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

191–200 of 348 posts

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

#191

Post by xadhominemx »

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…

Alternatives to vaccination are not a bad thing per se, for the reasons you point out.

But pitching Ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination is bad because Ivermectin does not work and the vaccines work very well.

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

#192

Post by darthparker »

maskil wrote: post #134

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 b…

You're suggesting the drug companies are manipulating trials in order to _not sell_ a drug?

That doesn't sound like any drug company in America.

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

#193

Post by toolz »

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…

Please don't state your speculation as an understood fact - afaik there is no published literature that has controlled for parasites and I know the article from scott alexander you're referencing here as he was the one who came up with the hypothesis.

Let's not act like the parasite idea is more than an untested hypothesis though.

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

#194

Post by pavlov »

StreamBright wrote: post #82
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

> started buying the horse version of the drug FYI there is no horse version of drugs. It would be a logistics and production nightmare to produce two kind of medicine like that. If a medicine has a chemical compound (like for example Amoxicillin) then it is good for both your fish and for you generally speaking.

Veterinary drugs are separate products with a different FDA approval pipeline.

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

#195

Post by Graffur »

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.

This part of your post is confusing. Your conclusion and the conclusion promoted on the JRE are the same.

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

#196

Post by mikeyouse »

enchiridion wrote: post #125
aczerepinski wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic. Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true. I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted show…

Listening to Joe Rogan corresponded to a halving of vaccination rate in those people and his idiotic breed of “both sides” literally got people killed. But glad we avoided something “cataclysmic” like more vaccination. These are the most naive arguments I could imagine. It’s certainly not important to platform a bunch of conspiracy riddled garbage.

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

#197

Post by brokensegue »

moistofreason wrote: post #156
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's safe doesn't mean they should hand it out like candy to anyone who wants it.

They aren’t… they are refusing to fill prescriptions, you know, written by doctors.

Prescriptions which we know now would've been useless...

And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless

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

#198

Post by evan_ »

conradfr wrote: post #165
xadhominemx wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Scabies is caused by a parasitic mite. This example likely supports the “parasite” theory.

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

#199

Post by LanceH »

acdha wrote: post #99
imgabe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that didn’t really happen. The article you linked is a 404 Obviously they didn’t use those exact words, but any time it was mentioned they were sure to include something like “…which is used to treat livestock…”, when that is not really relevant since it’s also widely used for people.

You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but there were plenty of people buying it from veterinary suppliers and reselling it online. Denying that is not a good way to establish credibility.

Then you say, "Ivermectin is also used in a veterinarian capacity at concentration levels dangerous to humans."

But the media chose the sensational way of saying it. It was also frequently dismissed entirely as being for horses without reference to concentration levels or what it actually does.

> You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen

You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but the media and your side isn't right just because the other side is wrong.

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

#200

Post by unclebucknasty »

moistofreason wrote: post #143
baumandm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it's click-bait, but people were actually taking livestock versions of Ivermectin, in paste form. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/23/covid-...

Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions for off-label use of IVM, due to the media freak out about it… Some people decided to go to farm supply stores and take the sterile bovine injectable form of IVM orally. This whole situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug. It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 4…

>Many major pharmacies in the US refused to fill prescriptions

Many doctors also refused to write prescriptions for patients who requested a drug for which there was no reliable evidence. Seems a responsible position when there are other approved treatments available.

>but its safety is not disputable

It's not just a question of safety, but efficacy.

>situation would not have happened if social media, YouTube, and major news outlets didn’t make such a stink about using a drug.

The rabid disinformation and conspiracy theories around COVID played the primary role. From anti-vaccine conspiracies to hydrochloroquine to ivermectin to the full on politicization of what should have been strictly a public health crisis.

There was a deliberate sowing of mistrust in government and public health agencies/officials, which led to a wave of aggressive anti-science sentiment and a somewhat bizarre willingness for many to try anything except approved treatments.

That was the biggest "stink". It's against this backdrop that doctors/pharmacies had to make decisions about whether to grant prescriptions for unproven treatments.

Post reply on HN