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

#491

Post by crowbahr » Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

wrycoder wrote: post #479

crowbahr wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just looked at the article I was reading and it looks like 1. You're correct and 2. I remembered the exact opposite of the conclusion.

Thanks for the reminder that memory isn't perfect haha

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

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

#492

Post by jjeaff » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:44 AM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #458

jjeaff wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is a myth that keeps getting passed around. The FDA actually had more than one therapeutic with eua for covid19 when they created the eua for the vaccine. There is no rule forbidding an EUA for a vaccine if a therapeutic exists.

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

#493

Post by jjeaff » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 6:46 AM UTC

ImpressiveWebs wrote: post #424

jjeaff wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False. The existence of a therapeutic does not block approval of other treatments or vaccines. In fact, there were multiple emergency authorized therapeutics for c19 when the made the eua for the vaccine.

And no one is talking about endless vaccines. We now have a 3rd booster for at-risk populations. It's possibly/likely that if they extend that recommendation to the rest of the population that 3 doses may be all that is needed for long term, strong immunity. Just like there are 3 doses for hep B and several other vaccines.