Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 493 posts

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#311

Post by atty »

rajin444 wrote: post #252
atty wrote: post #218

What I find almost more interesting than the article itself is the comments that show a non-zero portion of the HN community (which I think is generally more intellectually curious and educated than average) are actually strongly arguing that ivermectin has strong effect, and even crazier, that it may be safer or more effective than the mRNA vaccines. Is this from being incapable of following science and drawing rati…

Your post is assuming a lot of this science is "settled". I don't think science is settled - especially in this field. Acknowledging that your own statements may be incorrect might help you down the path to figuring out a fix. Hint: as soon as you know you're right, and you make statements based on that, when you're inevitably wrong (not saying this in a disparaging way - making sense and being right through all this…

Settled is a strong claim, but as far as I’m aware (I have many connections amongst the medical and epidemiological communities), the general consensus is that ivermectin does not work. For instance, the FDA, WHO, the AMA, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all say it should not be used outside of clinical trials because there is no good evidence for it, and even Merck, the manufacturer, specifically states it should not be used for COVID at all.

I’m not saying no discourse or testing should happen. I’m a scientist, I believe scientific freedom, and of course, that includes a lot of disagreements. But those disagreements happen in the scientific community, not in the general public. What’s happening in the general public is not at all connected to what’s happening in the research.

Instead, I’m interested in how these “treatments” with no strong evidence are getting weaponized by motivated agents (like the anti-vax crowd) to sow distrust both in scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, et al), and in the use of tools with proven effectiveness, like the vaccines themselves.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#312

Post by shadowgovt »

Clubber wrote: post #301
shadowgovt wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are very complicated, and writing the wrong stuff on a pad can get someone killed. Amoxicillin isn't available without a prescription because using the wrong antibiotic on a disease can make the patient worse.

The example I was replying to was when the patient was already diagnosed with a chronic illness and still had to go back to the doctor every month or so to renew the script, because reasons.

Me too.

When the disease is something that requires frequent reapplication of antibiotics, it's important to confirm periodically that they're working (and that the problem isn't a different bacteria that's amoxicillin-resistant).

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#313

Post by unanswered »

shadowgovt wrote: post #36
rory wrote: post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

How many users have been taking it in human-designed doses, given that it's not generally prescribed for COVID-19 (and therefore those who are taking it for that purpose are mostly self-medicating)?

> given that it's not generally prescribed for COVID-19

This is disinformation, it turns out. Plenty of doctors are prescribing it. Anyone in the US can go online to one of a dozen telemedicine services and get a prescription for an appropriate dose of ivermectin within hours. This can then be filled at any pharmacy in most states which prohibit pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions because they heard on CNN it was for horses. But the media will never report this.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#314

Post by evv555 »

dataduck wrote: post #69
greenonions wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, though there are two obvious courses of action that result from this: 1. Prevent the viewing 2. Increase the readiness Of which I think #2 is most preferable.

Perhaps, but unfortunately #1 is more realistic.

Decaying trust in medical institutions says otherwise.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#315

Post by veemjeem »

EnlightenedBro wrote: post #34

For those interested to learn more about Ivermectin, watch JRE#1671 podcast episode. Lots of interesting information covered about the drug by 2 biologists. It may change your views on this for the better, or the worse.

Dr. Pierre Kory was one of the main dudes promoting ivermectin -- he references the meta-analysis study on ivermectin that was later redacted. Of course when this interview was released (june 22), the study was not yet redacted (july 14) so it looked like the drug worked far better all the drugs including steroids & antibody treatment.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#316

Post by Covzire »

wombatpm wrote: post #286
simpleguitar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Ivermectin paper was surely bad, but it wasn't outrageously bad nor unexpectedly so. Oh, yes it was bad. Very very bad. Outrageously bad. The data was mostly fabricated: https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin-for-covid-19-based-on...

But the larger problem has been the the non-scientific audience running with with things to support their political narrative. If someone from the right infosphere were to promote skinned habanero inserted rectally as a potential prophylactic therapy there would be lawsuits demanding that treatment for people's family members and a furious debate on twitter as to whether habanero or ghost peppers should be used. Bad…

I take exception with your analogy because Ivermectin is an incredibly safe and well tolerated drug and has been used in humans for decades. If you used Tic Tacs or something it would be a lot more accurate.

While I understand and appreciate skepticism around someone using IvM for COVID as much as anyone, what is shocking is the the outright lies that have been spread by media, including a recent viral story from Rolling Stone that went on to be retweeted by many prominent journalists including Rachel Maddow, all creating millions of impressions based on a complete fabrication.

The whole thing was made up, the Doctor they got the quote from didn't even work there anymore, nor were any of the claims true. What's creating incurable division right now in society are stories like these, many people are getting scared because the media is forcing a single narrative with outright outrageous lies that they clearly want to push.

[0]https://news.yahoo.com/oklahomas-ers-backed-people-overdosin...

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#317

Post by ashtonkem »

julianz wrote: post #268
cableshaft wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine found a doctor to prescribe it but his pharmacy won't fill it. He is so pissed. He was only planning to take small doses here or there as he's a teacher and around sick kids all the time, as if it were like Zinc to hopefully help reduce the severity of Covid-19 if he does get it, but despite going through the effort and succeeding in finding a doctor willing to prescribe it (and my friend even signed…

This "friend of yours" should probably get vaccinated then, because we know that works pretty well.

Rumor has it that it’s even free!

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#318

Post by itsdsmurrell »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #271
defaultprimate wrote: post #157

Studies are irrelevant at this point, when we have population level data of over a billion people across India and Africa, and the massive disparities between states/countries that utilized Ivermectin, and those that did not. The drug is safe enough to be used based on this data alone. https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-iv... https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/indias-ivermec... https…

If you are fixated on conspiracy claims against your amazing scientific discovery - pretty much you are always wrong, that's true for perpetual motion machines, faster than light drives (that's the one I hope could be right), extra-ordinary life extensions for microbes applies to humans (wish that one could be right), and covid. If you use opinion columns from obscure news sources to prove you are right, almost alway…

pauses to sip brawndo

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#319

Post by mcguire »

mpalczewski wrote: post #285
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasonable thing is get vaccinated immediately. You could also stick chili peppers in your butt, that probably won't hurt either. It has as much ability to help as horse dewormer.

Calling it horse dewormer is either propaganda, or just a plain bad faith argument. The inventors of this drug won a Nobel prize for the discovery and it’s use in humans. It’s recognized as an essential drug.

...as a dewormer.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#320

Post by slibhb »

atty wrote: post #307
pigeonhole123 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could change every assumption in this comment to the opposite and it would make just as much or little sense. You can’t pretend to be searching for truth if your solution to the problem of people making mistakes is to shut down any possible way to discuss the disagreement. I just find the cognitive dissonance on display here staggering. How do you you know you’re right? Have you ever been wrong? I suppose you knew…

I am not arguing that I know anything to be right or wrong - I am not an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert, or a doctor. I explicitly said that us non-experts are not able to verify these things on our own. I am saying that those communities of experts have decided that the question of ivermectin’s effectiveness is effectively settled. There are of course experts that disagree - there always are (I work…

You've confused science with politics. There is no scientific consensus on whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid. The people claiming this are engaging in politics. There is a consensus that people should not use ivermectin (or any medicine) except as directed by a doctor and not until there is extremely good clinical evidence for its efficacy. But that doesn't imply that ivermectin isn't effective, just that we don't know.

Comparing ivermectin's supposed anti-viral properties to the the standard model or vaccines is absurd.

Post reply on HN