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

241–250 of 348 posts

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

#241

Post by quantum_magpie »

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…

>[..]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.

What's wrong with booster shots? I'm going through tick-borne encephalitis vaccination course right now, and it's 3 shots in the first 6 months, fourth shot after 3 years, and then a shot every 5 years. I also take an influenza booster annually. I'll a COVID one to the list too. Because it works!

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

#242

Post by CWuestefeld »

tootie wrote: post #173
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…

I think this kind of take is really unfair and inaccurate. You can't ascribe any sort of misdeeds to "The Media" when that's a sweeping generalization of thousands of not just journalists, but commenters, comedians and assorted cranks. The MSM was mostly fair and accurate in their reporting. "Horse paste" was mostly a meme or a joke. The NY Times and CNN didn't make jokes about horse paste. The CDC and similar orgs a…

I've heard NPR referring to "the livestock medication Ivermectin", and this was not in a generic context, not related to people actually procuring the horse formulation.

It seems like there are often specific turns of phrase that just get widely adopted. What I cited above is one example. Another is "the deadly January 6th insurrection".

(Probably there's some right-wing phraseology around "stolen election" or "southern border invasion" or something like that. But I can't think of any specifically, so at least from my perspective they're less widespread or less sticky.)

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

#243

Post by acdha »

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…

> You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but the media and your side isn't right just because the other side is wrong.

Oh, a strawman argument with bonus points for trying to look clever by pretending this is a “both-sides” situation so you can avoid intellectual engagement.

If you re-read the thread you might notice that this was specifically in response to someone who was incorrectly claiming that people misusing animal medication didn't really happen. Nobody was saying that it's never used for humans — the big questions were whether it was useful for treating COVID (no) and whether it was a good idea to take non-human formulations and/or doses well outside of the safe ranges without involving a doctor (even more strongly no).

If you want to rant about “the media” or sides, it would probably be a good first step to be specific about what you're talking about so anyone else can evaluate whatever claims you're making. “the media” covers a very wide range of voices and it's not like there's anywhere close to 100% fidelity between different parts of the media or, for that matter, the scientific and governmental voices they're reporting on.

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

#244

Post by michaelrpeskin »

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 the key statement you make is correct "safe drug to take in normal doeses". If you look at the toxicology, it's safer than Aspirin.

My story (yes, I know, just N=1, but it's good to put it out there):

I found a doc to give me two prescriptions for a treatment protocol as recommended by the FLCCC. Since it was in short supply, I didn't want to waste it prophylactically. I've had IVM available to me since early sprint 2021.

If I ever got that nagging feeling in my throat like I was coming down with a cold, I just took a single dose of IVM. The next day I was always better. This happened about a half dozen times over the last almost year. Would I have gotten better that quickly without it? I don't know. I just didn't want to risk thing getting worse, and the risk calculation was obvious since IVM is so safe.

Was it just a cold attacking me and not COVID? I don't know, but it was still better than coming down with a cold. Colds always take me down for a week anyway, so I saved a week of my life even if it was just a cold.

From my understanding IVM is a broad spectrum antiviral that seems to work well on coronaviruses. I'm going to keep taking it on first symptoms of a cold, just because so far I haven't had even a sniffle since I started taking it on the first sign of a infection. It may not be the thing that's working, but as you say, it's so safe, it doesn't hurt to use.

Before the downvotes: I'm not saying that this is the solution to the pandemic, and I'm not touting that it's better than other treatments or vaccines. I'm just saying that the downside to taking it is negligible, and my experience is that it did help (or at least didn't hurt). And it's cheap, so why not experiment.

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

#245

Post by conradfr »

evan_ wrote: post #198
conradfr wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely true as there was a retirement home in France during the first outbreak where residents were treated with Ivermectin due to scabies where they had no Covid deaths and less bad cases than the other surrounding homes. But I guess it was not replicated.

Scabies is caused by a parasitic mite. This example likely supports the “parasite” theory.

But not the "third world bad health" theory so much.

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

#246

Post by michaelgrosner2 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #242
tootie wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this kind of take is really unfair and inaccurate. You can't ascribe any sort of misdeeds to "The Media" when that's a sweeping generalization of thousands of not just journalists, but commenters, comedians and assorted cranks. The MSM was mostly fair and accurate in their reporting. "Horse paste" was mostly a meme or a joke. The NY Times and CNN didn't make jokes about horse paste. The CDC and similar orgs a…

I've heard NPR referring to "the livestock medication Ivermectin", and this was not in a generic context, not related to people actually procuring the horse formulation. It seems like there are often specific turns of phrase that just get widely adopted. What I cited above is one example. Another is "the deadly January 6th insurrection". (Probably there's some right-wing phraseology around "stolen election" or "south…

Can you cite an example? A quick google search for 'NPR "the livestock medication Ivermectin"' leads to https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/1030208101/mississippi-livest... which explicitly states it's a version -formulated- for livestock.

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

#247

Post by CWuestefeld »

michaelgrosner2 wrote: post #246
CWuestefeld wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard NPR referring to "the livestock medication Ivermectin", and this was not in a generic context, not related to people actually procuring the horse formulation. It seems like there are often specific turns of phrase that just get widely adopted. What I cited above is one example. Another is "the deadly January 6th insurrection". (Probably there's some right-wing phraseology around "stolen election" or "south…

Can you cite an example? A quick google search for 'NPR "the livestock medication Ivermectin"' leads to https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/1030208101/mississippi-livest... which explicitly states it's a version -formulated- for livestock.

Sorry. I may not have the exact words correct, despite having used quote marks. My point was that it was NPR, which is very mainstream, and that they were taking the idea that Ivermectin is for animals (and implicitly not for humans) as a given. I do recall that I heard it on their Alexa flash briefing bit.

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

#248

Post by dTal »

headsoup wrote: post #67
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. So? Some experts are more experts than others?

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…

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

Point is we also have a long history of genuine quacks and loonies, and they outnumber the genuine Cassandras to such an extent as to invalidate your heuristic. Statistically, if someone disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus, they aren't a brave voice fighting the tide of darkness - just wrong.

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

#249

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

Do you have a source citing this? This sounds like a possible reason but it's pure speculation without a study to control for this, or at the very least a pre-eval where they were evaluated for parasites before the study begins.

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

#250

Post by michaelgrosner2 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #247
michaelgrosner2 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite an example? A quick google search for 'NPR "the livestock medication Ivermectin"' leads to https://www.npr.org/2021/08/23/1030208101/mississippi-livest... which explicitly states it's a version -formulated- for livestock.

Sorry. I may not have the exact words correct, despite having used quote marks. My point was that it was NPR, which is very mainstream, and that they were taking the idea that Ivermectin is for animals (and implicitly not for humans) as a given. I do recall that I heard it on their Alexa flash briefing bit.

You realize you're being as misleading and unfair as 'the media' you wanted to criticize, right?
Post reply on HN