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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#301

Post by Veelox » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

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…

> I do think the ending political metaphor doesn't quite fit, however.

Literally none of my immediate family has gotten the vaccine. I know several more people who haven't gotten it. I have been reading Scott since around 2015. I would say I sit in an interesting intersection of worlds for this issue.

While the facts of the metaphor are slightly off, I think Scott got the emotional feeling exactly correct. There are hostile aliens who actively gone against my interests in the past, they have been wrong before, their is a good chance they could use this for their own gain. That is exactly how my parents feel.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#302

Post by darkerside » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

> And it was! It was a fluke! A literal, physical, fluke! For my whole life, God has been placing terrible puns in my path to irritate me, and this would be the worst one ever! So it has to be true!

I think I don't get the joke here. Can someone dissect it for me? (Yes, thereby killing it)

I love this man's writing so much. Intelligent, empathetic, visionary, and simple. All at the same time. With no other author do I do as frequently think, "this article is way too long, no way I'm going to read all this," and before I know it, I'm at the end.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#303

Post by WithinReason » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

crazyjncsu wrote: post #298

WithinReason wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean you believe that a widespread administration of ivermectin would lead to development of ivermectin resistance in parasites?

That’s certainly already the case. Ivermectin has lost effectiveness against particularly insidious parasites such as Haemonchus Contortus (barber pole worm). We’ve resorted to other treatments such as Moxidectin, Levamisole, etc, all of which are more expensive and harder to dose safely and effectively. I can totally understand how Ivermectin got its following— it’s an amazing general purpose medicine around the far…

What's the downside of giving Ivermectin to livestock that don't have parasites?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#304

Post by blitzar » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

imwillofficial wrote: post #274

dkga wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veterinarian here, used to ivermectin as it should be used - as an anti parasitic. I fully agree with this view above.

Why would I take human medical advice from you? Are you saying there are no human uses beyond an anti parasitic?

I guess in theory you could use the topical cream form as a moisturiser. Perhaps even use the tube as a doorstop in a pinch.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#305

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #302

> And it was! It was a fluke! A literal, physical, fluke! For my whole life, God has been placing terrible puns in my path to irritate me, and this would be the worst one ever! So it has to be true! I think I don't get the joke here. Can someone dissect it for me? (Yes, thereby killing it) I love this man's writing so much. Intelligent, empathetic, visionary, and simple. All at the same time. With no other author do…

Fluke is a type of worm

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#306

Post by cbg0 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

podgaj wrote: post #281

cbg0 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the sneaky government is offering those freely, so that's very suspicious to some folks that would rather have "the good stuff" off of the black market.

The government is using tax dollars to pay for the drugs from these companies.

Sure, if you want to split hairs, but the primary beneficiary doesn't pay anything extra.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#307

Post by musingsole » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #297

romeros wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

How can you be sure of your assertions? Have you done a randomized controlled trial? I don't think you have tested the alternative.

The GP's point isn't something that is verified with controlled randomized data...And moreso, it's about what happens after the controlled trial. Communicating science is about taking it from a controlled lab and moving it into the real world where unfortunately politics purposefully muddies all the waters.

The point is that WHO is a political organization with a political mission that needs science to get it done. While it employs and funds countless great scientists doing meticulous work...the people you will see and hear from at WHO are international politicians.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#308

Post by oblio » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:16 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?

He replies to your question afterwards:

> 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't, it won't. Until we know, doctors will do what works.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#309

Post by oblio » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #285

jacquesm wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The experts involved in building / maintaining GPS haven't admitted to lying to him about it to preserve the use of GPS for people deemed more important, gone back and forth on whether or not he needs to use two GPS devices (instead of one) for the safety of others, and those experts' recommendations haven't led to policies that have destroyed the livelihoods of his or his friends' families--sometimes with unclear ti…

Your comment is funny, in a roundabout way.

Until a while ago, if I recall correctly. GPS was >. Its accuracy was deliberately hobbled to within tens of meters in order to prevent it being used for destructive purposes, I believe.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#310

Post by avs733 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

thyrsus wrote: post #278

WithinReason wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The patients got Sunday off of course

If the study was in Egypt, that would have been Friday.

based on logic and statistics, that would be true

based on the rest of study design I'm less confident