Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#251

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 12:54 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #243

DoreenMichele wrote: post #17

This is wonderfully fun stuff to read: This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret - but my hat is off to them...Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale, this is the most impressive act of science communication…

The paragraph you quoted is, alone, pretty much enough to dismiss this entire article outright. It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. He sees a slick and well-presented site on a topic that is not only politically fraught, but well known to have a massive propaganda effort behind it, and he just completely refuses to even consider questio…

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#252

Post by 271828182846 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 12:55 PM UTC

> All the health officials in the world will shout “horse dewormer!” at you and compare you to Josef Mengele.

Well, as a German I feel obligated to recommend those officials to read up on Josef Mengele and then reconsider throwing that name around so casually.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#253

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 12:55 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #244

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably…

> Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.

What would be compelling evidence?

Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those?

For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling?

For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling?

What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports?

If none of that is evidence, then even if this vaccine was unsafe, it would be virtually impossible to prove that, no?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#254

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 12:57 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #242

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't know whether Ivermectin works or not, but mainstream media calling it horse paste is absolutely disingenuous and what increases distrust from me. It's as if they are incapable of understanding that same substance could be used for multiple species for multiple different conditions and in fact it has been used for multiple species. So anyone calling it horse paste, horse medicine or even focusing on that…

People are literally buying veterinary pharmaceutical preparations though, and taking horse paste. Sure, it's used in humans too. But there are people dosing with equine supplies.

How many people who believe Ivermectin works are actually doing that? Are there differences besides dosage and is it possible to split that dosage for appropriate human levels?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#255

Post by radu_floricica » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #44

viktorcode wrote: post #38

Well, at least the parasite endemic among humans sure is in decline now

Or, alternately, the incidence of drug-resistant parasitic infections is on the upswing due to misuse of the drug.

It would be polite to come with sources or arguments for this, especially in this conversation. Occam says that taking an anti-parasitic drug will lead to less parasites. You can't just put second order effects on the table and claim it's a coin toss.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#256

Post by Nursie » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #253

Nursie wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.

What would be compelling evidence? Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? What about countless anecdotal stories of similar pe…

> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those?

I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of?

> For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling?

Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to have there is some vaguely formed speculation.

> For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling?

Be specific, what claims are you making and what evidence do you think backs them up?

> What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports?

Perhaps you could count them, and investigate to understand if the anecdotes and VAERS reports are true or not, and at what rate they occur. VAERS is by design a catch-all and self-reported, so the data there is interesting but not necessarily trustworthy. Anecdotes are not data, after all.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#257

Post by JohnWhigham » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:03 PM UTC

271828182846 wrote: post #252

> All the health officials in the world will shout “horse dewormer!” at you and compare you to Josef Mengele. Well, as a German I feel obligated to recommend those officials to read up on Josef Mengele and then reconsider throwing that name around so casually.

Blame the Twitterati for the normalization of calling people "Nazis" over slight political disagreements.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#258

Post by api » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:04 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #189

csee wrote: post #183

While reading this piece I got a little depressed that most journalism is just such utter trash compared to it. I've read so many articles on ivermectin and none of them gave me even ten percent of the clarity that this article gave me. Can you imagine if writing and journalism of this calibre was commonplace among practising "journalists"? And look at how this piece compares to the CDC's and WHO's science communicat…

This is a huge factor. Dumbing things down creates a dumber audience. If you look at newscasts and newspapers from the 70's and compare them to today the difference is amazing.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about this but I think it’s just a race to the bottom in search of the largest audience.

It seems to still be getting worse. I remember cable news being tolerable 10 years ago. Now when I see it at an airport or something I can almost feel the ice pick ramming up into my brain and swishing around.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#259

Post by radu_floricica » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:04 PM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #37

My step-son was recently prescribed a small one off dose of ivermectin by a dermatologist to deal with a rather resistant case of scabies he acquired at a sports tournament. It took the pharmacy a couple of days to source, because signficant controls had to be put in place around prescribing it due to well, I'm just going to say what I think - the amazing capacity for the Internet to deliver dumbassery to people who…

Did you read the article? One of the main points was that it's not dumbassery. You have multiple studies saying a drug works, being contradicted by experts that have been wrong multiple time this year and have a vested interest in what they're claiming. This is the opposite of dumb.

It turned out not to be true, but such is life - not all the correct choices are also true in the end.

It's also counterproductive in so many ways to call this dumb. And it's making yourself a huge disfavor by believing that everything you see online but disagree with is automatically misinformation.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#260

Post by Nursie » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #254

Nursie wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are literally buying veterinary pharmaceutical preparations though, and taking horse paste. Sure, it's used in humans too. But there are people dosing with equine supplies.

How many people who believe Ivermectin works are actually doing that? Are there differences besides dosage and is it possible to split that dosage for appropriate human levels?

I don't know numbers, but there are credible reports of farming supply companies starting to restrict sales (so greater than zero, but I haven't a clue how many).

Differences can be that not all the preparations contain only the one active ingredient. Dosing appears to be whole other kettle of fish, because understandably people have no idea what a therapeutic or prophylactic dose actually might be - because as far as we know there isn't one for coronavirus.