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

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

cureus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 92 posts

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#21

Post by lambdaba »

ncmncm wrote: post #12

In interpreting this result, one should keep in mind that an active parasite infection produces worse results for respiratory infections of all kinds. Taking ivermectin reduces parasite load. The size and location of the study suggests that reporting of COVID-19 infections was by presentation, meaning asymptomatic or minimal infections were probably not counted. tl;dr: These results will probably not translate well t…

I've seen other similar results, and I don't share this skepticism. I can't find the exact study, but here's one on hospital staff in Argentina: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807-prophylactic-role-of-i...

I just don't see how parasites would explain all these results. I do see how monetary incentives would play into maligning them though.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#22

Post by coding123 »

supperburg wrote: post #16
coding123 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't think HN will ban accounts for that. They ban accounts for being mean or starting flamewars. Being republican is NOT a reason for bans here.

Quoted post unavailable.

I post republican views all the time and have been moderated very rarely.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#23

Post by lambdaba »

goda90 wrote: post #17
supperburg wrote: post #9

Quoted post unavailable.

Pre-infection prophylaxis is not the same as treatment for infection. That's where a large number of people had things wrong.

All the big proponents of Ivermectin I've seen always insisted on the importance of early treatment. I feel like the "anti" crowd purposely insisted on the null results in other situations.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#24

Post by rsfern »

For context, this journal uses crowd sourced open peer review, which is an interesting concept.

There’s one review, and it’s (IMO) not substantive. I would treat this as a preprint basically (not that you shouldn’t read peer reviewed studies critically either)

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#26

Post by supperburg »

ncmncm wrote: post #14
tinus_hn wrote: post #11

Interesting. It’s not double blind and I’m not sure how practical this is but it does cast a lot of doubt on the conclusion that ivermectin doesn’t do anything unless the dose is lethal.

Ivermectin affects parasite load, and parasite load affects outcomes of acute respiratory infection. The effect size is smaller than from wearing a good mask.

Parasites double your chances of getting severe Covid? Shouldn’t people be taking it anyway then, as well as wearing a mask?

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#27

Post by tinus_hn »

ncmncm wrote: post #14
tinus_hn wrote: post #11

Interesting. It’s not double blind and I’m not sure how practical this is but it does cast a lot of doubt on the conclusion that ivermectin doesn’t do anything unless the dose is lethal.

Ivermectin affects parasite load, and parasite load affects outcomes of acute respiratory infection. The effect size is smaller than from wearing a good mask.

This is a completely nonsensical dismissal unless you want to claim the outcome for people who actually get ill is different for those who wore masks versus those who didn’t.

And be sure to keep in mind that the vast majority of infections occur at home where I sincerely doubt people are wearing masks.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#28

Post by mullingitover »

supperburg wrote: post #16
coding123 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't think HN will ban accounts for that. They ban accounts for being mean or starting flamewars. Being republican is NOT a reason for bans here.

Quoted post unavailable.

What ideas in particular have you found are unfairly flagged to oblivion on HN?

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#29

Post by lambdaba »

ncmncm wrote: post #14
tinus_hn wrote: post #11

Interesting. It’s not double blind and I’m not sure how practical this is but it does cast a lot of doubt on the conclusion that ivermectin doesn’t do anything unless the dose is lethal.

Ivermectin affects parasite load, and parasite load affects outcomes of acute respiratory infection. The effect size is smaller than from wearing a good mask.

Could you share a link to such a debunking? I could search, but you probably have one that you find most convincing.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#30

Post by lambdaba »

supperburg wrote: post #26
ncmncm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin affects parasite load, and parasite load affects outcomes of acute respiratory infection. The effect size is smaller than from wearing a good mask.

Parasites double your chances of getting severe Covid? Shouldn’t people be taking it anyway then, as well as wearing a mask?

Right? Ivermectin is reportedly extremely safe at normal doses, and parasites are an issue everywhere I would think, to an extent. Why not advocate for screening for parasites if getting rid of them has such a dramatic effect?
Post reply on HN