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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#451

Post by mattmcknight » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

technothrasher wrote: post #355

WithinReason wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will natural selection act on parasites if there are no parasites in the animal?

It obviously cannot. But the issue isn't giving it to animals without any parasites, it is in giving it to animals with parasites but that do not need the anti-parasitic in order to recover. Once you have determined that the animal is sick enough to need treatment and that the sickness is most likely caused by the parasites, then you can make the decision that the risk of furthering resistance is outweighed by the ne…

I think this largely right, but resistance generally does not just evolve in the animals "that do not need it to recover", as all parasites/bacteria are more likely die in that case, but in more extensive cases where some of the parasites/bacteria survive and there are more reproductive events that can introduce a resistant genetic variation. This is why some consider that people not completing the full course of antibiotics- only taking them until they feel better, may be a greater contributor.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#452

Post by tlb » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

Are meta-analyses that just average all the results from all the studies less reliable than picking a paper at random?

I'd expect that to be the case if the bogus studies report the most dramatic results. A single bogus study out of 10 can skew the whole meta-analysis, but if you picked randomly you'd be 90% likely to get an honest one.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#453

Post by barbinbrad » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #432

pdonis wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Humility is the truth. Thus, the simple man has a higher level of intelligence and critical thinking skills than the average HN community member.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#454

Post by paul7986 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

Can't stand close minded people who can not fathom that other treatments could work from ivermectin to the upcoming pill Pfizer is putting out to something else. It's ridiculous that their bias drives them 100% vs. being objective in that science and research takes time .. years ... time will tell and provide all of us with many treatments against COvid as there now is for the flu.

Politic bias blinds objectivity and it's ridiculous for people who believe themselves to be intelligent people. Especially those who believe everything and live by their biased manipulated for profit media of choice. Here is one of many examples of the media spinning it's bias agenda and years later getting caught https://www.axios.com/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corre... . Of course it's happens on both sides like all that ridiculous story about Clinton pedo pizza parlor thing. The media is garbage and not to live one's life by ... years of science is!

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#455

Post by kadoban » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #452

Are meta-analyses that just average all the results from all the studies less reliable than picking a paper at random? I'd expect that to be the case if the bogus studies report the most dramatic results. A single bogus study out of 10 can skew the whole meta-analysis, but if you picked randomly you'd be 90% likely to get an honest one.

Based on the article, most papers are complete shit. So, at least in this subject area, that seems like a still bad strategy.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#456

Post by joenot443 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

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…

It's not racist. If it's a joke that didn't land for you, that's fine, but calling it racist is incorrect and deliberately inflammatory.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#457

Post by naasking » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #321

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 think you should clarify that Ivermectin works better in higher-worm-prevalence areas. It's not remotely true that 10% of Americans have undetected worms. The praised study in the post highlights 12.5% as "high" prevalence, so 10% would be nearly high -- not true in the developed world.

According to the CDC, 3.7 million people in the US are infected with Trichomoniasis. That's at least 10%.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0508-npi.html

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#458

Post by gunapologist99 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

resoluteteeth wrote: post #420

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…

> 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. First world countries are in the process of conductin…

> First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US.

... "in the process of"?

How long has ivermectin existed? How long has the pandemic been around for? How long has ivermectin been claimed to have huge benefits for, regardless of the source?

Isn't it possible that there are some other reasons why RCT's haven't been conducted yet by "trustworthy" sources in the view of these meta-analyses?

Is it really such a huge conspiracy theory that researchers simply don't want to bite the hand that feeds them? Is it not a fact that literally billions that have flowed into the coffers of Big Pharma for the vaccines and their $700/pill protease inhibitor drug, and the fact that almost all research studies are performed with funding dollars that originate from them or from HHS/CDC/NIH, which also now see a dramatic, multi-fold increase in power, reach, and funding?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#459

Post by philosopher1234 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #339

In my opinion, the main crux is this: there are moneyed interests who are motivated to generate mistrust and otherization based on political parties. In the USA, Fox News has a strong incentive to inspire hatred and fear of Democratic policy, and MSNBC has a strong incentive to inspire hatred of the GOP. The same is true for Twitter, FB, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, literally any media outlet. Hatred, fear, outrage, worry, anxiet…

We do not live in a society with two equal sides. The GOP has made destroying democracy/hating "the media" core to their platform, as opposed to centering their platform on some sort of policy goal. Do democrats hate the GOP? Sure, but their coalition is not nearly as structurally oriented around this fact.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#460

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

WithinReason wrote: post #154

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.

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

Widespread administration does lead to the development of resistant parasites. That's not an hypothetical, that's what you see on any farm if you prolong the treatment for too long.

It's always recommended that you cycle through different anti-parasite treatments.