We weren't allowed to say a lot if things in 2020. Weird!
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
341–350 of 644 posts
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#342I present this post, the fact that it made the front page, and many of the comments on it, as evidence that the US is sliding into idiocy.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. It may work, but that's why you get recommendations for "vaccine made me magnetic" and other garbage like that whenever you search for videos. It's the same group that was pushing hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug
It is and it is weird. What do these people (the promoters) get out of it? Attention? A more dedicated following?
How about having a discussion? Not everything has to be so complicated lol
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems it is you who is misrepresenting the ema link. Key quote: " Although ivermectin is generally well tolerated at doses authorised for other indications, side effects could increase with the much higher doses that would be needed to obtain concentrations of ivermectin in the lungs that are effective against the virus. Toxicity when ivermectin is used at higher than approved doses therefore cannot be excluded. "…
Agreed on missing this facet of their advisory. However, the concentration of ivermectin in the early in vitro study was 35x higher than the plasma concentration reached for the approved ivermectin dose [1] whereas the doses used in ivermectin trials ( https://ivmmeta.com ) range from 1x to 10x the approved dose daily, with successful results as low as 4x approved dose (1x approved dose daily for 4 days)[2]. So whate…
You've gone from "no, the EMA didn't really to object" to "here's why their objection is wrong". See how that works?
The thing about Covid is that it isn't "super deadly". It has about a 1% fatality rate. That's terrible for society as a whole when the disease is also extremely infectious. But it means that "I took X and recovered from Covid" isn't the most amazing thing.
"So whatever ivermectin is doing, it doesn’t seem to require the concentration that the initial in vitro study required." Maybe the trial dose does nothing at all and people are recovering like they normally do.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#345I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…
> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.
And who will judge it misinformation. You want to give someone the right to censor if they think something is false ? You probably think people are to dumb to do that for themselves. You will end up victim of that censorship soon or later. You can be sure someone with more power than you, somewhere, is thinking the same of you (too dumb to think by themselves).
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562573 .
Why?
It veered off topic. I agree that there's a point of connection between the media/tech/institutional treatment of that question and this one, but arguing about who said "man made" vs. whatever a year ago is way into a different field of weeds.
Your comment bears some responsibility for that, btw. If you had posted something less flamebaity and more thoughtful, the subthread would probably have been better. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is to blame when YouTube censors life saving recommendations and people needlessly die?
No-one. Since doctors don't go to YouTube to find out what to do. Until there is solid evidence for a drug noone should be going to YouTube to decide what to do, expecially when we have many proven low risks vaccines.
Not true. A bunch of doctors went on YouTube about usefulness of hydroxychloroquine in their patients and got taken down by YouTube.
Every person is unique and medications/supplements/food will work for some and not others. Best example is coffee. If you have gene that metabolizes caffeine fast then coffee is good for you and helps you because your body clears caffeine and reaps benefits of antioxidants in coffee. On the other hand if you don’t have that gene then caffeine lingers in your body and causes all sorts of damage and therefore drinking coffee is bad for you.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've posted something like 9 unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in this thread. That has a seriously damaging effect on discussion, especially when the topic is divisive as this one is. I'm sure you don't intend that, but the effects work that way regardless of intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... . If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.ht…
I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.
Seconded.
The whole Ivermectin saga does not deserve the attention that it is getting, those that are relentlessly pushing it are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic and lead to people getting ill and some fraction of those will die.
I've read up on this thing as much as I could and it's quite simple: there is at this point in time zero hard evidence that it works in humans short of using it in dosage that is well outside the range that we have data on. It's just the HCQ story warmed over.
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#349I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…
Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. It may work, but that's why you get recommendations for "vaccine made me magnetic" and other garbage like that whenever you search for videos. It's the same group that was pushing hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug
Ok, I was confused by this line of reasoning, so did some digging. I believe it's one of the popular antivax disinfo conspiracy theories. Here's my reading.
The line of reasoning hinges on the vaccines being "experimental" and only being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization, as opposed to a full approval. The FDA policies for EUA indicate they're only to be used when there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative. This makes a lot of sense - if (let's say) someone comes up with a new flu vaccine (an mRNA one, to continue this example, as that would be kinda exciting), you really want it to go through the full approval process instead of EUA, even if it is better. That's because we have plenty of good, approved flu vaccines.
So, the theory goes, if we had an approved treatment for Covid, then the EUA for the vaccines would be illegal. And so that creates incentives for the pharmaceutical companies to suppress a miracle cure like (they claim) ivermectin.
To anybody with the capacity for rational thought, this is obviously bullshit. We have fully approved treatments already, including remdesivir. The idea that a treatment for Covid, even a pretty good one, would make vaccines unnecessary makes no sense.
I am fairly confident in making the following prediction. Full FDA approval for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines is likely by the end of the year[1], at which point the above line of reasoning will no longer be applicable. Antivaxxers will smoothly transition to another line of argument.
I do think this "theory" is one reason you see a significant overlap between pro-ivermectin and antivax, for example in the comments of Bret Weinstein videos.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/covid-vaccines-what-full-fda...
Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being proven right. That’s the anti-vac crowd’s dearest interest.
Ok, but let's not get confused. This is different than being an anti-vaxxer. You can speak up for something like Ivermectin AND be a pro-vaxxer. The most prominent voice on this is Bret Weinstein (biology PhD), who is more vaccinated than average. He and his wife and kids are vaccinated for the typical things plus typhoid, rabies, yellow fever... They are pro-vaccine and so am I. Vaccines are one of the best inventio…
You can, but you'd have to have some proof.
And so far we do not have any. So until then this story is pushed way further than it has any right to. Weinstein thrives on the censorship, but the fact of the matter is that there simply is no proven efficacy and until then this has no business being promoted to a mainstream audience who might get themselves into a lot of trouble, or who might forego getting vaccinated.