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

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#311

Post by mumblemumble » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:21 PM UTC

WithinReason wrote: post #303

crazyjncsu wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 far…

What's the downside of giving Ivermectin to livestock that don't have parasites?

Ivermectin stops working.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#312

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

The top part of the article is excellent, and literal worms as a confounding factor in trials of a deworming treatment makes a ton of sense.

The end of the article, where he speculates about vaccine denial, is less useful.

It’s kind of funny that the author spends most of the article rigorously applying the empirical and inductive scientific method, but then at the end just takes off on a flight into his own mind like some kind of ancient philosopher, finding their way by the power of thought alone.

It’s really easy to fool oneself into thinking that because you are smart and knowledgeable in one area, you are smart and knowledgeable in general. That’s how ego and the mind works. It turns out, that’s not how knowledge works though. You have to observe and test to build real knowledge.

The author, in exploring vaccine denial, would probably be better served by following the same method he did for ivermectin: exhaustively surveying the current state of scientific studies of the phenomenon, and attempting to rigorously synthesize it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#313

Post by mcphage » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #243

DoreenMichele wrote: post #17

This is wonderfully fun stuff to read: This is from ivmmeta.com, part of a sprawling empire of big professional-looking sites promoting unorthodox coronavirus treatments. I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret - but my hat is off to them...Putting aside the question of accuracy and grading only on presentation and scale, this is the most impressive act of science communication…

The paragraph you quoted is, alone, pretty much enough to dismiss this entire article outright. It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. He sees a slick and well-presented site on a topic that is not only politically fraught, but well known to have a massive propaganda effort behind it, and he just completely refuses to even consider questio…

> It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it.

I don't think that paragraph is as complimentary as you do.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#314

Post by nickspacek » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

deadpannini wrote: post #284

rscho wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a doc. I am also a medical researcher, but you (and most other people here) _have_ to realize that the vast majority of practicing MDs are _not_ scientists, and understand almost nothing when reading medical studies. And that's fine, because it's not their job. The profession is bound by guidelines and expert opinion. Experts do research, formulate guidelines, and guidelines get applied by practitioners. And no,…

The dissonance here is intense. On the one hand, "practicing MDs ... understand almost nothing when reading medical studies", but also I don't "know better than the average doc [just] because [I've] read 10 studies." Is the idea that doctors deserve deference because they are conditioned to submit to guidelines formulated by experts? There is a lack of consensus on many long-standing, common medical questions, much l…

Great point. Perhaps the idea is that neither you nor the avg doc can conclude much from reading 10 studies. Therefore, defer to the experts?

As to why the COVID situation is different, presumably because prostate cancer screening affects only you (and perhaps your family in the case of a true/false positive/negative diagnosis), and COVID represents a threat to everyone around you, and everyone around them, etc.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#315

Post by user-the-name » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #313

user-the-name wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paragraph you quoted is, alone, pretty much enough to dismiss this entire article outright. It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. He sees a slick and well-presented site on a topic that is not only politically fraught, but well known to have a massive propaganda effort behind it, and he just completely refuses to even consider questio…

> It shows such a reckless disregard for critical thinking that it is impossible to trust anything that comes after it. I don't think that paragraph is as complimentary as you do.

I am referring to this bit in particular: "I have no idea who runs it - they’ve very reasonably kept their identity secret"

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#316

Post by PragmaticPulp » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

Shank wrote: post #49

This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure: > As best I can tell, this is some kind of Egyptian trial. It might or might not be an RCT; it says stuff like “Patients were self-allocated to the treatment groups; the first 3 days of the week for the intervention arm while the other 3 days for symptomatic treatment”. Were they self-allocated in the sense that they got to choose? Doe…

> This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure

This post is a breath of fresh air for the blog and feels refreshingly well-researched. Between that and the unquestionable popularity of COVID-related discussion, it’s no wonder this article is popular.

Scott is undeniably a good blog writer with an entertaining writing style that resonates with his reader base. However, I’ve become disillusioned with a lot of his other recent writings like the “Great Families” post in which he presented a lot of conjecture that pandered to his core readership without any research or evidence to support it. Specifically, his position that genetics are the primary explanation for “Great Families” while ignoring obvious heritability of things like wealth and social status. Even the old Slate Star Codex and new Astral Codex Ten communities started calling him out on it after that article.

Scott’s writings are undeniably entertaining and usually quite fun to read, but I’ve long since learned to read them more critically because his writings have a way of projecting a sort of humble confidence while either hedging any statements so much that little is actually communicated, or sometimes inserting conjecture or feelings with a lot of linguistic window dressing such that it’s easy to mistake it for fact.

I hope this article is a sign that the writings are shifting more toward the old-school, heavily-researched style that made the blog so popular.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#317

Post by cryptica » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

What I don't understand is what is the incentive to publish fake studies to make a cheap generic (low profit) medicine look good? Even Merck, one of the manufacturers of Ivermectin claimed that the studies are invalid (then soon after announced that they are releasing a more expensive competing medicine which they have full patent rights over...). On the other hand, I know exactly what the incentives are to promote vaccines, lockdowns, bailouts, mandates and mass firings.

Journalists often said "To find the truth, follow the money, look at the incentives." It seems that 99.9% of the money is against Ivermectin. Based on my experience working for big corporations, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some directors organized a campaign to threaten, silence and discredit scientists who pose a threat to corporate profits. That is not far fetched at all. Anyone remember big tobacco funding studies to prove that smoking is harmless? You think corporations are less powerful today? With all that money printing and trillion dollar bailouts? With all the media censorship?

Big corporations managed to corrupt the legal system to get Steven Donziger jailed, why couldn't they corrupt the medical establishment in the same way to slander research papers and researchers. How do we know the password was really just 1234... That whole story sounds made up.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#318

Post by dekhn » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #297

romeros wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

romeros is right. public health people have to do third-order thinking to maximize the overall health impact. I haven't done RCTs but we studied them in detail in my stats class in grad school.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#319

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:32 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #305

darkerside wrote: post #302

> And it was! It was a fluke! A literal, physical, fluke! For my whole life, God has been placing terrible puns in my path to irritate me, and this would be the worst one ever! So it has to be true! I think I don't get the joke here. Can someone dissect it for me? (Yes, thereby killing it) I love this man's writing so much. Intelligent, empathetic, visionary, and simple. All at the same time. With no other author do…

Fluke is a type of worm

[deleted]

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#320

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #260

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people who believe Ivermectin works are actually doing that? Are there differences besides dosage and is it possible to split that dosage for appropriate human levels?

I don't know numbers, but there are credible reports of farming supply companies starting to restrict sales (so greater than zero, but I haven't a clue how many). Differences can be that not all the preparations contain only the one active ingredient. Dosing appears to be whole other kettle of fish, because understandably people have no idea what a therapeutic or prophylactic dose actually might be - because as far a…

Two of my relatives are running Covid wards in a rural part of the country, and they are filled with people who had their vets get them IVM or who had picked it up off the shelf. My next door neighbor told me he had his dog’s vet write him a prescription. You can guess his political persuasion and vaccine status.