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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#341

Post by analyte123 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:05 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…

Either the VAERS data is broadly accurate, and the COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever released (which is not to say they aren't helpful in some populations); or the VAERS data is all just useless unverified anecdotes like you're saying, and so there is no useful system in the US to monitor patient- or doctor-reported adverse events at all, in which case nobody can effectively claim that they are safe for any event that happens more than 1/(number of people in the trials). Which is it? If the VAERS data is all garbage, and someone claims on Telegram that the vaccine gave them lupus or cirrhosis or something, I guess I can't go on VAERS and see that there aren't reported events beyond population baseline, then, and I'll have to take them at their word?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#342

Post by mcphage » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:07 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #315

mcphage wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. I don't think that paragraph is as complimentary as you do.

I am referring to this bit in particular: "I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret "

Right—it's like saying "I don't know who the bank robber was—they've very reasonably kept their identity secret." Sure, it's reasonable for a bank robber to get keep their identity secret, because they're doing something shady.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#343

Post by mr_overalls » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:07 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #336

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…

The public is much more capable of processing and understanding nuance than we give them credit for. It's just not as profitable for the MSM.

Speaking of "the public" as a single entity is about as useful as approximating a curve with a straight line - i.e. unless it's the most trivial case, it's oversimplified to the point of being doomed to failure.

The public is comprised of people with vast differences in cognitive ability, education, and scientific training. Most members of the public, even in highly educated countries, are easily fooled by a wide variety of logical fallacies, emotional manipulation, and statistical misdirection.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#344

Post by shkkmo » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:07 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…

The paragraph quoted is making a point about how to effectively present and communicate scientific topics, not ascribing dependability.

Indeed, the entire article is a systematic rebuttal of ivmmeta's claims. Rebuttals are more convincing if you treat the topic in good faith rather than assuming fraud from the outset.

I don't understand how you can see this as "reckless beyond words" when it seems like exactly the sort of systematic analysis that we need more of.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#345

Post by LeifCarrotson » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:09 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #49

This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure: > As best I can tell, this is some kind of Egyptian trial. It might or might not be an RCT; it says stuff like “Patients were self-allocated to the treatment groups; the first 3 days of the week for the intervention arm while the other 3 days for symptomatic treatment”. Were they self-allocated in the sense that they got to choose? Doe…

Spoilers ahead, but I loved this pun:

> The fraud-hunters have examined this paper closely and are unable to find any signs of fraud. I think this paper is legitimate and that its findings need to be seriously considered. ... And there’s always the chance it was a fluke, right? Can something have a p-value less than 0.001 and still be a fluke?

...

> And it was! It was a fluke! A literal, physical, fluke!

Edit: If you like puns and this writing, you'll likely enjoy some of Scott's other works, like "The Study of Anglophysics" [1] and (especially if you're at least passingly familiar with Judaism and Kabbalah) Unsong [2].

[1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/03/the-study-of-anglophys...

[2]: https://unsongbook.com/

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#346

Post by coolso » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:12 PM UTC

romeros wrote: post #287

astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

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…

> Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff.

Ivermectin is not alternative medicine. Ivermectin used for COVID symptoms is off-label use.

CNN made fun of him because he dared stray from the official narrative and he dared try doing something through his own research rather than doing exactly as the government and media told him to do.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#347

Post by mark_l_watson » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

A friend’s wife has been suffering the effects of long haul COVID-19 for about two months. A few weeks ago her doctor gave her a prescription for Ivermectin and while still very ill, she is feeling better, and the improvement happened quickly. Just one datapoint. I myself am very careful, vaccinations and I wear a quality mask when shopping. My wife and I have reduced our social circle to just about ten people who we sit down with inside for dinner.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#348

Post by xtracto » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #294

I wish he could find a way to do this analysis blind for these kind of controversial issues. I felt like he was in the hunt to end up with a certain conclusion from the beginning. I felt like his article on vitamin D for covid was similar. “Looks promising but I’m going to say it doesn’t work because I take covid seriously or something”

I agree. I read through the whole review of each article and on several of them the author tries hard to discredit them but doesn't find a reason so he just concludes with some witty question seeding FUD. Like the Mexican one: he just says he doubts it because it was made in Mexico? A lot of his cars, software and food is made in Mexico.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#349

Post by nisegami » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:21 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 have unironically been advocating for this approach with Metformin in my country. I think it'd have incredible positive effects.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#350

Post by commandlinefan » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 3:28 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #316

Shank wrote: post #49

This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure: > As best I can tell, this is some kind of Egyptian trial. It might or might not be an RCT; it says stuff like “Patients were self-allocated to the treatment groups; the first 3 days of the week for the intervention arm while the other 3 days for symptomatic treatment”. Were they self-allocated in the sense that they got to choose? Doe…

> This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure This post is a breath of fresh air for the blog and feels refreshingly well-researched. Between that and the unquestionable popularity of COVID-related discussion, it’s no wonder this article is popular. Scott is undeniably a good blog writer with an entertaining writing style that resonates with his reader base. However, I’ve become…

> ignoring obvious heritability of things like wealth and social status

He addresses that in the section section - besides the intro, he leads with it:

"the next generation becomes semi-famous fashion designers and TV personalities and journalists, which seem like typical jobs for people who are well-connected and good at performing class, but don't need to be amazingly bright. Sometimes they become politicians, another job which benefits from lots of name recognition.

But I've tried to avoid mentioning these careers, and focus on actually impressive achievements that are hard to fake. And also, none of these families except the Tagores were fantastically rich; there are thousands or millions of families richer than they are who don’t have any of their accomplishments. For example, Cornelius Vanderbilt's many descendants are famous only for being very rich and doing rich people things very well (one of them won a yachting prize; another was an art collector; a third was Anderson Cooper)."