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

781–790 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#781

Post by rmbyrro »

notahacker wrote: post #230
rmbyrro wrote: post #179

> Mainstream medicine has reacted with slogans like “believe Science”. I don’t know if those kinds of slogans ever help, but they’re especially unhelpful here. To me such slogans are a disservice. Science should not be a matter of belief by definition. This way of promoting science is what brings belief-centric discussions to an arena that cannot benefit from beliefs. I remember one presidential debate in the US wher…

Science is a means of approaching beliefs. Science is not the philosophical position that we should be agnostic about the existence of gravity or magnitude of gravitational forces. Unlike other means of reaching beliefs, science supposes there is little reason to hold a belief that cannot be supported by induction from experimental data, and that a correctly set up experiment can falsify previously held beliefs and r…

It seems we think very much the same. Given the historical background, I just think it would be better to use words such as knowledge, understanding, thinking, rationale, instead of belief.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#782

Post by gunapologist99 »

kaba0 wrote: post #572
gunapologist99 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say it was. Studies are funded by corporations globally.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#783

Post by unanswered »

gardnr wrote: post #778
unanswered wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

I wonder how Dr Walter would describe the difference between "animal and human cells". The statement makes it sound like he's a Young Earth creationist. One criticism[1] of the above linked study, the one that states Ivermectin acts as a 3CL protease inhibitor, is that it uses an "in silico approach" (computer simulation). The way that we know PF-07321332 is a 3CL protease inhibitor is via an "in silico approach". It…

Sure, and I almost edited my original comment when I made it to clarify that as far as we know, Ivermectin isn't a very good protease inhibitor. That's what the fact-check should have said. Instead, we were fed a pile of garbage because the garbage sounds more comforting to those who emotionally need Ivermectin to be horse medicine.

But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the studies might be flawed; no matter how compelling the suggestion, it isn't evidence. Otherwise you're just consuming more nicely-dressed garbage, which is even more dangerous because you get to feel superior to those consuming the normal garbage.

What would constitute good evidence for the worms theory is, you know, a study actually studying that. Otherwise the theory is just assuming that a lot of the people benefited by Ivermectin do have worms, when that hasn't even been measured.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#784

Post by native_samples »

phreeza wrote: post #739
native_samples wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For better or worse, companies generally don't directly criticize their competitors products and especially won't make claims they're unsafe. That said, it's conceivable that with reforms to tort law, this could be incentivized in a reasonable way.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#785

Post by CRConrad »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #657
jacquesm wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

Especially since most of us -- most readers here do something computer-related, right? -- are ourselves in an (even more rapidly) evolving field of work, where what's "true" is constantly changing.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#786

Post by CRConrad »

sampo wrote: post #645
rootusrootus wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first Western people protecting themselves with face masks, those were "do your own research" people. Before April 2020, the Western mainstream claimed/lied that masks don't work.

For values of "Western" equal to "the USA"?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#787

Post by CRConrad »

pdonis wrote: post #695
rootusrootus wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

In that case, so are all other humans too. The GP did not mention any specific occupational or educational categories; that was all your own invention.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#788

Post by CRConrad »

pdonis wrote: post #636
jacquesm wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is supposed to be a free country That's highly dependent on a bunch of stuff that you can not choose at birth. For some variations of those you are going to find yourself decidedly less free than others. Agreed that blind trust in experts makes the problem worse - in principle. But with hysteria just around the corner (of which the wishful thinking that a cheap and common cure exists is one exponent) I can see why…

> That's highly dependent on a bunch of stuff that you can not choose at birth. Meaning, which country you are born in? Yes, of course; that's why I specified which country I was talking about. My original comment about the poor track record humans have of actually advancing "the greater good" when they think that's what they are doing was meant to be general, however. > If we actually had trusted the experts things…

>> That's highly dependent on a bunch of stuff that you can not choose at birth.

> Meaning, which country you are born in? Yes, of course; that's why I specified which country I was talking about.

Yeah, because there are absolutely no differences between people at birth within a country.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#789

Post by phreeza »

native_samples wrote: post #784
phreeza wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about those working for competitor companies then?

For better or worse, companies generally don't directly criticize their competitors products and especially won't make claims they're unsafe. That said, it's conceivable that with reforms to tort law, this could be incentivized in a reasonable way.

Call me a sheep, but if your distrust of other people runs so deep that you can't trust any source of scientific knowledge, from within or without academia, I feel a great sadness for you. Some scepticism is always needed but this seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#790

Post by gardnr »

unanswered wrote: post #783
gardnr wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how Dr Walter would describe the difference between "animal and human cells". The statement makes it sound like he's a Young Earth creationist. One criticism[1] of the above linked study, the one that states Ivermectin acts as a 3CL protease inhibitor, is that it uses an "in silico approach" (computer simulation). The way that we know PF-07321332 is a 3CL protease inhibitor is via an "in silico approach". It…

Sure, and I almost edited my original comment when I made it to clarify that as far as we know, Ivermectin isn't a very good protease inhibitor. That's what the fact-check should have said. Instead, we were fed a pile of garbage because the garbage sounds more comforting to those who emotionally need Ivermectin to be horse medicine. But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the stud…

The worm theory was amusing but that's not what changed my mind. For me, it was "The Studies" section where Scott goes over each study and discussed why they were deemed to be low quality or suspect.
Post reply on HN