Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by twofornone » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

The premature smear of potentially effective medications like HCQ and Ivermectin by scientifically illiterate media is unforgivable. Especially in the case of Ivermectin, given that it has one of the most benign safety profiles of any known drug.

There is no excuse. There should have been federally funded widespread trials a year ago, there is no downside. Instead you now have hospitals forbidding off label prescription with threats of termination. None of it makes any sense; people are treating science as though it were a religion, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccines as some sort of core, unquestionable tenet, complete with shaming and excommunication for nonbelievers.

All over a virus which has a complication rate on par with a moderate flu year.

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

#22

Post by lez » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

Looking at the greyed out comments it seems HN is not pro, but against scientific debate. Questioning science IS part of the scientific method.

https://c19ivermectin.com/ is a very adequate counter-argument to the article, and it's unfair to the whole scientific community that comments are greyed out that mention it.

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

#23

Post by lez » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #15

How does the current field of studies compare to Remdesivir? Remdesivir is a repurposed antiviral (originally designed for Ebola) with fairly low efficacy, and very severe side effects, and it breezed through FDA emergency authorization. I don't understand why it seems that the bar is set so low for Remdesivir, but so high for Ivermectin.

And even lower for the vaccines.

Ivermectin has been used with marginal side effects, since decades.

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

#24

Post by sjg007 » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #15

How does the current field of studies compare to Remdesivir? Remdesivir is a repurposed antiviral (originally designed for Ebola) with fairly low efficacy, and very severe side effects, and it breezed through FDA emergency authorization. I don't understand why it seems that the bar is set so low for Remdesivir, but so high for Ivermectin.

Are you sure about that? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764

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

#25

Post by rory » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

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 sick.

And maybe it does help, I don't know. Unproven != disproven.

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

#26

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

The other takeaway is that preprint publication is a pathway ripe for abuse. The major paper that drove most of this situation, and the meta analysis, appears to have been a straight up fraud. But it got circulated a lot as a preprint to people who didn’t understand the difference between a preprint and a peer reviewed paper. If the preprint had been more private, this might have been averted.

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

#27

Post by _2d30 » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

gonational wrote: post #9

Because there are so many studies of ivermectin and because it is so widely used, of course there are going to be bunk studies and scientifically invalid studies. Do you know how I know this? I know this because it was recently shown (within the past ten years) that something like 70% of scientific studies can't be reproduced (read: they're BS). So if were going to use scientific studies at all, to inform our decisio…

> 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.

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

#28

Post by tptacek » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

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…

It matters a lot if ivermectin doesn't do anything to stop C19, even if it is otherwise safe (it surely is, dosed professionally). People take ivermectin instead of vaccinating or complying with NPIs. If ivermectin doesn't work, that is a very, very big deal.

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

#29

Post by simonh » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #15

How does the current field of studies compare to Remdesivir? Remdesivir is a repurposed antiviral (originally designed for Ebola) with fairly low efficacy, and very severe side effects, and it breezed through FDA emergency authorization. I don't understand why it seems that the bar is set so low for Remdesivir, but so high for Ivermectin.

>How does the current field of studies compare to Remdesivir?

Remdesivir has three randomised controlled trials all of which indicate statistically significant effects, and there don't seem to be any credible challenges to these trials results. Currently given the concerns about the irregularities in the data in it's existing trials, Ivermectin has none.

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

#30

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

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…

People are literally taking horse formulations of ivermectin because doctors are rightfully refusing to prescribe ivermectin for an off label and ineffective use.

Oh, and the access to this medicine is “marginalized” BECAUSE IT DOESNT WORK TO TREAT COVID. We generally do not expect doctors to prescribe medicine that will not work or is not appropriate for the patients condition. Complaining about their access being marginalized is like complaining that my doctor is marginalizing my access to Ketamine because I don’t need it.

It’s not “corruption” to point that out.