Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 493 posts

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

#471

Post by anoonmoose »

tinus_hn wrote: post #465
anoonmoose wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’?

I mean, yes, I do think homeopathic medicine is a net negative on society, and I complain about it as/when necessary. And I don't see the word "large" in front of "pile of money" in my above comment...

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

#472

Post by thehappypm »

programmarchy wrote: post #98
sjg007 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764

No, I don't think anyone is, because there are also studies that show no benefit: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... However, I've also heard there's a new study coming out from Gilead that demonstrates Remdesivir is highly effective when administered in early treatment. So perhaps the efficacy depends when treatment is given. And if that's the case, then meta-studies actually become very…

The problem with Remdesivir is that it's often administered way, way too late. If someone's oxygen is at <90% and they're about to need a ventilator, there's already so much viruses in their system, so much inflammation, and so much cell death that stopping new viral reproduction is too little, too late.

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

#473

Post by tawmec »

davidw wrote: post #418
tawmec wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not once in that article is an overdose mentioned.

So you're suggesting that taking even a regular dose might send people to the ICU?

The article linked simply says there have been people who misused ivermectin who presented at the hospital. For what reason they went we have no idea because it does not say.

For all we know the two individuals who landed in the ICU were admitted because they were attempting to unsuccessfully self-treat COVID and ended up there, not because of the ivermectin misuse but because of COVID itself.

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

#474

Post by aabaker99 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #366
aabaker99 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also skeptical of meta-analyses. 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. He often raises good points about trends in research and research ethics. His view is that meta-analyses are mass produced, redundant, misleading, and conflicted [1]! One criticism of meta-analyses in [1], using anti-depressants…

> 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…

Thanks for posting this. I did not know about about this darker side to Ioannidis.

I think lockdowns are/were a good thing. I won't necessarily fault Ioannidis for comments on lock downs on March 17, 2020 because that's pretty early on in. However, the April 17, 2020 pre-print story is pretty damning.

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

#475

Post by BirdPlusPlus »

feoren wrote: post #460
BirdPlusPlus wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

I appreciate your comment though I disagree with what seems to be your interpretation of dominion. Good lord I love this board, people actually converse. I upvoted you too, though I take issue with a couple of your points.

I don't believe anyone ever has or ever will have dominion over the outcome of their actions within any domain - regardless of power they may otherwise wield. The only certainty in life is uncertainty after all. So, I don't find the presence of uncertainty an acceptable lower bound. Additionally, believing our contemporary body of medical knowledge is complete to the point where we aren't currently making mistakes tantamount to mercury laxatives seems to me, dangerously hubristic.

Being able to make choices unconstrained by experts and authorities who believe your decisions are wrong, is the essence of freedom and the impetus propelling all forward progress. Free Inquiry demands we embrace others' self-determination and latitude in their decisions, respecting the near certain presence of unknown unknowns.

More average people now are reading scientific literature than ever before, which should be cause for rejoicing. Sadly, we seem to be ignoring that opportunity and abandoning all semblance of rational, data-driven science. Rather, we're corrupting Science with Religion, skepticism with faith, breaking into factions mutually recognized as heresies. The data are twisted to fit expectations, not dispassionately observed. We're twisting men of science into priests, models into dogma, literature into liturgy, and inquiry into inquisition. We're not going to notice the unknown unknowns until they've already sunk in their fangs and got a mouth full of buttcheek.

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

#476

Post by tinus_hn »

anoonmoose wrote: post #471
tinus_hn wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’?

I mean, yes, I do think homeopathic medicine is a net negative on society, and I complain about it as/when necessary. And I don't see the word "large" in front of "pile of money" in my above comment...

If you really do go around complaining about people taking expensive water because they think it helps them with their health problems perhaps you should try minding your own business a bit more. I’m sure there’s plenty of things to improve in yourself before you start pointing out other peoples problems.

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

#478

Post by motoboi »

tinus_hn wrote: post #477
motoboi wrote: post #32

Someone said it and I totally agree: Society is not ready to watch science in realtime.

Also, science is not ready to rule a nation.

Which nation is being ruled by science? And which scientist?

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

#479

Post by wrycoder »

crowbahr wrote: post #450
adamdusty wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence that intelligence is genetic? I dont think your height was stopping you from getting to the NBA, nor is that even remotely obvious. You may find your height to be discouraging, but you could have very well possessed the potential to play professional basketball. You'd be 3 inches taller than Muggsy Bouges who played for 14 seasons, 1 inch taller than 13 year vet Earl Boykins, and the same height…

No, in fact IQ correlates more with child to adoptive parents than it does with their biological parents.

Actually, scientific work supports the opposite conclusion.

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

#480

Post by wrycoder »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #429
darawk wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Lol
Post reply on HN