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

251–260 of 348 posts

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

#251

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #140
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. So effectively you’re ending up with him pushing his opinion anyway. If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. I’ll also note that much of the time the licensed doctors he invites on aren’t actually in relevant special…

When the pandemic started I got some of the best information on Rogan. He had some immunologists on that predicted exactly how it would turn out. While a lot of people still believed that this could be stopped these guys predicted that it would run through the population. Which it did. I don’t really like this need for people to hear only what they want to hear and get angry when people say something they don’t like.…

I would be highly suspicious that in this post, the msm is tasked with the standard of giving “straight news” but Joe Rogan is apparently no more quality with “sometimes it’s right, sometimes very wrong”. Why would you actively prefer one mediocre source of news over another mediocre source of news? They both seem mediocre and neither seem worth listening to.

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

#252

Post by xboxnolifes »

bsuvc wrote: post #130

I've never understood why ivermectin is such a hot button issue that gets people worked up. If someone else has a doctor that prescribes it to them, and a pharmacy that fills the prescription, that should not be a problem, right? It's not like they are telling people they have to take ivermectin against their will. What am I missing?

It's just another way to attack antivaxxers without directly using the usual terms. That's why it became so hot.

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

#253

Post by dada78641 »

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…

> 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.

You do not understand vaccines. It's incredible to me that we still have to be explaining this more than two years into the pandemic, but vaccines are not magical fixes. The COVID-19 vaccine exists to strongly reduce your symptoms in case of infection. The effect does not stay at full efficacy forever and as new strains develop over time they may become less protective still.

> Almost make me feel like they're scared of someone finding a better way out of this.

Yeah, obviously there's a giant conspiracy going on to prevent you from finding out about the magical solution to COVID-19. Can't possibly be that your understanding of how stuff works is lacking.

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

#254

Post by MarcoZavala »

xadhominemx wrote: post #153
tux1968 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The misunderstandings around this drug stem from misunderstandings of basic statistics and the scientific method. This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. You're 100% correct, of course. But the prevalent MSM response, of calling it horse medicine, was equally damaging. Since it is a well known, effective, and respected medicine used in humans, this characterization as "horse paste" made it…

> was equally damaging In what way? Ivermectin was pitched as an alternative to vaccination, leading people to avoid the highly effective vaccines.

No post body was provided.

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

#255

Post by enchiridion »

mikeyouse wrote: post #196
enchiridion wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic. Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true. I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted show…

Listening to Joe Rogan corresponded to a halving of vaccination rate in those people and his idiotic breed of “both sides” literally got people killed. But glad we avoided something “cataclysmic” like more vaccination. These are the most naive arguments I could imagine. It’s certainly not important to platform a bunch of conspiracy riddled garbage.

"Platform", as in allow free speech, a core founding idea of liberal democracies everywhere. I'm aware speech on private platforms is not protected from the actions of the platform by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it is morally acceptable for these platforms to infringe.

"Conspiracy riddled garbage" which has turned out in more than one case to be right (the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of social distancing, the effectiveness of lock downs). Just because the evidence currently looks to be in favor of vaccination doesn't mean we should shutdown dissenting opinions.

Millions of people have given their lives to protect the ideal of free speech and similar freedoms. I have no issue with the fact that exercising that right may cause some harm. I fundamentally believe that free speech leads to better outcomes over the long term.

Additionally, in this particular case the harm is not immediately obvious to me.

If you are in a position to affect outcomes in this area (as many on HN probably are, given ties to social media), I hope you reflect on the environment of freedom you currently benefit from. Are comfortable restricting freedoms for future generations, who's situations and trials are unknown to you?

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

#256

Post by MarcoZavala »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #12
simonh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to Joe he wasn't giving medical advice, but licensed doctors on his show were.

This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. So effectively you’re ending up with him pushing his opinion anyway. If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. I’ll also note that much of the time the licensed doctors he invites on aren’t actually in relevant special…

No post body was provided.

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

#257

Post by pjkundert »

acdha wrote: post #190
pjkundert wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No, it hasn’t. You’re linking to a famously anonymous site which doesn’t control for quality because the purpose is to give people a number which looks positive secure in the knowledge that very few readers will notice how the studies showing positive effects are flawed or limited.

There are those who claim that you can accurately predict project timelines from the top down -- high-quality estimates, so to speak.

However, this doesn't work. Talk to anyone in software for any significant duration.

You make accurate high-level estimates, using a multitude of small, low-quality estimates.

I trust many independent peer-reviewed studies (102) plus a large number of other studies (another 49), whose outcomes are consistent with all other studies (efficacy declines linearly from 0-7 days after onset). I do not trust a single, large study focussed after the efficacy window has expired.

The big question is -- why would you trust such a study, if you surveyed and understood the efficacy decline consistent with all other studies?

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

#258

Post by stjohnswarts »

tux1968 wrote: post #10
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…

> The misunderstandings around this drug stem from misunderstandings of basic statistics and the scientific method. This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. You're 100% correct, of course. But the prevalent MSM response, of calling it horse medicine, was equally damaging. Since it is a well known, effective, and respected medicine used in humans, this characterization as "horse paste" made it…

It isn't “equally damaging”. It was a social attempt to embarrass those who were pursing horse medicine for something it was absolutely never evaluated for and marked as credible medicine for covid. It was the right's attempt (at least in the USA) to cross their fingers and hope that the left was wrong. They are essentially antiscience but wanted to use a medicine that only came about because of science. Their mental dissonance must be deafening.

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

#259

Post by dekhn »

thurn wrote: post #75
eggy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the high…

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.

In nearly no internet debate does "logical fallacy" invalidate an argument. After all, none of these arguments are truly logical, instead being deeply embedded in empiricism and intuition. While their criticism may not be useful, to imply that arguments on the internet are wrong (or to be ignored becaues they provide no value) seems like an unrealistic expectation.

I am unaware of any situation outside of pure mathematics where logic is the sole arbiter. I am curious to hear about such situations, though.

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

#260

Post by m-p-3 »

WaxedChewbacca wrote: post #4

Meanwhile, back in reality, ivermectin is associated with 70%-ish reductions in hospitalization and death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz4adJXLHgA

In countries where a parasitic infection is common and is a COVID-19 co-morbidity.
Post reply on HN