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

Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 493 posts

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#111

Post by cableshaft »

vernie wrote: post #84
brandonmenc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are literally taking horse formulations of ivermectin People are taking the horse formulation because most pharmacists won't even fill an off-label prescription for the drug, which - even if it has no effect on COVID - is safe and taken by a quarter billion people every year. Let people take it. It's not harmful. Or, make a big huge deal about people taking it and, well, then it becomes a big huge deal.

Is that really the reason or is it that they can't get a doctor to write them an off-label prescription?

A friend of mine found a doctor to prescribe it but his pharmacy won't fill it. He is so pissed.

He was only planning to take small doses here or there as he's a teacher and around sick kids all the time, as if it were like Zinc to hopefully help reduce the severity of Covid-19 if he does get it, but despite going through the effort and succeeding in finding a doctor willing to prescribe it (and my friend even signed a document saying he understands it's an experimental treatment and will assume any risks), his local CVS is refusing to fill it.

My opinion is if you can get a proper doctor to prescribe it (by proper doctor I mean none of this "I got a medical exemption for wearing a mask from my Chiropractor" bullshit like is going on in Florida), a pharmacy shouldn't be allowed to decide not to fill it, as if they know better than your doctor.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#112

Post by anoonmoose »

mechE321 wrote: post #71

The Bayesian gambler in me wants to think this: The studies on ivermectin seem to be split between "good effect" and "no effect," and there don't seem to be any (by my extremely informal review! going off of memory here) in the camp of "bad effect." Seems reasonable to take ivermectin as a decent gamble to me while we wait on the dang science to get its head out of its butt.

We did this last year with hydroxychloroquine...all that happened was that some Lupus patients had a hard time getting their normal prescriptions filled.

The "bad effect" doesn't have to be strictly medical, and may not show up in studies. It could be that other people who need the medicine can't get it, it could be that it discourages people from getting the vaccine, it could just be that we are lighting a pile of money on fire for no reasons (that's bad, right?).

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#113

Post by abxnlk »

ashtonkem wrote: post #30
rory wrote: post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

People are literally taking horse formulations of ivermectin because doctors are rightfully refusing to prescribe ivermectin for an off label and ineffective use. Oh, and the access to this medicine is “marginalized” BECAUSE IT DOESNT WORK TO TREAT COVID. We generally do not expect doctors to prescribe medicine that will not work or is not appropriate for the patients condition. Complaining about their access being m…

First of all, trying out random substances or applying existing medicines to different illnesses is exactly how doctors and the pharma industry operate.

It's not like doctors actually always understand what is going on; for example, I think even the precise mechanism of anesthetics isn't well understood yet.

So people volunteer to test a human approved drug for a different application. I don't believe in Ivermectin specifically, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. It's what medicine does, and most researchers at universities don't have a clue either (as we now see in the entire Covid19 comedy).

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#114

Post by jrmg »

gonational wrote: post #81
mikeyouse wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling them gene therapies too.. wow. I hope the more science-literate proponents of IVM can appreciate how much it harms their case for the vast majority of IVM advocates to be this loud and wrong..

The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect. But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? I hop…

> The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines.

For anyone else curious:

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” [1]

It seems obvious to me that this was changed because the layperson’s interpretation of the old wording would make it seem like 100% immunity was the result of vaccination. That’s never been the case. The new wording is just clearer in regular English.

> You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect.

It’s not only science illiterate, it’s misleading to a layperson too. It sounds as if it’s changing the patient’s DNA.

> I hope more common sense literate proponents of science can appreciate how much it harms their case for a vast majority of science advocates to be loud and wrong

I do t understand how you think your interpretations lie closer to “common sense”. They seem to me to be more like;y to mislead.

[1]https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#115

Post by anoonmoose »

twofornone wrote: post #21

The premature smear of potentially effective medications like HCQ and Ivermectin by scientifically illiterate media is unforgivable. Especially in the case of Ivermectin, given that it has one of the most benign safety profiles of any known drug. There is no excuse. There should have been federally funded widespread trials a year ago, there is no downside. Instead you now have hospitals forbidding off label prescript…

I'm glad that you mentioned HCQ. What happened with HCQ? Was it smart that the US bought stockpiles of it, and was it smart for doctors to be prescribing it for treatment of COVID, with a years hindsight?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#116

Post by rory »

simpleguitar wrote: post #94
mechE321 wrote: post #71

The Bayesian gambler in me wants to think this: The studies on ivermectin seem to be split between "good effect" and "no effect," and there don't seem to be any (by my extremely informal review! going off of memory here) in the camp of "bad effect." Seems reasonable to take ivermectin as a decent gamble to me while we wait on the dang science to get its head out of its butt.

If iver is a good gamble, then wouldn't the vaccine be a better gamble? After all, unlike iver, there is very good hospitalization data about vaccinated vs unvaccinated now.

This is true, but just because the two are on opposite sides of the culture war doesn't mean they're medically mutually exclusive.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#117

Post by buescher »

shrubble wrote: post #63
rory wrote: post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

Incidentally, approximately 11 to 14% of the USA population has pinworms, which can be easily stopped by ivermectin. Given the very high level of safety of ivermectin, it might make sense to make it easier to get on this basis alone.

I can't sell you ivermectin, but I CAN sell you pinworms, and then you can go to your doctor...

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#118

Post by xdennis »

ashtonkem wrote: post #30
rory wrote: post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

People are literally taking horse formulations of ivermectin because doctors are rightfully refusing to prescribe ivermectin for an off label and ineffective use. Oh, and the access to this medicine is “marginalized” BECAUSE IT DOESNT WORK TO TREAT COVID. We generally do not expect doctors to prescribe medicine that will not work or is not appropriate for the patients condition. Complaining about their access being m…

In some countries they give free needles to heroin addicts. Why do they care about harm there but for ivermectin they "force" the misinformed people to take the horse paste form?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#119

Post by brandonmenc »

sgt101 wrote: post #104
brandonmenc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are literally taking horse formulations of ivermectin People are taking the horse formulation because most pharmacists won't even fill an off-label prescription for the drug, which - even if it has no effect on COVID - is safe and taken by a quarter billion people every year. Let people take it. It's not harmful. Or, make a big huge deal about people taking it and, well, then it becomes a big huge deal.

I get where you are coming from, but I think that there is a nuance that you have missed. Like many, many drugs - and vaccines - ivemectin has some unpleasant and dangerous side effects in some people rarely. You can see these if you look the drug up : https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/ivermectin-oral-ta... for example. The point is that if this drug did help people make it through covid (like the vaccines do…

All of this is for the patient and their doctor to decide.

Not the pharmacist. Not the FDA.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#120

Post by andrewflnr »

toss1 wrote: post #89
greenonions wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, though there are two obvious courses of action that result from this: 1. Prevent the viewing 2. Increase the readiness Of which I think #2 is most preferable.

#2 is for sure bviously preferable, but Good Luck With That. Once you get below the top N% in intelligence levels (5%-20% in my experience), the ability to 1) understand any kind of complex systems, 2) read, understand, contextualize and retain data, and maintain any rigorous logical thinking structure (e.g., keeping previously eliminated options eliminated) declines rapidly. The result is that, despite having absolu…

People at my state university would occasionally toss out the catchphrase "Ds get degrees!". It made me sad. I agree at minimum more people need to fail classes. If you want to be nice, counter by allowing more attempts.
Post reply on HN