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

261–270 of 348 posts

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

#261

Post by dekhn »

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.

downvote for assertion without evidence. please provide a useful link or preferably delete your claim.

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

#262

Post by stjohnswarts »

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?

Because it was stupid to want to take it. There was no strong scientific evidence for it. Less observant people would then proceed to not get vaccinated. Ridicule is one effective way for society to push smarter choices when the majority of people know you are being an idiot. Vaccines are HIGHLY effective and ivermectine does nothing, and even at that point we knew there was about a 99% chance it did nothing

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

#263

Post by moistofreason »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #238
tux1968 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Quit it with the straw man BS. You can overdose on any substance. Taking a medication is always going to be safer under supervision.

My issue is that the use of IVM got politicized and as a result the will of many doctors and patients was undermined. A large number of the people who took it illicitly did it so because pharmacies stopped filling valid prescriptions.

If you want to talk about safety: The same crowd bitching about IVM happened to be the people pushing a vaccine with much less data supporting its safety and questionable efficacy on people under 50.

Their logic: - Mandate a new drug, using a new technology on the entire world, even though there were no real Phase III trials.

- Don’t look into prophylactic treatment options which are cheaper and known to be safe.

- Call anyone who studies anything else a conspiracy theorist and a quack

- Actively suppress peer reviewed articles that don’t follow the narrative. (Including refusing to publish or unpublishing work in major journals)

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

#264

Post by wernercd »

strken wrote: post #103
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…

For the past two years I've been telling anyone who'll listen that the WHO screwed up by telling people not to wear masks, by claiming transmission wasn't via aerosol particles, and by opposing border closures. I spent a long time getting into arguments about the lab leak theory being almost impossible to disprove. In my comments on HN there's one calling out an article about mask-wearing for drawing the exact wrong…

No post body was provided.

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

#265

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

StreamBright wrote: post #82
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

> started buying the horse version of the drug FYI there is no horse version of drugs. It would be a logistics and production nightmare to produce two kind of medicine like that. If a medicine has a chemical compound (like for example Amoxicillin) then it is good for both your fish and for you generally speaking.

> FYI there is no horse version of drugs.

By "horse version" I don't mean a different chemical active ingredient. I mean packaging, dosage, etc. E.g. for animals Ivermectin is often in powder form so it can mixed with food, while for humans it's usually a pill. That means the human version is not approved for lifestock and the lifestock version is not approved for humans. They are two different drugs in that sense.

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

#266

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

bleuchase wrote: post #182
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

> I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!" That’s been said multiple times. By government agencies and media conglomerates. Amazing what you can find when you look for it. Literal talking point from the FDA https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839?s=20 Debacle with CNN and Joe Rogan https://news.yahoo.com/lie-joe-rogan-accuses-cnn-151…

ha, that's pretty funny actually

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

#267

Post by timeon »

mcv wrote: post #150
analogdreams wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

....which itself was a result of the insane overreaction to covid from the same media convincing people they were all going to die.

Not all, but millions of people did die, including over half a million Americans. That's not exactly nothing.

Also overcrowded hospitals. Maybe this was not case in America but in many places other treatments were partially blocked by Covid overflow.

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

#268

Post by cdelsolar »

nojito wrote: post #68
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…

This entire comment is wrong and yet it is currently the top comment. What is it about COVID that causes people to just forget to think critically about what they read?

what is wrong about the comment

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

#269

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

moistofreason wrote: post #263
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 st…

Quit it with the straw man BS. You can overdose on any substance. Taking a medication is always going to be safer under supervision. My issue is that the use of IVM got politicized and as a result the will of many doctors and patients was undermined. A large number of the people who took it illicitly did it so because pharmacies stopped filling valid prescriptions. If you want to talk about safety: The same crowd bit…

I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument - especially when people were clearly ready and willing to take it without guidance or supervision because they had come to believe it as some sort of COVID panacea.

To be clear, IVM was just another politicization. It was a rush decision to reject the obvious mainstream option and an attempt to find alternative treatments so that people could take a medicine with known side effects and unknown efficacy over one with known efficacy and unknown side effects, all seemingly because it felt better to be counterculture and was an act of defiance against "big {your adjective of hate here}".

After billions or doses and ever more research it's pretty obvious which side made the right call.

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

#270

Post by JasonFruit »

toss1 wrote: post #213
JasonFruit wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing it right, opposing bad information with good. All of what you say here makes sense, including "This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." Where that breaks down is when that turns into, "This is why you shouldn't be allowed to get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." People make unwise choices all the time, and when we try to prevent them from doing so coercively, we fall into a p…

>>Where that breaks down is when that turns into, "This is why you shouldn't be allowed to get your medical advice from Joe Rogan." People make unwise choices all the time, and when we try to prevent them from doing so coercively, we fall into a pit of unintended consequences. Depends on the coercion. Taking action against false advertising of medical benefits is and should be under the purview of qualified governmen…

> ...resorting to First Amendment absolutism is intellectually lazy at best. It feels like having a nice solid black&white answer, but it is not, since the result of the answer is the destruction of society.

That's quite an assertion, but I notice you back it up with nothing at all.

What you describe as the libertarian version is the non-cartoon version of "First Amendment absolutism": you can say what you want, but you're not immune from demonstrable consequences of what you say. There's nothing in that position that requires or suggests that people should be coercively prevented from speech that is unpopular, incomplete, or incorrect. In that light, the objections you present mostly fail to address my point.

The only exception is your extension of the FDA and FTC rules regarding food and drug advertising to non-advertising speech, which would present a lot of practical problems, creating a vast opening for frivolous and harassing lawsuits against public figures and discouraging the expression of much valid and worthwhile opinion. I'd oppose it, and I can't imagine that it would find support outside the sort of election-year rhetoric that evaporates on contact with reality.

Post reply on HN