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

171–180 of 348 posts

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

#171

Post by mikeyouse »

bananabiscuit wrote: post #142
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…

I think it’s interesting how quick everyone is to use 3rd world parasites hypothesis to explain away promising ivermectin results. It’s a valid hypothesis for sure, but should be tested with as much rigor as you demand the hypothesis that ivermectin is helpful against covid is tested. On that front I think it is not totally plausible that parasites explain these discrepancies. Here is a large study in the United Stat…

Even the authors of that study disagree with your characterization of it - it’s a conference abstract about an association (not causal relationship) with a ton of confounders and couldn’t weigh things like vaccination status.

> Moreover, both Efimenko and Nackeeran also told Reuters that other evidence available so far clearly refutes the benefits of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by tootie »

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 this kind of take is really unfair and inaccurate. You can't ascribe any sort of misdeeds to "The Media" when that's a sweeping generalization of thousands of not just journalists, but commenters, comedians and assorted cranks.

The MSM was mostly fair and accurate in their reporting. "Horse paste" was mostly a meme or a joke. The NY Times and CNN didn't make jokes about horse paste. The CDC and similar orgs all gave accurate explainers of the use and misuse of Ivermectin (and Hydroxychloroquine).

While a lot of right-wing media like FOX and OAN was absolutely endorsing it. Here's a good one where Tucker Carlson has an Ivermectin booster on his show but apparently conflates it with Hydroxychloroquine.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biologist-tucker-ivermectin-ef...

Not to mention the former president spreading absolute nonsense about HCQ, disinfectant, UV light and whatever else popped up in his twitter feed. This inspired a lot of clapbacks from satirists and unserious opinionators, but you wouldn't see any real news being that sarcastic.

If you had stuck with left-leaning and moderate MSM, traditional news sources during these past few years you would have been very well informed.

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

#174

Post by gadders »

headsoup wrote: post #67
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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…

Not to mention Frances Oldham Kelsey and thalidomide. She'd be slated as anti-science on CNN etc today for sure.

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

#175

Post by jcranmer »

tinus_hn wrote: post #154
NoraCodes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who would have though that Vladimir Putin would become the world's most successful doctor and cure the world of the pandemic overnight. Please, don't leave us hanging - i want to hear the rest! I wonder if your novel might be better suited for AO3 or FanFiction.net, though?

If you want to hear the rest just watch the news, it’s ongoing. Perhaps it didn’t happen the same everywhere but in a lot of countries it was out with the old COVID and in with the new Ukraine war.

On all of the news sites I follow, COVID is still covered as a major section with multiple news articles daily.

It's just that, well, 2 years in, and "an Nth wave of COVID might be coming" is rather less newsworthy than "is the ongoing invasion of Ukraine going to lead to WW3?"

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by patwolf »

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.

To be fair, it wasn't necessarily easy to get Ivermectin in human form. The CDC and FDA both came out strongly against doctors prescribing it for COVID, and some health system wouldn't allow doctors to prescribe it or pharmacies to fill prescriptions.

Hard to blame people for taking the horse version if that's all they could get. Also hard to blame pharmacies for not wanting to give out medicine that doesn't work, although pharmacies seem more than happy to sell other kinds of snake oil.

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

#178

Post by jjoonathan »

criticaltinker wrote: post #136
bonIvermectin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

Translation: "this shit is completely fucking hopeless."

Multi-drug combination treatments are where studies of ineffective treatments go to die. "X didn't work, but maybe X+Y or X+Z will" is one of those low-quality ever-present followup leads I was talking about in the sibling post. To a researcher, seeing attention shift to combination treatments means that the primary hypothesis failed and people are throwing Hail Marys. It's not impossible that one of them will work, and that's why nobody will actually publish a paper saying "this shit is completely fucking hopeless," but in a situation where this shit really was completely fucking hopeless I would expect to see exactly this: a couple of positive "hail mary" results that squeak over the significance threshold with low N and low effect size.

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

#179

Post by bena »

janmarsal wrote: post #160
xadhominemx wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why is an alternative to vaccination a bad thing exactly? I'm vaccinated and I'm certainly not against vaccines per se, but when they're talking about 4th booster shot then to me it only indicates that maybe vaccines wasn't the right way to treat this pandemic. Why is this such a a dangerous thought? Why should I accept vaccines as the only way forward? That's probably my biggest question here. Almost make me feel li…

First, many vaccines come in many rounds. Hell, there's an annual flu shot.

Second, a viable alternative to vaccination wouldn't be a bad thing. But Ivermectin is not that. So suggesting that it is is a bad thing.

And no one is suggesting you accept vaccines as "the only way forward". Pfizer is developing a treatment for after you've caught COVID. Work is being done in that direction. Currently, vaccines are your best safety measure. That's been borne out by the data available. Any way you look at it.

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

#180

Post by pjkundert »

acdha wrote: post #157
cersa8 wrote: post #84

Isn't Ivermectin most effective at the onset of symptoms [0] ? From the article "They looked at data from all patients; then analyzed data from patients who received ivermectin or a placebo 24 hours before they were hospitalized" This sounds like Ivermectin was given when symptoms where so severe, hospitalization was required. This could well be too late for Ivermectin to be effective. [0] https://www.ijidonline.com/…

No. Ivermectin has not proven effective at any point.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN