Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

journals.lww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#11

Post by ktkoffroth »

shadowprofile76 wrote: post #7

I'd suggest everyone step back from their own politics for a moment and pause to consider just how absurd it is that a fucking medicine for parasite infections that barely anyone except veterinarians, tropical explorers, pet owners and farmers knew previously has now been polliticized to this degree across vast swathes of the media landscape. The obvious answer to such a situation is that science should be allowed to…

Is there reasonable suspicion to believe that the political split around it was/is intentional? To me, it seems as if the mainstream media outlets are needlessly ripping this drug and it's proponents.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#12

Post by vb6sp6 »

radu_floricica wrote: post #9
vb6sp6 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't take dog pills and also didn't get COVID. Anecdotes are fun.

Or maybe I DID get Covid? Or maybe.... I was a dog all along?! Sorry about that. But I do want to push on a point, mostly because I have a good quote: "It's possible to make mistakes and still lose. That's not a weakness, it's life". There is a disconnect between being right on the bets you make, and winning. In this case I could be wrong on ivermectin helping. It doesn't matter in the long run, because what matters…

> It doesn't matter in the long run

It might matter to those out there that read this and then try ivermectin. And maybe they take a little too much. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that these types of statements can be really harmful.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#13

Post by radu_floricica »

vb6sp6 wrote: post #12
radu_floricica wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe I DID get Covid? Or maybe.... I was a dog all along?! Sorry about that. But I do want to push on a point, mostly because I have a good quote: "It's possible to make mistakes and still lose. That's not a weakness, it's life". There is a disconnect between being right on the bets you make, and winning. In this case I could be wrong on ivermectin helping. It doesn't matter in the long run, because what matters…

> It doesn't matter in the long run It might matter to those out there that read this and then try ivermectin. And maybe they take a little too much. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that these types of statements can be really harmful.

Taking a 10x dose of aspirin is harmful. And god have mercy on your soul if you take too much tylenol - it's a very ugly death.

But neither of them is taboo. Try asking in any forum if horse ivermectin is safe for humans. I dare you.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#14

Post by radu_floricica »

SomeCollegeBro wrote: post #6
radu_floricica wrote: post #3

The tragedy here is that ivermectin is already tribal signaling for the mainstream media. It'll be pretty hard to have proper conversations over it. I'd be willing to bet this post has already been flagged a couple of times. I took prophylactic ivermectin for a few weeks, and yes, it had a picture of a dog on the box, because that's the only kind I could find. You won't find human ivermectin where I live because ther…

What exactly did ivermectin do for you? Did you have covid or did you take it as a preventative measure for a long period of time?

Preventive measure before vaccines were available. I think it was 0.1 mg/kg/week, so two 3mg pills every Monday for... maybe a couple of months.

Dosage is reasonable, safety profile is very good, the only doubt I had was if the veterinarian version is in any way worse. But the waters were already muddied even back then, so I could't find relevant info.

You may want to recall that before vaccines, we were all pretty afraid. Now the matter is academic - we have about the same risk as from a bad flu. But last year... I'd have taken pills with the picture of a cockroach on them, when faced with 20% of long covid. I still think it was a very sane choice.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#15

Post by seattle_spring »

ktkoffroth wrote: post #11
shadowprofile76 wrote: post #7

I'd suggest everyone step back from their own politics for a moment and pause to consider just how absurd it is that a fucking medicine for parasite infections that barely anyone except veterinarians, tropical explorers, pet owners and farmers knew previously has now been polliticized to this degree across vast swathes of the media landscape. The obvious answer to such a situation is that science should be allowed to…

Is there reasonable suspicion to believe that the political split around it was/is intentional? To me, it seems as if the mainstream media outlets are needlessly ripping this drug and it's proponents.

Needlessly? 99% of the time I see a proponent of Ivermectin, they are also detractors of vaccines.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#16

Post by vb6sp6 »

radu_floricica wrote: post #13
vb6sp6 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter in the long run It might matter to those out there that read this and then try ivermectin. And maybe they take a little too much. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that these types of statements can be really harmful.

Taking a 10x dose of aspirin is harmful. And god have mercy on your soul if you take too much tylenol - it's a very ugly death. But neither of them is taboo. Try asking in any forum if horse ivermectin is safe for humans. I dare you.

The drug manufacturer says not to take it. That's good enough for me.

And appealing to the higher power of random forum users is peak stupidity imo

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

#17

Post by IAmGraydon »

didjathinkmess wrote: post #8
4512124672456 wrote: post #4

This paper still includes the retracted and heavily flawed study of Elgazzar et al. and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-c...

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a meta analysis of 25 different studies and some will have flaws of course. For me, if one single study showed positive results and had a valid methodology, that'd be enough for me to consider taking it. I'm open to anything to get us out of this mess: anti-parasitic, anti-biotic, Zinc, Vitamin-D from sunshine, whatever it takes - I'm not picky. As an aside, here'…

> I'm open to anything to get us out of this mess: anti-parasitic, anti-biotic, Zinc, Vitamin-D from sunshine, whatever it takes - I'm not picky.

Funny (really just sad and predictable) how vaccine isn’t on this list.

Post reply on HN