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

651–660 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#651

Post by csee »

hef19898 wrote: post #378
csee wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 using a de-wormer against a virus? Well, because that's what vaccines are there for. And we do have rather effective ones by now. All of which have a low risk of side effects as well.

Using ivermectin as a therapeutic and getting the vaccine are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I don't like your first sentence, it's a rhetorical gotcha that is actually not in line with the medical establishment's thinking on ivermectin's hypothesized mechanism of action:

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ant...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#652

Post by bsaul »

jpcosta wrote: post #292
bsaul wrote: post #60

Funny how all this article ends up saying it's all a matter of trust. Which is exactly what medecine has always been about, and why ultimately you end up getting prescriptions by you own doctor, that you have a bound with and that you trust. The most insane thing that happened with this pandemic ( at least in europe) is how we decided to throw all this through the window and let states impose medical decisions on peo…

There are medical bodies staffed by professionals that study these matters, and the states (should) base their decisions on what their findings are. To me the problems starts when decision makers and then the general population start trusting fringe conclusions and trying to interpret medical data when they have no training to do so.

Why go through state then ?

When a new cure for cancer is found, we don't expect the minister of health to recommend or advise its use to the general public on TV, do we ? We assume professional MD will learn about it via their regular channel, and recommend the treatments on patients that they judge relevant.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#653

Post by fivea »

jacquesm wrote: post #609
fivea wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, there is some nuance there now, (...) That does not seem to be true. Wikipedia's article on Jaap van Dissel[1] links to a Reuters news article from September 2020[2] where van Dissel is referred to have made the following claim: > The head of infectious diseases at the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health (RIVM), Jaap van Dissel, has argued there is no scientific proof of cloth masks’ effectivenes…

Van Dissel has made quite a few statements prior to September 2020. https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/mondkapjes-hebben-geen-zin-z... "‘Mondkapjes opdoen heeft geen enkele zin’" "putting on a mask is without any sense" That's exactly what I meant when I wrote that over time he has moved his position. First it was all masks, then cloth masks, then they didn't work because then other measures wouldn't work etc. But he ne…

> That's exactly what I meant when I wrote that over time he has moved his position.

Isn't your source citing the WHO's advisory from early 2020 on how face masks were counterproductive as they convey a false sense of security and thus contribute to violate critical measures such as social distancing and washing hands?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/who-director-warns-masks-can-...

From the article:

> “Masks can also create a false sense of security, leading people to neglect measures like hand hygiene and physical distancing,” Adhanom said. “I cannot say this enough: Masks will not protect you alone from COVID-19.”

This was a quote from a WHO representative, made two months after your source was published.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#654

Post by croon »

jonnycoder wrote: post #601
hef19898 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how many people are actually using hose doses instead of those intended for humans, I guess that characterization isn't too wrong.

Please provide sources that "many people" are using horse doses. I only hear of well known people such as Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers using human-prescribed pill form ivermectin.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

It's not a lot in absolute numbers, but it probably hides a sizable amount of cases not serious enough to get to poison control.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#655

Post by nomel »

hef19898 wrote: post #374
reissbaker wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blogger didn't produce any new data. I was never an ivermectin proponent — although I thought the "horse dewormer" rhetoric was self-defeating, because it's obviously and well-known to be also a human dewormer (amongst other parasites), and the "horse" part just seemed to be played up to make ivermectin supporters look stupid — but this article is indeed the first one I've seen to make the parasite-COVID-comorbid…

Considering how many people are actually using hose doses instead of those intended for humans, I guess that characterization isn't too wrong.

There were many news articles stating this that were corrected for grossly exaggerating the situation. I would suggest going back and re-reading the source material to see if it has been updated or has disappeared.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#656

Post by nomel »

astrange wrote: post #216
thaumaturgy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask, completely sincerely, what approach you would settle on for trying to discriminate truth from fiction if you believed you couldn't get reliable information from reading 30-odd studies?

Reading 30 studies certainly seems to be a bad way to learn anything unless you're conducting a meta-analysis of them. For one thing, you'd get tired. But just shoving 30 pieces of information into your head and forgetting some of them doesn't help you find out which of them were correct.

> For one thing, you'd get tired.

Suggesting that there's no way someone could have the mental stamina to read 30 papers, over the course of two years, is completely ridiculous, insulting, and invalidates your viewpoint, in my opinion.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#657

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

> I don't know enough of the profession to estimate how accurate that statement is but it has colored my view.

We see the medicine of 200 years ago as barbaric, and I can guarantee that people 200 years in the future will see today's medicine as barbaric. There is simply lots of room for improvement even if improvement has been made in the past, but why should that give us colored views of the whole field?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#658

Post by rootusrootus »

pdonis wrote: post #623
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.

> At the risk of coming across as extremely snobby, that just isn't true at all. If you think the people who grow our food, make our clothes, build our houses and cars, fix our plumbing and heating and air conditioning when it breaks, run our electrical wiring safely, run the utility plants that provide our power and water and sewage disposal, and do the thousands of other things that are necessary to keep our techno…

> If you think the people who [...]

I did not mention any of those folks. The reason you knocked that argument out of the park was because it was made of straw.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#659

Post by astrange »

nomel wrote: post #656
astrange wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading 30 studies certainly seems to be a bad way to learn anything unless you're conducting a meta-analysis of them. For one thing, you'd get tired. But just shoving 30 pieces of information into your head and forgetting some of them doesn't help you find out which of them were correct.

> For one thing, you'd get tired. Suggesting that there's no way someone could have the mental stamina to read 30 papers, over the course of two years, is completely ridiculous, insulting, and invalidates your viewpoint, in my opinion.

I was talking about all at once. If it’s over years I would rather wait for a meta analysis, but it depends on the reliability of the early papers.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#660

Post by philosopher1234 »

boston_clone wrote: post #638
philosopher1234 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say with your comment. I don't think I'm creating a false equivalence between the respective parties; their differences are certainly clear - one of those differences being a closed-ears approach to scientific evidence. Could you elaborate or clarify what you meant?

I'm trying to support your comment, and my comment was meant to describe GP not you. I can see how its a bit misleading.
Post reply on HN