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

Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 493 posts

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#251

Post by swader999 »

threeseed wrote: post #246
swader999 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin from horse paste cleared up all of my long covid symptoms except for lung inflammation which prednisone fixed after the ivm. Pretty incredible. Felt better after a few hours and after each subsequent daily dose of five total. A lot of the studies don't seem to be using enough doses or they use too low of a dose. I was at .06g/kg body weight per dose. Also you need to take it with zinq!

HN should delete this post and probably your account. You are actively encouraging people to get on a path that ends up in overdose and death.

It has a safer profile than Tylenol, Advil and Asprin.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#252

Post by rajin444 »

atty wrote: post #218

What I find almost more interesting than the article itself is the comments that show a non-zero portion of the HN community (which I think is generally more intellectually curious and educated than average) are actually strongly arguing that ivermectin has strong effect, and even crazier, that it may be safer or more effective than the mRNA vaccines. Is this from being incapable of following science and drawing rati…

Your post is assuming a lot of this science is "settled". I don't think science is settled - especially in this field. Acknowledging that your own statements may be incorrect might help you down the path to figuring out a fix.

Hint: as soon as you know you're right, and you make statements based on that, when you're inevitably wrong (not saying this in a disparaging way - making sense and being right through all this is nearly impossible), you will lose all trust.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#253

Post by eloff »

atty wrote: post #218

What I find almost more interesting than the article itself is the comments that show a non-zero portion of the HN community (which I think is generally more intellectually curious and educated than average) are actually strongly arguing that ivermectin has strong effect, and even crazier, that it may be safer or more effective than the mRNA vaccines. Is this from being incapable of following science and drawing rati…

For me I see the controversy here and I figure it could fall either way. Maybe it works, maybe it's just another hydroxychloroquine. I'm keeping an open mind. In no way should anyone be thinking it's safer or more effective than the mRNA vaccines given how many people have had them and the vast amount of data we have on that now. Any argument you can make on that is just very weak because there isn't that kind of rigorous supporting data on the Ivermectin side.

To the downvoters: put up or shut up. Your opinion doesn't change the facts.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#254

Post by rory »

shapefrog wrote: post #247
rory wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although it has more dangers than ivermectin, why shouldn't you have access to ketamine if you feel it helps you? A lot of people believe it has off-label benefits for their mental health, and maybe it does. Perhaps we just have different general perspectives on the individual and society.

Why not all drugs of all types. Why call it an opiod crisis and not just here is what happens when you give everyone whatever drugs they hear on the internet make you feel good? First you deny someone ivermectin, next minute you are saying only 1 oxycotin with your beer.

The important difference between these drugs is that opiates are incredibly addictive, while ketamine is less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. Ivermectin isn't addictive at all.

Ironically, the opioid crisis is caused far more by people's trust in mainstream medicine than by any internet fad.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#255

Post by nobody9999 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #229
cableshaft wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine found a doctor to prescribe it but his pharmacy won't fill it. He is so pissed. He was only planning to take small doses here or there as he's a teacher and around sick kids all the time, as if it were like Zinc to hopefully help reduce the severity of Covid-19 if he does get it, but despite going through the effort and succeeding in finding a doctor willing to prescribe it (and my friend even signed…

> pharmacy shouldn't be allowed to decide not to fill it, as if they know better than your doctor. It sounds like you have a pretty misguided idea of how pharmacies and pharmacists worked before Covid. You’re describing a situation where pharmacists act at the behest of doctors who know best, when in reality pharmacists have always had some level of independent authority over what drugs get dispensed to whom thanks t…

>t sounds like you have a pretty misguided idea of how pharmacies and pharmacists worked before Covid. You’re describing a situation where pharmacists act at the behest of doctors who know best, when in reality pharmacists have always had some level of independent authority over what drugs get dispensed to whom thanks to their expertise. It’s part of the pharmacists job to watch out for bad prescriptions, both in terms of abuse (e.g. opioids) improper dosages, and unintended side effects and interactions between drugs. In some states pharmacists have their own ability to prescribe medicine on their own.

Absolutely. I had to fire my doctor after he prescribed a sulfa drug to me, even though I'd made it clear that I have an allergy to sulfa drugs.

In fact, I would never have known (well, until I became sick/dead) that the drug prescribed was a sulfa drug if the pharmacist hadn't known the drug involved and checked it against known allergies. He contacted both me and my doctor and a different drug was prescribed.

In fact, it's entirely possible that I'm alive today thanks to the expertise and knowledge of the pharmacist.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#256

Post by dekhn »

gwerbret wrote: post #44

I'm going to make what is probably a controversial statement, which is that, in my experience, most meta-analyses are trash. A meta-analysis is usually grounded on the assumption that an aggregation of multiple, well-conducted studies can provide significant information that may not be evident by taking each study individually. Essential to this assumption is the premise that those studies included in the meta-analys…

It's best to understand that the vast majority of literature is just faulty. Either it's technically wrong (experimental mistakes), or missing information (left out a step in the methods), or the conclusions are not supported the (valid) experiment.

Learning how to filter literature is non-trivial and I don't think very many people do it successfully. I've found the best thing is to take a group of aggressive smart grad students and have them tear every paper apart until I'm convinced there are no basic technical errors, and the conclusion is supported by the evidence. Then and only then, would I care that the methods were incomplete because I'd be ready to run a replication experiment, and many of my replications failed because the methods section was not sufficient (missing steps, misleading instructions, challenging step).

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#257

Post by rory »

mint2 wrote: post #217
rory wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but just because the two are on opposite sides of the culture war doesn't mean they're medically mutually exclusive.

I didn’t realize the lottery gave out different odds based on political affiliation. Do republicans or liberals get better probabilities? Or is it only for Covid related odds?

I think you may have replied to the wrong comment, or at least, I can't figure out how yours relates.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#258

Post by symlinkk »

threeseed wrote: post #246
swader999 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin from horse paste cleared up all of my long covid symptoms except for lung inflammation which prednisone fixed after the ivm. Pretty incredible. Felt better after a few hours and after each subsequent daily dose of five total. A lot of the studies don't seem to be using enough doses or they use too low of a dose. I was at .06g/kg body weight per dose. Also you need to take it with zinq!

HN should delete this post and probably your account. You are actively encouraging people to get on a path that ends up in overdose and death.

“Apple is evil for adding CSAM checks, imagine if a totalitarian government used that to silence people”

“You should be permanently silenced for suggesting a medical drug”

Are you feeling any cognitive dissonance?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#259

Post by SnowProblem »

VikingCoder wrote: post #233
rory wrote: post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

> Unproven != disproven. How many people have been convinced by the supposed effectiveness of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine that they then decided to not get vaccinated? It's really not as simple as "unproven != disproven".

In my estimation, probably fewer than authorities think.

US Census collect data on reasons for vaccine hesitancy [1]. #1 and #3 are distrust - of vaccines and of government - which anecdotally matches my network. If that's the case, then we should expect that mischaracterizing treatments to promote vaccines [2] would not be very effective, and most Western countries now are leveling off fairly low in their vaccination rates [3]. But rather than more honesty, we're getting more mandates.

I think Dr. John's Cambell's position, of honest assessment, would have been better as the official position [4]. It's hard to imagine how trust could be regained now though without some sort of reckoning.

1. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/ho...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gndsUjgPYo

3. https://youtu.be/hVtX7tY1B0U?t=210

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9cjy3Rydc&t=600

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#260

Post by whiddershins »

gwerbret wrote: post #44

I'm going to make what is probably a controversial statement, which is that, in my experience, most meta-analyses are trash. A meta-analysis is usually grounded on the assumption that an aggregation of multiple, well-conducted studies can provide significant information that may not be evident by taking each study individually. Essential to this assumption is the premise that those studies included in the meta-analys…

I agree with your general point but in all fairness part of doing a meta-analysis is weighting the studies included in it based on many of the factors you mention.
Post reply on HN