Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by edmcnulty101 » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

aczerepinski wrote: post #69

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is a theory. It's a good theory but youre technically spouting misinformation by claiming it's hard fact. This theory was developed by Scott Alexander from SSC in his ivermectin blog post. Joe Rogan never claimed anyone should take medical advice from him. He had Sanjay Gupta and Robert Malone both medical doctors with differing opinions. This is how the media is supposed to work. It's not supposed…

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

The marketplace of ideas has decided that the flat earther's are wrong, not censorship. That's literally how science works.

It's perfectly fine to invite whoever you want on your show, unless you're Joe Rogan apparently?

Please stop with the fear based, hand wavy: 'millions have died!' to justify censorship and medical tyranny.

It's not that simple. This is:

* a novel vaccine developed with novel technology for a novel virus, where the effectiveness data has changed numerous times and breakthrough cases happen constantly and the FDA is fighting against requests to release the data that they used to approve it?

* A virus where the 'experts' completely ignored natural immunity and now years later are acknowledging that it may be as effective or more effective than the vaccine.

* A virus where every state and numerous countries have lifted all covid restrictions despite people dying in the THOUSANDS DAILY?

You should support the questioning of everything, even the earth being flat, and let the marketplace of ideas decide instead of ideological news media and medical dictators who think people are too stupid to think for themselves and/or are guided by whatever back alley deals they're making with big pharma.

And if none of this raises red flags for you then I worry that you're completely lost in the simplicity of ingroup/outgroup ideological propaganda.

Remember, Lobotomies won the Nobel prize.

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

#272

Post by dekhn » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #144

chefandy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly— PBS News Hour. You’re just as likely to see current or former GOP talking heads like Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, or Pat Buchanan as some DNC talking head. In fact, scrolling down their page just now, McConnell is the only actual politician I saw interviewed, though they did have a Biden speech clip. Keep in mind that inviting Political opponents into your show can advance your political message if you l…

Agreed. News Hour is definitely left leaning but they let people talk and seem to make a genuine effort to provide information. Which is something most other news programs have stopped doing. They just want to produce outrage and conflict. You can listen to CNN, MSNBC or Fox for hours and the only thing you have learned is what you should be angry about. You will have learned nothing about the actual topic.

I agree; for COVID news, none of those three are even remotely reliable. What disappoints me the most is CNN, they really have no reason to be as useless as they are while also riling up emotions.

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

#273

Post by edmcnulty101 » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #158

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's skew to you because the world is binary to you. My opinions vs The bad guys. Joe Rogan has people with all kinds of differing opinions to create a rich marketplace of ideas where the idea wins on merit not censorship. As I said, there's no reason to have more than one main stream person repeating the same thing repeated on every network. When Labotomies won the Nobel Prize you would have possibly been upset that…

> create a rich marketplace of ideas where the idea wins on merit not censorship. This is demonstrably false. Ideas on Joe Rogan do not win on merit. Unless merit is based on quantity of bullshit.

Not with that attitude!

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

#274

Post by dekhn » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

enchiridion wrote: post #125

aczerepinski wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

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…

Let's simplify the moral calculus. You are a public health official with total authority over messaging. You are faced with a public health issue that could possibly be existential- that is, there is an estimated nonzero risk that if you fail to act, all of society could be wiped out. Do you: allow for free speech, risking total annihilation (because your freedom of speech principles are more important than societal existence), or disallow free speech during the emergency, while also agreeing to suspend it when well defined criteria are reached?

I pick the latter. However, COVID itself was never existential (some fracction of people are immune, or get sick and then don't die, but instead reproduce, and over time, genetic immunity increases due to natural selection), although it was absolutely a threat to a healthy global economy (which in turn determines how much health care is available to society). So the calculus is more complicated. Probably, it's best to: promote the correct message, while allowing dissenting opiniions to be stated, but firmly refuted, and people who are saying things that are outright risky ("inject bleach") are shut down with the full force of law.

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

#275

Post by dekhn » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #266

bleuchase wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

it's almost as if joe rogan took prescribed ivermectin on purpose to show CNN how dumb they were calling it horse medicine (i dont' think what rogan did was Smart, but what CNN did was DUMB).

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

#276

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #262

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

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by disambiguation » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

aczerepinski wrote: post #69

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is a theory. It's a good theory but youre technically spouting misinformation by claiming it's hard fact. This theory was developed by Scott Alexander from SSC in his ivermectin blog post. Joe Rogan never claimed anyone should take medical advice from him. He had Sanjay Gupta and Robert Malone both medical doctors with differing opinions. This is how the media is supposed to work. It's not supposed…

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

I had the exact opposite takeaway from the pandemic.

Doubling down on blatant lies during a mass casualty event is exactly what spooked so many people and fueled the anti-vax movement.

"why would they lie? what else are they lying about? what are they hiding? whats their motive?"

misinformation thrives in a low trust environment. sure misinformation agents can sow distrust, but that should be seen as an opportunity by the institutions to set the record straight and gain trust, because if their ideas are really misinformation there should be no issue with having a conversation that demonstrates it one way or the other.

The exact wrong thing to do is double-down on lies, penalize, cancel, and censor free speech, and socially shame, berate, and hummiliate people that are just as scared, confused, and vulnerable as anyone else.

That's how you lose trust and how misinformation wins.

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

#278

Post by edmcnulty101 » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #274

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…

Let's simplify the moral calculus. You are a public health official with total authority over messaging. You are faced with a public health issue that could possibly be existential- that is, there is an estimated nonzero risk that if you fail to act, all of society could be wiped out. Do you: allow for free speech, risking total annihilation (because your freedom of speech principles are more important than societal…

> However, COVID itself was never existential

Covid was not existential.

Here's a though experiment for you:

If a group completely blew something out of proportion with massive restrictions on the world...would you want to know about it, to regain your freedom?

Or continue to be lied to in order to save face for your ideological peer group?

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

#279

Post by disambiguation » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #274

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…

Let's simplify the moral calculus. You are a public health official with total authority over messaging. You are faced with a public health issue that could possibly be existential- that is, there is an estimated nonzero risk that if you fail to act, all of society could be wiped out. Do you: allow for free speech, risking total annihilation (because your freedom of speech principles are more important than societal…

the calculus is not as simple as you suggest, given "free speech" and "institutional message" are variable, too.

your example implies "free speech" = some advice that will get you killed

and "institutional message" = some advice that will definitely save your life

it also implies that "officials" only act rationally and morally.

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

#280

Post by MagnumOpus » Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #189

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 is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan is a terrible person to get advice from. But where are the good sources? Are science studies (funded by government, military or corporations) trustworthy? Is the government? The issue is that all information has become obviously politicised. Which means it there are agendas in play foremost, rather than enabling the population to make infor…

There are dozens of democratic, well-led governments in the world that fund studies and release recommendations. Arguably many are less corrupt/business-friendly/polarised than the US.

You can source your advice from any of them or a sufficient consensus. Most even publish their recommendations and findings in English too. Interestingly, none of them asked their healthcare systems to prescribe cheap-as-chips ivermectin, all of them provide free vaccination and all of them recommend face masks for the last year and a half.