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

#461

Post by defaultprimate » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #403

defaultprimate wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't know how citations and data work and are incapable of following them, even in an "opinion" piece, that's your problem. >Safe and effective... Every day that becomes more untrue in highly vaccinated populations like the UK and Israel, whose hospitals and morgues are full of vaccinated people. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-... https://www.gov.il/en/departments/guides/informati…

So will you refuse to go to the hospital if you get covid - because they aren't following the same sources of what is effective treatment that you do? If you break your leg or have a heart attack will you study up or go to alternative places for treatment? I suspect you would go to the hospital in those cases, because people are only convinced that in this one instance there's a giant lie or something.

I won't need to go to the hospital because I have natural immunity from an infection that was so mild I'm not even sure when I had it.

False equivalence. The treatment methods for heart attack and broken legs have a long history and wealth of data. I gladly take every other vaccine for the same reasons.

They are not reliant on brand new techniques for which no long term testing or data exist against a threat that has repeatedly resisted vaccination with disastrous results historically. They are also not treatments propped up by singular hundred billion dollar companies who have a massive interest in their product being pushed as the only effective prophylactic. Companies that are set to make $30-50 billion, and also happen to be some of the largest lobbyists in the world.

Would you accept Ivermectin as a treatment prescribed by your doctor in India or Japan?

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

#462

Post by defaultprimate » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

r721 wrote: post #437

defaultprimate wrote: post #157

Studies are irrelevant at this point, when we have population level data of over a billion people across India and Africa, and the massive disparities between states/countries that utilized Ivermectin, and those that did not. The drug is safe enough to be used based on this data alone. https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-iv... https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/indias-ivermec... https…

>Overall, we rate The Desert Review Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the frequent promotion of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding covid-19. >Regarding Ivermectin, The Desert Review covers it extensively to the point where you would think this is an Ivermectin promotion source. Perhaps it is as nearly every article talks about the positive virtues of Ivermectin such as this G…

The only fact checks against the pieces were in May, and do not address the enduring data after the ivermectin rollouts.

Do you have any criticisms of the actual data or just ad hominems of the source?

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

#463

Post by anoonmoose » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #439

anoonmoose wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did this last year with hydroxychloroquine...all that happened was that some Lupus patients had a hard time getting their normal prescriptions filled. The "bad effect" doesn't have to be strictly medical, and may not show up in studies. It could be that other people who need the medicine can't get it, it could be that it discourages people from getting the vaccine, it could just be that we are lighting a pile of m…

There is not really a limited supply of this old, cheap, generic medication that we routinely feed to livestock. If you are concerned about wasting money, consider that for one dose of (also unproven!) medication like convalescent plasma you could buy about a thousand doses of generic, cheap drugs like ivermectin. And that has been tried about 500000 times, still is unproven but is not considered controversial.

So your argument is that it's a small pile of money we're lighting on fire so who cares? Not particularly compelling.

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

#464

Post by cableshaft » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #457

cableshaft wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mentioned the previous comment I am not well researched in this. I didn't even make the connection that the video is referring to the same study that this thread was talking about.

It doesn't matter, I don't care about Ivermectin or what you or anyone think about it, good or bad. I'm not planning to take it and never was.

My point was if something (ANYTHING) gets prescribed by a doctor, pharmacists should generally fill it barring those other reasons I mentioned above. I made my point, you made yours. Have a good day.

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

#465

Post by tinus_hn » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #463

tinus_hn wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not really a limited supply of this old, cheap, generic medication that we routinely feed to livestock. If you are concerned about wasting money, consider that for one dose of (also unproven!) medication like convalescent plasma you could buy about a thousand doses of generic, cheap drugs like ivermectin. And that has been tried about 500000 times, still is unproven but is not considered controversial.

So your argument is that it's a small pile of money we're lighting on fire so who cares? Not particularly compelling.

Sorry, it was your argument that the small pile of money was a large pile of money. Which it isn’t. And ‘lighting on fire’? Do you also step on the barricades when people waste their own money on homeopathic ‘medicine’?

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

#466

Post by KennyBlanken » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:00 PM 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…

Ad hominem would be "he's a covid-denier, his research is worthless."

What I actually said was that he was an expert in research quality, and then promptly helped generate very shoddy research that was outside his area of expertise and ended up widely criticized by people actually in that field. Pointing that out is not ad hominem.

Extremely early-on in the pandemic he ran around shouting with no evidence that COVID was not very infectious and not deadly at all, and really, we needed to stop with these silly lockdowns and social distancing and masks and so on.

He then changed his tune to claim that actually covid was very infectious but this meant that the death rate was very low (and thus we needed to stop with these silly lockdowns and social distancing and masks and so on.)

Even his claim of very high infection / low mortality rate were true, it doesn't change the fact that ERs and ICUs have been repeatedly swamped, predominantly in countries, states and counties where political leaders are not employing standard pandemic control measures.

The man was literally shouting "THIS IS NO BIG DEAL STOP LIMITING OUR FREEDOM" while ERs and ICUs filled to the gills with dying people and in many places they literally could not burn the bodies fast enough.

His early claims were junk in part because COVID often was not mentioned or listed as cause of death, especially early in the pandemic.

PS:

> You're simply dismissing one of the most-cited scientists in the world

Appeal to authority. See? I can play that too. Maybe you can fool the average HNer into thinking citations imply credibility, but absolute junk research can end up highly cited because it was junk and many researchers sought to validate said research or pointed out its obvious flaws.

Next time, try arguing this stuff with someone who didn't work in a lab that was doing linguistic analysis of research, a project that existed because citation counts are completely worthless for identify novel research or evaluating its validity. And to head it off at the pass: yeeeeeees, even if you include journal impact factor.

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

#467

Post by KennyBlanken » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #447

timr wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'll go with the CDC data, which pegs it at about 0.6%: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... I was a fan of Ioannidis when he put out the estimates, but he has lost me since then. I'd rather go with the massive amount of researchers that have built their career studying these things, than the guy from a different field that feels he is better than everyone. I mean, if your networks ops peop…

The man ran around screaming about how COVID wasn't a big deal and thus we needed to stop with the lockdowns and whatnot.

As our ERs, ICUs, and morgues were overwhelmed.

Which is still repeatedly happening, in regions with low vaccination and poor pandemic health regulations/orders. Except now it's lots of kids too young to get the vaccine or below age of being able to get the vaccine on their own without parental approval.

It would be exceedingly kind to say his "this isn't a big deal, not that many people percentage-wise are dying"...was at best incredibly heartless.

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

#468

Post by ashtonkem » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

unmole wrote: post #399

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…

> Do you think the public health authorities in Uttar Pradesh are lying? Yes.

Heh, nobody is ever ready for that response.

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

#469

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

tawmec wrote: post #340

davidw wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ohsu.edu/2021/09/17/five-oregonians-hospitalize... doesn't look retracted to me. Only stands to reason that if people are taking it kind of randomly, a few are going to screw up and take too much.

Not once in that article is an overdose mentioned.

[deleted]

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

#470

Post by shapefrog » Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #432

shapefrog wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you have no problem eating dog food for your 3 square meals a day plus a few of those chew biscuits for a snack?

It is kind of crunchy. Imagine the wet type would go rather well on Carr's Table Water crackers. Could jazz it up with a name like Pate di Cane , perhaps add a dollop of creme fraiche for appearance

I am thinking a more authentic experience than that.

Up end the can into a metal bowl, chuck it on the floor and whistle that dinner is ready. Then if you have been a really good boy, hang around under the dinner table and hope some people food scraps will find their way into your lap.