Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#581

Post by bananabiscuit » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #231

andreilys wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately medical experts are not allowed to discuss this in public, so we’re left with back door meetings where Pharma execs will inevitably push outcomes that will be favorable for their bottom line. Who wants to invest billions of dollars into a new vaccine/anti-viral drug only to lose out on all that investment by Ivermectin which will not contribute a single cent to the Pharma execs year-end bonus?

> Unfortunately medical experts are not allowed to discuss this in public I've heard and read quite a bunch of them discuss this in public in the past, they must've been unaware that this is illegal. Or maybe it just isn't.

It’s not illegal, it’s just career suicide.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#582

Post by drtournier » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

vfclists wrote: post #533

drtournier wrote: post #487

I am an MD, Data Scientist and epidemiologist. There are three pieces of information which makes me feel something fishy about the study: 1. Sample sizes for all selected studies are very small, and even though they used mixed effects models to treat confounding, there is no way to check what the authors did, since they didn’t shared the code or the data, which is inadmissible since this is a meta analysis and there…

> instead of promoting practices and technologies that showed undeniable success in the real world What are the practices and technologies that showed undeniable success in the real world. What is the "real world"? Does anyone have to take your scientific credentials seriously when you make a "scientific" argument using the term "the real world"? Is there some "alternate unreal world" where these trials were carried…

Thanks for the relevant comment - it must be intriguing for anyone who is not used with hearing about the “real world evidence” term in medical sciences.

Usually the highest level of evidence is attributed to randomized controlled trial studies. As the name says, they are performed in a high level of control, to evaluate in a more “insulated” way, the effects of a drug/intervention in a given outcome (reduce death, cure a disease, etc). Unfortunately, we can’t always relate these academic studies with the “real world”, due to an almost infinite number of confounding variables, or in the worst case scenario, if a scientist is manipulating the experiment environment (e.g. selecting a patient population with more likelihood for the desired effect).

This is one of the reasons why you will see with increasing frequency the terms “Real World Evidence (RWE) study” in reputable journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, or The Lancet.

These studies occur taking data from epidemiological surveillance, or patient medical records, and usually do a “reality check” on data found in these trials.

A lot of these RWE studies are famous to find problems that trials missed. Here is a classic example https://thalidomide.ca/en/what-is-thalidomide/

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#583

Post by void_mint » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

spadez wrote: post #534

void_mint wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read them, and my comment was substantive. A person’s bias is important to call out, as was pointing out the obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.

> obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk. If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) You can plainly see that both of these are var…

> If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)

That's the nice thing about science though. It's based on (readily available, well recorded) evidence. Deciding that an individual is smarter and/or doesn't believe in science (aka the entire anti vax movement) may be a matter of opinion, but the actual data and risks are not.

> So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.

No, the lying part does.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#584

Post by nojokes » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

rkagerer wrote: post #61

This is the same active ingredient used to treat heartworm in dogs and kill other types of parasites.

It has known antiviral properties https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#585

Post by nojokes » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #164

Ivermectin has to be one, presumptuously, of the most ridiculous foreign PSYOP interventions in recent memory. I believe that somewhere there's a bet going on for how many Westerners they can get taking dog medication thinking it makes them immune to COVID19. We already have a cure! In most countries, it's even _free_! And yet I read paranoid blogs online from conspiracy theorists who refuse a vaccine but guzzle down…

Ivermectin has wide antiviral properties https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

The fact that you call it a dog medication shows that you lack a basic knowledge about the history of this drug.

Problem with vaccines is that they take time to be effective (for AZ vaccine up to 14 weeks). In addition vaccines are not 100% effective. Therefor it is definitely beneficial to have some form of cure.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#586

Post by oblib » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

yumraj wrote: post #304

oblib wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been monitoring this for a long time now. I have ivermectin on hand for deworming my two mini burros. Of course, you're not supposed to use it on humans but they say that about fish mox too. But as time went on it was pretty clear to me that it was working to prevent covid from becoming severe in the countries that were using it for that because they had nothing much else to use. I saw many reports of it working…

How do you know that that dosing did not interfere with you developing proper immunity? In fact, CDC recommends taking fever reducing medicine only once you develop fever after a vaccine and not before vaccination for just this reason.

How do you know eating a cheese sandwich doesn't interfere?

How do you know what I did doesn't improve immunity since all those things I mentioned do seem to lessen the severity of covid?

One thing I do know, is that no doctor anywhere has claimed what I did lessens the effectiveness of those vaccines.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#587

Post by spadez » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

void_mint wrote: post #583

spadez wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk. If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) You can plainly see that both of these are var…

> If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished) That's the nice thing about science though. It's based on (readily available, well recorded) evidence. Dec…

Yes, you are right, it didn't make them a liar.

And yes, today science is based on "trust" in scientists, which also makes it more like a religion. Sadly.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#588

Post by xii23 » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

AndrewBissell wrote: post #270

gustavodemari wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people in Brazil did this. What happened? They got drug-induced hepatitis by wrong usage of Ivermectin.

Why are they getting the dose wrong? Are doctors refusing or being prevented from prescribing the drug, leaving them to seek out unsafe alternatives like veterinary formulations?

Doctors are refusing to treat covid with it because it's not proven to work and not recommended internationally, so people are self medicating by getting it illegally.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#589

Post by ppf » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #563

iammisc wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump was unstatesmanlike... Sure I can agree. But his opposition outright lied and they knew it.

Don’t care. You’re just proving my point that it became more about sticking to your side and cheering for your team rather than relying on the medical evidence. This sort of stuff should not have been brought into the political sphere in the first place.

What is the medical evidence for significant virus-related health benefits (to anyone) of general surgical-style mask wearing?

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#590

Post by raarts » Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

darwingr wrote: post #507

actually_a_dog wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence.... > ....there hadn't been a randomized trial the drug You don't see the contradiction here? Edit: because it must be made 100% obvious, clinical trial results are the definition of evidence in medical science.

It's an approved drug. Fully licensed and considered to have a wide safety profile. Doctors don't need permission for off-label use. It's just not a thing. We're in strange territory where doctors (professionals) have been demoted to nurses and they can't profess.

In the Netherlands doctors can be fined up to €150.000 if they prescribe Ivermectine or HCQ. Even though they can normally prescribe things off-label.