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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#521

Post by kaba0 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

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.

The thing is, 99 out of 100 people repeating conspiracy theories don’t have a single coherent thought behind the whole thing.

It will be a straw man, but it is statistically like that:

They may start by how research grants decide the results of studies and thus your study is one of those payed ones, but then jump ship and go that this sea snake extrude homeopathy will treat covid, just go look it up yourself, and then even if there is a “paper” for that, it is from goddamn Atlantis with no peer-review and was tested on 2 parrots.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#522

Post by azinman2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #496

Wolf_Larsen wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It was clearly a joke. A questionable study ended up having a result from a google/twitter search of the same name made for a humorous reference. Did you take the same racist conclusion from the photo of the guy who had the 7 month PhD? This is a blog entry, not a professional scholarly work, and so it was written to be enjoyed.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#523

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #327

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> openly admitted to lying Proof please

Fauci admits to lying about masks and explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXttHlUgK8 Maybe you think Fauci changed his mind based on new evidence on mask effectiveness, but he literally says he advised against masks due to a fear of PPE shortages, and not due to changing evidence. So either way he lied: either he lied about mask effectiveness thus spreading health misinformation, or he lied about why he ad…

And your parents told you that if you ate spinach you'd be just as strong as Popeye. Were they lying? Yes, absolutely. Were they wrong? No, eating greens is good for you.

You have a peculiar standard for truth, it seems to depend on which side of the debate someone is for the person to be held to the 'lily white' standard or the 'can shoot someone on broadway and get away with it' standard.

Riddle me this: If Fauci had said 'masks work but we need you all to hang back and not buy them because we need them for the medical profession' resulting in a mass run on masks resulting in even larger numbers of death in care workers how would you view him? Is there any way in which according to you he could have discharged his duty without engaging in lies (white or otherwise) to get to a desired effect without further collateral damage?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#524

Post by mcguire » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #425

bayesian_horse wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm sorry, was there some analysis there?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#525

Post by Imnimo » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

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.

If Twitter is suppressing this analysis, why does the article cite many tweets from people doing the actual legwork?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#526

Post by kaba0 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #63

roenxi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going through one of those studies from https://ivmmeta.com/ on YouTube would be a risky proposition for a YouTuber. It goes against YouTube's medical misinformation policy [0]. It is pretty clear that a study with that sort of effect size could encourage someone to take Ivermectin. Particularly the "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19 " would be a worry depending on how the cens…

> Now it turns out, laughably in hindsight, that the effect is probably whether people had parasites or not and I hadn't thought of that. No, that's just a hypothesis. To move that to 'probably' would require a very carefully designed study.

Null hypothesis should be that it doesn’t work.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#527

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

rscho wrote: post #366

deadpannini wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissonance here is intense. On the one hand, "practicing MDs ... understand almost nothing when reading medical studies", but also I don't "know better than the average doc [just] because [I've] read 10 studies." Is the idea that doctors deserve deference because they are conditioned to submit to guidelines formulated by experts? There is a lack of consensus on many long-standing, common medical questions, much l…

Your GP may try to lay out the state of research before you, but that does not change the fact that he/she will do one of those things: 1. Treat you according to guidelines/expert opinion, should you choose to. 2. Give you the opportunity to participate in a relevant study. But _never ever_ will your GP formulate an experimental treatment plan based on his own research. Not GP's job, and big risk of liability. Your G…

More likely: your GP will pass you on to the resident expert at the nearest hospital of your choice.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#528

Post by EdwardDiego » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #259

EdwardDiego wrote: post #37

My step-son was recently prescribed a small one off dose of ivermectin by a dermatologist to deal with a rather resistant case of scabies he acquired at a sports tournament. It took the pharmacy a couple of days to source, because signficant controls had to be put in place around prescribing it due to well, I'm just going to say what I think - the amazing capacity for the Internet to deliver dumbassery to people who…

Did you read the article? One of the main points was that it's not dumbassery. You have multiple studies saying a drug works, being contradicted by experts that have been wrong multiple time this year and have a vested interest in what they're claiming. This is the opposite of dumb. It turned out not to be true, but such is life - not all the correct choices are also true in the end. It's also counterproductive in so…

People seeking out medication because they think it's a prophylactic for Covid-19 is not what any of those studies covered.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#529

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

deadpannini wrote: post #445

rscho wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your Joe is the average HN reader. My Joe is my average patient. I completely agree that the word of experts is meaningless on matters where dust had no time to settle. I however maintain that practitioners have to follow guidelines and experts regardless because I believe in the principle (if not the current application) of evidence-based medicine, and that Joe should not be allowed free access to any drug he wants…

I agree, but that is quite separate from the posture of epistemological submission to experts that's being used to censor "misinformation".

I don't know about that. I'd rather see all of this stuff disappear from youtube and to deny the conspiracy sphere its oxygen than to let this run its course. The damage is very real. Experts tend to communicate via scientific papers and symposia, not via youtube, that's aimed squarely at the masses only a very small fraction of which has the capacity to interpret what they are hearing, but almost all of them have the capacity to filter that to select the bits that they like or that they feel support their pet desired outcomes.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#530

Post by mcguire » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #27

jacquesm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe... I discounted a highly biased echo chamber in social media and more traditional media and went with 30-odd studies that appear to have been assembled in good faith even now. I changed my mind immediately on seeing "Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when hon…

An interesting theory with no backing evidence changed your mind?