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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#541

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #494

jacquesm wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That particular bug has now infested the top levels of Dutch policy making entities with fairly disastrous consequences.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/netherland...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#542

Post by judahmeek » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

barbinbrad wrote: post #453

rootusrootus wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And why do you think the single man is more humble than the average HN community member?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#543

Post by deadpannini » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #529

deadpannini wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

The damage caused by mis- and dis-information is real, but suppressing dissenting voices (even comically mistaken ones and bad actors) destroys institutional credibility, which is far worse in the long run.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#544

Post by kaba0 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

mgamache wrote: post #487

jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pretty good memory for comment histories and you've been pushing this for far more than it is worth. That this single article would change your mind is fortunate, but I do not suspect that to hold true for the bulk of the conspiracy peddlers that remain.

"Conspiracy peddlers" -- IE People with a different standard of evidence than yourself.

Do you mean no standard of evidence under different?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#545

Post by etchalon » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

An absolutely fantastic post. I have nothing else to add.

It takes the proponents arguments seriously, even as its dismantling them, but isn't dismissive or condescending.

It just methodically, and earnestly, points out how they're wrong.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#546

Post by bhelkey » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:35 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 am not sure that Scott would fit into a newspaper environment.

Scott has some really interesting articles. He has one huge advantage over journalists. He seemingly doesn't work in the same deadline constrained world that typical journalists do:

>> I know I’m two months late here. Everyone’s already made up their mind and moved on to other things.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#547

Post by azinman2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #534

azinman2 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Did you take the same racist conclusion from the photo of the guy who had the 7 month PhD? No, because the quip there wasn't based upon the person's name (which originates from their culture) and a stereotype about their place of origin. It's amazing how context is important.

The seizure was in the US, despite being a Hispanic name. I don’t understand why you’re jumping to conclusions about place of origin. It’s easy to imagine the name could have been Smith and the same content could have been written and fit right in.

Please don’t be snarky about context — not only is it against HN guidelines, it’s not giving full faith to me or anyone else who might read this and the blog entry in its entirety.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#548

Post by kaba0 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

csee wrote: post #192

qqqwerty wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the correct answer to wait for more reliable studies? Which is what most "anti-ivermectin" folks were saying to begin with? If your primary goal is to have a miracle cure in hand that would allow you to push back against vaccine mandates, then this approach probably won't sit well. But if you are interesting in actually finding truth, than waiting for larger, more robust studies was the answer.

Why wait? Why not take ivermectin as a precautionary therapeutic given it is well tolerated with low risk of side effects? There's a chasm between the epistemic question of "does this drug really work?" and the pragmatic question of "does a risk-reward analysis under uncertainty say that I should take this mostly safe drug that might slightly reduce my covid severity?" FWIW, I wouldn't take ivermectin either as a pro…

Why not pray for satan with a goat sacrifice? That also doesn’t harm you and has similar quality of evidence for working. But my point is that there are literally infinite things that could cure covid, but in the end only empirical evidence is meaningful. But we have to choose our “fights” and methods with not even a probably way of effect are more than likely useless.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#549

Post by iszomer » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

philosopher1234 wrote: post #535

boston_clone wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last twenty years gives us a few administrations from which we can asses policy making decisions: Bush; Obama; Trump; and now Biden. Of those four, I don't think it's possible to make a good-faith argument that Obama and Biden administrations have been more anti-science than either Bush's or Trump's. A single sound bite from Dan Crenshaw talking about shifting the focus of conversation towards solutions doesn't r…

The viewpoint you're responding to is the GOP strategy, not a viewpoint derived from facts. The strategy being, pretend both sides are equal and that any suggestion of difference in respect to valuing science or democracy is actually a bias. Pretending both sides are the same when their differences are plain as day is both foolish and damaging.

> The viewpoint you're responding to is the GOP strategy, not a viewpoint derived from facts.

I wondered about this too but wasn't aware this is a "GOP strategy". In contrast, I only responded because I'm still wrapping my head around a Michael Malice quote:

"Conservatism is progressivism with speed limits."

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#550

Post by bsdetector » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #312

The top part of the article is excellent, and literal worms as a confounding factor in trials of a deworming treatment makes a ton of sense. The end of the article, where he speculates about vaccine denial, is less useful. It’s kind of funny that the author spends most of the article rigorously applying the empirical and inductive scientific method, but then at the end just takes off on a flight into his own mind lik…

> The top part of the article is excellent, and literal worms as a confounding factor in trials of a deworming treatment makes a ton of sense.

The blogger's idea is supported by 9 data points, 7 or 8 that kind of match the hypothesis when plotted on an at least somewhat arbitrary axis. Not a statistics expert, but pretty sure you could find many things that correlate that well.

It's a tempting idea that a 'horse dewormer' works by deworming because people believed to be idiots turn out to be idiots, faith in institutions is unshaken, and everything makes sense. But ivermectin has been and is being investigated for efficacy against many single-strand RNA viruses so 'deworming' is only one possible explanation and must be supported by actual evidence.