The supposed “hackers” keep pushing these pseudo scientific garbage in Hacker News for some reason
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
51–60 of 92 posts
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they apologise ? People were literally taking the horse de-wormer formulations because they couldn't buy it legally.
Source? No one was taking horse de-wormer that I’m aware of. It was a fake story propagated by the rolling stone magazine. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/15/fac...
I spend a decent amount of time monitoring ultra right forums. People were absolutely claiming to be taking horse dewormer, discussing where to find it and how to convince feed store employees they had livestock, and trading it.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#53[deleted]
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#54Parasites are a comorbidity of Covid-19. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic. You'll slightly improve your chances against Covid-19 by treating the parasites with Ivermectin so your body doesn't have to fight those, too. Parasites are endemic in Brazil in the South where Itajaí is located and Ivermectin is in heavy usage pre-pandemic as a result.
We already knew this. This doesn't apply outside areas with endemic parasites. It doesn't apply here in the US.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#55Is this the "if the subject is suffering from worms, then treating the worms allows them to fight the virus" result? (So not relevant in the US)
Yes. It took place in a city in southern Brazil where worms are endemic. It's exactly what we already knew and not relevant in the US.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#56This is an observational study, not strong enough to make any conclusions; The determination if a patient had taken ivermectin was self-reporting. There is no control of the dosage and how much time the patients took ivermectin before getting covid. This is at best an indication of the need for better studies about the subject, but considering that Brazil's president is rabid pro-ivermectin and this was made in a med…
Additionally, it was done in southern Brazil where worms are endemic. Being infected with worms is a known comorbidity of Covid-19. Treating the worms with Ivermectin has been shown to have a small improvement in chance of death from Covid-19. This doesn't apply to the US, of course.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#57This is an observational study, not strong enough to make any conclusions; The determination if a patient had taken ivermectin was self-reporting. There is no control of the dosage and how much time the patients took ivermectin before getting covid. This is at best an indication of the need for better studies about the subject, but considering that Brazil's president is rabid pro-ivermectin and this was made in a med…
We are two years into a pandemic. There isn't coming an answer to ivermectin. There should have been an answer 18 months ago, but the sycophantic vaccine pushers have done everything they can not to discredit ivermectin, but to simply say there isn't enough evidence to prove its effectiveness. Also, the only way to do this is to claim massive widescale multi-country research fraud.
I don't have a position on ivermectin, but it's pretty clear that any actual pre-treatmwent repurposing of drugs for any future pandemic should be the tip of the spear, but will be oppressed, underfunded, attacked, false-flagged, strawmanned, degraded, and doctor prescribers attacked.
This is totally, totally backwards. Even at $100,000,000 a clinical trial, funding 100 drugs with repurpose potential should have been step 1.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#58Makes sense in Brazil, but is it applicable to the US or other Western nations?
Nope. Worms are not endemic here, so Ivermectin has no impact on Covid-19 outcomes. It has a slight effect in this area of Brazil where worms are endemic.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that if you have a parasite infection, treating that is a good idea. If you don't, then treating it will not help you. If you want not to die from COVID-19, getting fully vaccinated is the way. If you want not to catch and spread it (vaccinated or no) wear a mask when you might be exposed or expose others. If you can't get vaccinated, anyway do things to be healthy -- treat any parasite infections, eat w…
In other news, the sky is blue, but that is not at all what this article is about. And you preaching about how your favorite measure, unquantifiably, is better than this measure, does not add anything meaningful to the article.
It's not a "favorite measure" it's the ones proven to work. All this self-reported summary shows is that taking Ivermectin can slightly improve Covid-19 outcomes in areas where worms are endemic. This study was done in an area of Brazil where worms are common and where high Ivermectin usage pre-dates Covid-19. It's something we already know. Parasitic infection results in worse outcomes for respiratory infections. Treat worms if you have them.
Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)
#60In interpreting this result, one should keep in mind that an active parasite infection produces worse results for respiratory infections of all kinds. Taking ivermectin reduces parasite load. The size and location of the study suggests that reporting of COVID-19 infections was by presentation, meaning asymptomatic or minimal infections were probably not counted. tl;dr: These results will probably not translate well t…
I've seen other similar results, and I don't share this skepticism. I can't find the exact study, but here's one on hospital staff in Argentina: https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807-prophylactic-role-of-i... I just don't see how parasites would explain all these results. I do see how monetary incentives would play into maligning them though.
Note that the original article and the article you posted are not randomized controlled trails. Does the people that accept to take Ivermectin more cautious than the people that don't? Does young people more likely to try? There are too many variables and it's just too hard to know without a RCT.
Also, the problem with these types of studies is that bad outcomes are sometimes not published. Nobody want to write an article with the title "We used Ivermectin and we killed an additional statistical significant number of coworkers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias For a RCT it's necessary more paperwork and authorizations and ideally preregistering. So that increase the chance of that they must write the final paper.
Also, as the PG noted the "peer review" of this site is not the traditional peer review of a normal journal. For example, the title says "Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects" but later it says "a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis". The main part of the difference is that they report in the title the total number of inhabitants, but for the analysis they use only the ones that have more than 18 years old. It's not a smoking gun, but at least it's a small red flag.