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

#451

Post by BirdPlusPlus » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #264

cyounkins wrote: post #224

There is a lot of confusion on whether there actually was a significant increase in calls to poison control centers due to ingestion of ivermectin. This [1] official Mississippi government document says, "At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers." But then the AP [2] seemed to say that was incorrect: "The As…

There was an absurd rush to report that ivermectin is bad that resulted in a pretty bad breakdown of the fact checking process. A lot of semi-adjacent facts and statements got merged. A hospital is full and a hospital treated someone for overdose became all the hospitals are filled with overdose victims. (I think eating horse paste is dumb, but that doesn't excuse rolling stone lying about the consequences of doing s…

Eating horse paste is a desperate measure taken by people struggling to maintain dominion over their healthcare decisions. Most patients who've taken matters into their own hands and gone yay for the neigh would have much rather taken Ivermectin packaged for humans prescribed by their doctors. That choice has been stolen from patient and doctor alike via bureaucratic action.

The loss of individual bodily autonomy, doctor-patient relationships, and dominion over one's own healthcare is at stake and those won't be easy human rights usurpations to correct.

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

#452

Post by gilbetron » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #115

twofornone wrote: post #21

The premature smear of potentially effective medications like HCQ and Ivermectin by scientifically illiterate media is unforgivable. Especially in the case of Ivermectin, given that it has one of the most benign safety profiles of any known drug. There is no excuse. There should have been federally funded widespread trials a year ago, there is no downside. Instead you now have hospitals forbidding off label prescript…

I'm glad that you mentioned HCQ. What happened with HCQ? Was it smart that the US bought stockpiles of it, and was it smart for doctors to be prescribing it for treatment of COVID, with a years hindsight?

Multiple studies show it doesn't do anything, and we're pretty sure we know why:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

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

#453

Post by vcoelho » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

wsc981 wrote: post #431

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'm just happy that HackerNews hasn't generated into a groupthink platform like what Ars Technica devolved into. Check the comment sections over there on articles regarding COVID and perhaps it's more to your liking and perhaps in your opinion the standard of discussion is higher over there. I am one of those people that would trust Ivermectin more for treating (or prevention) of COVID compared to a mRNA-based vaccin…

I guess you haven't heard of brazilian healthcare provider Prevent Senior. That's just the tip of the iceberg, more healthcare providers will sure follow the same path.

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

#454

Post by NikolaeVarius » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #329

tantalor wrote: post #82

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.

538 is pretty explicit about what forecasts went wrong and how they will try and fix it in the future

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

#455

Post by throwawaythekey » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

sydthrowaway wrote: post #339

There is no good faith argument against the vaccine. Just take it.

The WHO would prefer you not to take the vaccine if you are at low risk. While not a personal medical argument it's still in good faith. I am being cheeky by extending their booster logic to the whole vaccine - the WHO are probably thinking it but too ashamed to say it out loud.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/who-repeats-warning-against-...

There are multiple vaccines too! The Australian regulator recommends against some vaccines for the young and up until recently they were the only ones available.

https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-...

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons - God forbid you might even have a religious objection to vaccines.

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

#456

Post by rory » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #394

rory wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important difference between these drugs is that opiates are incredibly addictive, while ketamine is less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. Ivermectin isn't addictive at all. Ironically, the opioid crisis is caused far more by people's trust in mainstream medicine than by any internet fad.

Repeated recreational use of ketamine over years can lead to permanent urinary tract damage, potentially leading to incontinence, etc. "Ketamine bladder syndrome" https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/medicine-manag...

Correct, as I mentioned up-thread ketamine use has dangers.

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

#457

Post by ashtonkem » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

cableshaft wrote: post #395

ashtonkem wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions they believe will harm the patient. The law does not restrict it to the narrow circumstances you have listed. “You are giving a deworming medicine for Covid as an off label use. No, I believe that this will harm the patient” is 100% within their legal right. My state explicitly states that every pharmacist should consider whether an act is “consistent with the licensee or…

I'm not going to go down the Ivermectin research hole as I've mostly been avoiding it myself. But Ivermectin is not just a "dewormer" as the media has been running with to sensationalize things and try to throw shade at Joe Rogan for taking, and is known to have antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and is known to be safe in proper doses because it's been prescribed to humans for quite some time. Dr. John Camp…

Sigh

There are severe issues with the Ivermectin studies that have shown a positive effect. One of them is believed to be an outright piece of fraud. This was literally discussed in the article this thread is about.

If you're just going to ignore the article posted and "do your own research", then stop wasting our time here.

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

#458

Post by jpadkins » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:07 PM 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…

If the FDA approves a therapeutics for covid19, then the emergency approval for experimental vaccines is gone. Not only do they lose vaccine mandates with that, but they also lose liability shield. There is a financial incentive to suppress covid19 therapeutics from pharma (and their stockholders).

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

#459

Post by brandonmenc » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

snovv_crash wrote: post #434

brandonmenc wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically said boosters. However, there is no data on the long-term effects of the COVID vaccines, mRNA or otherwise. That's an indisputable scientific fact. They just haven't existed long enough for that data to be available. Hopefully a decade from now we'll discover that they were safe. We do have data on the long-term effects of Ivermectin. Someone who is not concerned about COVID will take neither a vaccine…

Can you show any other vaccine which has long term, but not short term negative side effects, which this concern might be based on? Because this seems like whataboutism, and of course it's impossible to prove a negative, and people are dying while waiting. > We do have data on the long-term effects of Ivermectin At bi-annual dosage rates, yes. Not daily or even weekly.

> Can you show any other vaccine which has long term, but not short term negative side effects, which this concern might be based on?

I don't know. But we still may be in the "short-term side effect" phase for the COVID vaccines. It hasn't even been a year.

> Because this seems like whataboutism, and of course it's impossible to prove a negative, and people are dying while waiting.

Not sure how it's whataboutism to point out that some people have lower risks of contracting serious COVID, and that their decision to take a very new vaccine may be different than someone who is more at risk for contracting serious COVID.

If they miscalculate and die, well, that's their decision.

> At bi-annual dosage rates, yes. Not daily or even weekly.

Are the COVID/Ivermectin studies doctors are referencing for prescription dosages recommending daily Ivermectin use?

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

#460

Post by feoren » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

BirdPlusPlus wrote: post #451

tedunangst wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an absurd rush to report that ivermectin is bad that resulted in a pretty bad breakdown of the fact checking process. A lot of semi-adjacent facts and statements got merged. A hospital is full and a hospital treated someone for overdose became all the hospitals are filled with overdose victims. (I think eating horse paste is dumb, but that doesn't excuse rolling stone lying about the consequences of doing s…

Eating horse paste is a desperate measure taken by people struggling to maintain dominion over their healthcare decisions. Most patients who've taken matters into their own hands and gone yay for the neigh would have much rather taken Ivermectin packaged for humans prescribed by their doctors. That choice has been stolen from patient and doctor alike via bureaucratic action. The loss of individual bodily autonomy, do…

The truth is that virtually no human has ever had dominion over their healthcare decisions at any time in history. Having that dominion involves both freedom to choose and the understanding and information you need to choose well. Lewis and Clark taking mercury supplements to help with constipation is not them "having dominion over their healthcare decisions", it's them being woefully uninformed. Humanity never had "dominion over nature" until we could build shelters, control fire, cultivate crops, and tame animals -- advancing medicine and seeking the advice of experts is how we might start to attain such a dominion over personal healthcare. The people who demand Ivermectin, or who go for crystal healing or homeopathy, they don't have "dominion" over their own healthcare, they're just ignorant and have been infected with viral disinformation.

But upvoted for "yay for the neigh"