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

501–510 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#501

Post by _djo_ »

Wolf_Larsen wrote: post #495

"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 stud…

Studies have looked at the supposed I-MASK and MATH+ protocols, or at least similar combinations of Ivermectin and Zinc, and found no benefit there either.

Anecdotally I also know a half a dozen people who were doing the I-MASK protocol because they believed the FLCCC and got severe enough COVID to be committed to ICU. Two had to be ventilated. They weren't in particularly high risk groups and their outcomes seemed identical to acquaintances who were taking nothing.

This is a dead horse. Stop flogging it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#502

Post by leppr »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #468
idrios wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why trust in these institutions is at an all time low. When your decision-makers are telling you lies and half truths for your own good, it becomes harder to know when they're telling the truth. This is the environment that causes fringe groups and theories to thrive.

When the same people (and more) that are in the fringe groups try to create a storm of complaint when scientific/medical advice/understanding changes, it's non-trivial for decision-makers to figure out what to say.

Scientific consensus didn't change on masks. It was known very early that they best prevent the spread of Covid.

When Western governments lied to get around supply issues, while distracting people with quasi-religious rituals around hand hygiene, they not only caused preventable deaths among populations at risk, they planted the seed for long term education and trust issues. More than a year later westerners still have terrible understanding of how the virus spreads, terrible mask education, AND mistrust of health authorities.

The antidote to misinformation isn't more misinformation, it's truth.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#503

Post by searine »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #458
resoluteteeth wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

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

Science takes time, the pandemic has been around for less than 2 years. Ivermectin has been a suggested for what, a year at most?

>Is it really such a huge conspiracy theory that researchers simply don't want to bite the hand that feeds them?

If a scientist could definitively prove ivermectin was effective they would be world famous. The reason so many shitty papers got published so quickly on ivermectin is because people were trying (and failing) to grab that fame and fortune. The incentives are obvious.

Consider that maybe your need to see conspiracy in the world comes from within, rather than external forces.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#504

Post by mcguire »

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.

Did you just provide a clear demonstration of not processing and understanding nuance?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#505

Post by _djo_ »

naasking wrote: post #439
nonameiguess wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 numbe…

That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business.

Few journalists like covering that sort of stuff, a whole bunch dreamed of being investigative journalists breaking corruption and other public interest stories. But there simply aren't enough people reading those stories to maintain nearly enough staff for them.

Scott Alexander can also do what he does because he's not required to be totally accurate. It's opinion, backed by experience and training, but still opinion. He's also not writing to a deadline, except one he sets himself.

Real journalism is a lot harder than informed commentary.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#506

Post by ncmncm »

adrianN wrote: post #229
ncmncm wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malaria seems to develop resistance pretty fast. Are farm animals getting those treatments in their feed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock

You will notice that the word "malaria" does not appear in the article cited. It is, thus, non-responsive, and no better than noise.

Anti-malarial medications are not antibiotics. Malaria has never responded to any antibiotic, to my knowledge. Maybe you don't know what malaria is?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#509

Post by RandallBrown »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #458
resoluteteeth wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

Who makes ivermectin, if not Big Pharma?

Wouldn't it have been way easier to just sell pills they already manufacture than investing all the time and energy into new stuff?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#510

Post by mcguire »

isoskeles wrote: post #412
mr_overalls wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 var…

So why didn’t you post this reply one comment up when he calls the public morons? Instead you choose to correct the person who says the public is actually smarter than we think? I’m not implying you meant anything by it. But it should be noted that people here are arguing, and you’re coming down with a sort of correction that could be applied to either side of the argument. You appear to take a side by choosing this…

Where, exactly, did the previous comment call the public "morons"? Are you discarding any other interpretation of that comment in order to avoid any nuance?
Post reply on HN