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

661–670 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#661

Post by EdwardDiego »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #416
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…

The ironic part of this is that Ivermectin is not FDA approved for the treatment of scabies. Your doctor was prescribing it off label, based on personal judgement that it has therapeutic effect. That is not to say it doesn't work for scabies, I hope it worked for you.

Good thing I'm not American then eh. ;)

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/s/Stromectoltab....

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#662

Post by jesterson »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #397
jesterson wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't soliciting for an explanation why people are trying to mock - too much studying of psychology provided enough information to answer this question. The answer, as it may come at a surprise for you, is not related to plausibility of statements. But that's totally different matter. As for your question, let me give you a very simple answer. As a layman in certain area, I see few facts - several families who I k…

Which government is that? The one who paid. I'm aware of frequent vaccine complications, but haven't heard of government doing any payouts.

Singapore government. There is a special fund for people who got severe health complications due to vaccination and as far as I know, it’s being used quite often. Although, personally i can only speak about the case I have mentioned.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#663

Post by KittenInABox »

BurningFrog wrote: post #499
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but that's an example of the endless hedging I mentioned: His writing style is very good at throwing in little counter examples here and there to give a "both sides" type impression, but then he pokes holes in the counter-arguments in the build-up to the conclusion he actually wants to present. If you read a few paragraphs past your quote, Scott comes right out and declares the "genetics" is the explanation tha…

Are you accusing him of anything else than having an opinion, and arguing for it?

I think the fact is that he presents himself as speaking from a highly informed, relatively unbiased presentation of a subject he finds interesting. In fact, he is arguing for a position. Reading an article meant to be informative vs reading an article meant to convince you of a position are two very different things.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#664

Post by rootusrootus »

pdonis wrote: post #637
judahmeek wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know if the HN community member "rootusrootus" is "average", but his post certainly did not seem humble to me.

I would say I am smart enough to recognize how ignorant I am. I put more weight in what experts say because they have the years of education and experience to help guide them, and I won't get that from a night on wikipedia, facebook, or youtube.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#665

Post by KittenInABox »

toolz wrote: post #520
RandallBrown wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

ivermectin is a generic drug now, the profits are squeezed down to nearly nothing due to competition and it's being mass produced in many places.

It'd be super easy to patent a covid-specific derivative of ivermectin. But of course that mean you'd have to prove it works for covid.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#666

Post by analyte123 »

jacquesm wrote: post #578
analyte123 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 every…

The "relative" interpretation of the VAERS data looks worse for the COVID vaccines than almost any other interpretation. There have been more adverse events reported in the past year for the COVID vaccines than for all other vaccines combined since the database's inception in 1990.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#667

Post by sjg007 »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #403
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure This post is a breath of fresh air for the blog and feels refreshingly well-researched. Between that and the unquestionable popularity of COVID-related discussion, it’s no wonder this article is popular. Scott is undeniably a good blog writer with an entertaining writing style that resonates with his reader base. However, I’ve become…

Most of the writing is fantastic, but I'm very disappointed by the take that "everyone was wrong", by the implication that doctors didn't know they should treat for worms before giving immunosuppressants. Guess what, doctors in the developing world already knew that, it was always the standard practice on Brazilian hospitals. In fact, ivermectin was in very high demand in hospitals before it was suspected to be a Cov…

Just an fyi, worms/parasites generally suppress the immune system.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#668

Post by coolso »

rootusrootus wrote: post #437
coolso wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff. Ivermectin is not alternative medicine. Ivermectin used for COVID symptoms is off-label use. CNN made fun of him because he dared stray from the official narrative and he dared try doing something through his own research rather than do…

If there's one thing I've learned over and over during this pandemic, it is that "do your own research" is immediately followed by a train of bullshit that only demonstrates extreme susceptibility to confirmation bias.

Agreed. We should only ever listen to Authority Figures like CNN, the government, Snopes and Twitter. Bullshit-train-free.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#669

Post by toolz »

KittenInABox wrote: post #665
toolz wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ivermectin is a generic drug now, the profits are squeezed down to nearly nothing due to competition and it's being mass produced in many places.

It'd be super easy to patent a covid-specific derivative of ivermectin. But of course that mean you'd have to prove it works for covid.

Well this is nonsensical for a myriad of reasons, including that a derivative that was patented and proven to work would just encourage people to take the cheap generic that also works but is more widely available and has better understood risk profile, but it does show potential motive as to why it's taken this long to get real RCTs spun up to study ivermectin.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#670

Post by WorshipTheState »

KittenInABox wrote: post #665
toolz wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ivermectin is a generic drug now, the profits are squeezed down to nearly nothing due to competition and it's being mass produced in many places.

It'd be super easy to patent a covid-specific derivative of ivermectin. But of course that mean you'd have to prove it works for covid.

I think that's a great idea. Let's call it Molnupiravir
Post reply on HN