Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 493 posts

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#191

Post by walterbell »

defaultprimate wrote: post #157

Studies are irrelevant at this point, when we have population level data of over a billion people across India and Africa, and the massive disparities between states/countries that utilized Ivermectin, and those that did not. The drug is safe enough to be used based on this data alone. https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-iv... https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/indias-ivermec... https…

At this point, news articles should include a bar chart for health interventions, including a three year projection of vendor revenue, tax costs, quality-adjusted life years, societal collateral damage, and risks based on prior usage.

When one option has billions of revenue at stake, investors will pay for more/focused studies vs an option to reuse low-cost generics. Unfortunately, or fortunately, desperate humans have skipped trials of both vaccines and early treatments, so there is data on both.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#192

Post by chana_masala »

ashtonkem wrote: post #165
dionian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, retract all the meta-analyses you want, but never dismiss actual front line results by physicians. If you have a regimen with zero deaths for a disease, I don't think we should be suppressing their clinical data. What a world...

“Zero deaths” should have set off your alarm bells. That’s way too neat of a number for the real world; you only get that kind of result with small sample sizes or fraud. Even the vaccines, which are very effective, do not have a 0% death rate from infection.

Officially the FDA and CDC say there have been 0 deaths from adverse events. I agree, that's way too neat of a number for the real world.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#193

Post by dhimes »

swader999 wrote: post #173
brandonmenc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are literally taking horse formulations of ivermectin People are taking the horse formulation because most pharmacists won't even fill an off-label prescription for the drug, which - even if it has no effect on COVID - is safe and taken by a quarter billion people every year. Let people take it. It's not harmful. Or, make a big huge deal about people taking it and, well, then it becomes a big huge deal.

Ivermectin from horse paste cleared up all of my long covid symptoms except for lung inflammation which prednisone fixed after the ivm. Pretty incredible. Felt better after a few hours and after each subsequent daily dose of five total. A lot of the studies don't seem to be using enough doses or they use too low of a dose. I was at .06g/kg body weight per dose. Also you need to take it with zinq!

Did you self-medicate, or were you under the direction of a medical doctor?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#194

Post by walterbell »

mikeyouse wrote: post #42
_2d30 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are literally no studies proving that the Pfizer or Moderna gene therapies are safe and effective, or even that they are safe or effective, at both treating and preventing the spread of COVID-19. This is... wildly incorrect.

Calling them gene therapies too.. wow. I hope the more science-literate proponents of IVM can appreciate how much it harms their case for the vast majority of IVM advocates to be this loud and wrong..

Non-sterilizing mRNA vaccines are biologics, which have separate regulations and distinct intellectual property protections in national laws and international trade treaties.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#195

Post by rualca »

tootie wrote: post #180
rory wrote: post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

On The Media did a really good segment with a journalist from Mother Jones of all places. She broke down the rise of Ivermectin and the whiplash response to demonize it even when, as you say, it is safe for human consumption and had at least some positive in vitro test results. As much as it is not worthy of being recommended as a treatment, it's unlikely to be harmful and has/had at least a slim chance of working. h…

> As much as it is not worthy of being recommended as a treatment, it's unlikely to be harmful and has/had at least a slim chance of working.

Keep in mind that Ivermectin is being pushed within antivaxers circles as a prophylactic and the true COVID-19 cure, in contrast with all COVID-19 vaccines and even mask mandates.

Thus it's false to claim that this push towards Ivermectin is harmless as, at best, it's pushed as a placebo that empowers vulnerable people to catch and spread the disease, which ultimately means they are harming themselves and everyone around them.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#196

Post by angelzen »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #146
brandonmenc wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this is for the patient and their doctor to decide. Not the pharmacist. Not the FDA.

They're [often] using the horse formulation because their doctor said no .

This is such a hypothetical. How many people got ivermectin against their doctor prescription, and how many got adverse effects from that? 1 in 100M?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#197

Post by rscho »

Spellman wrote: post #90
gwerbret wrote: post #44

I'm going to make what is probably a controversial statement, which is that, in my experience, most meta-analyses are trash. A meta-analysis is usually grounded on the assumption that an aggregation of multiple, well-conducted studies can provide significant information that may not be evident by taking each study individually. Essential to this assumption is the premise that those studies included in the meta-analys…

Meta-analysis have a good place. But they also have known flaws/assumptions. Often it is impractical to perform large studies. Partially by logistics and often by funding. But if there are lots of smaller studies you can aggregate the data to check for overall significant results. But mainly they are helpful to give a "survey" of the current research instead of having to link to 10 different studies and hope someone…

I've published (and still am publishing) multiple meta analyses. IMO,meta analysis on aggregate data is an h-index gaming machine that can never increase the value of its constituents. The amount of missing info in aggregate data is such that it's _always_ impossible to know if the constituent studies really draw from the same population, which is the cornerstone of meta analysis. And that's very practical, because most authors (myself included) mainly use meta analysis as a means to build a career, and not at all for doing science. IMO, current clinical research has very little science left in it. That's a huge shame, and it's a real priority to make that change!

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#198

Post by rory »

simpleguitar wrote: post #166
rory wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but just because the two are on opposite sides of the culture war doesn't mean they're medically mutually exclusive.

Actually, it does. The only reason one would be taking iver prophylactically, is because one wasn't vaccinated. And the only reason to take iver after covid symptoms develop is because you didn't take the vaccine. If one was vaccinated and are feeling sick enough to take iver, she would be better off with oxygen and hospital SOC.

It seems like you're just saying you don't believe ivermectin works? That's fine and likely correct, but logically it's completely unrelated to its mutual exclusivity to the vaccine.

For instance, if you get tetanus after having the vaccine, you'll still be given antibiotics. If someday ivermectin is proven to have a positive effect against Covid, we won't withhold it from vaccinated patients.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#199

Post by gonational »

mikeyouse wrote: post #97
gonational wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed, but instead only expressed to create the therapeutic effect. But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? I hop…

> You're going to tell me that it's "science illiterate" to consider mRNA therapy as gene therapy, because the genes are not actually changed .. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Read your sentence back to yourself. > But it is "scientifically literate" to call such a therapy a "vaccine"? Yes. Of course it is. Regardless of what the copy on some obscure CDC website says, mRNA vaccines have been in development for…

> Regardless of what the copy on some obscure CDC website says

Read that, out loud...

All you need to do is set your search parameters to filter out items from the past 24 months.

https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therape...

There are thousands more.

SMH... short memory span is the worst part of the human condition.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#200

Post by dhimes »

titzer wrote: post #185
ashtonkem wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The corruption of the news media is in their choice to mock and literally laugh at people sick from veterinary iver because kicking the out-group is popular with their audience (read $$). They do this instead of explaining (in a meaningful way) how we got here, and what steps we can take to make the situation better. The idea that this is somehow the media’s fault for not being sufficiently patient and understandin…

It's just more blame game. Who you blame is who you hate. Racists blame black people for being poor, anti-abortion activists blame women for being "promiscuous", coastals blame red staters for being stupid backwoods yokels, red staters blame ivy tower socialists or immigrants, liberals blame rich people, socialists blame corporations, conservatives blame government, Islamic terrorists blame the great Satan, on and on…

...And: What you hate tends to be what you don't understand. Also since forever.
Post reply on HN