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

571–580 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#571

Post by azinman2 »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #553
azinman2 wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why hasn’t that come up before in these studies?

Because it was not related to Covid. If someone with heart problems is admitted with Covid they will receive their heart medications in the hospital, that doesn't mean that now heart medication is a Covid medication, so doesn't get mentioned in studies. The same goes for dewormer, it was in normal use against worms. Only after people started believing that it could be a treatment for Covid, that it started being stud…

Except in this case the dewormer is the central focus of the study. The relationship between worms in the population and its influence on covid outcomes makes that highly relevant to the publications. If it's known to be present in the general public, then not controlling for that in your study is just shoddy science.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#572

Post by kaba0 »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #461
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…

I appreciate that you drew a distinction, because being anti-science and anti-scient ist are not the same thing at all . The current way that science, i.e., research, is being funded has very little to do with the Scientific Method and seems very broken. That seems to be the GOP stance; that huge funds are flowing from big corporate interests into universities. It seems quite simple to purchase nearly whatever resear…

The US is not the only country though. And while some small bad research may get bought, these are usually easy to spot by experts in the field, or even by simply looking at the methodology which may be bad even from a statistical point of view.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#573

Post by jacquesm »

kaba0 wrote: post #526
jacquesm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly. But all we have a slew of low grade anecdata masquerading as studies and a very large machine magnifying that into 'cheap miracle cure suppressed by MSM and big pharma'.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#574

Post by robbiep »

romeros wrote: post #383
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…

I need to clarify. I am not implying that WHO / CDC is lying outright. It's just that they have to be very careful and choose the right message to convey to the general public. It does mean you might have to downplay some things which might be true but will cause more harm than good if emphasized. I personally can never do that but I won't judge people who are in a situation where every thing they say has a huge impa…

I’m not sure why you’re getting smoked with the DVs there, I agree with you, I think it’s true.

Society has been so trained by political theatre and non-stop news channels for single answers that are capable of defying facts due to their non-life threatening nature that if a message isn’t straightforward, succinct, and unchanging then the messenger gets killed the moment it varies. Like politicians with the other side waiting for the slip up.

Except unfortunately science doesn’t work like this because nature can’t be fooled and at the beginning we don’t have as clear facts as we would like to. And the process of zeroing in on clearer and more concise answers is confusing and scares the shit out of the average punter. And the media are excited to be able to have a messenger who continues to vary their message.

It’s all a really sad state of affairs. I think WHO/CDC/Australian governments (really the only relevant one for me) and everyone else could have done a much better job but I feel I know why and how we ended up with such a communications disaster

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#575

Post by rcxdude »

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 does it take to conduct a proper RCT?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#576

Post by NikolaeVarius »

jacquesm wrote: post #562
leppr wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

To this day, Jaap van Dissel, the head of the RIVM maintains that masks do not work.

https://www.newsweek.com/netherlands-mask-policy-1522917

I remember this guy. The specific claim was that he does not believe that masks will prevent new infections due to people not socially distancing and wearing them incorrectly, NOT that masks are ineffective. He concedes that the evidence suggests masks themselves work.

I've seen this guy get cited in anti-vaxx circles, using extremely simplified claims. Of course when I bring up the fact that he advocates for social distancing, anti-vaxxers get angry at me.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#577

Post by robbiep »

jacquesm wrote: post #560
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or why they don’t trust doctors in general, because medicine is a very inexact science filled with lies and half truths along with real truths? I get that might be unnerving to many (even if medicine is overall beneficial), but these people really sound like a classic case of “perfect is the enemy of good.”

A doctor I know described it like this: "Doctors are like monkeys with hammers trying to fix computers. We bang against stuff and will try a lot of things if we don't know what you've got. We may even get it right. But if you have a broken leg, an appendix that needs removal, a clear case of something that can be treated with anti-biotics, then we can perform small miracles." I don't know enough of the profession to…

This is unfortunately fairly accurate. There is a deep and wide ocean of the things we know inexactly, and a growing pool of things we can work miracles on. However as the complexity of patients grows and the burden of disease shifts from infectious disease to chronic causes with lifestyle origins and aging, and anxiety - particularly in the teenage and young adults (a shift that has been underway at the top end for 30 years for the older part of the population, and since smartphones on the lower side! that the ocean is growing as well.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#578

Post by jacquesm »

analyte123 wrote: post #341
Nursie wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to hav…

Either the VAERS data is broadly accurate, and the COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever released (which is not to say they aren't helpful in some populations); or the VAERS data is all just useless unverified anecdotes like you're saying, and so there is no useful system in the US to monitor patient- or doctor-reported adverse events at all, in which case nobody can effectively claim that they are safe…

VAERS will report all of the cases reported in, it is prior to analysis and once the analysis is done the final tally looks completely different. Any possible relation is reported (or actually, should be reported) to VAERS, so if you die the day after you took the vaccin, you will be listed there, whether or not that had anything to do with your vaccination will be determined later on.

For another viewpoint: if everybody was vaccinated there would be 7000 people dying the day after they got vaccinated for the USA alone. But that wouldn't mean anything at all, the big question is which of those deaths would not have happened if the vaccine had not been administered. So interpreting VAERS data in any other way than relative day-to-day is not very useful absent further background into those particular cases.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#579

Post by idrios »

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.

"non-trivial" is definitely the right word. I don't envy the decision makers, but I hope they realize that by being dishonest about masks in the beginning they sent the message that they were willing to lie for the greater good. This gave real credibility to the "they're inflating the numbers to make it seem worse than it is" theory because the scarier the virus seems, the more people will follow guidelines and fewer people will die. That theory, that the reported numbers are false, has led to far more deaths.

I hope the lesson that gets learned is to be more honest to the public, and not the opposite.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#580

Post by jacquesm »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #387
Nursie wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination. It could, or it could mean something else entirely, and it could be within normal trends. Which is what it looks like to me if all cause mortality is lower than 2019 levels. > So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm? Not from this data, no. > Because what…

> If you're thinking "I don't have easy access to that information, and I don't have the time or the funding to investigate", you're quite right. Medical researchers will have to carry the can here. Yeah, unfortunately, I've lost all my trust in anything that comes in from mainstream. I was to vaccinate myself, but then I found contradicting information, and from there I couldn't stop going to the rabbit hole, becaus…

> I was to vaccinate myself, but then I found contradicting information, and from there I couldn't stop going to the rabbit hole, because this doesn't make sense.

Dodged a bullet there! How fortunate that you went to look for contradicting information, what are the chances?

Post reply on HN