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

341–348 of 348 posts

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

#341

Post by simonh »

strken wrote: post #103
eggy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the high…

For the past two years I've been telling anyone who'll listen that the WHO screwed up by telling people not to wear masks, by claiming transmission wasn't via aerosol particles, and by opposing border closures. I spent a long time getting into arguments about the lab leak theory being almost impossible to disprove. In my comments on HN there's one calling out an article about mask-wearing for drawing the exact wrong…

They did screw up, that’s true. Almost everyone everywhere has been wrong about this virus, mostly several if not many times. That’s because for a long time we were working with very limited and sometimes contradictory or misleading information. I do not believe that the WHO did this for nefarious reasons, or knowingly lied, although they did make some mistakes as a result of leverage and coercion by various states. I blame those states more than I do the WHO.

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

#342

Post by cf141q5325 »

brokensegue wrote: post #340
cf141q5325 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Mos…

It would have been no problem to allow access to ivermectin through offlabel use seeing as there was no other treatment. The fact that this didnt happen was caused by politics. And we do live in a democracy with public opinion having a great sway.

The burning bridges thing is silly as long as you look at individual problems. They sum up quickly. And your political camp just denied me lifesaving horse dewormer, didnt you? Some people might not take that lightly. I dont have to join Q anon or flat earthers to vote tactically to stop you. Especially if you think you get to act the way you do because i have no alternative.

I am pretty sure this is a very real mechanism at play explaining a lot of what we see around us. We really cant afford more confrontation over trivial stuff.

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

#343

Post by eggy »

strken wrote: post #103
eggy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the high…

For the past two years I've been telling anyone who'll listen that the WHO screwed up by telling people not to wear masks, by claiming transmission wasn't via aerosol particles, and by opposing border closures. I spent a long time getting into arguments about the lab leak theory being almost impossible to disprove. In my comments on HN there's one calling out an article about mask-wearing for drawing the exact wrong…

Not denying your right, never have, but choice of where to apply your scrutiny and time spent on it says a lot. A very popular fight commentator, comedian, pod caster, or the people actually creating the guidelines you and your family will live under, right or wrong, is another. Choose your battles kind of thing. I am more fearful of the quiet wrong doers. NYT finally admits many emails in Hunter Biden laptop are authentic. NPR, others dismissed it all as a waste of time, Russian disinformation. Jack Dorsey censored anyone trying to share the NY Post article even through PMs. Joe Rogan has many different people on his show. I find it entertaining and thought provoking. I can't say the same for mainstream media; I am very saddened and worried by this more than Joe Rogan. As a matter of fact, I am happy he stirs the pot. To paraphrase the WAPO's line, "Democracy Dies in Silence".

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

#344

Post by eggy »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #218
eggy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the high…

> tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. Rogan has millions of listeners who take advice from him and shape their worldviews around his. For many people he is more authoritative on health than public health officials like Fauci, even while not having a fraction of the experience or expertise. > How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci There's been no shortage of critici…

So you think Rogan has more influence than the CDC's guidelines that are adopted as legistation for the most part - masking children, vaccines for 5-11 year-olds, ignoring natural immunity, not releasing data? You don't think he gets negative press or death threats? Not to mention Fauci has a direct link to COVID, and has admitted to openly lying "for your own good". Rogan has a diverse assortment on his show, and admits he is not an expert. You cannot hold him responsible for anyone's ignorance or inability to think for themselves. However, when bodies of so-called authority or expert credentials make policy you and your family will have to live by, that is more of a concern of mine, and where I turn my attention. You are free to go after Rogan. A lot of influencers have millions of listeners, and they speak in isolation without lengthy dialogues with any guests. Mainstream media does one-minute edited blurbs for you to digest like pablum. And they carry forward the status quo. Look at how much they have been collectively wrong, or misleading, sometimes intentionally.

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

#345

Post by unclebucknasty »

eggy wrote: post #344
unclebucknasty wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. Rogan has millions of listeners who take advice from him and shape their worldviews around his. For many people he is more authoritative on health than public health officials like Fauci, even while not having a fraction of the experience or expertise. > How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci There's been no shortage of critici…

So you think Rogan has more influence than the CDC's guidelines that are adopted as legistation for the most part - masking children, vaccines for 5-11 year-olds, ignoring natural immunity, not releasing data? You don't think he gets negative press or death threats? Not to mention Fauci has a direct link to COVID, and has admitted to openly lying "for your own good". Rogan has a diverse assortment on his show, and ad…

>So you think Rogan has more influence than the CDC's guidelines

That's not really the point but, for some, yes, he does have more influence. That "some" apparently includes you.

>You don't think he gets negative press or death threats?

Again, not the point. You asked why Fauci and others weren't challenged. My response was that, not only is he challenged, but he's also been the target of personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and death threats.

>Rogan has a diverse assortment on his show, and admits he is not an expert

Yet, he continuously pushes a counter-mainstream narrative that you seem to be repeating here.

>However, when bodies of so-called authority or expert credentials make policy you and your family will have to live by

To each his/her own, but I think those credentials are meaningful. We've had expert public health guidance for decades brought to us by the "so-called experts" and it's generally served us well, as evidenced by the fact that you've probably never had polio, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, etc. And, you're also not likely to die from a case of diarrhea.

>You are free to go after Rogan.

Yes. I know. But, I wasn't going after him, as much as pointing out the reality that people (seemingly yourself included) respect his opinions over those of public health officials.

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

#347

Post by wrycoder »

czowk wrote: post #336
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 st…

An opinion on ivermectin trials by an MD who tries to be rational:

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermect...

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

#348

Post by strken »

simonh wrote: post #341
strken wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the past two years I've been telling anyone who'll listen that the WHO screwed up by telling people not to wear masks, by claiming transmission wasn't via aerosol particles, and by opposing border closures. I spent a long time getting into arguments about the lab leak theory being almost impossible to disprove. In my comments on HN there's one calling out an article about mask-wearing for drawing the exact wrong…

They did screw up, that’s true. Almost everyone everywhere has been wrong about this virus, mostly several if not many times. That’s because for a long time we were working with very limited and sometimes contradictory or misleading information. I do not believe that the WHO did this for nefarious reasons, or knowingly lied, although they did make some mistakes as a result of leverage and coercion by various states.…

Screwing up disaster response for non-nefarious reasons doesn't bring back the dead.

The WHO screwed up for systemic reasons that commentators, at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, were able to call out. Specifically, they repeatedly claimed there was "no evidence" for cloth masks and "no evidence" for aerosol transmission. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the organisation meant to coordinate a global medical response should know that. Many respiratory viruses spread by aerosol transmission, and it would have been responsible to say "we do not have enough evidence to say how COVID spreads yet." Additionally, there was evidence for the efficacy of cloth masks, but the papers were studying whether cloth masks were adequate replacements for surgical masks and N95 respirators in hospital settings, and they (rightly) concluded that cloth masks weren't as effective as actual PPE, from which the WHO (wrongly) concluded that cloth masks weren't effective at all.

Post reply on HN