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

491–500 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#491

Post by danans »

raxxorrax wrote: post #153
nzmsv wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this an example of some rigid and ineffective thinking patterns? Article publishes sound arguments, doesn't talk down to the audience, admits problems with appeals to authority... and converts a conspiracy believer! ...No way, there is no way that can possibly work, the others are way too dumb, and the convert is a bad person... basically anything to just go back to pretending appeals to authority work. Despite…

"Listen to science!" is ironically a profoundly unscientific statement.

Nobody claims it to be a scientific statement. It's just a best practice in many circumstances.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#492

Post by jacquesm »

blindmute wrote: post #372
jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if you are not a doctor your opinion on any of this doesn't matter at all, it's that simple. Probability dictates that any doctor - let alone most doctors' - opinion trumps yours and everybody else that parrots you, because they will be right far more often than you about medical things. You may be better at interpreting the statistics than your doctor friends but you are not better at medicine, are not wired int…

>No, if you are not a doctor your opinion on any of this doesn't matter at all, it's that simple. >Probability dictates that any doctor - let alone most doctors' - opinion trumps yours and everybody else that parrots you, because they will be right far more often than you about medical things. You really have not spent much time around doctors, I think. Doctors (GPs) know about as much on a topic as someone who Googl…

I've spent enough time around doctors to know that as long as you have something obvious they'll make the right diagnosis, and that if it is something rare they might get it right. But for GPs that doesn't really matter: they don't diagnose unless it is something simple, they just pass you on to the relevant expert after performing their filter function to avoid hypochondriacs from clogging the system.

Don't like it? Get a second opinion. Don't like that? Request a review. Don't like that? Self medicate to your hearts content, or go with crystals, aromatherapy or whatever you believe works. But don't go around the interwebs spouting your self derived conclusion from papers that you barely - if at all - understood as fact.

Because that's the rub: the people who were all over Vitamin-D, Bleach, HCQ and lately Ivermectin were just looking for excuses not to vaccinate and that is a problem, none of these miracle cures were miracle cures, they weren't even cures. At best they were no-ops, at worst they harmed the health of those that received them. By amplifying these messages thousands of people have needlessly died.

But Ivermectin seems to have run its course. I predict a new miracle cure with a new champion somewhere in the next couple of months, just like Vitamin-D and HCQ before it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#493

Post by tigershark »

jesterson wrote: post #171
matthewmacleod wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it " A number of people—probably not including myself, if I'm honest—would take this statement more seriously if it wasn't a complaint that a thing which has already happened , and continues to happen , isn…

> There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms. > The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.

Since when removing misinformation that can cause harm is censorship? If I had any say I would absolutely remove all your posts that are spreading the same lies, you are literally killing people by furthering a specific agenda and trying to convince people that the vaccines are dangerous and ivermectin is the only cure. It’s honestly shameful that hacker news is letting this happen.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#494

Post by dekhn »

jacquesm wrote: post #488
dekhn wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 10 years, when most of the dust has settled, we'll be able to explain what we saw in Sweden and the surrounding countries as a combination of population density, interactions, medical policy, and randomness. It's hardly fair to consider only a small number of variables in cases like these.

That mirrors my expectation. Which by the way is a pet peeve of mine: the reliance on the 'R0' factor for reporting in the press, R0 is something you can at best establish when an epidemic has run its course, but it is being treated as this magic wheel that we can turn to ensure a desirable level of infections, which is complete madness, it's an output, and a delayed one at that, not an input.

I think many people have learned the limits of science, public health, and mainstream scientific reporting over the past few years. It has repeatedly exposed that the way people think about causality is not consistent with scientific thought. R0 is just one of many examples.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#495

Post by Wolf_Larsen »

"The Scott Alexander article misses the whole point. Of course ivermectin on its own is not particularly helpful (unless you want to treat worms,

The treatment regimen the American group is recommending includes Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc and a Zinc ionophore (drug that facilitates cellular absorption of Zinc). The ionophore can be Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine or Quercetin.

I have been baffled up until now why studies are not looking specifically at the combined treatment, just the ionophore, with no regard to whether it was being taken with Zinc or the other drugs. The fact that even Scott seems to have overlooked this is very concerning.

It's the Zinc that inhibits replication in many viruses, and ionophores like ivermectin increase zinc absorption."

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/we...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#496

Post by tristor »

Wolf_Larsen wrote: post #475
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…

You may be a good candidate for Ivermectin, sir. I believe you have worms in your brain. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/bakersfieldcity...

I'm aware of the demographics in Bakersfield. I live in a city with a larger proportion of the population being Hispanic than Bakersfield, hence why I am aware of how Mexican culture utilizes hyphenated surnames.

Your link to demographic statistics does nothing to change my mind that this was vaguely racist (culturist?). I don't think Scott is racist, I just think this was a non sequitur that had no place within what was an otherwise fantastic piece of writing. It adds nothing and takes something away, and could have been better for doing without.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#497

Post by dang »

peakaboo wrote: post #449
lalaland1125 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it. How were they helped by it when the evidence shows that it doesn't work for COVID-19?

[flagged]

Would you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar? You've been doing this repeatedly and we've already asked you to stop. It's not what this site is for, it lowers discussion quality dramatically, and we ban accounts that keep doing it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#498

Post by bena »

jacquesm wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.

This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe, but there have been many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past. It's just that you don't have the background knowledge to digest them, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to believe that there is some kind of miracle cure that 'they' are suppressing. Now consider that this is just one example of a class of such issues and that there is an…

Not to mention, the thing the article eventually points out; that ivermectin had the most efficacy in areas that also have large populations suffering from parasites, isn't new.

Nothing this article says is new. This is all old hat.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#499

Post by BurningFrog »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #370
commandlinefan wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, anot…

True, but that's an example of the endless hedging I mentioned: His writing style is very good at throwing in little counter examples here and there to give a "both sides" type impression, but then he pokes holes in the counter-arguments in the build-up to the conclusion he actually wants to present. If you read a few paragraphs past your quote, Scott comes right out and declares the "genetics" is the explanation tha…

Are you accusing him of anything else than having an opinion, and arguing for it?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#500

Post by BurningFrog »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67
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…

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…

You have a valid point.

But note that it's a much easier point to make from a region where parasitic worms don't exist.

Post reply on HN