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

161–170 of 348 posts

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

#161

Post by bena »

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…

> 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?

Apparently not. Because that is what was said at first. And doctors refused to prescribe it because it didn't work, there was no reason for it to work, etc.

So people went down to Sneed's Feed and Seed, bought the apple-flavored paste with a picture of a horse on it and started shitting themselves in the middle of WalMart. They deserved to be mocked.

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

#162

Post by gadders »

eightysixfour wrote: post #129
roenxi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 magi…

No. The extreme pushback started when Donald Trump mentioned it.

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

#163

Post by JasonFruit »

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…

You're doing it right, opposing bad information with good. All of what you say here makes sense, including "This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." Where that breaks down is when that turns into, "This is why you shouldn't be allowed to get your medical advice from Joe Rogan."

People make unwise choices all the time, and when we try to prevent them from doing so coercively, we fall into a pit of unintended consequences. When people see powerful people suppressing a point of view, it makes it more sympathetic to many of them, even if they would otherwise have rejected it as unreasoned.

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

#164

Post by phlipski »

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/

"bonIvermectin" - I see what you did there.... chefs kiss golf clap....

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

#165

Post by conradfr »

xadhominemx wrote: post #116
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…

You also seem confused. Yes, some people are interested in Ivermectin as a protease inhibitor. But the reason the de-wormer came to prominence in the first place was because some lower quality studies found it has a positive effect on COVID-19 outcomes. The most famous study in this collection came out of Brazil. But the reason that study found a positive impact from Ivermectin is that parasites are a harmful COVID c…

Not entirely true as there was a retirement home in France during the first outbreak where residents were treated with Ivermectin due to scabies where they had no Covid deaths and less bad cases than the other surrounding homes.

But I guess it was not replicated.

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

#166

Post by Jtype »

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…

I believe that you're misinterpreting the point. It's not dismissing the mainstream because it's mainstream, but ignoring the mainstream that completely dismisses and mislabels contradicting views and evidence as "misinformation." Relying solely on the judgement of mainstream media is putting all your faith in science not in science itself but on reporters(and activists) choosing what is "science."

This recent trend of treating science as an unquestionable reminds me much more of religion than of science. At this point in the covid game where quite a bit of the accepted science has changed, it seems that only people's egos are keeping them from seeing this.

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

#167

Post by gadders »

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…

If you cherry pick your experts enough you end up believing that the Wuhan Lab Leak theory is hate-speech and that Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation campaign.

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

#168

Post by CapmCrackaWaka »

xadhominemx wrote: post #116
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…

You also seem confused. Yes, some people are interested in Ivermectin as a protease inhibitor. But the reason the de-wormer came to prominence in the first place was because some lower quality studies found it has a positive effect on COVID-19 outcomes. The most famous study in this collection came out of Brazil. But the reason that study found a positive impact from Ivermectin is that parasites are a harmful COVID c…

You and the parent comment are in complete agreement. They even said, in the first sentences:

> 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.

And then you said:

> Yes, some people are interested in Ivermectin as a protease inhibitor. But the reason the de-wormer came to prominence in the first place was because some lower quality studies found it has a positive effect on COVID-19 outcomes.

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

#169

Post by phoinix »

tinus_hn wrote: post #120
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#170

Post by alecst »

xadhominemx wrote: post #148
alecst wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first paragraph is a wild guess. There’s no reason having parasites should make Covid-19 more severe, and many human parasites do not even multiply inside the body during their life cycle. In fact there’s even a paper floating around showing an anti-correlation between helminth infection and Covid-19 severity. My point being: the “obvious” mechanism of action may not be as obvious as you think.

> There’s no reason having parasites should make Covid-19 more severe That is simply not true. Parasites do have an impact on the immune system and can amplify or reduce response to other pathogens. This is a very well known effect and an important area of study due to the prevalence of parasitic infections in tropical regions.

Yea you're exactly right, and I think you've taken a stronger interpretation from that quoted part than what I intended. My point was that it's too early to jump to conclusions about parasites making Covid-19 more severe. But I do think that, if anything, the data points gently to the opposite conclusion.

> Recent studies have shown that helminth endemic countries showed fewer cases and deaths so far and helminth co-infection might reduce the severity of COVID-19.

from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/iid3.573.

Others:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34861106/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7430705/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33073203/

Post reply on HN