Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#411

Post by oblio » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #388

oblio wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was ~5 meters and that wasn't the point.

Did the GPS system know your position with a much greater accuracy ?

Yes.

Did the GPS system by design not provide this accurate information and instead sent something less accurate?

Yes.

How do you call that thing where you tell a partial truth? At best, a half truth.

For example the US government remarks about masks in February 2020 (I think it was February), were partly true.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#412

Post by isoskeles » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

mr_overalls wrote: post #343

deelowe wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public is much more capable of processing and understanding nuance than we give them credit for. It's just not as profitable for the MSM.

Speaking of "the public" as a single entity is about as useful as approximating a curve with a straight line - i.e. unless it's the most trivial case, it's oversimplified to the point of being doomed to failure. The public is comprised of people with vast differences in cognitive ability, education, and scientific training. Most members of the public, even in highly educated countries, are easily fooled by a wide var…

So why didn’t you post this reply one comment up when he calls the public morons? Instead you choose to correct the person who says the public is actually smarter than we think?

I’m not implying you meant anything by it. But it should be noted that people here are arguing, and you’re coming down with a sort of correction that could be applied to either side of the argument. You appear to take a side by choosing this comment without any further nuance.

Apologies if it sounds like I’m saying you’re doing something horribly wrong here, I just find this particular dynamic interesting in internet discussions. It happens all the time.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#413

Post by djrogers » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

tristor wrote: post #400

I don't understand the point of the image of the meth seizure when discussing this study [1]. The last name is the same, but if you understand Mexican surnames, it is strongly unlikely that the two different people are in any way closely related. I like reading Scott's writing, but this really detracts from the overall quality of the article, because it seems like a vaguely racist dig without any relevance. [1]: http…

It can be poor writing, intentional obfuscation, misdirection, or a lot of other things, but to jump to racism just because the subject is from a different country than the author is pretty unfair.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#414

Post by MissionInfl » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #395

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quali…

We do have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. For example, see ACTIV-6 coming out of Duke University: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

ACTIV-6's tagline is "Outpatient Repurposed Drugs" which matches up with your description. There are other ACTIV trials with other focuses: https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#415

Post by czzr » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #395

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quali…

There are two large high quality studies mentioned in the article.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#416

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #37

My step-son was recently prescribed a small one off dose of ivermectin by a dermatologist to deal with a rather resistant case of scabies he acquired at a sports tournament. It took the pharmacy a couple of days to source, because signficant controls had to be put in place around prescribing it due to well, I'm just going to say what I think - the amazing capacity for the Internet to deliver dumbassery to people who…

The ironic part of this is that Ivermectin is not FDA approved for the treatment of scabies.

Your doctor was prescribing it off label, based on personal judgement that it has therapeutic effect. That is not to say it doesn't work for scabies, I hope it worked for you.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#417

Post by lalaland1125 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

peakaboo wrote: post #398

toolz wrote: post #395

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quali…

About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it. The mass media ignored it for over a year and when they did started covering it, they said it was a horse dewormer. The fact is, what people think is trustworthy news today is pure propaganda. You cannot make an informed decision based on what you read in the mass media.. It's all completely controll…

> About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it.

How were they helped by it when the evidence shows that it doesn't work for COVID-19?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#418

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

csee wrote: post #183

While reading this piece I got a little depressed that most journalism is just such utter trash compared to it. I've read so many articles on ivermectin and none of them gave me even ten percent of the clarity that this article gave me. Can you imagine if writing and journalism of this calibre was commonplace among practising "journalists"? And look at how this piece compares to the CDC's and WHO's science communicat…

I think the simple fact is that people with this scientific literacy and ability have much better career option than becoming journalists.

This was true before the profession entered the death spiral of the last 1-2 decades, and is extremely true now.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#419

Post by dnautics » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #318

dnautics wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you be sure of your assertions? Have you done a randomized controlled trial? I don't think you have tested the alternative.

romeros is right. public health people have to do third-order thinking to maximize the overall health impact. I haven't done RCTs but we studied them in detail in my stats class in grad school.

no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public.

Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#420

Post by resoluteteeth » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

toolz wrote: post #395

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quali…

> The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better.

First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US.

> So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quality RCTs, who funds them and why? This to me is a clear cut indicator that we have very maligned incentives for health science. How can we be this far into a global pandemic, with all of this funding and not have multiple high quality RCTs on this drug? It's sad to say the least. Even if Ivermectin ends up being fairly weak or completely ineffective - surely there's something to learn here...

The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly.