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

331–340 of 348 posts

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

#331

Post by Nursie »

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…

> Nonetheless, Ivermectin is safe drug to take in normal doses, and will help people that are hospitalised with COVID and are given steroids.

On what evidence are you basing this? There appears to be no good reason to think so.

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

#332

Post by Nursie »

tux1968 wrote: post #10
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…

> The misunderstandings around this drug stem from misunderstandings of basic statistics and the scientific method. This is why you shouldn't get your medical advice from Joe Rogan. You're 100% correct, of course. But the prevalent MSM response, of calling it horse medicine, was equally damaging. Since it is a well known, effective, and respected medicine used in humans, this characterization as "horse paste" made it…

>> this characterization as "horse paste"

Is likely because of the legions of people who have been dosing themselves with horse paste.

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

#333

Post by jiggawatts »

rscho wrote: post #23
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…

> Nonetheless, Ivermectin is safe drug to take in normal doses, and will help people that are hospitalised with COVID and are given steroids. In what way will it help in people having no parasite?

You don't necessarily know if a patient has parasites or not when they present at a hospital with severe COVID. Even if just 1% of patients have parasites, then giving them a single pill of Ivermectin before commencing steroid treatment could save their life. For the other 99% of patients, it does nothing.

It's a bit like an episode of Dr House. Trying to determine an illness solely with tests is often futile or prohibitively expensive. It can also take long enough that meanwhile the patient will die. Directly treating them "just on the off chance" can actually be a better approach, but obviously this would have to be weighed up against the side-effects and risks of the treatment and drugs involved.

Ivermectin luckily is so safe that some doctors have called for giving it to every COVID patient that goes to hospital. Saving 1% of patients is... thousands of people at the scale of the pandemic.

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

#334

Post by headsoup »

civilized wrote: post #236
headsoup wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's not about sides. It's about listening to a range of views. I'm talking about 'only' one list because that was the topic. People gotta stop with this whole "you're either with the science or against it" rubbish. Be adults, inform yourself and make decisions. Don't just let media, politicians or fringe dwellers define your 'label' for you. Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for pat…

The topic is cherry-picking experts (outsider experts in Rogan's case). The person you replied to said it can be justified because some experts are better than others, implying that outsider experts are better in this case. You supported that by saying there's a long list of cases where outsider experts are right and establishment experts are wrong. In this topic, it's clearly relevant that this is far from universal…

The person I replied to was quite obviously being sarcastic I thought, and if not then I misread, apologies.

As in my other responses, I agree and my view is not to just dismiss a view just because of which 'side' it is on.

We must keep reprosecuting the evidence, data and opinions over time to try to maintain objectivity while avoiding being swayed by manipulation, fraud and/or populist consensus.

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

#335

Post by JasonFruit »

toss1 wrote: post #292
JasonFruit wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

When someone insists on redefining your position before they'll argue with it, it's a sure sign they have a position they'd like to attribute to you and argue with instead. You've done that twice. I'm not interested.

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

#336

Post by czowk »

rbut wrote: post #138

c19early.com [1] lists numerous studies for Ivermectin and other drugs in the use of treating COVID-19 for both early treatment, and throughout all stages. Ivermectin currently sits at an average efficacy of 65% after 81 studies. So in reality, this study that WSJ cites should be added to the pool of efficacy, and not used to completely debunk Ivermectin. [1] https://c19early.com/

c19early/ivmmeta etc. and all those sites/faux meta analyses are not really reliable for determining (or even hypothesising) efficacy; We don’t see such benefit when looking at defined endpoint points in RCTs, rather than their weird synthesis of disparate cherry picked endpoints from ecological, cohort, case-control studies and RCTs. They mostly show low to very low quality/certainty evidence, as well as in vitro studies, observational studies, retrospective studies, non-randomised studies, and/or non-controlled studies. They even include studies that were negative. They also do not follow any methodological or report guidelines; i.e. not including protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment, certainly of evidence etc.

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

#337

Post by cf141q5325 »

brokensegue wrote: post #329
cf141q5325 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Ivermectin is somewhat a scares resource is nonsense, there were rather large countries that gave it out like candy with no problems. I can not overstate how cheap and easy to produce it is, quite different from masks. I would also be very doubtful many people would use an obvious placebo. Its also far from a nonsensical argument. This isnt about vocalizing your opinion and communicating facts but forcing the be…

> This isnt about vocalizing your opinion and communicating facts but forcing the behavior of other people without an actual harm at stake No force was applied to ivermectin proponents. I don't know what you think I'm proposing. We merely enforced the sensible existing rules that drugs should be prescribed only when there is evidence they work. The ivermectin proponents are generally anti vaccine. People took ivermec…

The force is you preventing me from getting Ivermectin. If you take a step back, the rest is your description of your perspective ie why it annoys you. From my perspective, there is no noteworthy negative effect of me getting it and i can clearly describe the negative effect in you preventing me from getting a functioning placebo. From my perspective, an action you take (limiting the availability of a non harmful placebo) has a negative effect on me. This motivates me to a reaction. And i dont think you could expect otherwise, its what any rational actor would do.

So again, neither of us needs to be convinced that i am not an utter moron,

that might not be possible, but do you really want us to go on opposite sites of political camps over this? Not only am i not a nazi but i am a friendly idiot that is actually looking for cooperation, if you cant get along with me, who do you get along with? Because it seems to me like you already burned a lot of bridges and my cooperation can be bought at the very cheap price of not interfering in me getting my horse dewormer despite your utter contempt for my idiocy. Yes i do understand its a placebo, it isnt a substitute for a vaccine and i am of legally sound mind. So where do i sign?

So do you have a thought process and evaluation of the cost benefit analysis of starting a conflict over this? Because it seems not. You believing you are right doesnt make the consequences of those actions (the reactions) go away. The world is full of idiots who react to your actions unrelated to whether you are right. Which you can think about. And should unless you want to end up over time having started a conflict with all the idiots (ie everyone given the exposure to enough topics) despite being right.

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

#338

Post by coldtea »

nostoc wrote: post #159
headsoup wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the sci…

Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place. Yes, there is inertia in the scientific community, and sometimes the dissenting voices have a hard time being heard. That much is true. But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics.

>Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place.

Neither would some that disagreed were quasks so all who disagree with the mainstream are quacks, which is how they are treated.

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

#339

Post by DanBC »

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#340

Post by brokensegue »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #337
brokensegue wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isnt about vocalizing your opinion and communicating facts but forcing the behavior of other people without an actual harm at stake No force was applied to ivermectin proponents. I don't know what you think I'm proposing. We merely enforced the sensible existing rules that drugs should be prescribed only when there is evidence they work. The ivermectin proponents are generally anti vaccine. People took ivermec…

The force is you preventing me from getting Ivermectin. If you take a step back, the rest is your description of your perspective ie why it annoys you. From my perspective, there is no noteworthy negative effect of me getting it and i can clearly describe the negative effect in you preventing me from getting a functioning placebo. From my perspective, an action you take (limiting the availability of a non harmful pla…

I am not taking any action to prevent you from getting ivermectin. The law already prohibits it. Not enforcing laws uniformly would create a bad precedent. Such a bad precedent far outweighs whatever minute advantage you individually get from the placebo effect that you wouldn't get from some other placebo.

Everything else you talk about re: burned bridges is silly. The population causing a problem here is small. Most people got vaccinated and don't want ivermectin. I won't cave to them just like I won't cave to Q supporters or flat earthers.

You act like not giving these people ivermectin took a lot of effort or was costly. Just the opposite. It was the default no effort action of a system working properly.

Post reply on HN