Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin • Hacker News Board

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#191

Post by kergonath » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

choward wrote: post #166

tomnipotent wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dumb culture war politicization of it Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something. These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.

You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. No evidence doesn't guarantee something isn't true. In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still…

> By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are.

There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence.

A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#192

Post by kergonath » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #89

cbg0 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ivermectin is being prescribed off-label for Covid-19 by tens of thousands of doctors nationwide. [Citation needed] Also, for those that are prescribing it, this is not an FDA approved treatment for Covid.

Nor were covid vaccines until recently.

Yes they were. They had an emergency use authorisation, which is more than you can say about the current bullshit silver bullet.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#193

Post by belltaco » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #124

devwastaken wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The announcement is for people with basic reasoning skills, not for those that take drugs based on Facebook posts. Ivermectin, like many drugs, is used for various things. COVID is not one of them, and those pushing it have no expertise to understand the medical studies, nor are they interested in doing a comprehensive evaluation. Yet again, actual experts aren't on the playing field, it's talking heads and hired deg…

What’s the difference between those that take drugs based on Facebook posts and those who take drugs based on TV adverts?

You cannot make medical claims without FDA approval on TV.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#194

Post by belltaco » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

AndrewBissell wrote: post #101

tomnipotent wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are plenty of shitty incompetent doctors like there are with any other profession. Did these same doctors not contribute to the opioid crisis? Can every programmer understand every whitepaper and implement what they read?

The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it. I'm not a Bill Maher fan but he made a good point when he said "ivermectin isn't a registered Republican, it's a drug." Maybe it doesn't actually work (unlike so many on the other side of this issue I am at least willing to g…

>The only reason you think it's inherently shitty and incompetent for a doctor to prescribe ivermectin off-label for Covid is because you've bought into the dumb culture war politicization of it

Right wing politicians and right wing media politicized it to minimize impact of covid on the 2020 election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o

On the other hand democrats and CDC/FDA have been mostly following the real science.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#195

Post by willcipriano » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

littonlamb wrote: post #189

willcipriano wrote: post #72

A interesting observation I had recently was that some people who tend to have views around recreational drugs that can be described "live and let live" are up in arms about ivermectin. I know a guy who uses horse tranquilizers recreationally who posts on Facebook everyday about the "morons who are taking horse medicine". Personally I don't care if you use either, it isn't my body. We are in a age where you no longer…

On the one hand: Some people abusing drugs: - to successfully get high - more or less safely at home On the other: Some people abusing a drug - that doesn't have the effect they're using it for - when there's a better alternative - which is freely available - AND the knock-on effects are harming other people - ODs using up hospital capacity - continued spread of coronavirus I don't see much comparison, nor any contra…

To my read, the arguments you are making are not different from the ones made about marijuana legalization, and medical marijuana.

> that doesn't have the effect they're using it for

Similarly, the FDA claims that marijuana has no legitimate medical use.

> when there's a better alternative

Many people consider alcohol or tobacco to be alternatives to marijuana. Further, all of the conditions treated by marijuana have alternatives for treatment of some kind.

> which is freely available

Alcohol and tobacco are freely available. All of the alternatives to marijuana are available via a prescription.

> AND the knock-on effects are harming other people

Watch Reefer Madness. Take a look around the moral panic where marijuana has been legalized in regards to driving. "Since we can't tell accurately how high someone is, they could get stoned and be a risk to everyone on the highway!". Or what about "You are funding terrorism/organized crime!". I can't also neglect to mention the "think of the children" card that is often played, "If the drug was more available, children might get their hands on it!". If I had chosen a less benign drug at the start of this, I could talk about people overdosing, or the harms of addiction, or people accidently killing themselves while having drug induced hallucinations, and so on and so on.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#196

Post by sixstringninja » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

choward wrote: post #166

tomnipotent wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dumb culture war politicization of it Maybe I'm a fan of science, of which there is NO evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID. It seems like maybe you're the one that bought into something. These doctors are doing nothing more than profiting off the fear of their patients, while offering no value other than what might be argued is a placebo. That doesn't stop these people from infecting others around them.

You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. No evidence doesn't guarantee something isn't true. In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still…

Agreed. I have a friend who is a dr who already says a “hard no” on ivermectin even after I’ve stated that I’m ok being wrong about the issue and I want further investigation. I just don’t want this drug to be politicized but here we are. Full stop, you can’t talk about the drug, etc. I’m just trying to keep an open mind here

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#197

Post by greenhatman » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #165

armagon wrote: post #97

This is so interesting to me. Perhaps what is most interesting is that people seem to have an opinion already and are not willing to change that opinion, and worse that the opinions seem to coincide with political leanings (at least in Canada and the US -- no idea about the rest of the world.) The anti-ivermectin side seems to say: we have vaccines. We don't know if this is good enough until large-scale randomize con…

> . https://c19ivermectin.com says that are 113 studies of using 73 peer reviewed studies, and they all tend to show good results. The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites. So there is a lot of informal involuntary filtration, that hides the the bad result and collect only the good result…

>The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites

Okay, but there are basically no studies showing no or negative effects. Except for ones with massive p-values. You'd think there would at least be a few showing no effect.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#198

Post by gHosts » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

Back in the precovid 3rd world I met people who took very dubious / polluted / rotten stuff as a "purge".

a. The placebo effect is real. A bout of induced vomiting and diarrhea makes whatever you are left with feel less worse than that...

b. They couldn't afford 1st world doctors and medicine anyway.

c. They were desperate.

d. Scoundrels preyed on their desperation.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#199

Post by nkozyra » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

gorwell wrote: post #172

nkozyra wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine? Because, convinced in the absence of evidence, some people are acquiring it by the path of least resistance, which is farm-related retailers. Some ask their doctors. Some of those doctors say sure because it's relatively safe. Others say no because they point out there's scant evidence it's effective. The worst part is people are taking this in lieu of a…

If that was the concern the headlines would say: "Don't confuse horse ivermectin with prescribed ivermectin!" That would be the PSA and approach. But it's not about warning people or any kind of concern about those who foolishly take a horse sized dose. It's about shaming them and pushing the interests of the pharma industry.

People are taking unsubstantiated therapeutics/prophylactics in response to a single YouTube comment but refusing to take the vaccine for ... reasons.

I don't agree that this is shaming but perhaps some is in order.

Re: Doctors and pharmacists ramp up calls for Americans to stop using ivermectin

#200

Post by gus_massa » Sun, Sep 05, 2021, 2:58 AM UTC

greenhatman wrote: post #197

gus_massa wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . https://c19ivermectin.com says that are 113 studies of using 73 peer reviewed studies, and they all tend to show good results. The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites. So there is a lot of informal involuntary filtration, that hides the the bad result and collect only the good result…

>The problem is that studies that show bad results has a lower chance of been written and a lower chance of been published and a lower chance of been collected in the sites Okay, but there are basically no studies showing no or negative effects. Except for ones with massive p-values. You'd think there would at least be a few showing no effect.

Take a look at hcqmeta, specially the RCT parte. You will see:

* A lot of small trials that are perhaps not even statically significant and show some positive effect.

* A few very large trials that show essentially no effect.

Very small trials are easy to organize, and if it fails people gets disappointed and forget to write it down, or the journal reject it because it shows (almost) no effect. So there is a lot of filtration.

Very large trials are difficult to organize, so they must publish the final result somewhere to ensure they can fill all paperwork. Also it's large enough to be interesting for the journal. So there is less filtration.