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

691–700 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#691

Post by unanswered »

pjc50 wrote: post #207
gardnr wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This study shows Ivermectin functions as a protease inhibitor https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/ Here is the fact check evaluation from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-pfizer...

Yes, and that fact check evaluates to "false"?

But the only expert opinions they cite are:

> Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels

and

> Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”.

This sounds much more like "yes, but" to me than "false". And indeed, the rating given is not "false" but "Missing context". The headline is certainly accurate (ivermectin is not the same drug as Pfizermectin) but also fake news in that it is a strawman; no one has claimed that they are literally the same drug.

The interesting claim, if clearly stated, is "The mechanism of action of Pfizermectin for treating COVID-19 is as a protease inhibitor. Ivermectin is, among other antiparisitic effects which are usually more interesting, also a protease inhibitor." That claim is validated by the evidence given in the fact-check.

Moreover it's worth calling out a known lie in the fact-check (which is included entirely gratuitously as it doesn't have anything to do with the headline or the verdict or even my "interesting claim" above): "some of [the mechanisms of action of Ivermectin] could have unwanted, even dangerous side effects." Ivermectin is on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered extremely safe, with just one known complication related to a particular parasitic infection IIRC. I can only imagine that the reporter, having not gotten any definitive proof for the desired 'false' verdict from Dr Walter, pushed and prodded until eliciting this absurd and false but politically expedient statement.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#692

Post by [deleted] »

jesterson wrote: post #326
Nursie wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> several families who I know in person chose to take Ivermectin as part of their treatment when family member contracted covid. All of them successfully recovered from covid. Are you aware that this doesn't constitute any sort of evidence about ivermectin's effectiveness? > a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths. Are you aware that coronavirus causes clotting much more frequently th…

My apologies for jumping into this discussion. Not going to tolerate arrogance and inability to listen. All the best in life and apologies once again. Dixi.

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#693

Post by Nursie »

unanswered wrote: post #690
Nursie wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies have been done. It has been found lacking. You're getting mocked because you're blind to this and sticking to something that bad actors are touting as a miracle cure, while science and medicine move on in the search for things that actually help. Like dexamethasone, remdesivir etc etc

> Studies have been done. It has been found lacking. TFA found that more reliable studies found it was helpful than not. You are the one who is anti-science.

Not sure you're reading it right there - "I think this basically agrees with my analyses above - the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance."

So I'll revise - studies have been done, but no conclusions about positive efficacy can be supported.

"I think the conventional wisdom - that the most extreme ivermectin supporters were mostly gullible rubes who were bamboozled by pseudoscience - was basically accurate."

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#695

Post by pdonis »

rootusrootus wrote: post #658
pdonis wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I did not mention any of those folks.

Yes, you did. You said "the average human". All of those folks are average humans.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#696

Post by jesterson »

tigershark wrote: post #493
jesterson wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms. > The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.

Since when removing misinformation that can cause harm is censorship? If I had any say I would absolutely remove all your posts that are spreading the same lies, you are literally killing people by furthering a specific agenda and trying to convince people that the vaccines are dangerous and ivermectin is the only cure. It’s honestly shameful that hacker news is letting this happen.

Something that you (or anyone else) insubstantiatedly label as misinformation may just not be so. That's pure censorship - "I think this is wrong, therefore it has to be removed". That's the rigidity and simplemindedness as opposed to intellectual curiosity, doesn't spark intellectual discussion and creates echo chambers of people regurgitating the same narratives over and over.

Fortunately people sharing your approach are not having any say here so we keep HackerNews a civilised place where all opinions expressed without arrogance are having light of day.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#697

Post by pdonis »

rootusrootus wrote: post #664
pdonis wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I put more weight in what experts say because they have the years of education and experience to help guide them

Unless those years of education and experience translate into actually being able to make better predictions about what to do than you can, they're useless as something to rely on.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#698

Post by fulafel »

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…

The everyone-was-wrong part was about scientists missing the worm connection when looking at the aggregate data, not about practicing doctors and worm treatments.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#699

Post by kragen »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #196
roenxi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. "I have reviewed these studies, they seem sound and there are no real downsides to taking Ivermectin. I can't think of any reason not to take it. I don't recommend taking it, maybe I haven't thought of something" is a position a reasonable person could come to after browsing through the available evidence. Are you absolutely sure a video like that would be k…

But most of them aren't sound. Those that aren't are still weak evidence and not really block-buster. Also, "there are no real downsides" is misinformation. If you let on that you are an expert when you aren't, and say "I reviewed them" then that's misinformation. Some is in the gray area, but even the gray area actually causes the kind of harm these policies try to prevent. I can't speak for Youtube, but that's my t…

There really are no real downsides to taking ivermectin at its usual therapeutic doses. I'm not an expert, but ivermectin is well enough understood that I don't need to be an expert to know that. That's why there are regularly ivermectin programs that dose literally every single person in a town with ivermectin for a month or so as a parasite extermination campaign.

(I have somewhat less confidence in my second opinion about ivermectin, which is that precisely because it's so safe, it's vanishingly unlikely to have antiviral effects at those doses. That's something I could easily be wrong about because I'm not an expert.)

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#700

Post by kragen »

croon wrote: post #654
jonnycoder wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the contrary, the majority of people who called poison control were "worried well" who had no symptoms. And I think "not a lot in absolute numbers" is really underselling it: the total number of "reported exposure cases" was 459 in a country of 330 million people, up from 133 cases the previous month (before people started thinking ivermectin was a suppressed miracle cure). That's one out of every million people. Of those, zero died.

By way of comparison, every year, two out of every million people in the US die by falling out of bed.

Post reply on HN