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

291–300 of 348 posts

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

#291

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

"Literal talking point from the FDA"

Oh, come on. The tweet links to a page that gives information that doesn't fit in 280 characters; making a sly reference to what people are talking about is hardly outrageous, and likely intended to increase distribution of the useful info in the link. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

The next tweet has a FAQ, too (https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050498515144708) that's quite clear that ivermectin has some uses in humans, but isn't approved or shown to be useful for COVID.

If you base your reality off single jokey tweets, that's on you.

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

#292

Post by toss1 »

JasonFruit wrote: post #270
toss1 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

Right, so you are perfectly fine with allowing deliberate disinformation campaigns to run rampant even when they literally kill people, and backing it up with nothing at all.

And not even seeking a solution.

Got it

Are you also against regulating speech that amounts to yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater and/or inciting a riot or insurrection?

I could also say 'fine, if intentional disinformation kills people, that's fine, let them go at it, it is just a stupidity tax'

Except I also understand the value of a society that is at least minimally cohesive and retains a stably democratic (small-d) foundation, and see the hard evidence that active disinformation amplified by mass media, especially interactive mass media can completely undermine that, and is literally a direct threat to democracy.

I'm interested in finding a solution and it will need to be more refined than a simple absolutist edict written centuries before mass media and interactive mass media were invented.

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

#293

Post by ceejayoz »

moistofreason wrote: post #156
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's safe doesn't mean they should hand it out like candy to anyone who wants it.

They aren’t… they are refusing to fill prescriptions, you know, written by doctors.

Pharmacists are also doctors, and are legally permitted to decline prescriptions in a number of cases, including believing it'll cause harm to the patient. Chronic pain patients experience this fairly frequently with opiate-skeptical pharmacists, for example.

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

#294

Post by ceejayoz »

disambiguation wrote: post #281
mikeyouse wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/14/joe-rogan-fans-demogra...

See the chart (oddly) titled "Over Half of Joe Rogan's Fans Are Vaccinated Against COVID-19" about 2/3 down.

Avid fans: 55% vaccinated, 45% unvaccinated

Nonfans: 76% vaccinated, 24% unvaccinated

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

#295

Post by prohobo »

bonIvermectin wrote: post #115
prohobo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the effect they're trying to test. Yes, ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and yes that's probably why there's anecdotal evidence of it working. The reason people are testing it is because it has potential anti-viral properties as well. Researchers discovered that ivermectin is a protease inhibitor - which means it can prevent viral replication when it comes to Covid. The problem, from what I understand, is…

> it has potential anti-viral properties as well doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect while treating COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934083/

That's likely true. Hopefully someone can modify it to create the effect without the huge dosage?

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

#296

Post by kodah »

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.

I mean, you should never really take advice from any expert that isn't sitting in front of you, imo. Podcasts exist to gather views and often incorporate bias and misinformation in various forms to achieve those ends. They're no different from listening to Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow in terms of information quality; they may interview SMEs but at the end of the day the way they interview them and the subjects they focus on matter much more if you're not a discerning person on a given subject.

When I listen to podcasts, even ones that try to give good information like Freakonomics, I always listen to them for entertainment first. It's like maintaining boundaries with your information sources.

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

#297

Post by prohobo »

jjoonathan wrote: post #185
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the parent comment are in complete agreement. They even said, in the first sentences: > Yes, ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and yes that's probably why there's anecdotal evidence of it working. The reason people are testing it is because it has potential anti-viral properties as well. And then you said: > Yes, some people are interested in Ivermectin as a protease inhibitor. But the reason the de-wormer cam…

Hey, prohobo was first to agree completely with the parent post: > Yes, ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, and yes that's probably why there's anecdotal evidence of it working. and then shit on it for not discussing their pet theory: > it's funny how badly you misunderstand the situation

That pet theory is what got it classified as a drug of interest in the first place. That's why most of us even know what ivermectin is.

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

#298

Post by disambiguation »

ceejayoz wrote: post #294
disambiguation wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/14/joe-rogan-fans-demogra... See the chart (oddly) titled "Over Half of Joe Rogan's Fans Are Vaccinated Against COVID-19" about 2/3 down. Avid fans: 55% vaccinated, 45% unvaccinated Nonfans: 76% vaccinated, 24% unvaccinated

very interesting, i'm inspired to do some quick loose math

1 in 10 people are avid fans (3 in 10 if you include casual)

7 in 10 are under the age of 45 - negligible covid deaths, so we'll look at the 3 in 10 over 45

~20% could have been vaccinated if they didn't listen to JRE

it's estimated that ~200k lives could have been saved by the vaccine [0]

so

.1 * .3 * .2 * 200k is the number of deaths attributable to Joe Rogan

[0] (i'm extrapolating the ratio at the time to todays 1M deaths) https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-...

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

#299

Post by CWuestefeld »

michaelgrosner2 wrote: post #250
CWuestefeld wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You realize you're being as misleading and unfair as 'the media' you wanted to criticize, right?

You realize that the word "media" appears nowhere in my comment, right?

My intention was to point out a general trend across all discourse, be that traditional media, or even between individuals.

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

#300

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

moistofreason wrote: post #284
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I appreciate how he rejects the fact that there is a deadly virus as source for the deaths without evidence. "Then I verified that the deaths couldn’t be explained by the COVID delta variant." ....

Regardless, we do know that the vaccine saves lives, and what we definitely know at this point is there is going to be very little debate about how ineffective Ivermectin is.

Post reply on HN