Live data from Hacker News

Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

nature.com

371–380 of 493 posts

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. For example, a protease inhibitor could have effects on biological functions that exist in viral and parasitic infections. And both Remdesivir and Ivermectin [1] have been observed to have antiviral properties in vitro. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016635422...

Many things are effective against covid-19 in-vitro. When it was administered in hamsters, there was no effect on viral load. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392639v1

I hadn’t seen that paper, but isn’t your statement missing the forest for the trees? If pathology was attenuated, that would help patient recovery, even if viral load wasn’t directly reduced.

> Even though ivermectin had no effect on viral load, SARS-Cov-2-associated pathology was greatly attenuated. IVM had a sex-dependent and compartmentalized immunomodulatory effect, preventing clinical deterioration and reducing olfactory deficit in infected animals. Importantly, ivermectin dramatically reduced the Il-6/Il-10 ratio in lung tissue, which likely accounts for the more favorable clinical presentation in treated animals. Our data support IVM as a promising anti-COVID-19 drug candidate.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#372
The vaccines become less effective over time. Just like other gene therapies which are correctly classified by the FDA as drugs. Mean age of permanent heart damage from the vaccines (DNA or RNA) is 33. No thanks.

I will keep taking ivermectin prophylactically based on overwhelming anecdotal evidence from front-line doctors. We know ivermectin is safe because Merck hands it out like candy in the third world. It is 4 billion doses in 40 years safe.

I accept the potential unknown risk of frequent long-term use because of the significant likely upsides. My body my choice.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#373
post #218

What I find almost more interesting than the article itself is the comments that show a non-zero portion of the HN community (which I think is generally more intellectually curious and educated than average) are actually strongly arguing that ivermectin has strong effect, and even crazier, that it may be safer or more effective than the mRNA vaccines. Is this from being incapable of following science and drawing rati…

> Either way, like someone else in the comments said, these past 2 years have shown us that laypeople are incapable of following active science in real time and drawing reasoned conclusions. Frankly, this is probably true of everyone who is not an expert in the field in question. We need organizations like the CDC and FDA to be much better about their messaging (remember the no-mask debacle? Great way to lose credibility, guys and gals), and we need much better tools to shut down the spread and weaponization of misinformation from the anti-vax crowd et al. I honestly don’t have any idea of how either of those get fixed, however.

These two things are at odds with each other. When the authorities are wrong, contradicting them is classified as "misinformation". If they cannot be contradicted, they are the only people capable of correcting themselves. The results of that will be pretty predictable.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#374
post #28
post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

It matters a lot if ivermectin doesn't do anything to stop C19, even if it is otherwise safe (it surely is, dosed professionally). People take ivermectin instead of vaccinating or complying with NPIs. If ivermectin doesn't work, that is a very, very big deal.

Would it be big deal if they said the vaccines would stop covid and then they didn't?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#375
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines. For anyone else curious: Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” [1] It seems obvious to me that this was c…

For anybody else who stumbles across the above uninformed comment, here is some information for context (wrt "gene therapy", etc.): https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therape... A certain degree of ignorance can be forgiven in this day and age, because everything is being constantly re-defined by the television, and most folks get their information from…

I was prepared to believe I was wrong about the technical definition of ‘gene therapy’, but your links are to a description of the journal called “Gene Therapy”, and an article about “Gene-Based Therapeutic Approaches” that mentions the term once.

A google search for “gene therapy” brings up many links to respectable organizations and publications, most of which state that ‘gene therapy’ involves altering the patient’s DNA. No vaccines do this. To call them ‘gene therapy’ to the public (or to ‘low information people’, if you insist) is misleading at best and scaremongering at worst.

As for the link to a Miami Herald article about the CDC’s wording change, how do you suggest I search for the likely source of the parent comment’s information?

It said (with no sourcing) “The United States CDC literally changed the definition of "vaccine" this year, so that these products could still be identified as vaccines” and I wanted to get a sense for the truth of that - and if true, if the legitimacy of the change. What I found did not concern me.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#376
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry what is the conflict of interest in offering the most accurate information they can? Even discarding whether we drill into the issues with the relatively small body of ivermectin studies, for or against. There isn’t anything approaching a consensus there. On the other hand what does have a consensus is that the vaccines work. Recommending the best possible action is pretty clear and obvious. Using ivermectin as…

>Sorry what is the conflict of interest in offering the most accurate information they can? * When Fauci was telling people masks aren't needed was he speaking as a scientific authority giving "most accurate information" or was he speaking as a bureaucrat concerned about ppp availability for hospitals? * When WHO goes against the booster shot narrative is it because of the science or is it because they want vaccines…

With respect,

Decisions have to be made and in the early days surrounding the pandemic PPE for hospitals is an important thing to have. If that is the motivation that is quite literally a medical and health authority decision and also valid. Information in hindsight change things. Triage isn’t politics. You can disagree but I think calling it playing politics is pretty absurd.

Re: Booster shots

So which health authority here then is acting as a political agent? Kind of muddies your perspective. Regardless all authorities don’t explicitly have to agree to be offering good advice. Do we expect everyone to have the right answer all the time? There are also competing interest here. Makes sense for WHO to prefer vaccination go wide. Also makes sense for the US to work to protect its citizens as much as possible, potentially at the expense of the rest of the globe. Does one do more good than the other? How do you quantify that result objectively?

Nothing about the wuhan lab origin is particularly relevant or important as far as the issues of treatment go. I agree this is an entirely political issue, but it is also divorced from what has become politicized as far as COVID treatment and vaccines.

I think it’s a bad faith argument to say the majority of the `political` aspects of the pandemic response are a result of health authorities losing trust because they are acting as political agents.

The counter narrative (if you want to call it that, I don’t know what would be the best thing to call it really) of anti-vax, anti-mask, and alternative (unproven) treatments is decades in the making of a general trend that I do agree is (From an American perspective) a general lack of faith in government. But I also think that a lot of that is political in its inception. And surrounding COVID especially, these are the ideas being amplified by mainstream political figures in an unprecedented way.

There have always been people skeptical of the government. There have always been antivax people. But the flames that are fanning these, especially now are explicitly being done so by political elements for their own personal political gain.

There is barely any defensible basis for the majority of the backlash here. It’s would be kind of funny if it wasn’t so depressing.

You’ve got military personnel making grandiose statements against their vaccine requirements. All of them got several when they enlisted, and there was no issue then for some reason. The anthrax vaccine really did have some major issues (identified pretty much immediately when it was rolled out) but we didn’t have this kind of narrative about it then.

Ultimately this really just reinforces the `politics` aspect to me.

Are there valid areas of debate to have on pandemic response? Absolutely.

Do some of them have political implications? (Boosters)? Sure

Does rejecting (especially) vaccines and masks in spite of the quantifiable data about their efficacy make sense? No.

Does advocating the use of debatably useful substances as an alternative because you’ve chosen to ignore what we do know (for political reasons, in this case your personal politics) make sense? No.

People are allowing their personal politics to override something that isn’t political. The politics are largely coming from outside, especially about pandemic response.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FiveThirtyEight weights its averages by pollster accuracy/methodology. Next, we determine how much weight to give each poll in our average. First, polls conducted by pollsters with higher FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings — a letter grade measuring how accurate and methodologically sound pollsters are — are given more weight https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-were-tracking-joe-b...

FiveThirtyEight forecasts are very questionable themselves. Been completely wrong on multiple counts.

Sure, but generally because the aggregated polls were systematically off. You may be thinking of other examples, but the 2016 US presidential election really wasn't that bad of a look for 538, they had Trump at reasonable odds going into election night. It's not like he was at 5%, 538 pegged him at 1/3 odds as polls opened if I remember correctly.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#378
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anybody else who stumbles across the above uninformed comment, here is some information for context (wrt "gene therapy", etc.): https://www.nature.com/gt/journal-information https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-based-therape... A certain degree of ignorance can be forgiven in this day and age, because everything is being constantly re-defined by the television, and most folks get their information from…

I was prepared to believe I was wrong about the technical definition of ‘gene therapy’, but your links are to a description of the journal called “Gene Therapy”, and an article about “Gene-Based Therapeutic Approaches” that mentions the term once. A google search for “gene therapy” brings up many links to respectable organizations and publications, most of which state that ‘gene therapy’ involves altering the patient…

…and thinking about this a bit more, it seems unlikely to me that any sort of approval for medication that makes it less likely that a person would become infected with Covid (colloquially, a ‘vaccine’) would rely on the definition of the word “vaccine” on an informational CDC web site - which seems to be what you’re (perhaps unintentionally) _implying_ with your comments.

If this is what you believe, do you have a source for this?

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#379
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying re: vaccines? There's been several deaths believed to be caused by the vaccines and attributed as such by the FDA/CDC. And, you know, a few hundred thousand lives saved.

Not a troll: how do you know that number? Pfizer’s own RCT showed no difference in all cause mortality after six months

Which number? The few hundred thousand saved?

There's possible confounds, but none can explain vaccinated people being fewer than 6% of deaths (my MLE: about 2% of deaths) and more than 50% of the population. Especially since the vaccinated are, overall, a sicker and older population than the country at large.

The vaccine RCTs were not powered sufficiently to show a reduction in COVID death, given that they had no or basically no COVID death in either group. They did show a huge reduction in illness and severe illness, and now we're observing a commensurate reduction in death in the population.

Re: Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable

#380
post #171
post #25

Ivermectin probably doesn't do anything to fight Covid-19, but the American media has really shown their corruption in the way they've treated it. It's clearly a safe drug to take in human-designed doses, and it's cheap to produce. Laughing at people for poisoning themselves with "horse dewormer" instead of pointing out that they are turning to the vet store because their access to medicine has been marginalized is s…

The actual vaccine is free, though. Edit: we can talk plenty about how bad the US health care system is, but in this case, the actual vaccine, that does a fantastic job of protecting people from COVID, is free in that you don't have to spend a dime out of pocket.

If vaccines weren’t so political across the same divide as free/socialized healthcare people might actually realize that it isn’t the end of the world or the American way of life to have access to healthcare. Oh well.
Post reply on HN