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

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#381

Post by listless »

romeros wrote: post #287
astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

This is clearly satire and good satire at that. I’m sorry this site has not recognized this for the great social commentary that it is. You have my vote.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#383

Post by romeros »

romeros wrote: post #287
astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

I need to clarify. I am not implying that WHO / CDC is lying outright. It's just that they have to be very careful and choose the right message to convey to the general public.

It does mean you might have to downplay some things which might be true but will cause more harm than good if emphasized.

I personally can never do that but I won't judge people who are in a situation where every thing they say has a huge impact on our collective future.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#384

Post by weeblewobble »

jack_pp wrote: post #166
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know who's behind those sites, the fact that nobody knows who's behind them is shady. Or is having sites pushing meta-studies about anything normal and I just missed it?

Is it so shady to mask your identity when so many people have been crucified for even hinting ivermectin might be beneficial?

like who?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#385

Post by tzs »

cbg0 wrote: post #54
tehjoker wrote: post #22

We have multiple vaccines and two (EUA) proven oral treatments now.

Yes, but the sneaky government is offering those freely, so that's very suspicious to some folks that would rather have "the good stuff" off of the black market.

One of the popular memes posted to social media among the future /r/HermanCainAward nominee set is that if the government was really offering COVID vaccination for our own good then whey aren't they offering free chemotherapy and insulin?

99% of the time when you can tell from their other posts what politicians and parties they vote for, it is the politicians and parties that work tirelessly to block any attempt to have the government provide chemotherapy and insulin.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#386

Post by mewpmewp2 »

analyte123 wrote: post #341
Nursie wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to hav…

Either the VAERS data is broadly accurate, and the COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever released (which is not to say they aren't helpful in some populations); or the VAERS data is all just useless unverified anecdotes like you're saying, and so there is no useful system in the US to monitor patient- or doctor-reported adverse events at all, in which case nobody can effectively claim that they are safe…

I have seen enough video stories to believe those anecdotal stories and VAERS, where people got a vaccine complication and nobody believed them, everyone gaslighted them and considered them anti-vaxxers - even though they did take the vaccine. Text based stories, you can never tell, but with video stories you can at least understand their sincerity. And after that it's possible to notice patterns within anecdotal reports as well.

And mainstream media has not talked about these side effects at all so I fully believe side effects are not being reported and what are reported is probably with less frequency, it's just difficult for me to tell what the exact frequencies of different side effects are.

I have got pretty obsessed now with trying to understand what the frequencies are, there's so much conflicting information.

If I had to guess I'd guess that there's some sort of age cut-off where harm may be greater than benefits. It would also highly depend on how social person you are and how much in risk situations, as if you are someone that works remotely, doesn't go out at all, and not in a risk group, then I don't think there's point in taking the vaccine.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#387

Post by mewpmewp2 »

Nursie wrote: post #296
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't reply to your last comment because it's too deep, so I'll comment here: > According to your graph, excess mortality for ages 0-14 for this year is lower than it was in 2019, before the vaccine or the pandemic hit. And the excess mortality in the 15-44 age group is maybe 5000 people across 28 countries See week 18-42, for 0-14 age group. Yes it has barely got to 2019 levels, but consider that beginning of year…

> Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination. It could, or it could mean something else entirely, and it could be within normal trends. Which is what it looks like to me if all cause mortality is lower than 2019 levels. > So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm? Not from this data, no. > Because what…

> If you're thinking "I don't have easy access to that information, and I don't have the time or the funding to investigate", you're quite right. Medical researchers will have to carry the can here.

Yeah, unfortunately, I've lost all my trust in anything that comes in from mainstream. I was to vaccinate myself, but then I found contradicting information, and from there I couldn't stop going to the rabbit hole, because this doesn't make sense. Mathematically and statistically if mainstream was only telling truth, what I'm seeing should be impossible.

It's a terrible situation for me to be in as it stresses me daily, ruins my focus and depresses me. Either I'm crazy and worried about nothing or things generally in the world are not going well and people are in mass hypnosis. Neither is a good side to be in.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#388

Post by moduspol »

oblio wrote: post #309
moduspol wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The experts involved in building / maintaining GPS haven't admitted to lying to him about it to preserve the use of GPS for people deemed more important, gone back and forth on whether or not he needs to use two GPS devices (instead of one) for the safety of others, and those experts' recommendations haven't led to policies that have destroyed the livelihoods of his or his friends' families--sometimes with unclear ti…

Your comment is funny, in a roundabout way. Until a while ago, if I recall correctly. GPS was >. Its accuracy was deliberately hobbled to within tens of meters in order to prevent it being used for destructive purposes, I believe.

Framing "knowingly limited to accuracy within ~3 meters" as "lying" is a bit of a stretch.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#389

Post by HelloNurse »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67
Joking_Phantom wrote: post #46

Love the final explanation for how ivermectin can be incidentally good for COVID-19 patients, even if it does nothing to COVID-19 directly. In fact, as the author cites from another researcher, the trials are a strong piece of evidence for "add[ing] ivermectin to mass drug administration programs." In other words, global medical welfare, where we just give everyone a bunch of a cheap and effective medications to coun…

In fact, as the author cites from another researcher, the trials are a strong piece of evidence for "add[ing] ivermectin to mass drug administration programs." In other words, global medical welfare, where we just give everyone a bunch of a cheap and effective medications to counteract the most prolific diseases. When they invented antibiotics, people began predicting "the end of disease." Fast forward a few decades…

Wouldn't we risk force-evolving ivermectine resistant parasites with the same mechanism as antibiotic resistant bacteria?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#390

Post by spamizbad »

roenxi wrote: post #14
jacquesm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, ivmmeta.com will get passed on from person to person that wants to sustain their delusion and the website here will be preaching to the choir.

I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.

Personally I'm naturally skeptical of any suggested COVID treatments because they tend to be trendy. Before ivermectin, it was hydroxychloroquine. And before hydroxychloroquine, it was vitamin D, melatonin, and diluted bleach. And before that it was that it was only harmful to people who lead unhealthy lifestyles: It was less a disease and more like cosmic justice for living an indulgent, gluttonous sedentary lifestyle.

Meanwhile over the last 11 months most of the vaccines have been extremely effective at reducing hospitalization and death. My 3yo son caught COVID from one of his classmates at preschool - my wife and I are fully vaccinated - and we were both able to avoid an infection while under quarantine with our son.

Post reply on HN