Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#261

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #256

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be compelling evidence? Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? What about countless anecdotal stories of similar pe…

> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to hav…

I have scanned through so many forums reading anecdotal stories, also downloaded VAERS data, and I definitely see a pattern, but this is not enough of compelling evidence for anyone.

But let's just focus on what could be causing excess deaths during summer.

Source:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

Scroll to Excess Mortality

See 0-14 age group excess mortality growth during summer (EU approved vaccines for 12+ in May). There has been similar rate variance in winters, but this can be explained by bad flu seasons, there's no such variance ever during summer. If vaccines really were the cause, it means only 12-14 group should be affecting the rate, this means that with 0-11 the growth could be 4x that assuming linear relation.

Also see 15-44 excess which has never been climbing that fast and is much higher than previously in total. You can also include other years from 2016 to compare.

These may not be vaccines, but what is causing this then and why specifically in younger demographics?

I'm honestly looking to understand what could be the explanation here.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#262

Post by RubberMullet » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #16

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.

There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…

>There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed.

...

>Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately.

Where is the evidence to support this statement?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#263

Post by notahacker » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

csee wrote: post #183

While reading this piece I got a little depressed that most journalism is just such utter trash compared to it. I've read so many articles on ivermectin and none of them gave me even ten percent of the clarity that this article gave me. Can you imagine if writing and journalism of this calibre was commonplace among practising "journalists"? And look at how this piece compares to the CDC's and WHO's science communicat…

Whilst journalist/PR summaries are so notoriously bad they're a punchline when you talk to actual researchers, I think we have to be charitable here and acknowledge that most communication about COVID doesn't have the luxury of writing about every single trial registered (or making puns on the word "fluke"!) So it tends to summarise it as "initially promising results for Invermectin were fraudulent, whilst large trials found no effect at all. Also it has side effects, like most other drugs, so the people ordering it in doses for horses aren't being as clever as they think" which isn't nearly as entertaining or as thorough as Scott's writing, but is a broadly accurate summary of the state of scientific evidence.

(Of course you can also summarise it as "there's weak evidence for Invermectin having some therapeutic benefit which is probably related to preexisting conditions"... but we know how quickly that snowballs into "Invermectin stops COVID, scientists ADMIT IT" by the same people that deny the much stronger evidence for vaccine efficacy. Science journalism is bad, but not as bad as the selective reading of it.)

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#264

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#265

Post by istinetz » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:17 PM UTC

ayngg wrote: post #144

mike_h wrote: post #11

His alien thought experiment in the “Political Takeaway” section at the bottom is a masterpiece. If you’ve struggled to explain where science lost democracy, this must be as crisp as it’ll ever be described.

I think like he said, it is all trust. Without trust, people are wary of your motivations. When you are in that position, having the people you don't trust do things like promote the narrative of "trust science" just looks like they are using scientists as mouthpieces to co-opt their trust to push a narrative. Moderating misinformation looks like censorship, mandates look like coercion, etc. Overall it was just a col…

>Moderating misinformation looks like censorship

Not to be adversarial, but there have definitely been a few instances which are just censorship and not moderating misinformation. And there are definitely some hot topics on which I will flat out ignore research, because I know only some conclusions are allowed and publishable.

I think it's pointless to discuss specific examples - my point is, it's not only an issue of managing trust, because the science doesn't deserve that trust.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#266

Post by podgaj » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:17 PM UTC

Hold on, science never ends, amiright?

I want to focus on this article:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pfizer-new-covid-19-proteas...

Where they conclude:

"Spoiler alert: Ivermectin does inhibit the same protease that PF-07321332 does, but, as is the case for viral replication, it requires a concentration that is not achievable by oral dosing."

So Ivermection COULD work. That is not me saying that, that is an scientific article debunking Ivermectin. (As an aside, the politics of this, they will not even say that yes, ivermection COULD work but the dose needed would be too high).

But the protease all these drugs try to inhibit is TMPRSS2. Now TMPRSS2 is made by a gene, and genetic changes affect the amount of this enzyme, leading to higher or lower function.

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/212/8/1214/2193475

These gene changes could make us more or less vulnerable to COVID in some populations:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463014v1

So, unless you filter out genetic diversity (which they never do) you will never find out the population Ivermectin MIGHT help. Maybe it would help someone like me who carries that polymorphism. Maybe that is why it seems to work well in other countries?

And what about checking if these patients were zinc deficient or not? Because ADAM17 uses zinc, and ADAM17 snips ACE2 off of the cell making Soluble ACE2. SARS2 will attach to this soluble ACE2 not allowing TMPRSS2 to let SARS2 into the cell.

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/576745/fimmu-11-5...

https://www.ahajournals.org/cms/asset/36a2c66b-1ca8-43e9-944...

So maybe, if someone has enough zinc then ivermectin, or any protease inhibitor, will be more effective at lower doses?

And you know that people with river blindness, the thing Ivermectin treats, have lower levels of zicn and supplementation is urged in these patients:

http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/0504/03_0312_nmorsi_serum_n... (PDF)

"The depleted mean serum trace elements in the infected volunteers than their control subjects implicated the deficiency of copper, selenuim and zinc in the pathogenesis of onchocerciasis and the need to incorporated dietary trace element supplements in management of onchocerciasis."

So all of those studies, IMHO, need to be thrown out.

This is science, no blogs here, and I have the vaccine so I am not anti-vax. So please, don't come at me from that angle. This is a reasonable hypothesis.

I carry the TMPRSS2 polymorphism they mention in the article above. Yes, my experience is anecdotal, but I was discovered to have a zinc deficiency well before COVID (they had a medical reason for testing it) and supplementing with zinc ended the colds and flus I would get three times a year. It has been 10 years and I have not had only minor symptoms a few times.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#267

Post by nonameiguess » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

csee wrote: post #183

While reading this piece I got a little depressed that most journalism is just such utter trash compared to it. I've read so many articles on ivermectin and none of them gave me even ten percent of the clarity that this article gave me. Can you imagine if writing and journalism of this calibre was commonplace among practising "journalists"? And look at how this piece compares to the CDC's and WHO's science communicat…

While Scott has a pretty decent natural talent for writing, he also has a MD, he's a board licensed practicing psychiatrist who has been working for a decade in the field, and he has spent at least the last twenty years gaining a pretty decent broad exposure to statistical and research methods. I don't believe he disclosed what Substack paid him, but he is in the "paid tier" and has said it was a mistake to even agree to that because the subscriptions he has gotten exceed what Substack paid him.

In short, if you want most journalism to hire licensed medical doctors with decades of experience in science and statistics, and natural writing talent on top of that, expect journalism to get a lot more expensive. A market certainly exists for Scott, but I'm not sure the market exists for all journalists to be as highly qualified as Scott. Or, for that matter, even for CDC and WHO PR arms. They definitely aren't paying their communications officers whatever Substack is paying Scott, or probably even what his psychiatry practice is paying him.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#268

Post by aaron695 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

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 rather unsettled to see it lauded here on HN.

What are you against exactly? What are you saying?

What does Ivermectin have to do with antibiotics? Antibiotics can produce resistant in diseases that the body would cure naturally. A popular use of Ivermectin is to kill worms in humans, they do not just disappear naturally.

Ivermectin treats many fucking evil parasitic infections. Why are you restricting it from poor people? We use it on livestock all the time. I've used it on my goats. Google pictures of onchocerciasis, it's just evil (looking, nothing is actually evil)

It's easy to find articles about "Mass treatment with ivermectin: an underutilized public health strategy" https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/269206 (This is the World Health Organisation)

> Places with lots of parasitic infections need better infrastructure and general hygiene to prevent infection. They don't need all the locals actively breeding drug-resistant parasites. Parasites are enough of a nightmare without cavalierly passing out drugs for funsies.

You seem to be blaming locals and saying tough luck.

I don't treat my goats that badly. We do watch worm load in the goats (FAMACHA), to cut back on resistance, exactly the same as any "global medical welfare" would... however that relates to human beings.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#269

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

RubberMullet wrote: post #262

bayesian_horse wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…

>There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. ... >Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Where is the evidence to support this statement?

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#270

Post by podgaj » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #16

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.

There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…

Dr. John Campbell posted a video that was "fact checked" by facebook which he calmly dismantles in the video below. Facebook puts up a big warning if you see it or post it. Soft censorship is still censorship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObTAOvgd_JE