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

Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 348 posts

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#101

Post by jeroenhd »

janmarsal wrote: post #81

I don't get it. I don't understand anything about medicine but as far as I know the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID so it's not just some developing countries that use it. I'm from Finland and our national news company even reported about some Finnish pharma companies that developed a nasal spay that could treat COVID. That nasal spray included ivermectin and they said it's such a shame ivermectin has such a…

The danger was not that the medicine itself, but the fact that it was a) unproven to have any effect, b) often taken in horse doses causing nasty side effects (because horse medicine if often good enough for human consumption, even if it's not held to the same standard) and above all c) seen as an alternative to proper measures like vaccination, masks, the whole ordeal.

It's a pretty good way to get rid of parasites, but the association with COVID caused a lot of problems.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#102

Post by andruc »

nojito wrote: post #68
jiggawatts wrote: post #6

Ivermectin works because the first trials were done in developing economies where the average person had a high chance of parasitic infections. The steroids used as a standard front-line treatment for severe COVID decreases the immune response to parasites, allowing them to multiply unchecked. This killed patients indirectly, but dead is dead , and they "checked in" with COVID, not parasite complaints. Ivermectin is…

This entire comment is wrong and yet it is currently the top comment. What is it about COVID that causes people to just forget to think critically about what they read?

Could you be more specific?

I have a suspicion that, like myself, they came to this conclusion after reading this extensive post from Slate Star Codex https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#103

Post by strken »

eggy wrote: post #65
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. So effectively you’re ending up with him pushing his opinion anyway. If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. I’ll also note that much of the time the licensed doctors he invites on aren’t actually in relevant special…

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the high…

For the past two years I've been telling anyone who'll listen that the WHO screwed up by telling people not to wear masks, by claiming transmission wasn't via aerosol particles, and by opposing border closures. I spent a long time getting into arguments about the lab leak theory being almost impossible to disprove. In my comments on HN there's one calling out an article about mask-wearing for drawing the exact wrong conclusion from a study of cloth masks.

I reserve the same right to call out Joe Rogan when he's wrong. He is not special.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#104

Post by jesusofnazarath »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47
imgabe wrote: post #36

The whole Ivermectin debacle was ridiculous. I never had Covid. Or if I did, it was so mild I never noticed. So, I really have no dog in this fight. But the way the media handled this coverage was really, really off-putting. First, if it doesn't work, just say that. "It doesn't work". "Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for Covid". That's all that was really necessary, right? But no, there was this whole ridicu…

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

No post body was provided.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#105

Post by roenxi »

jiggawatts wrote: post #6

Ivermectin works because the first trials were done in developing economies where the average person had a high chance of parasitic infections. The steroids used as a standard front-line treatment for severe COVID decreases the immune response to parasites, allowing them to multiply unchecked. This killed patients indirectly, but dead is dead , and they "checked in" with COVID, not parasite complaints. Ivermectin is…

> The misunderstandings around this drug stem from misunderstandings of basic statistics and the scientific method

So I agree with your post both in letter of what is written and in spirit, but...

The misunderstandings around this drug also stem from the fact that its detractors were unhinged and anti-scientific. They were dismissing a large, obvious statistical effect without any argument. The publicised pushback around Joe Rogan was spearheaded by people who thought the problem was that Ivermectin is effective in horses.

I'm perfectly happy to pick this hill to argue on - the people who had hope that Ivermectin helped were the sort of people who are persuaded by evidence. It was never strong evidence, but the balance was in favour of Ivermectin for a while there for people who only looked at studies and hadn't had their attention drawn to the endemic parasite thing.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#106

Post by odonnellryan »

StreamBright wrote: post #82
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

> started buying the horse version of the drug FYI there is no horse version of drugs. It would be a logistics and production nightmare to produce two kind of medicine like that. If a medicine has a chemical compound (like for example Amoxicillin) then it is good for both your fish and for you generally speaking.

That's definitely not true about antibiotics.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#107

Post by jovial_cavalier »

jmull wrote: post #89
imgabe wrote: post #36

The whole Ivermectin debacle was ridiculous. I never had Covid. Or if I did, it was so mild I never noticed. So, I really have no dog in this fight. But the way the media handled this coverage was really, really off-putting. First, if it doesn't work, just say that. "It doesn't work". "Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for Covid". That's all that was really necessary, right? But no, there was this whole ridicu…

Surely the people pushing conspiracy theories about the pandemic are a bigger concern than the subset of media that weren't effectively dispelling those conspiracy theories? It really doesn't make sense to collectively blame "the media" because some of them say silly or incorrect things sometimes. The word itself -- a plural -- tells you there isn't a cohesive "the media" to blame anyway. Who are you actually talking…

In a public health crisis, people who are in charge of communicating with the public should be held to a higher standard than random people on YouTube. Yes, CNN saying that people are dying because of Ivermectin usage is a bigger problem than people suggesting we look at Ivermectin for COVID prevention/treatment.

I've heard that sometimes in public health you have to lie to avoid the strange incentives that people acting as a massive group have. But your lies have to at least make sense. When you go around frantically pushing a narrative that is a blatant lie, you lose the public's trust. It doesn't help when half of news programs are brought to you by Pfizer - a company with a vested interest in Ivermectin not working for this purpose.

The randos on YouTube will always be there, but it's the failing of the mainstream media that anyone takes them seriously.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#108

Post by headsoup »

odonnellryan wrote: post #94
headsoup wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the sci…

I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing. Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong. Also there is no way for you to figure out who…

That wasn't quite my point. The point is not to immediately devalue experts critical of the consensus, but keep informed and considered. To dismiss either side whole-handedly is ignorant.

What is happening especially now is precisely that, this whole 'misinformation' drive is to encourage the dismissal of critical opinion (on more and more topics it seems). This is a bad road to go down.

And you make a good example of the overall point: there should not be this 'mainstream' vs 'not-mainstream' and we just pick a side. We should all be mature enough not to fall for that silly manipulation and instead try to fully inform ourselves from a range of sources and challenge ourselves.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#109

Post by Hallucinaut »

janmarsal wrote: post #81

I don't get it. I don't understand anything about medicine but as far as I know the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID so it's not just some developing countries that use it. I'm from Finland and our national news company even reported about some Finnish pharma companies that developed a nasal spay that could treat COVID. That nasal spray included ivermectin and they said it's such a shame ivermectin has such a…

Because it's emblematic of laymen without understanding of medicine both demanding treatment with no evidence behind it and claiming the establishment NOT providing it is evidence of some vast, many-tentacled conspiracy.

However, one of your comments shows the true problem. It's not FOR the media to decide. Murdoch may disagree but the media is just reflecting the establishment. You can argue about the effectiveness of said establishments because they're all dysfunctional, like any organization of any size, but to claim that we should just throw away scientific process in anathema to modern society.

There were multiple reports of people refusing treatment (and, of course, vaccines before that) because they wanted ivermectin.

Prior to that, people poisoning themselves with household products due to Trump's careless speculation on treatment.

It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training.

The backlash has never been primarily about the dangers of ivermectin specifically, but the rejection of established protocol, scientific procedure and basically everything that humanity has moved forward with in the past century or so.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#110

Post by anewlanguage »

azangru wrote: post #50
belter wrote: post #35

We did not eliminate pandemics. Instead, as a Society we barely made it through this one. Despite the massive human and economic cost of this latest pandemic, governments are making the same mistakes again: - Lack of preparation. - Not enough resources allocated to research. - Too much reliance on Pharma and particularly Vaccine producing companies. The best research is still done mostly via foundations or private fu…

> - Lack of preparation. > - Not enough resources allocated to research. How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example? Some might even argue that it's precisely because of the research done in preparation for a new pandemic, which included studying novel coronaviruses using something that Fauci says was…

> How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen?

The pandemic was predicted many years in advance, by many people: https://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-seemingly-predict...

The fact it was a coronavirus coming over from animals was also highly predictable, given SARS and MERS. There is a fantastic book called Spillover by David Quammen which lays all this out and explains why it was virtually guaranteed to happen.

Post reply on HN