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

281–290 of 348 posts

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

#281

Post by disambiguation »

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.

consider there are many who prefer a free, open, and optional platform that sometimes gets it wrong to a mandatory, closed one that can never be reviewed or corrected when it does get it wrong.

i'm also curious if there's a source on the halving of vaccination rates?

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

#282

Post by zackees »

conradfr wrote: post #165
xadhominemx wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also seem confused. Yes, some people are interested in Ivermectin as a protease inhibitor. But the reason the de-wormer came to prominence in the first place was because some lower quality studies found it has a positive effect on COVID-19 outcomes. The most famous study in this collection came out of Brazil. But the reason that study found a positive impact from Ivermectin is that parasites are a harmful COVID c…

Not entirely true as there was a retirement home in France during the first outbreak where residents were treated with Ivermectin due to scabies where they had no Covid deaths and less bad cases than the other surrounding homes. But I guess it was not replicated.

No post body was provided.

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

#283

Post by johnrgrace »

jjoonathan wrote: post #178
criticaltinker wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the benefits of ivermectin in a single-drug regime are heavily contested, a lot of folks here seem to be unaware that certain multi-drug regimes have shown promising results. For example see the positive outcomes of this double blind placebo controlled RCT evaluating ivermectin with doxycycline. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127799/

Translation: "this shit is completely fucking hopeless." Multi-drug combination treatments are where studies of ineffective treatments go to die. "X didn't work, but maybe X+Y or X+Z will" is one of those low-quality ever-present followup leads I was talking about in the sibling post. To a researcher, seeing attention shift to combination treatments means that the primary hypothesis failed and people are throwing Hai…

Simply Throw enough Hail mary tests with 95% confidence intervals and one will come up as good simply due to randomness.

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

#284

Post by moistofreason »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #269
moistofreason wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 medicin…

History will judge whether the vaccines were effective or safe. Both are highly debatable at this point in time.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/ed-dowd-millennial-age-gr...

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

#285

Post by edmcnulty101 »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #66
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…

Far as I know, the theory was proposed first by @GidMK on Twitter. (For the record.) edit: Apparently someone else? I've seen it on Twitter before Scott's blog, but I can't find the thread anymore. edit: It was Avi Bitterman @AviBittMD. Also linked in the article.

Yes you're right! Thanks for the clarification. Scott does address this in his blog/article.

It's been almost 5 months since I read the article.

Scott does attribute numerous references to the original postulators after looking again.

Via Scott's article plus numerous links:

" As several doctors and researchers have pointed out (h/t especially Avi Bitterman and David Boulware)"

* https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

* https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1461076939192602628

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

#286

Post by dekhn »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #278
dekhn wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know... did that happen? Or is this a hypothetical?

It didn't happen (large scale intentional lying), but if my government openly lies, I will complain about it up and until they restrict my freedom of speech, and I'll use the mechanisms I know (using social media, salon discussion websites, etc) to promote my message.

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

#287

Post by spaetzleesser »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #251
spaetzleesser wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rogan is not a news program and doesn't claim to be one . His thing is conversations with interesting people.H It can be serious scientists, questionable scientists, flat earthers, UFO people, Alex Jones and many others. He lets them talk and it's up to you do with it whatever you want. I personally find it very interesting to listen to political extremists, conspiracy guys, COVID deniers or flat earthers and learn what they are thinking. I don't need or want to be protected from wrong information. Actually it's very important to know where people you are disagreeing with are coming from. It's very unhealthy to only hear what you think is true.

If people want to get protected from wrong information a good start would be advertising. Maybe the woke people at Spotify should start there.

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

#288

Post by spaetzleesser »

dekhn wrote: post #272
spaetzleesser wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CNN is just terrible. They have turned into the left wing Fox News. They report mainly on opinion, not news.

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

#289

Post by tootie »

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.

So, just to be clear NPR is essentially a federation of local public radio stations and not a single editorial board. That being said, WNYC's On The Media did a great breakdown of reporting miscues and the political word-twisting about Ivermectin. They've also done breakdowns on lab leak theory and a lot of other hot topics. Some misleading stories have been weasel-worded reports of reports, but also Tucker Carlson and his ilk are the ones willfully sponsoring disinformation.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-iverme...

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

#290

Post by dekhn »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #288
dekhn wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CNN is just terrible. They have turned into the left wing Fox News. They report mainly on opinion, not news.

I think of HuffPo as the left wing Fox News. CNN is just some sort of thing that evolved from the mentality of TV talk shows.
Post reply on HN