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

Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#11

Post by jfengel »

ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

If the government funds it, that will make it suspicious in the eyes of many people.

There are already a number of high quality studies, and they are interpreted through people's own lens of preconception. The article points out a real problem in medical literature, but the public perception problem is much worse. Medical literature is at least trying to reach a truthful consensus.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#12

Post by NoPie »

ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

I think that we already have enough data showing that this is most likely ineffective treatment that it is hard to justify spending more money on this.

Furthermore, people who are not convinced, will find a reason to doubt the new study as well.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#13

Post by andrew_ »

catawbasam wrote: post #5
jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

Seems like governments should be funding proper studies, as they might benefit from a low cost treatment option.

that makes the assumption that there's incentive for the people running the government to do so. there's been a lot of information that's come to light, some of which some consider to be common knowledge, which indicates that there may be more incentive for our lawmakers not to do so

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#14

Post by geofft »

ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

Because in order to end a debate and quantify what "proper research" is, you have to have rules for the debate and establish in advance what proof is enough.

In the eyes of the world governments, the debate is already over. There isn't clear evidence that it works. There's also a straightforward answer already. Whether you believe this is because they're subservient to Big Pharma or because they actually are looking at the science, they're certainly acting as if they've seen all the data they need to see.

In the eyes of the ivermectin proponents, they just need to do the right study. The debate won't be over until it shows the answer they're looking for.

Nobody is saying, "If I see this evidence, I'll believe it; if I see that evidence, I'll believe the opposite." This is basic grade-school-simplified-scientific-method science. You're supposed to define a hypothesis, design an experiment, and then stick to what the experiment shows. But here, some have already finished their experiment, and others just want to keep running experiments.

(And no, it's not a cheap preventive treatment. Ivermectin tablets cost a couple of dollars per tablet. That adds up to be far more expensive than the vaccines. It would be a cheap reactive treatment, but even assuming it works, if you're not using it as a preventive treatment, you're letting people get awfully sick and spread the disease around, it's just that they can get out of the hospital reliably. That's not a solution.)

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#15

Post by d1a2n »

The Actually Real Scandal About Ivermectin is something like the anthropic principle but about the fact that I know that nothing positive about Ivermectin would ever be allowed on the Atlantic. Is Ivermectin at best barely above useless for covid? Maybe. Is it crucial and it's a crime against humanity for being suppressed? Maybe, and I'm inclined to say probably because the same people who lie about everything are mighty certain that Ivermectin is something that doesn't help covid and anyone who says otherwise is a horse paste eating moron.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#16

Post by jcranmer »

jjmellon wrote: post #2

The problem is that Ivermectin is off patent, so no drug company can make any money from it. Since there is no money for expensive research studies or clinical trials, all the research studies that get done will be low budget and subject to being called "lousy science". How about just properly reporting and studying the actual facts from one of the very large real world trials, like the one in India?

As I understand it, the largest produce of ivermectin is... one of the largest drug companies. Which doesn't have a COVID-19 vaccine, and whose website openly states that you should not take ivermectin for COVID-19. Your theory just doesn't make any sense.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#17

Post by abricot »

jfengel wrote: post #11
ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

If the government funds it, that will make it suspicious in the eyes of many people. There are already a number of high quality studies, and they are interpreted through people's own lens of preconception. The article points out a real problem in medical literature, but the public perception problem is much worse. Medical literature is at least trying to reach a truthful consensus.

Can you explain what "truthful consensus" means in this situation?

The article does not give me any hope that medical literature is "trying" anything.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#18

Post by wayoutthere »

jfengel wrote: post #8

It's as though medical literature is going through the same process that the Internet did: built with the assumption of good behavior, and that good actors would swamp bad ones. That turns out to be untrue, and correcting it after the fact is much harder.

This is the fundamental problem of our time. Trust has been traditionally built via personal relationships. But that doesn’t scale, and every attempt people have made to try to curb the bad actors at scale is a cat-and-mouse problem that is eventually worked around. So media influencers of dubious provenance can establish a following and there’s no credible voice with enough “engagement” to debunk them (the truth is boring), so they become the trusted source.

Nobody knows who to trust anymore. And until we solve that problem at global scale, the grifters and con men will rule the world.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#19

Post by vixen99 »

As an observation not an argument, irrespective of what comes to be accepted as to the efficacy of ivermectin, there seem to be an awful lot of doctors and other professionals across the world prepared to trash their personal reputations & sometimes their careers if "claims about the drug are based on shoddy science—but that science is entirely unremarkable in its shoddiness." is true.

Re: Ivermectin shows that not all science is worth following

#20

Post by kdtop3 »

ssijak wrote: post #4

Why would not some government fund the proper research into Ivermectin and Covid and be done with it. A lot of money was already thrown into the problem, throwing a bit more into a possible cheap and safe preventive treatment is a no brainer, unless I am missing something. Even this article suggests that there are some studies showing promise for Ivermectin, well, go create a big proper one and put an end to this deb…

I think the point of the article is that if some government DID spend the money to properly research this, it would take time, as in MANY years. I remember many decades ago that Vitamin E was thought to be a great supplement to reduce coronary heart disease etc. It was then studied by following 10,000 people for 4.5 years [1] and it was determined that the hint of benefit seen in observational studies turned out to be false hope. So with much time and money, it could be found that there is benefit in ivermectin. But the current state is that the FDA [2] and CDC [2] recommend AGAINST ivermectin use for treatment or prevention of SARS-COV2 infection / Covid-19.

Like the article says: science is slow, pandemics are fast.

[1] https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminE-HealthProfessiona... [2] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... [3] https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

Post reply on HN