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

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#641

Post by toolz »

throwawaycuriou wrote: post #621
toolz wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the final study list he compiled shows 80-85% confidence for Notably though, at no point does the author even suggest it doesn't work - just that the statistical significance isn't high

I'm not sure where you're reaching 'hundreds and hundreds of thousands', perhaps because there's a big range between zero and thirty percent. In medical trials, statistical significance is the milestone to reach before broadly claiming something 'works'. Dozens of other treatments were put through trials. Some had promising initial results. Most didn't work.

No one is claiming it works - I'm refuting the point you've made which is that it doesn't work - which is contrary to what the data shows. The data shows that it's not reaching the medical milestone you refer to, but it does show that it's more likely helping.

You've claimed it doesn't work - nothing says that. Nothing even suggests that.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#642

Post by m0zg »

cbakt wrote: post #102
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's science working as intended: theories getting replaced by better theories. There is plenty that we are probably going to find out more about in the future that will invalidate some of what we believe today to be true. But that's fine, as long as we stick to the scientific method that will all come out, even if it takes a while. Science has brought us further in 400 years than anything that came before. Right n…

There would have been no carnage with polio. Vaccines have a demonstrable and long lasting effect and the disease is more severe for all age groups , so people would have taken the vaccine. Polio, measles etc. are entirely different.

Yeah, I knew a guy who got his legs destroyed by it. Given how well the polio vaccine is tolerated, and how grim the prognosis is without it, I don't think there'd be any issues with vaccine adoption. Measles one could argue either way - the disease is far less severe in most people.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#643

Post by throwawaycuriou »

toolz wrote: post #641
throwawaycuriou wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you're reaching 'hundreds and hundreds of thousands', perhaps because there's a big range between zero and thirty percent. In medical trials, statistical significance is the milestone to reach before broadly claiming something 'works'. Dozens of other treatments were put through trials. Some had promising initial results. Most didn't work.

No one is claiming it works - I'm refuting the point you've made which is that it doesn't work - which is contrary to what the data shows. The data shows that it's not reaching the medical milestone you refer to, but it does show that it's more likely helping. You've claimed it doesn't work - nothing says that. Nothing even suggests that.

Quite the mental pretzel there. If no one is claiming it works, and you claim that I claim that it doesn't work, maybe that's reason at work? Unfortunately, I never claimed it didn't work.

Edit: I see you might have confused me for a parent post by lalaland1125 who did claim this.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#644

Post by nikolay »

With all bashing on Ivermectin, I just wonder what people think about it! First, there's no money to be made from it - no patents, it costs cents per dose, and everybody can manufacture it! Second, it has proven anti-viral properties against HIV, HPV, etc. In general, it's not like some crazy guy decided to use try it against SARS-CoV-2 - scientists were looking to repurpose antivirals. Plus, it has a pretty decent and long-established safety record. Compare it to Remdesivir, let's say, which comes with terrible side effects! Also, the dosage has been pretty low and recommendations have changed - from 0.2mg/kg now it's 0.4-0.6mg/kg with Delta. Pretty much all my friends who followed the I-MASK+ protocol [0], didn't get severe course of COVID-19. Yeah, it's anecdotal data, but there are no exceptions!

[0]: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-pl...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#645

Post by sampo »

rootusrootus wrote: post #437
coolso wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff. Ivermectin is not alternative medicine. Ivermectin used for COVID symptoms is off-label use. CNN made fun of him because he dared stray from the official narrative and he dared try doing something through his own research rather than do…

If there's one thing I've learned over and over during this pandemic, it is that "do your own research" is immediately followed by a train of bullshit that only demonstrates extreme susceptibility to confirmation bias.

The first Western people protecting themselves with face masks, those were "do your own research" people. Before April 2020, the Western mainstream claimed/lied that masks don't work.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#646

Post by mdavis6890 »

romeros wrote: post #287
astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

"Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. "

I think this condescension does more harm than good. The "common man" is plenty smart enough to make decisions for themselves using reasonable judgement. They will make mistakes, but at a similar rate to the experts.

A message of "we're not sure, but this virus seems to be transmitted mostly by air, and we thinks wearing a mask will probably help. We suggest you wear one when reasonably possible" will likely encourage a lot of people to wear masks, while a message of "OMG PANIC AND WEAR MASKS ALWAYS AND YELL AT PEOPLE WHO DON'T" is not likely to.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#647

Post by nomel »

rootusrootus wrote: post #437
coolso wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff. Ivermectin is not alternative medicine. Ivermectin used for COVID symptoms is off-label use. CNN made fun of him because he dared stray from the official narrative and he dared try doing something through his own research rather than do…

If there's one thing I've learned over and over during this pandemic, it is that "do your own research" is immediately followed by a train of bullshit that only demonstrates extreme susceptibility to confirmation bias.

I did my own research and bought and wore masks when the CDC was saying they weren't needed. There was definitely "bullshit" involved there.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#649

Post by azinman2 »

danans wrote: post #625
azinman2 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a better practice is to explain the rationale per situation, what is known and what is not known. The right turned science into a culture war flashpoint, which meant the left blindly preaches “believe in science” as if it’s about faith. This is all very disingenuous and not at all what science is actually about. It’s very unfortunate that Covid started under trump because being anti-science was part of his mar…

> The right turned science into a culture war flashpoint, which meant the left blindly preaches “believe in science” as if it’s about faith. These two perspectives are not equivalent opposites though. "Believe in science" is not a religious statement. It is a shorthand for "trust in the scientific institutions that have proven their track record via decades of public health progress, and not in anti-scientific rhetor…

Knowledge and understanding of the world is constantly growing. There are endless examples of how scientists and other intellectuals have a current paradigm of how something must work, only to be disproven in the future (usually by someone who gets castigated until held up years later). So to say 'believe in science' is actually dogma. It makes me cringe when I see it as a political banner, or along side signs like 'in this house we believe in....' It would be more accurate to say 'the scientific method works', but it really only works in the long run. At any point in time our understanding is incomplete and erroneous.

The facts are out there, whether you believe it or not, and eventually the scientific method will catch up.

Of course if you're not a trained scientist, then it's hard to appreciate how the scientific method works, and that even when we're very sure of something, true scientists will always hedge their statements. This will be misinterpreted by those who are outside this world as there being more gray than actually exists, and those with an agenda will drive a truck right through it.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#650

Post by csee »

jacquesm wrote: post #594
kaba0 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not pray for satan with a goat sacrifice? That also doesn’t harm you and has similar quality of evidence for working. But my point is that there are literally infinite things that could cure covid, but in the end only empirical evidence is meaningful. But we have to choose our “fights” and methods with not even a probably way of effect are more than likely useless.

And that touches on another problem: all of this Ivermectin (and HCQ before it) bullshit takes funding away from studies that might turn up something useful. The only reason these drugs are even studied at this point is because they are so well publicized, even if there is approximately zero proof that they actually work. If they were miracle drugs as described the effect would be so large that those studies would be…

Again, stop saying "proof". You're misusing this word. It really seems like you have an ideological axe to grind. There is not "zero proof". Did you read the article? What you are saying and your level of confidence seem detached from the article's contents.

There is tentative evidence of a small to medium effect, but the quality of that evidence is low and that quality is insufficient to recommend use. This then deserves more attention and resources to figure out if it's real and why there's an effect. That's how science works.

Contrary to your claims here, scientists aren't studying it because some cranks on the internet propped it up. They're studying it because some field doctors had positive anecdotal experiences and some early studies showed promise.

As you've said, the medical establishment really wants to end the pandemic. Which is why they're looking into this drug, among many others.

Post reply on HN