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

Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

cureus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#61

Post by rsfern »

ipspam wrote: post #57
anagram666 wrote: post #44

This 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 ivermect…

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were met with cautious optimism by the research community after the first preliminary hits in screening experiments for drug repurposing, exactly as you’re advocating [0]. The tides turned when things didn’t pan out in subsequent clinical studies. Actually, for ivermectin the tide started turning after people realized what an unrealistically massive dose was needed in the first in vitro study [0 again]

There were a few cases of fraud (most notably one of the biggest ivermectin studies last summer) but it’s not necessary to resort to allegations of ubiquitous fraud to conclude that the research doesn’t really support use of these drugs as effective Covid therapeutics

0: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/what-s-ivermectin

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#62

Post by tinus_hn »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #59
tinus_hn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Tr…

You’re just repeating the same thing. This study shows ivermectin does have an effect. It might be because of parasites or not and it has absolutely nothing to do with masks or vaccines so preaching about how masks and vaccines are better is not helpful.

People aren’t going to wear masks forever and aren’t going to take boosters forever so we need more solutions. And before you say, they aren’t going to take ivermectin forever either but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful to know if, why and how it works.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#63

Post by Grismar »

Science on this is great. However, don't parrot this to your friends until you see it replicated somewhere else (preferably somewhere not governed by ivermectin-peddling populists) and confirmed in a double-blind random-controlled trial (which this doesn't even get close to). After all, no reason to hold this stuff to a lower standard than the anyone want to hold the vaccines to (regardless of whether they realise these standards were already met there).

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#64

Post by orwin »

rsfern wrote: post #61
ipspam wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ivermect…

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were met with cautious optimism by the research community after the first preliminary hits in screening experiments for drug repurposing, exactly as you’re advocating [0]. The tides turned when things didn’t pan out in subsequent clinical studies. Actually, for ivermectin the tide started turning after people realized what an unrealistically massive dose was needed in the first in vi…

Some studies, especially in the southern hemisphere, were quite sold on ivermectin, but there is a lot of suspicion that the good results are actually due to worms increasing the risk of Covid death.

So if you're from the US and your aunt from Florida/Louisiana tells you Ivermectin work, you can honestly respond: Yes.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#65

Post by lambdaba »

gus_massa wrote: post #60
lambdaba wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I don't know, I just see a pattern here, I know as much as every other person that anecdote != data, and correlation != causation, but... I don't know, I don't think these studies are worthless either

I found the other study I wanted to reference: https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedi...

> No patients of the 788 treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid 19 during the study.

Again, I don't know, but it smells like SOMETHING

What I "believe" about this is prophylaxis, I think this is why there are no results once symptoms are really apparent. This might be why the point about Ivermectin being antiviral only at very high doses doesn't hold, maybe it provides protection when there is only a tiny exposure to the virus. Heck, there's even a result circulating that cannabis was protective... Who knows?

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#66

Post by supperburg »

ncmncm wrote: post #48
supperburg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Nobody "dogmatically hates the drug". It is an excellent treatment for parasites, cheap and well-tolerated as parasite treatments go. Many have reason to hate people who advocate for dosing with anti-parasite drugs instead of getting vaccinated, because it makes people die . Many people have family who were not protected, and died, unnecessarily. I am not among those. But my brother rejected vaccination, and his wife…

Yeah, the vaccine or therapeutics and nothing in between people like you aren’t helping anyone.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#67

Post by ncmncm »

tinus_hn wrote: post #62
JohnTHaller wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Tr…

You’re just repeating the same thing. This study shows ivermectin does have an effect. It might be because of parasites or not and it has absolutely nothing to do with masks or vaccines so preaching about how masks and vaccines are better is not helpful. People aren’t going to wear masks forever and aren’t going to take boosters forever so we need more solutions. And before you say, they aren’t going to take ivermect…

If people need something else than vaccination and masks, such a thing will need to be identified. Chasing phantoms does not achieve that. And each person who dies because they tried to use things that don't work instead of what works is blood on the hands of people promoting those.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#68

Post by ncmncm »

lambdaba wrote: post #65
gus_massa wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I don't know, I just see a pattern here, I know as much as every other person that anecdote != data, and correlation != causation, but... I don't know, I don't think these studies are worthless either I found the other study I wanted to reference: https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedi... > No patients of the 788 treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid 19 during the study. Again, I don't…

We have pretty good reasons to believe that CBD, in the absence of THC, is protective for people who have contracted COVID: it keeps them out of ICU.

Unfortunately almost all retail products that claim to have CBD don't. CBD from the pharmacy, which does, costs more than people usually want to pay.

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#69

Post by lambdaba »

ncmncm wrote: post #68
lambdaba wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I just see a pattern here, I know as much as every other person that anecdote != data, and correlation != causation, but... I don't know, I don't think these studies are worthless either I found the other study I wanted to reference: https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedi... > No patients of the 788 treated with IVERCAR tested positive for CoVid 19 during the study. Again, I don't…

We have pretty good reasons to believe that CBD, in the absence of THC, is protective for people who have contracted COVID: it keeps them out of ICU. Unfortunately almost all retail products that claim to have CBD don't. CBD from the pharmacy, which does, costs more than people usually want to pay.

Are you sure about that? I've bought CBD isolate several times from (decently vetted) online vendors... pretty sure it was pure CBD

Still, pretty amazing CBD would "block" entry of the virus in cells, or something like that (I only read the headlines, not pretending to understand)... But maybe this is somehow how Ivermectin can have antiviral properties at normal doses too. I suppose CBD once the infection sets in is less effective (though surely harmless).

Re: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for Covid-19 (Peer-Reviewed)

#70

Post by tinus_hn »

ncmncm wrote: post #67
tinus_hn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re just repeating the same thing. This study shows ivermectin does have an effect. It might be because of parasites or not and it has absolutely nothing to do with masks or vaccines so preaching about how masks and vaccines are better is not helpful. People aren’t going to wear masks forever and aren’t going to take boosters forever so we need more solutions. And before you say, they aren’t going to take ivermect…

If people need something else than vaccination and masks, such a thing will need to be identified. Chasing phantoms does not achieve that. And each person who dies because they tried to use things that don't work instead of what works is blood on the hands of people promoting those.

You don’t get to decide what others research. Science doesn’t work by saying others can’t look into subjects you think are stupid. You can insert all the dramatic accusations you want, it’s still anti science.
Post reply on HN