Lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are unreliable • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by kennethh » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:46 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #413

KennyBlanken wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will re-post some thoughts I have previously shared from John P.A. Ioannidis who is a professor of medicine and thoughtful critic of medical research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis#COVID-19 > In an editorial on STAT published March 17, 2020, Ioannidis called the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic a "once-in-a-century evidence fiasco" and wrote that lockdowns were likely an overreaction to unre…

Your comment is the worst kind of ad hominem. You're simply dismissing one of the most-cited scientists in the world because he wrote something you disagree with. He was right about the IFR for Covid-19, by the way. Subsequent research has upheld the finding. The primary factor that influences average IFR is the age of the population you're looking at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 > All syste…

Great with some links to information about the actual numbers of fatalities and age brackets.

It is also interesting to note the effects of simple things like vitamin-d which reduce the death rate (and sickness impact) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156757692...

Diabetes and other lifestyle related illnesses also impact the death rate to a high degree.

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

#422

Post by KarlKemp » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

pigeonhole123 wrote: post #269

atty wrote: 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…

I could change every assumption in this comment to the opposite and it would make just as much or little sense. You can’t pretend to be searching for truth if your solution to the problem of people making mistakes is to shut down any possible way to discuss the disagreement. I just find the cognitive dissonance on display here staggering. How do you you know you’re right? Have you ever been wrong? I suppose you knew…

Ivermectin was suspicious from the beginning, not just because it was promoted by the same people with the same the-FDA-doesn’t-want-you-to-know-drivel. By this point, it’s ridiculous. And, yes, you can switch it around in the comment and it’d make just as much sense. If, that is, you also switch reality.

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

#423

Post by KarlKemp » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:52 AM UTC

shrubble wrote: post #63

rory wrote: 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…

Incidentally, approximately 11 to 14% of the USA population has pinworms, which can be easily stopped by ivermectin. Given the very high level of safety of ivermectin, it might make sense to make it easier to get on this basis alone.

I looked it up at some point, and it wasn’t among the recommended treatments of pinworm.

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

#424

Post by ImpressiveWebs » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:58 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #337

sjwalter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The major paper that drove most of this situation, and the meta analysis, appears to have been a straight up fraud. Umm, wat?! The vast majority of the studies about Ivermectin have been observational, run by front-line clinicians. Prior to 2020, basically everyone on earth agreed (including the WHO, who STILL agrees) that front-line clinicians and observational studies are excellent signals that can lead to scient…

Your assertion of the financial incentives of on patent vs off patent doesn't make sense for ivermectin. For one, the company that sells ivermectin in the US (Bayer) does not currently have an alternative covid treatment. They have publicly stayed that they do not believe ivermectin helps against covid. Secondly, an RX of ivermectin (for humans) appears to cost more ($35) than the vaccine ($20). Additionally, the vac…

> I see no financial incentives for drug companies to discourage it.

Then you’re not looking hard enough. You don’t think endless booster shots are an incentive to dismiss Ivermectin? Discouraging Ivermectin means, not billions, but trillions in revenue.

And that’s not even considering the fact that the vaccines could never be legally approved for emergency use if Ivermectin works.

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

#425

Post by katbyte » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

lez wrote: post #22

Looking at the greyed out comments it seems HN is not pro, but against scientific debate. Questioning science IS part of the scientific method. https://c19ivermectin.com/ is a very adequate counter-argument to the article, and it's unfair to the whole scientific community that comments are greyed out that mention it.

ivermectin in the end after all the bad studies were redacted had no affect: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...

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

#426

Post by OrvalWintermute » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

atty wrote: 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…

> ivermectin has strong effect

Strong effect? I read it was a mild antiviral

> and even crazier, that it may be safer or more effective than the mRNA vaccines

It is definitely safer according to the literature

VAERS, even with its data quality issues, is tracking ~7600 deaths from COVID vaccines in the US. VAERS is widely alleged to have large factors of undercounting [1] around vaccine deaths & injuries

> Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. [2]

If VAERS only has 1%, 5%, or 10% of actuals, things are going to get much worse.

However, despite the skyrocketing counts of pericarditis and myocarditis among young men in particular, they are still pushing vaxxes for the youngest that have the lowest death rates from covid.

Really, this is becoming a medical ethics issue of coercion and a violation of Due No Harm.

[1] https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/adverse-reacti...

[2] https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publicatio... -- search for under in the document.

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

#427

Post by nextlevelwizard » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #26

The other takeaway is that preprint publication is a pathway ripe for abuse. The major paper that drove most of this situation, and the meta analysis, appears to have been a straight up fraud. But it got circulated a lot as a preprint to people who didn’t understand the difference between a preprint and a peer reviewed paper. If the preprint had been more private, this might have been averted.

>But it got circulated a lot as a preprint to people who didn’t understand the difference between a preprint and a peer reviewed paper.

peer review doesn't really mean as much as most people think and the paper was circulated by people who very well knew the difference and might have been circulating it precisely because of it.

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

#428

Post by OrvalWintermute » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:27 AM UTC

atty wrote: post #311

rajin444 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is assuming a lot of this science is "settled". I don't think science is settled - especially in this field. Acknowledging that your own statements may be incorrect might help you down the path to figuring out a fix. Hint: as soon as you know you're right, and you make statements based on that, when you're inevitably wrong (not saying this in a disparaging way - making sense and being right through all this…

Settled is a strong claim, but as far as I’m aware (I have many connections amongst the medical and epidemiological communities), the general consensus is that ivermectin does not work. For instance, the FDA, WHO, the AMA, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists all say it should not be used outside of clinical trials because there is no good evidence for it, and ev…

> scientific organizations (the CDC, and the FDA)

Are these the same organizations that told us we don't need a mask?

Are these the same organizations that said that controls on international and local travel were not needed?

Are these the same organizations now pushing N95 masks for health workers?

Are these the same organizations that were funding gain-of-function chimeric coronavirus research in Wuhan China?

Are these the same organizations that distanced themselves from a vaccine mandate, now in favor of them?

Are these the same organizations that failed to put out treatment guides for outpatient & inpatient care for COVID, but when they did, eventually, liberally plagiarized from the very doctors they attacked?

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

#429

Post by OrvalWintermute » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:31 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #373

atty wrote: 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 credibi…

> We need organizations like the CDC and FDA to be much better about their messaging (remember the no-mask debacle)

When I heard of the COVID outbreak, I promptly put on my P100 mask and tried to go to sleep in it. Tried being the operative word.

Later on, switched to my N95. Ah yes, the joys of sleep!

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

#430

Post by oezi » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:36 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #347

oezi wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: there were plenty of deaths reported as adverse events. It was just found that they were mostly expected in a normal population. I know in Germany we did have over 20 dead from AZ thrombosis.

Was that 20 more dead from thrombosis than would normally be seen in a similar population of that size? Or 20 total? Because my understanding is that it was only a few more than usual.

I can't seem to find the information and think I probably confused this with the UK reporting:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vacc...