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

201–210 of 348 posts

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

#201

Post by sixothree »

Hallucinaut wrote: post #109
janmarsal wrote: post #81

I don't get it. I don't understand anything about medicine but as far as I know the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID so it's not just some developing countries that use it. I'm from Finland and our national news company even reported about some Finnish pharma companies that developed a nasal spay that could treat COVID. That nasal spray included ivermectin and they said it's such a shame ivermectin has such a…

Because it's emblematic of laymen without understanding of medicine both demanding treatment with no evidence behind it and claiming the establishment NOT providing it is evidence of some vast, many-tentacled conspiracy. However, one of your comments shows the true problem. It's not FOR the media to decide. Murdoch may disagree but the media is just reflecting the establishment. You can argue about the effectiveness…

The worst part of this is that we _know_ how to prevent covid. But the people insisting on their right to use ivermectin were the same people insisting they needed to take zero personal responsibility to prevent themselves from getting covid in the first place.

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

#202

Post by Loughla »

_ea1k wrote: post #147
Loughla wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its less that MSM called the human, prescribed version "horse medicine" and more that people were actually taking horse medicine as a "preventative". In my part of flyover country, you had to provide evidence, from a veterinarian or a sale bill from an auction house, that you owned livestock to be able to buy livestock ivermectin. Because people were buying it to use on themselves. That's where the 'horse med…

Those rules have been common in a lot of places in the US for a long time now. They were made to prevent people from using them on dogs, as livestock ivermectin is much less expensive than the various forms that are marketed for dogs.

Not really.

Because people were eating ivermectin. Like the other poster says, I know it feels nice to be able to say "this was already happening", but it just wasn't. Not in as many places and covering as many businesses.

Veterinarians generally needed proof of livestock (seeing the animal) but also were just as prone to give you the meds based on your description and assessment as a farmer. Not anymore. You could walk into any farm store and walk out with antibiotics and/or wormer. Not anymore.

And it's because people were eating it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the reason.

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

#203

Post by a_shovel »

snidane wrote: post #43

While the ivermectin story is largely explained by the confounding factor of parasite presence in developing countries, it indirectly helped covid patients by curing them of other problems and thus reducing the potence of covid. Not so much in the developed countries since the parasite problem was small. Concerning though, was the society's attitude to the Ivermectin, an safe drug prescribed by WHO in Africa en masse…

> Who would have though that Vladimir Putin would become the world's most successful doctor and cure the world of the pandemic overnight.

I remember when people were saying this about the George Floyd protests, to make the point that it was all media fearmongering over nothing and we'd all forget about covid in a month.

Now we're two years in and approaching 1 million deaths from covid in America alone. So that plan didn't work out.

> an experimental vaccine-like treatment

This is a very strange way to describe a vaccine.

The issue with ivermectin is that those saying it should be used along with a vaccine were vastly outnumbered by those saying it should be used instead of a vaccine. And the covid vaccine was absolutely not the only one they objected to.

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

#205

Post by imgabe »

ceejayoz wrote: post #188
imgabe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect. Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. If you’re a layperson and you see that there’s studies published in peer-reviewed journals, bu…

> Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. Sure, and that's why governments around the world employ such people, in significant quantities, to do exactly that, and then tell the media what they've concluded, who help distribute that information to us laypeople . Which i…

That’s not what happened. The media’s responsibility was to accurately communicate that information. Instead what they did was “Lololol horsey drugs! You silly horse people” which was false, and caused the people they needed to convince to dismiss them.

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

#206

Post by brokensegue »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #22
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…

What you're saying is a theory. It's a good theory but youre technically spouting misinformation by claiming it's hard fact. This theory was developed by Scott Alexander from SSC in his ivermectin blog post. Joe Rogan never claimed anyone should take medical advice from him. He had Sanjay Gupta and Robert Malone both medical doctors with differing opinions. This is how the media is supposed to work. It's not supposed…

SSC is not the progenitor of this theory

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

#207

Post by SamBam »

gadders wrote: post #162
eightysixfour wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The misunderstandings around this drug also stem from the fact that its detractors were unhinged and anti-scientific. They were dismissing a large, obvious statistical effect without any argument. No. The extreme pushback started after higher quality studies came out that showed there was no effect and those swayed by the initial Brazilian data wouldn’t let it go. For some segment of the population it became a magi…

No. The extreme pushback started when Donald Trump mentioned it.

I think that's right but not complete.

I think the biggest pushback came from the notion that a large segment of the population appeared to be against the scientific consensus on Covid, contemptuous about risk mitigation strategies, skeptical/fear-mongering about the vaccines, and pushing conspiracy theories, and then these were the who turned around and said there's a great drug that works miracles against Covid and the government doesn't want you to have it.

Now, this may not be an accurate representation of all those who were talking about ivermectin, but they were the most prominent voices -- the "do your research" types.

The bias that this produced in others against even considering ivermectin was strictly irrational, of course, since it was against the sources and not about studies, but, that said, many of these same people had been pushing hydroxychloroquine, massive vitamins C injections, and urine therapy, all without evidence. The underlying desire for ivermectin to be real seemed (at least from the outside) to stem more from discovering some cheap secret weapon that "the scientific community" didn't want them to know about.

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

#208

Post by brokensegue »

LanceH wrote: post #199
acdha wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

People were literally taking formulations of the drug meant for horses.

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

#209

Post by sixothree »

janmarsal wrote: post #152
jeroenhd wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger was not that the medicine itself, but the fact that it was a) unproven to have any effect, b) often taken in horse doses causing nasty side effects (because horse medicine if often good enough for human consumption, even if it's not held to the same standard) and above all c) seen as an alternative to proper measures like vaccination, masks, the whole ordeal. It's a pretty good way to get rid of parasites,…

https://yle.fi/news/3-11946611 ^ Okay so if "a)" is true then are these nasal spray companies full of shit or what? The part "b)" about horse dewormer overdoses have been confirmed to be fake news long ago so I think don't need to dwell on that too much. I still don't know whether ivermectin is effective or not though. If it's not then I still don't understand what's the big deal. Why does it have to be smeared so ha…

You tried very hard to ignore the points he was making.

> Why should vaccination be the only acceptable way to treat COVID

It's not a treatment. Vaccines are prevention. We have treatments. Ivermectin isn't one of them.

> In science we need opposing views

That sounds so childish. We don't need "views" in science. We need results that people can trust.

You have my permission to try and prove ivermectin is effective. So far everyone trying has failed. That's not a view. It's fact.

> trying to cure seasonal flu with vaccine is silly

It's not. We can get rid of seasonal flu if we try hard enough.

> To me it seems like the vaccine fundamentalists are more interested in obedience than science.

"vaccine fundamentalists" suggests to me a complete disingenuous argument.

We know how to prevent covid. We know how to eradicate covid. We have watched countries do just that. Even if we don't do the things those places do, we can reduce the death count here.

But with small-minded attitudes like yours, that simply is never going to happen.

Post reply on HN