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

131–140 of 348 posts

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

#131

Post by mcv »

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…

I think the horse thing came from the fact that some people were actually buying the horse version of ivermectin and presumably self-medicating. There were some reports of shops restricting horse-ivermectin purchases to people who could prove they owned a horse.

The absurd response seemed to be in response to absurd behaviour, as far as I can tell.

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

#132

Post by giarc »

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…

You've been duped. The Japanese, well at least the Japanese government did not approve it for use in COVID patients. It was a common claim by certain groups, but if you go to the source, you can see it was not approved. The 2\website below is the Japanese governments website for approved drugs/vaccines/testing/medical equipment for COVID.

https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about-pmda/0002.html

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

#133

Post by Tade0 »

In my corner in the world the miracle drug was Amantadine(Gocovri) - used in the past to treat influenza, but not recommended anymore.

Also no effect, as show by an appropriate study, but that didn't stop a friend of a friend from trying to obtain it instead of going to a doctor. He failed and eventually succumbed to the illness.

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

#134

Post by maskil »

The "largest trial to date" does not mean that it's case closed.

While the case for Ivermectin has been weakened recently, there still seems a significant body of evidence to suggest that it does work.

Many (not discredited) trials show efficacy and there is a significant observational correlation between population mass consumption of Ivermectin and better results with Covid. There are also many doctors that swear by it's efficacy from their experience.

Trials aren't perfect. The drug companies have been manipulating trial data for decades to prove efficacy when there wasn't, it probably can be done the other way as well. And the incentive is there with such a politicized drug.

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

#135

Post by jjoonathan »

bonIvermectin wrote: post #115
prohobo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the effect they're trying to test. Yes, ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and yes that's probably why there's anecdotal evidence of it working. The reason people are testing it is because it has potential anti-viral properties as well. Researchers discovered that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor - which means it can prevent viral replication when it comes to Covid. The problem, from what I understand, is…

> it has potential anti-viral properties as well doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect while treating COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934083/

Right. Figuring out the dose would not take years if it actually worked.

There are always leads, always more possibilities to try, so it's a critical scientific skill to understand how promising they actually are. Nobody will ever publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper saying "this shit is completely fucking hopeless" -- even if it is -- so you have to make that inference from a growing pile of negative evidence "we haven't been able to replicate / determine dosing / find support for" and from the shift of attention to different theories.

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

#136

Post by criticaltinker »

bonIvermectin wrote: post #115
prohobo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the effect they're trying to test. Yes, ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and yes that's probably why there's anecdotal evidence of it working. The reason people are testing it is because it has potential anti-viral properties as well. Researchers discovered that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor - which means it can prevent viral replication when it comes to Covid. The problem, from what I understand, is…

> it has potential anti-viral properties as well doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect while treating COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934083/

While the benefits of ivermectin in a single-drug regime are heavily contested, a lot of folks here seem to be unaware that certain multi-drug regimes have shown promising results. For example see the positive outcomes of this double blind placebo controlled RCT evaluating ivermectin with doxycycline.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

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

#137

Post by giarc »

an9n wrote: post #7

Quoted post unavailable.

There isn't anything fishy about a lot of those things, but you've been told there is.

-SARS table top exercises... is that a surprise since the last 2 major international outbreaks with a risk of becoming pandemics were both coronaviruses, one from China and one from Saudi Arabia (SARS and MERS).

-Pfizer/immunity - that's been the case for all vaccines. Look into influenza vaccine for example. No company would make and release a vaccine in August for delivery in October without some protection. In return the government provides that for them. It's a reasonable tradeoff.

-suppression of vaccine side effects? you know there is tons of data and published papers on vaccine side effects right?

People are going to tell you a lot of things in your life, you need to think critically about them and not default to them being true.

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

#138

Post by rbut »

c19early.com [1] lists numerous studies for Ivermectin and other drugs in the use of treating COVID-19 for both early treatment, and throughout all stages.

Ivermectin currently sits at an average efficacy of 65% after 81 studies.

So in reality, this study that WSJ cites should be added to the pool of efficacy, and not used to completely debunk Ivermectin.

[1] https://c19early.com/

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

#139

Post by analogdreams »

mcv wrote: post #131
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…

I think the horse thing came from the fact that some people were actually buying the horse version of ivermectin and presumably self-medicating. There were some reports of shops restricting horse-ivermectin purchases to people who could prove they owned a horse. The absurd response seemed to be in response to absurd behaviour, as far as I can tell.

....which itself was a result of the insane overreaction to covid from the same media convincing people they were all going to die.

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

#140

Post by spaetzleesser »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #12
simonh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to Joe he wasn't giving medical advice, but licensed doctors on his show were.

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…

When the pandemic started I got some of the best information on Rogan. He had some immunologists on that predicted exactly how it would turn out. While a lot of people still believed that this could be stopped these guys predicted that it would run through the population. Which it did.

I don’t really like this need for people to hear only what they want to hear and get angry when people say something they don’t like. Rogan lets people on and lets them talk. Sometimes it’s interesting , sometimes it’s not, sometimes it’s right, sometimes very wrong. I much prefer Rogan over all the people on big news that constantly spin things one way or the other to get more viewers. The mainstream news has lost the ability to give straight news.

Post reply on HN