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

231–240 of 348 posts

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

#231

Post by tux1968 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #181
moistofreason wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, you're saying that every one (or at least the majority) of those people who tried to buy the livestock version had valid prescriptions and it was only the pharmacists standing in the way of the legitimate medical use?

It became well known that getting it in a legitimate way wasn't possible, so those who were determined to get it, didn't even bother trying. If it was well known that you could get it by seeing your doctor, people would have gone that route, since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional.

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

#232

Post by michaelgrosner2 »

jmull wrote: post #89
imgabe wrote: post #36

The whole Ivermectin debacle was ridiculous. I never had Covid. Or if I did, it was so mild I never noticed. So, I really have no dog in this fight. But the way the media handled this coverage was really, really off-putting. First, if it doesn't work, just say that. "It doesn't work". "Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for Covid". That's all that was really necessary, right? But no, there was this whole ridicu…

Surely the people pushing conspiracy theories about the pandemic are a bigger concern than the subset of media that weren't effectively dispelling those conspiracy theories? It really doesn't make sense to collectively blame "the media" because some of them say silly or incorrect things sometimes. The word itself -- a plural -- tells you there isn't a cohesive "the media" to blame anyway. Who are you actually talking…

Anyone blaming "the media" automatically gets an eyeroll from me these days. It's really the laziest form of criticism available. People desperately want there to be some left-leaning media consensus that they can bash but in reality usually the person criticizing hasn't been personally spoon fed the information that they are arguing against. The biggest media outlets by industry include Fox News for TV, Joe Rogan for podcasting, Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino for text media according to Facebook so no there is no monolithic left leaning "media" consensus.

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

#233

Post by tinus_hn »

jcranmer wrote: post #175
tinus_hn wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to hear the rest just watch the news, it’s ongoing. Perhaps it didn’t happen the same everywhere but in a lot of countries it was out with the old COVID and in with the new Ukraine war.

On all of the news sites I follow, COVID is still covered as a major section with multiple news articles daily. It's just that, well, 2 years in, and "an Nth wave of COVID might be coming" is rather less newsworthy than "is the ongoing invasion of Ukraine going to lead to WW3?"

Its probably dependent on location, both in how much the Ukraine war affects that area and in how much it is feasible to ignore COVID. But I think it is pretty clear that even if their necessity were defensible at the moment, Corona measure like lockdowns would not be on the table because due to the Ukraine war most governments can no longer afford them.

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

#234

Post by bonIvermectin »

criticaltinker wrote: post #136
bonIvermectin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it has potential anti-viral properties as well doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect while treating COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934083/

While the benefits of ivermectin in a single-drug regime are heavily contested, a lot of folks here seem to be unaware that certain multi-drug regimes have shown promising results. For example see the positive outcomes of this double blind placebo controlled RCT evaluating ivermectin with doxycycline. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

"if you add antibiotics the result might be better"

Your study says that 183 people in Bangladesh saw their median recovery period reduced from 9 to 7 days when on both drugs, and downplays Ivermectin's influence.

"The effective dose of ivermectin required to reach IC50 at a pulmonary level is considerably higher than that used in this study. However, evaluation at higher doses requires detailed safety analysis"

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

#235

Post by janmarsal »

sixothree wrote: post #209
janmarsal wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

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

I'm not an expert on medicine and I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about but are you trying to make some kind of a point here or are you just arguing about semantics?

>You have my permission to try and prove ivermectin is effective. So far everyone trying has failed.

No I'm not qualified for that. This is why I gave you a link about COVID nasal sprays that have ivermectin in them and asked whether they're bullshit or not. Enlighten me if you can or don't reply.

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

I'm too pessimistic to fall for that kind of wishful thinking.

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

Come on. You don't want me to be open-minded. You want me to be small-minded with you. To align my views with yours. Open-mindedness requires you to accept opposing view points. What even makes me small-minded exactly? I'm not against vaccines and I'm not against ivermectin. I'm merely baffled by the anti-ivermectin narrative and the totalitarian vaccine campaigns that leave no other options except mandatory vaccines. I may be ignorant and I may be wrong but I'm certainly not small-minded.

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

#236

Post by civilized »

headsoup wrote: post #225
civilized wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pat…

The topic is cherry-picking experts (outsider experts in Rogan's case). The person you replied to said it can be justified because some experts are better than others, implying that outsider experts are better in this case. You supported that by saying there's a long list of cases where outsider experts are right and establishment experts are wrong.

In this topic, it's clearly relevant that this is far from universally the case. The establishment is often correct as well. That's why you don't want to cherry pick all your experts from one side. Especially if you yourself lack the ability to tell which experts are more expert, which is definitely true in Rogan's case.

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

#237

Post by jmull »

imgabe wrote: post #124
jmull wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the people pushing conspiracy theories about the pandemic are a bigger concern than the subset of media that weren't effectively dispelling those conspiracy theories? It really doesn't make sense to collectively blame "the media" because some of them say silly or incorrect things sometimes. The word itself -- a plural -- tells you there isn't a cohesive "the media" to blame anyway. Who are you actually talking…

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…

You have people advocating medical treatments against the advice of medical professionals. The arguments include using studies they have no basis to understand and which don't actually support their theory. Not that they care since they are just looking for points to superficially support their predetermined conclusion, which they formed listening to Joe Rogen or reading social media posts.

You don't want to call that a conspiracy theory, but then what should it be called?

And which media outlets have been calling people stupid rednecks? You have a grievance against "the media", but who exactly is that?

I'm really a lot more concerned with the irresponsibility of pushing ineffective medical treatments to a serious health hazard than I am with how gently "the media" tells people that their conspiracy theories are wrong.

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

#238

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

tux1968 wrote: post #231
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you're saying that every one (or at least the majority) of those people who tried to buy the livestock version had valid prescriptions and it was only the pharmacists standing in the way of the legitimate medical use?

It became well known that getting it in a legitimate way wasn't possible, so those who were determined to get it, didn't even bother trying. If it was well known that you could get it by seeing your doctor, people would have gone that route, since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional.

> since it is much safer to take proper human dosage under supervision of a medical professional

Well now I'm getting conflicting messages about its safety, compared to the user I originally responded to:

> It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable.

But regardless we come back to my original point - should it be handed out like candy just because they asked for it? Especially when its efficacy was questionable?

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

#239

Post by dekhn »

gadders wrote: post #174
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…

Not to mention Frances Oldham Kelsey and thalidomide. She'd be slated as anti-science on CNN etc today for sure.

Thalidomide is still used as a drug, it's very successful. Parts of the narrative around the FDA and Kelsey make it sound more heroic than it really was.

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

#240

Post by michaelgrosner2 »

imgabe wrote: post #36

The whole Ivermectin debacle was ridiculous. I never had Covid. Or if I did, it was so mild I never noticed. So, I really have no dog in this fight. But the way the media handled this coverage was really, really off-putting. First, if it doesn't work, just say that. "It doesn't work". "Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for Covid". That's all that was really necessary, right? But no, there was this whole ridicu…

Can you define who "the media" is in your complaints? A quick search for "ivermectin horse paste covid" brings up a bunch of articles from 'mainstream' outlets such as the Washington Post, FDA, and Guardian about how horse owners are frustrated because they cannot find any supply, it's not FDA approved for COVID, and that people have been hospitalized for using it. But nothing about them ridiculing people for taking it calling them horses.
Post reply on HN