Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

journals.lww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 644 posts

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#371

Post by injb »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #335
ajb wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" But since there hadn't been a randomized trial " This is not true. A quick search shows 71 trials covering ivermectin, of which 6 of which are complete, interventional[1], and have results https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ivermectin&cond=... [1] This should mean an RCT, but I haven't time to read through each and check they are

Yes, it has been explored, trialed, and experimented with quite significantly. The results show that there might be something there, but it’s not a miracle cure. The conspiracy angles are coming from those who have been misled into thinking it has been more successful than it really has been, which leads to confusion about why it’s not being used everywhere.

> The conspiracy angles are coming from those who have been misled into thinking it has been more successful than it really has been, which leads to confusion about why it’s not being used everywhere.

No, the "conspiracy angles" are coming from people who have seen youtube videos and HN posts disappearing just for discussing it.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#372

Post by spfzero »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #335
ajb wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" But since there hadn't been a randomized trial " This is not true. A quick search shows 71 trials covering ivermectin, of which 6 of which are complete, interventional[1], and have results https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=ivermectin&cond=... [1] This should mean an RCT, but I haven't time to read through each and check they are

Yes, it has been explored, trialed, and experimented with quite significantly. The results show that there might be something there, but it’s not a miracle cure. The conspiracy angles are coming from those who have been misled into thinking it has been more successful than it really has been, which leads to confusion about why it’s not being used everywhere.

With 0.38 risk ratio, it may well be that it should be used everywhere (except for patients already advanced enough to need mechanical ventilation, as mentioned).

I don't have a reference for this but I recently read it was basically used on every tested-positive case with symptoms in Mexico City, with significantly improved results.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#374

Post by Heyso »

boredprograming wrote: post #151
goldemerald wrote: post #7

I 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

IMO vaccine are pushed as miracle drug. There is probably fanatic peoples in both though. You might also want to check remdisivir, drug that is not efficient, but they pushed it far enough to get a contract of 1 billion, and effectively 0.2 billion have been spent on it.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#375

Post by MilnerRoute »

lvs wrote: post #334
dang wrote: post #45

Earlier 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.

Here's an observation. I've seen at least three "pro-Ivermectin" posts on the front page in the last six days. Does it seem like that's been balanced with any posts discussing its inefficacy (which is apparently the medical community's dominant view)?

I also remember today's Ivermectin post being flagged. Does that mean the moderators then chose to unflag it (despite the fact there'd already been at least two earlier "pro-Ivermectin" posts throughout the week)? According to the Hacker News FAQ, moderators "sometimes turn flags off when they are unfair."

     https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Maybe the question we should be asking is: what made the moderators consider the flagging of this post unfair?

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#376

Post by loceng »

spacial wrote: post #314
goldemerald wrote: post #7

I 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…

Well, in Brazil, the president (Borsalino) is promoting ivermectin as covid treatment. I can tell you is not working at all. I doesn't help at all. I have a coworker who as using ivermectin as prophylactic and went to ICU (he is recovering now).

At what dose and frequency? Was it real Ivermectin or perhaps counterfeit? What was his overall health to begin with?

I fucking love HN - downvoting valid questions for criteria.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#377

Post by boredprograming »

Heyso wrote: post #374
boredprograming wrote: post #151

Earlier 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

IMO vaccine are pushed as miracle drug. There is probably fanatic peoples in both though. You might also want to check remdisivir, drug that is not efficient, but they pushed it far enough to get a contract of 1 billion, and effectively 0.2 billion have been spent on it.

The vaccines are a miracle drug. Less than one in a million people that have gotten both doses of mRNA vaccines have died of COVID.

It's one of the biggest infectious disease success stories since the invention of penicillin

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#378

Post by Heyso »

boredprograming wrote: post #235
throwkeep wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people pushing Ivermectin have a vested interest in proving the vaccines are unnecessary. What is their vested interest in a generic, cheap, decades old, off patent drug? Vested interests tend to be in new, patented treatments. That's where big pharma profit is. So let's try a rephrase: Many people pushing patented treatments have a vested interest in proving off patent alternatives are unnecessary. For exampl…

We already have a drug that's 99% effective at keeping you out out hospital. And it's only a single/double dose. It's the COVID vaccine. Any other treatment is basically unnecessary at this point because COVID deaths in vaccinated people are less than 1 in a million. That's why anti-vaxxers are so vested in other treatments. It's the only way they can rationalize not getting vaccinated

Nope, that is not the only way. You have side effects. And you have the fact that the vaccine is still in test phase. What are the long term side effects, we don't know. And unless they are obvious we will never know, because vaccine are like a religion too many. You don't question a religion.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#379

Post by bonzini »

ALittleLight wrote: post #161
MilnerRoute wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute... This post is a debate between two opposing viewpoints. So it also makes the exact opposite point: The primary difference between a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis is that the former “provide the highest level of evidence because they contain the least amount of bias. Randomized controlled trials reduce bias, while meta-analyses increase bias." This Hacker News story is about a recent me…

Important thing to know about that study is they are testing time to recovery for people with mild covid. I'm not anywhere near an expert, but two things stood out to me reading this study. First, time to recover in the ivermectin group was 10 days versus 12 in the placebo. The paper calls this "not significant" but it's not clear to me whether that's statistically not significant, and if so, why wouldn't it be, or i…

> why wouldn't it be

Because you only gave the average time of recovery but not the standard deviation.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#380

Post by loceng »

coliveira wrote: post #329

If Ivermectin saved anyone, Brazil wouldn't be hotbed for COVID that it is right now. Doctors are prescribing Ivermectin to pretty much anyone who arrives with any signs that appear to be COVID-related. Some people are even taking it by themselves as a form of "prevention". It has not worked as the numbers clearly show.

When the numbers are accurately being tracked it seems to be the opposite to what you say.
Post reply on HN