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

421–430 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#421

Post by moduspol »

oblio wrote: post #411
moduspol wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Framing "knowingly limited to accuracy within ~3 meters" as "lying" is a bit of a stretch.

It was ~5 meters and that wasn't the point. Did the GPS system know your position with a much greater accuracy ? Yes. Did the GPS system by design not provide this accurate information and instead sent something less accurate? Yes. How do you call that thing where you tell a partial truth? At best, a half truth. For example the US government remarks about masks in February 2020 (I think it was February), were partly…

Saying "your location is somewhere within X, up to ~5 meters" isn't lying. It's not even a half truth, but it's still pretty far from the point here.

It's trusted because it's been far more trustworthy than public health guidance and policy. And the same goes for airplanes, brake pads, and other tired comparisons. Trusting one does not imply one should trust all other proclaimed experts in all other fields in all other contexts.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#422

Post by saalweachter »

stef25 wrote: post #290
gardnr wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sam Harris mentioned this theory of it being pointless to engage people who have their own theories because you'll be faced with a never ending stream of "yeah but did you read this random 90 page paper on X?" and all kinds of other questions even the best professional can't counter without wasting huge amounts of time. It's great you changed your mind but I bet there's plenty of people who haven't. Like I wonder wha…

There's another saying along the lines of "you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into".

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#423

Post by 0des »

tristor wrote: post #400

I don't understand the point of the image of the meth seizure when discussing this study [1]. The last name is the same, but if you understand Mexican surnames, it is strongly unlikely that the two different people are in any way closely related. I like reading Scott's writing, but this really detracts from the overall quality of the article, because it seems like a vaguely racist dig without any relevance. [1]: http…

> "vaugely racist"

Take that somewhere else.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#424

Post by TigeriusKirk »

jacquesm wrote: post #210
gardnr wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, I would definitely make an effort to explain it to him in ways he could understand.

I mean, that's half the job of a professional programmer right there.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#425

Post by aantix »

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.

Why did this post get flagged on HN?

https://imgur.com/a/GgDVfNe

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#426

Post by BurningFrog »

tristor wrote: post #400

I don't understand the point of the image of the meth seizure when discussing this study [1]. The last name is the same, but if you understand Mexican surnames, it is strongly unlikely that the two different people are in any way closely related. I like reading Scott's writing, but this really detracts from the overall quality of the article, because it seems like a vaguely racist dig without any relevance. [1]: http…

I took it as just a joke.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#428

Post by MissionInfl »

HelloNurse wrote: post #389
DoreenMichele wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wouldn't we risk force-evolving ivermectine resistant parasites with the same mechanism as antibiotic resistant bacteria?

I'm curious whether a similar mechanism would apply to the COVID vaccines? Can someone with some expertise in the area help clarify if this is the case? Are we accidentally creating vaccine resistant COVID strains with mass vaccination similar to how mass ivermectin creates ivermectin resistant parasites?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#429

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

Maybe. But 2/19 fraudulent studies aren't a high number.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#430

Post by tata71 »

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…

> Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man.

Pharisees of the modern world. You will be the end of us.

This line of thinking is a feedback loop, averaging down the social expectation closer to the lower bound every year.

Slowing down the BS a bit, increasing free flow of information for a more informed generation following ours, is the only answer.

tl;dr We will become stupider, and less critical-thinking, if we allow it.

Post reply on HN