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

421–430 of 644 posts

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

#421

Post by boredprograming »

apineda wrote: post #299
boredprograming wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well the covid vaccine comes with some caveats to me most crippling to freedoms being the vaccine passports that seemingly all nations are already implementing. Having various viable treatments would obviously put an end to that. Since ivermectin has a long history of safety and already largely available its reasonable that interest is strong.

for all the talk of "vaccine passports", not a single state has done it. Biden said he wasnt going to do it months ago. Not a single country has done it in all of the earth.

if I was so worried about such a thing i might start to think maybe I was being manipulated to fear something that didnt exist.

Nobody has implemented vaccine passports. And nobody will.

But the idea of a treatment even close to effective as a vaccine is attractive to those that believe that in such magical thinking

Ivermectin might be cheap but the vaccine is literally free if you're in the US. There's zero reason to not get it, and zero reason to hang onto hope that alternatives will work. We already have an extremely effective treatment, so effective it can wipe of the virus entirely, and its totally free.

Our government under Trump bought the vaccine en masse for a few dollars a dose. Those that refuse such a miracle treatment when the rest of the world dies of COVID are a stain on America's sheen

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

#422

Post by AzzieElbab »

cesarb wrote: post #400
AzzieElbab wrote: post #394

It doesn’t even matter whether either hcq/zinc and ivermectin 100% effective or even work at all. We still have no options for early treatment, and therefore both/either should have been used heavily

> It doesn’t even matter whether either hcq/zinc and ivermectin 100% effective or even work at all. There were no alternatives for early treatment, and therefore both/either should have been used heavily The possible outcomes are not only in the range between "100% effective" and "not work at all"; beyond that point on the line there's also "it's harmful", and it's known that these drugs do have negative side effects…

This is wrong on both points 1 - both drugs are safer than Tylenol, 2 - you can’t seek a more effective treatment as they do not exist. Well, there is remdisvir which is only available in the US and actually is dangerous and unproven

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

#424

Post by guscost »

dang wrote: post #298
guscost wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree strongly. Conflict-avoidant platitudes have much less substance.

Something else having less substance does not make your comments substantial.

Well this is another very tricky one, I’ll give you that. So many N-order effects.

I still disagree strongly with your characterization of “substance” in this context though. E.g. when another user sent this (ad-hominem) challenge:

> Why is it that everyone who pushes Ivermectin as a miracle cure for COVID is also a conspiracy aficionado?

I responded with a simple and dispassionate explanation, rather than taking offense. Is there no “substance” in my entirely coherent, well-argued, and non-emotional reply?

> Simple. You have defined the latter as some variation on the former.

Perhaps you could call out my "what a pair of years" top-level comment as that was not responding to any of the nasty attacks in this thread, or even dogpiling on the excellent arguments that other people are making. But those kinds of comments function to put me on the record here with a timestamp, so I can link to them later. There is a tiny bit of substance even in those.

It sounds like you might prefer that I disengage and flag all of the nasty posts (e.g. another person in this thread implied that I am a murderer) so "the bureaucracy" can fix this conversation? Sorry, you are a great moderation team, but I am not going to do that, because I don't believe it is a real solution to anything. You cannot fix this kind of conversation from the top down - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Trying will just disenfranchise the out-group further and make the echo-chamber effect worse. If that means this topic cannot be on HN, so be it.

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

#425

Post by argvargc »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #31

The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties That makes me wonder at the mechanism and biological pathways involved in how this works at all on anything and how that intersects with Covid-19. I'm alive in part because for some years my best friend was a former registered nurse who had let her nursing license lapse while she raised her special-needs sons and pursued training in various…

You may be interested in this discussion with one of the inventors of mRNA vaccines:

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-i...

TL;DW - there is evidence to suggest the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is itself cytotoxic and potentially responsible for blood-clotting in both COVID-19 patients/vaccinated.

(Eg, there was at least one major study published in late 2020 that demonstrated the SC2 spike protein specifically eliciting hyperactivity in blood platelets.)

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

#426

Post by jessaustin »

void_mint wrote: post #15
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…

> I truly hope in the coming years the censorship of this topic will be the catalyst for allowing free speech to prevail on social media. If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? Should YouTube not take steps to prevent the spread of misinformation that could kill people? edit Big downvotes, no response. Great system.

Big downvotes, no response. Great system.

Surely you're not complaining about this social media platform's established method for controlling the platforming of incorrect thought?!?

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

#427

Post by epicureanideal »

jacquesm wrote: post #357
epicureanideal wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why instead of censoring podcasts like Bret Weinstein when he brings on guests to discuss ivermectin, other experts should engage in debate with him. When people who are credible scientists (like many of his guests) get censored it can reasonably look suspicious. I'm not saying he's correct, I'm just saying the right answer is debate. A person who is willing to have a calm, 3 hour discussion on a topi…

No, the other experts are at work, and don't have time to debate every person out there who has a following. This pandemic is not yet over and guys like Weinstein are all noise and no signal. Keep enough Weinsteins engaged and progress on this front (real progress, not imaginary progress) will grind to a halt.

That’s a valid perspective, but aren’t there thousands of professors and scientists, maybe tens of thousands who could potentially respond?

And isn’t it valuable to have someone respond? Isn’t there value in educating the public so conspiracy theories don’t spread? (And preventing the theories from being discussed just makes them more firmly held, whereas debate doesn’t have that effect.)

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

#428

Post by effie »

raphlinus wrote: post #349
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

Ok, I was confused by this line of reasoning, so did some digging. I believe it's one of the popular antivax disinfo conspiracy theories. Here's my reading. The line of reasoning hinges on the vaccines being "experimental" and only being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization, as opposed to a full approval. The FDA policies for EUA indicate they're only to be used when there is no adequate, approved, and av…

> vaccines being "experimental"

Under the PREP act, pharma companies have total immunity from liability. Why would that be. Maybe because the vaccines are still only in stage 3 of clinical trials? Because the long term effects are unknown because it hasn't been long? With worrying reports about side-effects including at least 5000 deaths in the U.S. VAERS database, do you think those quotes are appropriate?

> The idea that a treatment for Covid, even a pretty good one, would make vaccines unnecessary makes no sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense to many people.

You are shooting down the weak version of this argument. I think you are confounding necessity from the point of view of the state and institutions with necessity from the point of view of many people.

You are correct that the state and health institutions do want to get people vaccinated regardless of other cures, the evidence for that is overwhelming and existence and availability of some alternative strategy/cure isn't going to stop immediately that intent.

However, if there was, hypothetically, an accessible and efficient medication/treatment with profylactic or curing effects for COVID-19, this would make substantial portion of population skeptical about getting the vaccine, especially now that the number of serious cases is low and manageable.

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

#430

Post by effie »

boredprograming wrote: post #377
Heyso wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe, but do you know how many have died from the vaccine-induced side effects? How could we find this number?
Post reply on HN