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

791–800 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#791

Post by unanswered »

gardnr wrote: post #790
unanswered wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But... he didn't? Most of the studies he found no fault with. This seems to be a striking example of alternate facts you have picked up from the same article...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#792

Post by RubberMullet »

CountDrewku wrote: post #375
RubberMullet wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No they're not. That's you being biased against information you dislike and then justifying its "falseness" by attaching whatever -ist label makes you feel better. Thinking that white supremacists and Nazis are running all over the place in 2021 is pure bs propaganda being pushed by our media. Is your point here to suggest that belief in alternative COVID treatments means you're a racist bigot? Proof please.

Given how ridiculous my comment was I didn't feel the need to preface it with any sort of sarcasm warning. My apologies.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#793

Post by native_samples »

phreeza wrote: post #789
native_samples wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a discerning sceptic. I trust science that has been proven through successful application. I feel sorry for people who have to read academic papers as part of their job in order to find science that they could apply, partly because that used to be a part of my job and after the novelty wore off it was a miserable task. Science is best paired with real world engineering - academia can do this but the least trustworthy fields e.g. those that rely entirely on modelling, never do.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#794

Post by phreeza »

native_samples wrote: post #793
phreeza wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a discerning sceptic. I trust science that has been proven through successful application. I feel sorry for people who have to read academic papers as part of their job in order to find science that they could apply, partly because that used to be a part of my job and after the novelty wore off it was a miserable task. Science is best paired with real world engineering - academia can do this but the least trustwo…

The fraction of science that can ever be applied to engineering is vanishingly small though. How will you ever get to that kind of standard for things like astrophysics, particle physics, mathematics, most of biology? Do you really think the big bang, evolution, Fermat's theorem etc are bogus because they haven't been proven by "real world engineering"?

I completely agree that there is a lot of bogus stuff coming out, like the perennial "hyper efficient solar cell developed in a lab" press release that bubbles up on HN every now and then. But that is just a tiny piece of science if you ask me. Also blaming 'cancel culture' for this seems lazy , there are misaligned incentives but they are more subtle.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#795

Post by native_samples »

phreeza wrote: post #794
native_samples wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a discerning sceptic. I trust science that has been proven through successful application. I feel sorry for people who have to read academic papers as part of their job in order to find science that they could apply, partly because that used to be a part of my job and after the novelty wore off it was a miserable task. Science is best paired with real world engineering - academia can do this but the least trustwo…

The fraction of science that can ever be applied to engineering is vanishingly small though. How will you ever get to that kind of standard for things like astrophysics, particle physics, mathematics, most of biology? Do you really think the big bang, evolution, Fermat's theorem etc are bogus because they haven't been proven by "real world engineering"? I completely agree that there is a lot of bogus stuff coming out…

Particle physics has to a large extent become engineering: particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, radiotherapy for cancer. Evolution has been applied many times, most famously, to create SARS-CoV-2 right before it escaped from a lab ;)

As for the rest - well, who knows? Do I trust big bang theory? No, not really. I seem to recall it's inconsistent with various other measurements, hence the need for the enigmatic dark matter. But it doesn't matter or affect my life at all so I can easily choose not to trust it and who cares.

Where the problems start is when activists/politicians force me to "trust" self-proclaimed science that has never been through rigorous market-based mechanisms to weed out the crap. Epidemiology. Climatology. Virology. Standards in these fields are rock bottom low because nobody is at risk of losing their jobs if they're wrong, yet, I cannot simply evaluate this "science" and opt out.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#796

Post by CRConrad »

mgamache wrote: post #484
bayesian_horse wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…

"There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed" Please think about that for a while...

"There is no evidence that Queen Elizabeth is a lizard alien from outer space -- that must mean she is!"

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#797

Post by CRConrad »

dekhn wrote: post #332
fallingknife wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not correct that Sweden has done much worse than its neighbors. It's actually below the median for Europe. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-deat...

In 10 years, when most of the dust has settled, we'll be able to explain what we saw in Sweden and the surrounding countries as a combination of population density, interactions, medical policy, and randomness. It's hardly fair to consider only a small number of variables in cases like these.

Yeah, but here's my prediction for what we'll find: In one way it was pretty random that it was precisely Sweden that adopted such stupid medical policies versus covid; in another, given what we know of these countries' larger political environment and post-WW2 history, it was perhaps to be expected.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#798

Post by CRConrad »

jdub wrote: post #121
fallingknife wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree, that in the case of a pandemic, the health authorities interests are pretty well aligned with a member of the general public. However, there are always issues in this kind of situation when the authorities got it wrong. In a political environment, changing course is seen as an admission of being wrong, and a loss of face. So we continue on with the initial policy. We are currently facing this problem a…

"You don't need to wear masks" was bad advice from well-meaning people who should've known better. The researchers who did know better couldn't push past deeply-entrenched anti-miasma attitudes quickly enough. "Use social distancing and isolation to avoid COVID and get vaccinated as quickly as possible" is good advice from well-meaning people who do know better. Sorry it's unpleasant, but if the USA behaved rationall…

> Sweden readily admits that its approach was a terrible mistake.

It does?!? Funny, how can I have totally missed something as big as that?

I'm a Swedish "expat"; I have now lived abroad for just a little longer than I lived in Sweden (26 vs 26.5 years), but I've always followed Swedish media and I still travel there regularly. All I've seen is some hemming and hawing about "Perhaps not totally optimal"; far from any flat-out admission of "terrible mistake". And when I spent a long weekend there three weeks ago, the populace at large certainly didn't seem aware of any such thing.

Got any handy links to this admission by Sweden?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#799

Post by CRConrad »

raxxorrax wrote: post #181
jacquesm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden, the country where the authorities apologized for messing up, that Sweden? People on average gained 10 kg? Really, I have no idea where you get this nonsense but clearly you are not interested in a factual debate but in one that gives you what you want: the ability to ignore this pandemic as though it doesn't exit. There are no ICU beds for the gerontocracy, there are simply ICU beds, and there is a limited nu…

Spain had 14,8% excess mortality than in normal years, Germany had 2,4% less dead, Sweden had 3% more dead. These numbers are adjusted for demographic changes. Sweden now looks pretty solid as well as Spain regarding new cases. Sure, if you just compare it to Norway and Finland, it is very true that Sweden has worse values, more than 3 times as many dead at minimum. But the answer if it was the correct or wrong choic…

> Sure, if you just compare it to Norway and Finland, it is very true that Sweden has worse values, more than 3 times as many dead at minimum.

More like 6 (Finland) and ~10? (Norway), by my calculations.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#800

Post by murderfs »

spamizbad wrote: post #390
roenxi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.

Personally I'm naturally skeptical of any suggested COVID treatments because they tend to be trendy. Before ivermectin, it was hydroxychloroquine. And before hydroxychloroquine, it was vitamin D, melatonin, and diluted bleach. And before that it was that it was only harmful to people who lead unhealthy lifestyles: It was less a disease and more like cosmic justice for living an indulgent, gluttonous sedentary lifesty…

It would be hilarious if just like this argues fairly convincingly for ivermectin, all of those (well, the first two) actually turned out to be true, but only for malaria infected and vitamin D deficient patients.
Post reply on HN