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

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

Post by gus_massa »

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…

Nice study, I don't find any mayor fail. (Some articles are very bad.)

As they say, it's not a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

I like more the pilot study because they try to match the age and pupation of the both groups. The problem is that they perhaps involuntary cherry picked the sublets in the experimental group. For example if there are 50 nurses and they want to recruit some of them, they may go first with with the ones that fill all the paperwork so they don't mess with the data for the study, or they skip the one that is drunk every other Monday or the one that is 15 minutes late everyday. Do these involuntary selection affect the result? Perhaps. Did they do this involuntary selection? Perhaps??? How can it be solved...

Make a double-blind randomized controlled trial. They can involuntary cherry pick and this is fixed by the randomization.

Also double-blind, because if you are the subject of the study, you don't want to "fail" and you are more careful. Or not. But just in case double-blind.

In the first study it's not clear how they got the control group. Perhspa go to HR, ask for the complete list, and then choose some randomly.

The second one is more weird, because

> A total of 1,195 health care workers were recruited from 4 major hospitals ... 788 participants received IVERCAR and PPEs, while the remaining 407 simply adhered to standard PPEs.

It's very unclear how they split them.

Another weird details is that

> Received date: November 09, 2020; Accepted date: November 16, 2020;

It's a very short review period. Perhaps it's common in the area, but in many areas the reviewers take like a month or more. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad journal. It's very difficult to know that if you are not in the area.

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

#72

Post by anagram666 »

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…

Sorry to say, but the vaccine is a better option to prevent covid, even considering this study. You can take ivermectin if you use the normal dosage, it is not harmful and may be helpful. But a lot of people is promoting ivermectin instead of the vaccine or using a higher dosage and this is causing a lot of preventable deaths.

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

#73

Post by ncmncm »

tinus_hn wrote: post #70
ncmncm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can't tell the difference between research and promotion, you cannot be any help to anybody. Then, the best thing you can do is let the people who can go about it, without you getting in the way.

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

#74

Post by ncmncm »

lambdaba wrote: post #69
ncmncm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How did you verify it was pure CBD? Do you have equipment that would enable such verification? Seeming to have the effect you expect from CBD is not reliable.

CBD's effect on COVID-19 is to suppress the over-reaction of the immune system causing congestion and breathing problems. It does not interfere with the viral life cycle. So, it is useless to prevent COVID-19 infection.

In vitro analysis suggested that, in principle, ivermectin ought to help block COVID-19 virus in several ways. That generated interest to see if it would help.

The more reliable each study has been, the less effect it has shown. Something working great in test tubes (and even in mice) and failing when prescribed to actual people is totally unsurprising to anybody who works in medical research. Something promising that actually turns out to work clinically is always astonishing.

So, discounting promotion by people do lack long experience interpreting medical research results is not corrupt SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH. It is simple honest reporting, is doing you a favor, and you should welcome it.

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

#75

Post by josephcsible »

Grismar wrote: post #63

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 th…

> no reason to hold this stuff to a lower standard than the anyone want to hold the vaccines to

There absolutely is such a reason: the standard for things that people are required to take should be way, way higher than the standard for things that people are merely allowed to take.

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

#76

Post by josephcsible »

threeseed wrote: post #10
johng wrote: post #2

These seems like a pretty thorough study... is it OK for people to talk about Ivermectin now or are they still going to censor and ban accounts?

Many of those that I saw banned were for those recommending taking ivermectin. Nobody should take anything without discussing it with their doctor.

Does "anything" include the COVID vaccines?

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

#77

Post by benpiper »

anagram666 wrote: post #72
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…

Sorry to say, but the vaccine is a better option to prevent covid, even considering this study. You can take ivermectin if you use the normal dosage, it is not harmful and may be helpful. But a lot of people is promoting ivermectin instead of the vaccine or using a higher dosage and this is causing a lot of preventable deaths.

Relevant: https://nypost.com/2022/01/11/united-airlines-says-3000-empl...

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

#78

Post by tinus_hn »

ncmncm wrote: post #73
tinus_hn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can't tell the difference between research and promotion, you cannot be any help to anybody. Then, the best thing you can do is let the people who can go about it, without you getting in the way.

I can tell the difference between people that are promoting the things that already exist and research just fine, thank you.

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

#79

Post by dogma1138 »

orwin wrote: post #64
rsfern wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there any reason why worms would increase the severe morbidity/death rate?

The only thing I can think off is that (some) parasites tend to have a suppressive impact on the immune system but it also seem that could also prevent the cytokine storm that initially was reported as a major cause of severe illness and death.

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

#80

Post by SteveEM »

These are the issues that limit ability to draw conclusions in this study: No pre-registration, No randomization, No blinding, No allocation concealment, No idea who did/did not fill prescriptions, Prescription writing was based on "judgement"?!, No uniform follow up, No idea who was followed up or lost to follow up
Post reply on HN