the problems. F…

> and 6 because Dr. Meyerowitz-Katz was suspicious of them.” That's a bit frightening, of course someone would be suspicious if results were going against his/her opinions

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#249

Post by comicjk »

low_tech_love wrote: post #129

It was a fun read, but implying that a drug dealer from Kern county is related to a published researcher from Mexico just because they have the same surname is not really cool.

I agree. I wonder, though - the author has written a lot about political signaling and trust. I wouldn't put it past him to add a joke that's deliberately anathema to liberals, in order to relax the hackles of the conservatives he's trying to convince to use real medicine.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#250

Post by j-bos »

user-the-name wrote: post #243
DoreenMichele wrote: post #17

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…

The paragraph you quoted is, alone, pretty much enough to dismiss this entire article outright. It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. He sees a slick and well-presented site on a topic that is not only politically fraught, but well known to have a massive propaganda effort behind it, and he just completely refuses to even consider questio…

He uses the site as list of studies to review, and throughout the article lays out why the site itself is not a reliable source.
Post reply on HN