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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#431

Post by hunterb123 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #323

naasking wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly baffled by this. The man literally lied to the public and openly admitted to lying. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Fauci, and plenty of reasons to be question whether public health officials should be lying to the public about public health.

> openly admitted to lying Proof please

I believe he's referencing where he said masks don't work then retracked and said he lied to prevent hoarding of masks.

Personally his first reasonings were more sound and his later backtrack was a lie.

Whichever one you believe, one of them was a lie, admitted by him.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#432

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #409

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…

> 1. Be 100% accurate and risk confusing people 2. Be strategic about it and for the greater good. Humans have a very poor track record at actually advancing any "greater good" when they choose option 2. In practice, "the greater good" turns out to be whatever helps those particular humans keep their power and status. That's why option 1 is the only acceptable one. > We need a narrative and the cost is accuracy. If t…

I feel like your underlying assumption here is that the average human has a similar level of intelligence and critical thinking skills as the average HN community member.

At the risk of coming across as extremely snobby, that just isn't true at all.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#433

Post by selimthegrim » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #373

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 argument you are making is directly addressed in the article. > So “believe experts”? That would have been better advice in this case. But the experts have beclowned themselves again and again throughout this pandemic, from the first stirrings of “anyone who worries about coronavirus reaching the US is dog-whistling anti-Chinese racism”, to the Surgeon-General tweeting “Don’t wear a face mask”, to government camp…

Dinstinguished critical care doctors who go to Caribbean medical schools who have to pay hospitals to accept their graduates as residents probably should be given short shrift at first when challenging the CDC.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#434

Post by ogma » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

0des wrote: post #423

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.

Eat shit moron.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#435

Post by h2odragon » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

WithinReason wrote: post #303

crazyjncsu wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's an issue with collies and collie-derived dog breeds; used to be warnings (even mentioned in an episode of "House"). But. Most of the lines running around today are the ones that weren't sensitive and didn't die from ivermectin. So it's no longer such an issue.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#436

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:19 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…

You quoted this, but don't seem to have understood it:

> Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#437

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:20 PM UTC

coolso wrote: post #346

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…

> 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 do…

If there's one thing I've learned over and over during this pandemic, it is that "do your own research" is immediately followed by a train of bullshit that only demonstrates extreme susceptibility to confirmation bias.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#438

Post by josho » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:20 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #395

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quali…

> Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit

Maybe the real reason we aren't seeing more trials being funded is that scientists are looking at these early studies and what we already know of the drug and concluding that it's not an avenue worth pursuing? (Especially when we already have several proven vaccines in place).

By way of analogy are you going to invest your time to build a web framework for Cobol running on mainframes? I'm sure it's been done, but it's probably not worth your time to build one as we already have many high quality web frameworks available.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#439

Post by naasking » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

nonameiguess wrote: post #267

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 agre…

> I'm not sure the market exists for all journalists to be as highly qualified as Scott

I'm not sure we need as many journalists as we currently have. Do we really need another rehashing of the latest culture war nonsense? If you strip out all of these pseudo-journalists and consider only journalists covering real facts and in-depth analysis, that's a considerably smaller group that could plausibly consist of a number of Scotts.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#440

Post by ufo » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

Some aditional context about the Szenta Fonseca et al paper: the study was based on the Hapvida insurance provider, which has been accused of forcing their doctors to prescribe the "covid kit" medication including chloroquine and ivermectin.

https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/video-mostra-que-ministeri...

The Hapvida data was also used by the Bolsonaro administration, to propagate a destructive political agenda in favor of "early treatment" and against vaccines.