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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#291

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #261

Nursie wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hav…

I have scanned through so many forums reading anecdotal stories, also downloaded VAERS data, and I definitely see a pattern, but this is not enough of compelling evidence for anyone. But let's just focus on what could be causing excess deaths during summer. Source: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ Scroll to Excess Mortality See 0-14 age group excess mortality growth during summer (EU approved vaccines for 12+…

Can't answer to detaro either, so answering in my own comments. Delta and covid waves on average went really low during summer, so it should have less effect.

But maybe delayed treatments, risky delayed treatments now happening could have something to do with it potentially. Also there were talks about child suicides.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#292

Post by jpcosta » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #60

Funny how all this article ends up saying it's all a matter of trust. Which is exactly what medecine has always been about, and why ultimately you end up getting prescriptions by you own doctor, that you have a bound with and that you trust. The most insane thing that happened with this pandemic ( at least in europe) is how we decided to throw all this through the window and let states impose medical decisions on peo…

There are medical bodies staffed by professionals that study these matters, and the states (should) base their decisions on what their findings are. To me the problems starts when decision makers and then the general population start trusting fringe conclusions and trying to interpret medical data when they have no training to do so.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#293

Post by RubberMullet » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:44 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…

[flagged]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#294

Post by mrfusion » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

I wish he could find a way to do this analysis blind for these kind of controversial issues.

I felt like he was in the hunt to end up with a certain conclusion from the beginning.

I felt like his article on vitamin D for covid was similar. “Looks promising but I’m going to say it doesn’t work because I take covid seriously or something”

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#295

Post by bayesian_horse » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

pieter_mj wrote: post #276

Nursie wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "modulate the immune system" mean to you?

For instance Vitamin D helps decrease the risk of a cytokine storm after a (corona) infection, and not overreact. (have no references at hand currently, sorry).

But it doesn't avoid infection and is a lot weaker in protection as even a very old double-vaccination, much less a boostered one.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#296

Post by Nursie » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #289

Nursie wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hav…

I can't reply to your last comment because it's too deep, so I'll comment here: > According to your graph, excess mortality for ages 0-14 for this year is lower than it was in 2019, before the vaccine or the pandemic hit. And the excess mortality in the 15-44 age group is maybe 5000 people across 28 countries See week 18-42, for 0-14 age group. Yes it has barely got to 2019 levels, but consider that beginning of year…

> Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination.

It could, or it could mean something else entirely, and it could be within normal trends. Which is what it looks like to me if all cause mortality is lower than 2019 levels.

> So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm?

Not from this data, no.

> Because what else can I use besides excess deaths (as much data that as it's possible to gather), adverse event reporting tools etc, anecdotal stories. There's just no way.

Real research and analysis, not "I looked at some very high level graphs with fairly shallow data and decided that it fit my preconceptions".

If you're thinking "I don't have easy access to that information, and I don't have the time or the funding to investigate", you're quite right. Medical researchers will have to carry the can here.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#297

Post by dnautics » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

romeros wrote: post #287

astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

How can you be sure of your assertions? Have you done a randomized controlled trial? I don't think you have tested the alternative.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#298

Post by crazyjncsu » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

WithinReason wrote: post #154

dkga wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veterinarian here, used to ivermectin as it should be used - as an anti parasitic. I fully agree with this view above.

You mean you believe that a widespread administration of ivermectin would lead to development of ivermectin resistance in parasites?

That’s certainly already the case. Ivermectin has lost effectiveness against particularly insidious parasites such as Haemonchus Contortus (barber pole worm). We’ve resorted to other treatments such as Moxidectin, Levamisole, etc, all of which are more expensive and harder to dose safely and effectively.

I can totally understand how Ivermectin got its following— it’s an amazing general purpose medicine around the farm. I generally use it responsibly by verifying the presence of parasites before administering (which can be literally any animal on the farm with almost any parasite) … but then there are times such as when my daughter had a single pet chicken (among many healthy ones) that wasn’t looking so hot … Whereas previously I’d just dispatch the animal and be done with it, now I give a dose of Ivermectin and isolate for a few days before calling in the grim reaper. So far the success rate is something like 90% where now my 9 year old daughter administers it herself. While I acknowledge this isn’t the most responsible, I can imagine others have had similar experiences which explain some of the popularity of Ivermectin with rural folk.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#299

Post by DoreenMichele » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:49 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #255

DoreenMichele wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity",sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one."

Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[5][6] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Coincidentally:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29250580

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#300

Post by bayesian_horse » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

pieter_mj wrote: post #193

bayesian_horse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I would add that there are now two drugs who are known to work better, in addition to monoclonal antibodies and multiple vaccines with more than 7 billion doses administered for over a year... Ivermectin MIGHT work... but really... let's move on.

Anything that edges you closer to an optimum health state is also beneficial to a certain degree to avoid corona infection. So zinc and vitamine D which enhance and modulate the immune system are recommended. It's not as clearcut as you make it seem. The current vaccines lose their effectiveness over time and are significantly less effective against the delta variant to start with.

"Significantly less effective" is still a lot higher than most new vaccines and higher than the prophylactics you propose.

The loss in effectiveness isn't even that big of a deal. It only really matters for those most at risk. And it's hard to say how much longer the third dose will last, but knowing how the immune system works, I'd guess it will be more than 6 months, provided there is no escape mutation. Delta isn't an escape variant, btw, it's just a really fast worker. It gets up and running inside the body so fast, that even the remembered response takes a while to catch up. That's why the third shot, which reestablishes active, circulating antibody levels, is so effective: Now the virus is knocked out before getting started, and the usual infection dose, before replication, isn't enough to cause trouble.