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

Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 348 posts

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#91

Post by shadowgovt »

azangru wrote: post #50
belter wrote: post #35

We did not eliminate pandemics. Instead, as a Society we barely made it through this one. Despite the massive human and economic cost of this latest pandemic, governments are making the same mistakes again: - Lack of preparation. - Not enough resources allocated to research. - Too much reliance on Pharma and particularly Vaccine producing companies. The best research is still done mostly via foundations or private fu…

> - Lack of preparation. > - Not enough resources allocated to research. How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example? Some might even argue that it's precisely because of the research done in preparation for a new pandemic, which included studying novel coronaviruses using something that Fauci says was…

> How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen?

Statistical extrapolation and lessons from previous disasters. We don't know when a flood will happen, but we know what a floodplain looks like.

> How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example?

Execute on the preparatory plans generated after H1N1, as one example.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#92

Post by WaxedChewbacca »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #45
rootsudo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misinformation seems to be the boogeyman of our time. Something you don't agree with just slap the label "Misinformation!" "Yes, the evidence suggests it but.." - "MISINFORMATION.

Stating something with no scientific backing is literal misinformation. Theres been not a single study to show parasite Covid ivermectin connection. Claiming it's fact instead of a theory is literal misinformation, even if it's a good theory.

No post body was provided.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#93

Post by belter »

azangru wrote: post #50
belter wrote: post #35

We did not eliminate pandemics. Instead, as a Society we barely made it through this one. Despite the massive human and economic cost of this latest pandemic, governments are making the same mistakes again: - Lack of preparation. - Not enough resources allocated to research. - Too much reliance on Pharma and particularly Vaccine producing companies. The best research is still done mostly via foundations or private fu…

> - Lack of preparation. > - Not enough resources allocated to research. How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example? Some might even argue that it's precisely because of the research done in preparation for a new pandemic, which included studying novel coronaviruses using something that Fauci says was…

How to prepare for a pandemic:

- Make sure Schools, Companies, Public Institutions have to go once a year, through an audited test trial. Demonstrate they can run their business with no personal physical contact and they can manage the appearance of a Biohazard level 4 virus.

- For companies delivering physical good rehearse you procedures for delivery product without physical contact.

- Make sure the each Country has stocks of drinkable water and food supplies for 1/2 years

- Each Country should make sure they have enough medical equipment for first response teams to handle up to Biohazard level 4 virus.

- Be ready to separate your medical care between institutions providing regular medical care and choose hospitals or field hospitals that will handle infected patients.

- Identify the Research groups and Specialists able to work with priority on medical research and don't outsource the research to commercial vaccine producers. A scientific research group at an University like Oxford is an acceptable team, Pfizer is not.

- Discuss the legal implications of medical mandates and open a public discussion of what measures will be acceptable, and what measures will be too much. Don't use a pandemic as an excuse to massage some groups authoritarian inclinations.

- Create a public dashboard of public acceptable metrics that measure each Country preparedness for a pandemic or by that measure, for other natural disasters.

- Make an effort to collect worldwide samples that can be use to research still unknown virus.

- Do not engage in ethically challenging, gain of function research ;-)

- Use 0.01% tax on corporate revenue ( not profit ;-) to budget a disaster fund.

- Could go but would say for now would say, update this one doc from 2007... https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarian...

So my question is, POST Pandemic ( if we can already say that), which government, has currently in place any initiative that looks remotely like any of the points above?

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#94

Post by odonnellryan »

headsoup wrote: post #67
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. So? Some experts are more experts than others?

Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the sci…

I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing.

Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong.

Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are.

So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity.

Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream.

You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#95

Post by themacguffinman »

StreamBright wrote: post #82
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

> started buying the horse version of the drug FYI there is no horse version of drugs. It would be a logistics and production nightmare to produce two kind of medicine like that. If a medicine has a chemical compound (like for example Amoxicillin) then it is good for both your fish and for you generally speaking.

That's not exactly true, it's not necessarily horse-specific but there are variations between human and animal versions:

> Animal drugs, on the other hand, are often highly concentrated—especially those used in large animals such as horses and cows—and high doses of those drugs could be highly toxic in humans.

> In addition, animal drugs often have inactive ingredients not evaluated for use in human medicine, and FDA officials don’t know how those ingredients affect drug absorption in a human body, FDA information states.

https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2021-10-01/people-ingesting-...

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#96

Post by cudgy »

azangru wrote: post #50
belter wrote: post #35

We did not eliminate pandemics. Instead, as a Society we barely made it through this one. Despite the massive human and economic cost of this latest pandemic, governments are making the same mistakes again: - Lack of preparation. - Not enough resources allocated to research. - Too much reliance on Pharma and particularly Vaccine producing companies. The best research is still done mostly via foundations or private fu…

> - Lack of preparation. > - Not enough resources allocated to research. How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example? Some might even argue that it's precisely because of the research done in preparation for a new pandemic, which included studying novel coronaviruses using something that Fauci says was…

> How do you prepare for something that you don't know is going to happen? How would you have prepared for a major coronavirus outbreak before covid, for example?

Don’t we always prepare for something we don’t know is going to happen? In the case of Covid, it was actually being developed by humans in labs that were likely carelessly released into the world. Perhaps preparing to not develop and release dangerous pathogens is a start.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#97

Post by chefandy »

leereeves wrote: post #15
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds reasonable, until you realise that his opinions massively skew which licensed doctors he lets on the show. So effectively you’re ending up with him pushing his opinion anyway. If you cherry-pick your experts enough, you’ll be able to find one that agrees with you, no matter how absurd your position. I’ll also note that much of the time the licensed doctors he invites on aren’t actually in relevant special…

Serious question: What media doesn't choose their guests to fit their opinions or their political stance? I'd like to watch that one.

Honestly— PBS News Hour.

You’re just as likely to see current or former GOP talking heads like Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, or Pat Buchanan as some DNC talking head. In fact, scrolling down their page just now, McConnell is the only actual politician I saw interviewed, though they did have a Biden speech clip.

Keep in mind that inviting Political opponents into your show can advance your political message if you lampoon them — but PBS News Hour has about the same ratio of push to pull interviewing politicians, never ever interrupts, and doesn’t ask cheap shot gotcha questions.

They are more likely to choose topics from a loosely mainstream democrat perspective — you’d be more likely to see a story about the ACLU releasing a statement about immigration than a law enforcement agency doing the same, but that sheriff or whatever is going to get equal respect and air time in that segment… and it’s not that extreme of a shift compared to mainstream outlets.

So I firmly believe that they fit the criteria for your specific question. Truthfully I think most people just don’t want that.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#98

Post by NoraCodes »

snidane wrote: post #43

While the ivermectin story is largely explained by the confounding factor of parasite presence in developing countries, it indirectly helped covid patients by curing them of other problems and thus reducing the potence of covid. Not so much in the developed countries since the parasite problem was small. Concerning though, was the society's attitude to the Ivermectin, an safe drug prescribed by WHO in Africa en masse…

> Who would have though that Vladimir Putin would become the world's most successful doctor and cure the world of the pandemic overnight.

Please, don't leave us hanging - i want to hear the rest! I wonder if your novel might be better suited for AO3 or FanFiction.net, though?

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#99

Post by acdha »

imgabe wrote: post #54
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a story because people, for some stupid reason, started buying the horse version of the drug and horse owners couldn't get Ivermectin for their horses anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-sho... I haven't read any story that said: "It's a horsey drug for horses! If you take it, that means you're a horse!"

Yeah that didn’t really happen. The article you linked is a 404 Obviously they didn’t use those exact words, but any time it was mentioned they were sure to include something like “…which is used to treat livestock…”, when that is not really relevant since it’s also widely used for people.

You might find it politically inconvenient to reconcile this with the stance you’ve chosen but there were plenty of people buying it from veterinary suppliers and reselling it online. Denying that is not a good way to establish credibility.

Re: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

#100

Post by gatlin »

thurn wrote: post #75
eggy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tired of people attacking Joe Rogan. He's a pod caster. How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci or the main stream media? Ignoring natural immunity, not releasing publicly funded data to scientists and citizens to do science, openly lying in the name of 'for your own good', or tweeting a statistic that is way off from the data they released - the list goes on, and these are the high…

You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.

Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...
Post reply on HN