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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#731

Post by roenxi » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:53 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #165

roenxi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That literally isn't an argument. It is a statement. And if anyone who said "many scientists/doctors believe it to work against Covid-19" is getting banned, then that statement has 0 signal. As Scott points out in this article, without knowing about the parasitic worm situation https://ivmmeta.com/ is both reasonable and moderately convincing.

> is both reasonable and moderately convincing No it isn't, it's full of obvious fraud! That's what the entire rest of the article points out. And they put an unwarranted warning against one of the few non-fraudulent studies because it doesn't go their way: [re: Lopez-Medina et al] > "I’m making a big deal of this because ivmmeta.com - the really impressive meta-analysis site I’ve been going off of - puts a special w…

The base rate in medicine is around 10% of studies being fraudulent [0]. That is roughly the rate that Scott came to in the article ("We’ve gone from 29 studies to 11, getting rid of 18 along the way. For the record, we eliminated 2/19 for fraud").

It might be that the list is riddled with fraud, but it isn't obviously so. I'm comfortable with many of the studies having methodological errors - that is why it is called "low quality evidence" instead of "high quality evidence" - and I assume the base rate for badly done studies is quite high.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#732

Post by croon » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 8:19 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #700

croon wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The obvious followup question is, does a horse dose of ivermectin give humans any symptoms?

Because the introduced question was regarding characterization of proponents, not the rate injury.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#733

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 8:37 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #725

beagle3 wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I take it that he's not doing that because he wants to diminish the size of his practice. But very likely (especially in the US, but also in other places), his considerations have to do with not increasing his malpractice insurance premium. Your and his interests are not aligned. And that chasm is larger than anyone likes to admit.

I'm not in the US and malpractice suits against doctors are extremely rare here.

The divergence is not as big as in the US then, but your incentives are still not perfectly aligned.

If you want to outsource your health decisions to someone else, who may be more knowledgeable in general, but may be less knowledgeable on any specific matter you dive into, and whose incentives are only generally aligned with yours - by all means do.

I don't, and this has paid great dividends for me so far. People who are capable of reading and understanding research (not all are), and have the ability to reach far out to well informed people and consult with them (not all can), are also likely to be in this situation -- and those people potentially lose dearly for not doing so.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#734

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:07 AM UTC

fivea wrote: post #653

jacquesm wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If there is one thing Jaap van Dissel has not done then it is to import knowledge from abroad. A giant case of NIH.

Also I note that the WHO representative says 'alone', an important qualification.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#735

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:09 AM UTC

api wrote: post #258

jacquesm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a huge factor. Dumbing things down creates a dumber audience. If you look at newscasts and newspapers from the 70's and compare them to today the difference is amazing.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about this but I think it’s just a race to the bottom in search of the largest audience. It seems to still be getting worse. I remember cable news being tolerable 10 years ago. Now when I see it at an airport or something I can almost feel the ice pick ramming up into my brain and swishing around.

Whenever I visit people and they have the TV on I'm fascinated that the people that produce that crap think they can get away with it, it is so blatantly manipulative and often downright false. And then I realize they do. They get away with it all the time.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#736

Post by jesterson » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:44 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #729

jesterson wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 approa…

The earth may be flat after all. But making that statement absent actual proof is misinformation.

You may be well right here, but it seems like there is significant difference what everyone is considering as "actual proof", hence definition of what is misinformation and what's not becomes very vague.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#737

Post by Rastonbury » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:48 AM UTC

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.

What is the point in this, everyone will just use ivermectin cuz its cheaper

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#738

Post by Rastonbury » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:54 AM UTC

ImaCake wrote: post #629

commandlinefan wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is exactly the sort of thing that YouTube, Twitter, et al are suppressing I fear that if it had any name except Scott Alexander's attached to it, it would have been flagged/dead on here within a few minutes as well.

This is maybe true. But I have seen more than a few dubious COVID articles gain traction on HN. There are several times I have tried to clarify basic statistical points as well. So it’s not a given that it would have been flagged/dead.

Ivermectin pushers are such a mysterious group, its a generic drug cheap drug, there is no apparent personal incentives for whoever is pushing it. It seems to be a result of the fractured us vs them conspiratorial types who truly believe they are doing good in the world.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#739

Post by phreeza » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

native_samples wrote: post #288

phreeza wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth. But you don't have to trust only scientists directly or indirectly employed by those companies. There are plenty of subject-matter expert…

Ah yes, academia, that famous bastion of free thought where success is totally unconnected to whether your colleagues like you and nobody ever gets cancelled. One where, as the fine article points out, 95% of biology professors vote Democrat. Academia is the last segment of society I trust on these topics.

What about those working for competitor companies then?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#740

Post by pieter_mj » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 10:01 AM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #720

pieter_mj wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but it should be seen as an additional layer to the Swiss cheese model of pandemic defense. The vaccine is the main component, by far, but its number of holes are increasing.

That's a very suspicious way of framing it. The "holes" seem to be mostly the people who don't want to get the vaccine at all. These are the ones responsible for most of the spread and for most of the consequences.

The unvaccinated are not part of the defense.