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

301–310 of 348 posts

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

#301

Post by weeblewobble »

imgabe wrote: post #36

The whole Ivermectin debacle was ridiculous. I never had Covid. Or if I did, it was so mild I never noticed. So, I really have no dog in this fight. But the way the media handled this coverage was really, really off-putting. First, if it doesn't work, just say that. "It doesn't work". "Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for Covid". That's all that was really necessary, right? But no, there was this whole ridicu…

I'm a little confused. You're complaining about how "the media handled this coverage" but your specific complaints seems to be about jokes made by Twitter users. Who exactly is "the media" here?

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

#302

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #287
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

All I’m saying is that I don’t get why Joe Rogan and MSM are even comparable if they’re being held to totally different standards. You can critique them both without comparing them. They can both spout misinformation and bias differently because they are fundamentally different products. And they can critique each other’s biases and failures because, wel, they’re different things??

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

#303

Post by liquid_bluing »

jeroenhd wrote: post #101
janmarsal wrote: post #81

I don't get it. I don't understand anything about medicine but as far as I know the Japanese used ivermectin to treat COVID so it's not just some developing countries that use it. I'm from Finland and our national news company even reported about some Finnish pharma companies that developed a nasal spay that could treat COVID. That nasal spray included ivermectin and they said it's such a shame ivermectin has such a…

The danger was not that the medicine itself, but the fact that it was a) unproven to have any effect, b) often taken in horse doses causing nasty side effects (because horse medicine if often good enough for human consumption, even if it's not held to the same standard) and above all c) seen as an alternative to proper measures like vaccination, masks, the whole ordeal. It's a pretty good way to get rid of parasites,…

The dose per kg is the same for horses and humans.

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

#304

Post by liquid_bluing »

acdha wrote: post #157
cersa8 wrote: post #84

Isn't Ivermectin most effective at the onset of symptoms [0] ? From the article "They looked at data from all patients; then analyzed data from patients who received ivermectin or a placebo 24 hours before they were hospitalized" This sounds like Ivermectin was given when symptoms where so severe, hospitalization was required. This could well be too late for Ivermectin to be effective. [0] https://www.ijidonline.com/…

No. Ivermectin has not proven effective at any point.

Has it been proven not effective at all points?

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

#305

Post by spaetzleesser »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #302
spaetzleesser wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

All I’m saying is that I don’t get why Joe Rogan and MSM are even comparable if they’re being held to totally different standards. You can critique them both without comparing them. They can both spout misinformation and bias differently because they are fundamentally different products. And they can critique each other’s biases and failures because, wel, they’re different things??

I just don't see a point in criticizing Rogan. He does exactly what he claims he does and I don't want him to get cancelled. His show is useful.

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

#306

Post by snidane »

darthparker wrote: post #192
maskil wrote: post #134

The "largest trial to date" does not mean that it's case closed. While the case for Ivermectin has been weakened recently, there still seems a significant body of evidence to suggest that it does work. Many (not discredited) trials show efficacy and there is a significant observational correlation between population mass consumption of Ivermectin and better results with Covid. There are also many doctors that swear b…

You're suggesting the drug companies are manipulating trials in order to _not sell_ a drug? That doesn't sound like any drug company in America.

Covid vaccines got the emergency authorization and still keep it because there "is not" an adequate drug for covid.

It totally makes sense from pharma to prevent discovery of a functioning drug because they found a better cash cow - vaccines.

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

#307

Post by bb88 »

the_af wrote: post #226
Hallucinaut wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's emblematic of laymen without understanding of medicine both demanding treatment with no evidence behind it and claiming the establishment NOT providing it is evidence of some vast, many-tentacled conspiracy. However, one of your comments shows the true problem. It's not FOR the media to decide. Murdoch may disagree but the media is just reflecting the establishment. You can argue about the effectiveness…

> It's ironic as those who don't trust vaccines seem to flock to the medical advice of those without any training. This is a trend I've observed in proponents of New Age alternative "medicine", way before COVID. They can simultaneously believe that Western medicine is "unproven" or a "hoax", and that doctors are "untrustworthy" and "big pharma" wants you to buy unproven stuff, and no amount of qualifications will con…

There's a lot of blame to go around here that doesn't only belong in the New Age alternative medicine cult. (Crystals and such are clearly fraudulent)

Last I checked colloidal silver was being sold by a christian evangelist named Jim Bakker. Then there's chiropractors. Then there was the anti-vaxxers. Then the "vitamins will cure anything under the sun." Then there was things like "all-herbal fen phen" and other herbal products. Then there's that famous goop company led by a has been actress which has some questionable products, but sold to housewives. Oh and the entire premise of homeopathic medicine is a fraud.

And then FDA approved drugs like fen phen (Wyeth) which should not have made it to market some how did, and caused heart valve problems.

Hell, when you think about it, what the fuck exactly is holy water which is used by the Catholic church?

If you can dupe people into the premise that "Magical Things are Real", then it becomes easy to take their money away from them. And right now, it doesn't seem too hard to do these days.

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

#308

Post by jeroenhd »

liquid_bluing wrote: post #303
jeroenhd wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger was not that the medicine itself, but the fact that it was a) unproven to have any effect, b) often taken in horse doses causing nasty side effects (because horse medicine if often good enough for human consumption, even if it's not held to the same standard) and above all c) seen as an alternative to proper measures like vaccination, masks, the whole ordeal. It's a pretty good way to get rid of parasites,…

The dose per kg is the same for horses and humans.

Of course! The problem is that when laypeople buy veterinary doses (because you can't get a package of human pills for a decent price), it's very easy to underestimate the effective concentration of the medicine. There's also a risk that the material the effective ingredient is wrapped in (flavouring, gelling agents, etc.) doesn't go down well with the human body, or that the higher concentration has an effect on the human body.

If you compensate for the body weight and ensure that the gel agent the animal medicine comes in doesn't have any adverse effects on the human body (it probably doesn't) then consuming animal medicine can be an excellent way to treat parasitic infections if you're awfully poor and don't qualify for any insurance. Consuming any chemical not made for human consumption is dangerous, but if you don't have another option, it's better than doing nothing.

People ridicule the whole horse dewormer story, but it's no secret that people around the world have turned to animal medicine out of necessity due to prices of medication.

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

#309

Post by tonetheman »

criticaltinker wrote: post #136
bonIvermectin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

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/

Nope not even close.

Ivermectin does not help covid. Period. It is not contested. The people who tell you it is contested are interested in selling it to you. It is snake oil in the context of covid.

It is great for other things. But for covid it is a good indication you are a deluded idiot. (with 95% confidence)

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

#310

Post by mistermann »

jmull wrote: post #237
imgabe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. If you look at, for example, Scott Alexander’s analysis[1] there’s 26/30 studies showing an effect. Now, if you’re a medical doctor like he is and you spend hours poring over the studies, you can eventually conclude that they’re all flawed in various ways, and there’s not really an effect. If you’re a layperson and you see that there’s studies published in peer-reviewed journals, bu…

You have people advocating medical treatments against the advice of medical professionals. The arguments include using studies they have no basis to understand and which don't actually support their theory. Not that they care since they are just looking for points to superficially support their predetermined conclusion, which they formed listening to Joe Rogen or reading social media posts. You don't want to call tha…

> I'm really a lot more concerned with the irresponsibility of pushing ineffective medical treatments to a serious health hazard than I am with how gently "the media" tells people that their conspiracy theories are wrong.

Perhaps you should be concerned with that which causes more harm. After all, a lack of concern for what is true is the fundamental flaw with conspiracy theorists is it not?

Post reply on HN