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

221–230 of 348 posts

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

#221

Post by the_af »

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…

> 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

Can you elaborate? Why does the number of booster shots tell you anything about the right way to treat this pandemic? I honestly don't follow.

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

#222

Post by Alex3917 »

logicalmonster wrote: post #217
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…

I think jiggawatts came up with a reasonable overall summary on Ivermectic's known effectiveness with the information we have available. What I think is baffling is why there was such resistance to even trying Ivermectin and other alternatives in the first place? I'm not talking about after Joe Rogan used it here, I'm talking about well before he said he used it and there were some initial reports from some Indian an…

> Sick and dying people wanted to try this out and were shut down.

If they were severely sick or dying, it would already be far too late for an anti-viral to do anything.

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

#223

Post by the_af »

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…

> My whole life I was taught that trying to cure seasonal flu with vaccine is silly because the flu mutates too fast and it just leads to an endless loop of seasonal vaccines.

You've been taught wrong. First, the vaccines don't "cure" flu and nobody claims they do. Second, in many countries they are recommended yearly for people at risk, like elderly people.

It's true flu has newer strains each year and the vaccine must be changed, but the rest of what you were taught was not correct.

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

#224

Post by topaz0 »

gatlin wrote: post #100
thurn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.

Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...

I think the linked piece makes an important point, but I disagree that that point is relevant here. "Your argument pattern-matches to tu quoque" is probably an unhelpful thing to say, but what GP says is more like: "Your points about other people are not relevant to the discussion we were having out this one person, and therefore are unhelpful. This pattern of bad argument is sometimes known as tu quoque." Seems fine to me.

Edit to add: not sure if I am alone in this, but I also disagree with the author's characterization that the purpose of thinking about fallacies is to understand how people come to wrong conclusions. I think it has much more to do with the structure of an argument. It's not "you have come to this wrong conclusion by treating this fallacy as a good argument". It's more like "you believe this for whatever personal reasons you might have. You are trying to convince me to believe it as well, but you are failing to do so because your argument is not valid". I.e. it is more about the rhetoric than it is about coming to wrong beliefs in the first place.

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

#225

Post by headsoup »

civilized wrote: post #211
headsoup wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the sci…

You can make a long list of times outsiders were right and the establishment was wrong. You can also make a long list of times outsiders were wrong and the establishment was right. Why would you mention only one list and not the other? Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind? You're playing yourself for a fool.

No. It's not about sides. It's about listening to a range of views. I'm talking about 'only' one list because that was the topic.

People gotta stop with this whole "you're either with the science or against it" rubbish. Be adults, inform yourself and make decisions. Don't just let media, politicians or fringe dwellers define your 'label' for you.

Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for paternalism and externalise your responsibility.

You're playing yourself the fool by thinking this is just a game of being on the winning team.

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

#226

Post by the_af »

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…

> It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training.

This is a trend I've observed in proponents of New Age alternative "medicine", way before COVID. They can simultaneously believe that Western medicine is "unproven" or a "hoax", and that doctors are "untrustworthy" and "big pharma" wants you to buy unproven stuff, and no amount of qualifications will convince them. Yet they have no trouble believing Bach flower remedies will cure anything, they follow homeopathy religiously, and it's enough evidence that some healer is the real deal because they heard someone at the grocery store say so and she seemed like such a nice person. Or some TV celebrity said so, and why would he lie?

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

#227

Post by loceng »

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…

Do you think it's possible you're arrogant, along with biased only presented with information that fits the narrative you've been conditioned to, and so that you're more in the layperson group than not?

For example, this article mentioning the research immediately should have a red flag for anyone that knows what the actual protocols that work/are being used for Ivermectin as 1) a preventative are, and 2) different protocol in hospital treatment - the moment you read that this trial only provided 3 days of Ivermectin once having symptoms (and where everyone involved has severe comorbidities - so improper protocol followed, inadequate dosing of Ivermectin will result in the worst outcome/non-effectiveness signal possible).

You think established protocol has been adequately applied or applied with integrity when it comes to the mRNA injections? Do you also think there's zero chance of influence or manipulation by for-profit medical industrial complex? Honest questions.

Edit to add: Ah yes, the lazy-dopamine rewarding downvote instead of engaging in discussion and critical thinking - the ideologues' wet dream and downfall of an intellectually evolving society.

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

#228

Post by pibechorro »

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…

Nor should you from any politically influenced or funded talking head. Unfortunately, the whole thing became political when lockdowns, forced vaccines and massive tax funding (and legal immunity) where given to historically sketchy pharma companies. Thankfully, we have this forum for intelligent discussion without the rampant censorship we saw on more mainstream platforms.

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

#229

Post by logicalmonster »

Alex3917 wrote: post #222
logicalmonster wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think jiggawatts came up with a reasonable overall summary on Ivermectic's known effectiveness with the information we have available. What I think is baffling is why there was such resistance to even trying Ivermectin and other alternatives in the first place? I'm not talking about after Joe Rogan used it here, I'm talking about well before he said he used it and there were some initial reports from some Indian an…

> Sick and dying people wanted to try this out and were shut down. If they were severely sick or dying, it would already be far too late for an anti-viral to do anything.

Most likely this is the case for many of the sick people, but it's the reasonable and human thing to still try and give people the best possible chance.

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

#230

Post by marcosdumay »

xadhominemx wrote: post #116
prohobo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the effect they're trying to test. Yes, ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and yes that's probably why there's anecdotal evidence of it working. The reason people are testing it is because it has potential anti-viral properties as well. Researchers discovered that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor - which means it can prevent viral replication when it comes to Covid. The problem, from what I understand, is…

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…

> The most famous study in this collection came out of Brazil.

The famous study done in Brazil was a fraudulent one, without authorization from the public health agency, where the patients that took Ivermectin had a 2 to 3 times higher mortality rate (very likely due to unrelated issues), but the numbers were cooked to make the drug look useful. That's the one with thousands of people that registered an effect.

There is also another one, with dozens of people that got an week effect. This one is most likely spurious.

Post reply on HN