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

121–130 of 348 posts

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

#121

Post by Loughla »

tux1968 wrote: post #10
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. This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. You're 100% correct, of course. But the prevalent MSM response, of calling it horse medicine, was equally damaging. Since it is a well known, effective, and respected medicine used in humans, this characterization as "horse paste" made it…

I think its less that MSM called the human, prescribed version "horse medicine" and more that people were actually taking horse medicine as a "preventative".

In my part of flyover country, you had to provide evidence, from a veterinarian or a sale bill from an auction house, that you owned livestock to be able to buy livestock ivermectin. Because people were buying it to use on themselves.

That's where the 'horse medicine' thing comes from. It's real.

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

#122

Post by Dylan16807 »

tux1968 wrote: post #10
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. This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. You're 100% correct, of course. But the prevalent MSM response, of calling it horse medicine, was equally damaging. Since it is a well known, effective, and respected medicine used in humans, this characterization as "horse paste" made it…

> this characterization as "horse paste" made it easy to believe that it was additionally being unfairly maligned in regard to its effectiveness for Covid.

Would a more diplomatic wording have actually helped? I don't think it would have. And trying too hard to have diplomatic neutrality will often encourage the toxic idea that every debate has two valid and reasonable sides.

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

#123

Post by giarc »

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?

It's any topic. You know the joke now is that all the epidemiologists suddenly became experts on eastern European foreign relationships.

I listened to the Mr Beast and Joe Rogen podcast the other day. The best part about it was all the times Jimmy would simply say "I don't want to speculate about that, I don't know anything about it." It was glorious, a person not providing opinion on something because they don't know anything about the topic.

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

#124

Post by imgabe »

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…

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect.

Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect.

If you’re a layperson and you see that there’s studies published in peer-reviewed journals, but the media is telling you you’re a stupid redneck who’s just a sucker for “conspiracy theories” you’re going to figure they’re just insulting and dismissing you, as they have been consistently doing for years. When those same outlets say the claims about Ivermectin are “baseless” you’re going to wonder why those 26/30 studies don’t constitute a “base” and maybe suspect that there is something else going on.

So, at the end of the day, it is really irresponsible of any media outlet to marginalize and dismiss people, who are trying their best to make sense of a confusing and stressful situation.

[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

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

#125

Post by enchiridion »

aczerepinski wrote: post #69
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is a theory. It's a good theory but youre technically spouting misinformation by claiming it's hard fact. This theory was developed by Scott Alexander from SSC in his ivermectin blog post. Joe Rogan never claimed anyone should take medical advice from him. He had Sanjay Gupta and Robert Malone both medical doctors with differing opinions. This is how the media is supposed to work. It's not supposed…

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic.

Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true.

I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.

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

#126

Post by odonnellryan »

headsoup wrote: post #108
odonnellryan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

There wasn't any real evidence for the use of Ivermectin. Some public policies were not perfect or misguided (lockdowns) some were inconsistent with both messaging and implementation (masks) some were really good and people are against them for no logical reason (vaccines, though maybe requirements are totalitarian in cases).

I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole.

Also, there's no real way for us to know what would have happened if we did nothing. Maybe another 1-2m dead - or maybe we'd be just where we are today.

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

#127

Post by xadhominemx »

coldtea wrote: post #16
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…

> If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. So? Some experts are more experts than others?

Yes, that is correct

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

#128

Post by xadhominemx »

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…

> If it's placebo at worst then why did the media try to demonize it so hard?

Because anti-vaxxers pitched it as an alternative to vaccination, and many people listened.

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

#129

Post by eightysixfour »

roenxi wrote: post #105
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 ar…

> 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.

No. The extreme pushback started after higher quality studies came out that showed there was no effect and those swayed by the initial Brazilian data wouldn’t let it go. For some segment of the population it became a magical COVID cure and any high quality studies were just big pharma ignoring cheap solutions so they could make more money.

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

#130

Post by bsuvc »

I've never understood why ivermectin is such a hot button issue that gets people worked up.

If someone else has a doctor that prescribes it to them, and a pharmacy that fills the prescription, that should not be a problem, right?

It's not like they are telling people they have to take ivermectin against their will.

What am I missing?

Post reply on HN