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

771–780 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#771

Post by jesterson »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #745
jesterson wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer - it's complicated. Long answer - quite a significant number of people are resistant to vaccines, particularly to mrna-based ones. Government offered voluntary vaccination and managed to vaccinate around 50%, after that different coercion and segregation measures (mandating without actually mandating) were used to raise the number to 94% (among eligible population). Disappointment is starting to grow lat…

Interesting that younger generation is willing to go for the shots, according to my impression danger curve for the shots compared to covid is vaccines better for elderly, and worse for young. Not to mention all the unknown health implications for the future if spike protein can increase chances of cancer or similar. I wonder if older gen has seen enough to not take everything at face value.

You are spot on. Older generation knows if government pushes something too hard, that's most likely not going to bring any good. Older people more willing to accept traditional vaccines like Sinovac/Sinopharm instead of mrna.

Younger generation remained hesitant but government insinuated huge social pressure in schools and colleges. My spouse's 14yo son was initially very resistant to vaccines and we supported it, but immense peer and school pressure pushed him to get the jab.

Additionally government mandated vaccination in cafes and dining venues so younger generation just sees it as obstacle for fun and getting it easily. At younger age you don't think about long-term effects.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#772

Post by abandonliberty »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #16
roenxi wrote: post #6

This is exactly the sort of thing that YouTube, Twitter, et al are suppressing. Someone thoughtfully listening seriously to what the proponents of Ivermectin are saying, weighing it up and saying "looks good but you forgot...". You can't get this sort of excellent rebuttal without allowing a site like https://ivmmeta.com/ into the debate.

There is little evidence of such analysis being suppressed. I think it is just relatively rare, because it is a lot of work and takes particular skill. Most people who care about this research are indeed crackpots, unfortunately. Those who aren't have mostly moved on from Ivermectin because they have better things to do. Ivermectin is being tested in large RCTs, as it should. If it works, it will be used. If it doesn…

Doctors are are much more trades/crafts people than scientists. Among the several I know personally and/or professionally, few are current with the latest research, or even know how to interpret it. They follow the treatment manuals they're provided, which do the best they can with the information available at the time. At the beginning of COVID, the manuals had to make many decisions on incomplete data; none of the drugs they recommended early on are still in use.

Most of the world understands this. It's mostly in the USA that we deify doctors. Few have first-year statistics competency, or can critically read a publication. And that's fine - it's not their profession.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#773

Post by radu_floricica »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #528
radu_floricica wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? One of the main points was that it's not dumbassery. You have multiple studies saying a drug works, being contradicted by experts that have been wrong multiple time this year and have a vested interest in what they're claiming. This is the opposite of dumb. It turned out not to be true, but such is life - not all the correct choices are also true in the end. It's also counterproductive in so…

People seeking out medication because they think it's a prophylactic for Covid-19 is not what any of those studies covered.

The irony of the situation is that it _is_ a mild-to-moderate prophylactic for severe Covid. In countries where parasites are endemic it's a significant difference to enter covid with parasites, or having gotten rid of them previously with a course of Ivermectin.

Comment section is pretty Western-centric in behaving as if the article proves Ivermectin doesn't work. The fact that we know (or are pretty sure we know) what the mechanism of action is doesn't make it "not work", it just makes it another tool in the box.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#774

Post by kragen »

jacquesm wrote: post #723
kragen wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's true that virtually any substance has a toxic dose, avoiding that dose is straightforward for drugs as well-known and widely-used as ivermectin. There is no risk of harming someone significantly. (There's also, I think, no chance of being effective against covid at safe doses.) It is true, but unfortunate, that in many societies only licensed practitioners are in a position to prescribe (or proscribe) most…

You mean this straightforward? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29262479

What do you mean?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#775

Post by kragen »

jacquesm wrote: post #722
kragen wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There really are no real downsides to taking ivermectin at its usual therapeutic doses. I'm not an expert, but ivermectin is well enough understood that I don't need to be an expert to know that. That's why there are regularly ivermectin programs that dose literally every single person in a town with ivermectin for a month or so as a parasite extermination campaign. (I have somewhat less confidence in my second opini…

Unfortunately at the 'usual therapeutic doses' there is no effect at all, you're looking at a substantial increase. The biggest direct proof for anti-viral effect was an in vitro study at substantially elevated levels.

I agree.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#776

Post by EdwardDiego »

radu_floricica wrote: post #773
EdwardDiego wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seeking out medication because they think it's a prophylactic for Covid-19 is not what any of those studies covered.

The irony of the situation is that it _is_ a mild-to-moderate prophylactic for severe Covid. In countries where parasites are endemic it's a significant difference to enter covid with parasites, or having gotten rid of them previously with a course of Ivermectin. Comment section is pretty Western-centric in behaving as if the article proves Ivermectin doesn't work. The fact that we know (or are pretty sure we know) w…

It's already a known cure for worms, it's what it's usually prescribed for. And reducing parasite load helps the immune system.

What it isn't, is a drug that objectively protects against Covid. Yet we have American media claiming it as such, and people selling clothing to the British with the slogan "Ivermectin. Safe. Lo-cost[sic]. Beats Covid."

Many other things also help the immune system. Adequate sleep. Balanced diet. Less stress. But I don't see any news pundits obsessing about why doctors aren't prescribing celery.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#778

Post by gardnr »

unanswered wrote: post #691
pjc50 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that fact check evaluates to "false"?

But the only expert opinions they cite are: > Pfizer’s drug has protease inhibitor activity like ivermectin, but they are a very different kettle of fish on a variety of levels and > Dr Walter explained that PF-07321332 is a “direct acting antiviral drug”, while ivermectin “has multiple mechanisms of action on animal and human cells as well as some serendipitous antiviral activity”. This sounds much more like "yes, b…

I wonder how Dr Walter would describe the difference between "animal and human cells". The statement makes it sound like he's a Young Earth creationist.

One criticism[1] of the above linked study, the one that states Ivermectin acts as a 3CL protease inhibitor, is that it uses an "in silico approach" (computer simulation).

The way that we know PF-07321332 is a 3CL protease inhibitor is via an "in silico approach".

It's important to note that the dosage of Ivermectin required to act as a protease inhibitor would be way above the accepted levels for human use.

Even still, this "animal/horse drug" rhetoric along with asymmetric acceptance of evidence is what lead me to want to understand more about the ivermectin controversy. It smells more like propaganda than science. Then, the sheer number of studies showing positive outcomes made it hard for me to accept that all the science was bad. Astral Codex did a great job of explaining why the studies were flawed.

[1]: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-merck-pfizer-covi...

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#779

Post by FeepingCreature »

KittenInABox wrote: post #663
BurningFrog wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you accusing him of anything else than having an opinion, and arguing for it?

I think the fact is that he presents himself as speaking from a highly informed, relatively unbiased presentation of a subject he finds interesting. In fact, he is arguing for a position. Reading an article meant to be informative vs reading an article meant to convince you of a position are two very different things.

I mean, it's hard to be informed and also not have a position. I think the best you can do is read an article about the information that convinced the author (and the information that made them less confident).

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#780

Post by rmbyrro »

tzs wrote: post #376
rmbyrro wrote: post #179

> Mainstream medicine has reacted with slogans like “believe Science”. I don’t know if those kinds of slogans ever help, but they’re especially unhelpful here. To me such slogans are a disservice. Science should not be a matter of belief by definition. This way of promoting science is what brings belief-centric discussions to an arena that cannot benefit from beliefs. I remember one presidential debate in the US wher…

> I remember one presidential debate in the US where the interviewer asked Trump: "Do you believe the science of climate change?" > Making such question is an absurdity and reflects the almost religious way these subjects have been considered lately. What question would you ask to ascertain someone's state of mind on climate change?

I'd ask two questions:

"What do you know about the science of Climate Change?"

"What do you think is your role as a President to apply our knowledge in this area?"

Post reply on HN