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

311–320 of 348 posts

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

#311

Post by mistermann »

azangru wrote: post #50
belter wrote: post #35

We did not eliminate pandemics. Instead, as a Society we barely made it through this one. Despite the massive human and economic cost of this latest pandemic, governments are making the same mistakes again: - Lack of preparation. - Not enough resources allocated to research. - Too much reliance on Pharma and particularly Vaccine producing companies. The best research is still done mostly via foundations or private fu…

> - Lack of preparation. > - Not enough resources allocated to research. How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example? Some might even argue that it's precisely because of the research done in preparation for a new pandemic, which included studying novel coronaviruses using something that Fauci says was…

> How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example?

Ensuring that the public is reasonably skilled in thinking, journalists are skilled in both thinking and telling the truth, people are reasonable satisfied with their relative lot in life (minimize wealth inequality, etc) lest they have something to get revenge for any way they can, etc would all have gone a long way toward minimizing the problems we experienced during covid.

Unfortunately, we didn't do any of these things, and now people are even angrier.

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

#312

Post by roenxi »

ceejayoz wrote: post #293
moistofreason wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1) Did they believe that the medicine would harm the patient & why would they believe that? If there were any evidence it could, surely that would have been bought up loudly.

2) Is there a secret handshake or QR code we should be using to separate this new sort of "good doctor" whos prescriptions are good from these "bad but qualified doctors" whos prescriptions are bad? I have naively gone all these years believing that qualified doctors could prescribe treatments but it seems that there is some uncertainty on that point. How would you separate the two without relying on your own opinion?

3) If we are relying on our own opinion anyway and doctors can't agree, why is it the case that patients with the prescription can't make their own decisions based on their own risk tolerances?

4) Doesn't the prescribing doctor have a better understanding of the patients needs and situation than a pharmacist? The pharmacist isn't exactly doing an in-depth interview to make their decision, they stand at a counter and hand out drugs.

I'd put it to you that the behaviour of this hypothetical pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription ... is pretty poor. Verging on outrageous.

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

#313

Post by ceejayoz »

roenxi wrote: post #312
ceejayoz wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1) Did they believe that the medicine would harm the patient & why would they believe that? If there were any evidence it could, surely that would have been bought up loudly. 2) Is there a secret handshake or QR code we should be using to separate this new sort of "good doctor" whos prescriptions are good from these "bad but qualified doctors" whos prescriptions are bad? I have naively gone all these years believing…

1) "The FDA and CDC are explicitly saying not to take this for COVID" is a fairly significant form of evidence.

2) Who said anything about picking good/bad doctors? The prescription and the patient are what's being evaluated. A good doctor can make mistakes; a bad doctor can write plenty of reasonable prescriptions worth filling.

3) Because we've tried that as a society. It's where the term "snake oil salesman" originated. We decided correctly that it was a sucky setup.

4) My pharmacist has caught a drug interaction my doctor didn't. They likely have a more accurate record of what I'm currently taking, as well. You seem to be mixing up pharmacists and pharmacy techs; perhaps a visit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacist would be appropriate.

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

#314

Post by cf141q5325 »

brokensegue wrote: post #197
moistofreason wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Prescriptions which we know now would've been useless... And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless

Placebo effect is very real and the alternative for early COVID treatment is literally nothing. Ivermectin isnt quite as harmless as sugarpills, but its really close.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #313
roenxi wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Did they believe that the medicine would harm the patient & why would they believe that? If there were any evidence it could, surely that would have been bought up loudly. 2) Is there a secret handshake or QR code we should be using to separate this new sort of "good doctor" whos prescriptions are good from these "bad but qualified doctors" whos prescriptions are bad? I have naively gone all these years believing…

1) "The FDA and CDC are explicitly saying not to take this for COVID" is a fairly significant form of evidence. 2) Who said anything about picking good/bad doctors? The prescription and the patient are what's being evaluated. A good doctor can make mistakes; a bad doctor can write plenty of reasonable prescriptions worth filling. 3) Because we've tried that as a society. It's where the term "snake oil salesman" origi…

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by roenxi »

ceejayoz wrote: post #313
roenxi wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Did they believe that the medicine would harm the patient & why would they believe that? If there were any evidence it could, surely that would have been bought up loudly. 2) Is there a secret handshake or QR code we should be using to separate this new sort of "good doctor" whos prescriptions are good from these "bad but qualified doctors" whos prescriptions are bad? I have naively gone all these years believing…

1) "The FDA and CDC are explicitly saying not to take this for COVID" is a fairly significant form of evidence. 2) Who said anything about picking good/bad doctors? The prescription and the patient are what's being evaluated. A good doctor can make mistakes; a bad doctor can write plenty of reasonable prescriptions worth filling. 3) Because we've tried that as a society. It's where the term "snake oil salesman" origi…

1. Well, ok, but that is a different argument. You said that a pharmacist could refuse a customer in cases such as when the medicine caused harm. Is there any evidence that this medicine caused harm? We all know a bunch of people said not to take it, that is not something anyone is going to argue about.

3. So why are pharmacists immune to being snake oil salesmen but perfectly qualified doctors giving out prescriptions can be snake oil salesman? Is there something wrong with the system that qualifies ordinary doctors?

4. Are you suggesting that the reason the pharmacists were overriding this prescription is because there is an interaction with Ivermectin? I feel pretty confident you'd come off the worse if we check, but I'll admit I haven't.

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

#317

Post by brokensegue »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #314
brokensegue wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prescriptions which we know now would've been useless... And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless

Placebo effect is very real and the alternative for early COVID treatment is literally nothing. Ivermectin isnt quite as harmless as sugarpills, but its really close.

supplies of ivermectin are finite. it's a waste of money and involves non-zero risk.

But more importantly, medicine isn't in the business of selling sham cures. People can always take homeopathic cures or vitamin D if they want that.

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

#318

Post by ceejayoz »

roenxi wrote: post #316
ceejayoz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) "The FDA and CDC are explicitly saying not to take this for COVID" is a fairly significant form of evidence. 2) Who said anything about picking good/bad doctors? The prescription and the patient are what's being evaluated. A good doctor can make mistakes; a bad doctor can write plenty of reasonable prescriptions worth filling. 3) Because we've tried that as a society. It's where the term "snake oil salesman" origi…

1. Well, ok, but that is a different argument. You said that a pharmacist could refuse a customer in cases such as when the medicine caused harm. Is there any evidence that this medicine caused harm? We all know a bunch of people said not to take it, that is not something anyone is going to argue about. 3. So why are pharmacists immune to being snake oil salesmen but perfectly qualified doctors giving out prescriptio…

1. A pharmacist might justifiably believe giving a medication to someone when the FDA and CDC have explicitly said not to is a form of doing harm; that they've got good reason to make the recommendation. They, like medical doctors, are empowered to make judgement calls.

3. Strawman. I don't doubt that there are ivermectin-flogging pharmacists just like there are ivermectin-flogging doctors. Your question was "why is it the case that patients with the prescription can't make their own decisions based on their own risk tolerances?"

4. Your question was "Doesn't the prescribing doctor have a better understanding of the patients needs and situation than a pharmacist?" I answered that; they do not always, no; this fact is part of the reason they exist.

This goes a lot smoother if you follow the chain of the questions you asked through to my answers to them, rather than mixing up the context with a blender.

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

#319

Post by cf141q5325 »

brokensegue wrote: post #317
cf141q5325 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Placebo effect is very real and the alternative for early COVID treatment is literally nothing. Ivermectin isnt quite as harmless as sugarpills, but its really close.

supplies of ivermectin are finite. it's a waste of money and involves non-zero risk. But more importantly, medicine isn't in the business of selling sham cures. People can always take homeopathic cures or vitamin D if they want that.

Ivermectin is off patent and extremely cheap, there is zero problem producing enough. And if i want to waste a few cents on a few tablets, thats my prerogative.

The risk is also far below aspirin. As to what you consider an acceptable placebo, why should anyone care? As long as we are all consenting adults, i would say mind your own business, would you?

Knowing that the more you try bossing people around, the more likely they are going to push back. Leaving us all in a non to friendly environment. So ask yourself, are you really willing to start societal conflict over denying people a non-harmful, not scares placebo?

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

#320

Post by brokensegue »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #319
brokensegue wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

supplies of ivermectin are finite. it's a waste of money and involves non-zero risk. But more importantly, medicine isn't in the business of selling sham cures. People can always take homeopathic cures or vitamin D if they want that.

Ivermectin is off patent and extremely cheap, there is zero problem producing enough. And if i want to waste a few cents on a few tablets, thats my prerogative. The risk is also far below aspirin. As to what you consider an acceptable placebo, why should anyone care? As long as we are all consenting adults, i would say mind your own business, would you? Knowing that the more you try bossing people around, the more li…

we require prescriptions for drugs for a reason. medicine should be evidence based. I am also upset that pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies. people selling snake oil hurt society and should be forced out.

further there were supply problems with ivermectin when only a small portion of the population was trying to take it. a clinical trial on ivermectin was halted due to supply issues. imagine if it were recommended broadly.

Post reply on HN