5 ms·

Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century

17 points by noch 5y ago

MilnerRoute 5y ago
I'd never heard of Ivermectin, so I Googled it, and the top result that came up was an official page at America's FDA headlined "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19" https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
- briefcomment 5y ago
  Many countries are using Ivermectin to seemingly very encouraging effect [1] [1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/india-just-became-latest-country-to-approve-use-of-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/india-just-became-la...
  - MilnerRoute 5y ago
    Your headline is from May 4th: "India Just Became Latest Country to Approve Use of Ivermectin to Treat Covid-19." Here's a more recent headline from June 8th: "Drugs including ivermectin removed from [India's] approved covid treatment list" https://www.livemint.com/news/india/govt-removes-ivermectin-other-popular-drugs-from-covid-19-treatment-list-check-revised-guidelines-11623074154396.html https://www.livemint.com/news/india/govt-removes-ivermectin-...
- ghthor 5y ago
  There is a lot of concern that if the FDA had authorized the research and usage of either HCQ or Ivermectin and they'd proven to treat COVID that their bylaws for have forbid them from issuing an EUA for the "vaccines". This raises lots of conspiracy hairs on me; It points to a conflict of interest at the FDA to discredit effective and cheap therapies for COVID to pave the way for a massively profitable "vaccine" therapy.
- rubatuga 5y ago
  The only evidence they present why you should not use it: > FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans.
briefcomment 5y ago
This was removed from YouTube after having been up for a week and a half [1] Also, this is nowhere on HN, after being on the front page a couple minutes ago. Wonder why. [1]https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1403561674792075264 https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1403561674792075264
- dang 5y ago
  Users flagged it. It's common for stories to make the front page and then get flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    Got it, the title didn't say [flagged] when I posted my comment. Looks like it's still flagged. Does it not pass some criteria to be un-flagged?
    - dang 5y ago
      We sometimes turn off flags, but only if the story is likely to support a substantive discussion on HN. I unfortunately can't imagine that happening here. I think it would be a bigass flamewar, for the same reason that it attracted a lot of flags in the first place.
      - krrrh 5y ago
        I watched the video when it was released on Bret Weinstein’s podcast. I think it could be an interesting discussion if people actually watched the video, but this seems like a touchy subject to people who didn’t for some reason.
        dang 5y ago
        I don't think it's so much about whether people watch the video or not—that's too optimistic. People will respond based on pre-existing affiliations. A drawback of being a large, open, flat community is that discussions break down when there's, say, an 80/20 split or worse in the community. When it's 90/10 or 99/1, nothing is really possible. You'd need a smaller, more cohesive forum for that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
URfejk 5y ago
Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 96 studies, 58 peer reviewed, 58 with results comparing treatment and control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/
guiraldelli 5y ago
I opened the link and I saw the organisation hosting it is the same one associated with the interviewed person, which is the owner of the URL as well. That sounds too… Suspicious. Thus, I decided to search the internet for the interviewed person, and first link is the "colourful" Wikipedia entry [1]. Judge it for yourself, but I am disappointed to see this kind of links in here. Luckily, it is already flagged. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory
- krrrh 5y ago
  The organization that he is part of isn’t hosting the video but embedding the video which was on Bret Weinstein’s podcast. What is colourful about the Wikipedia entry exactly? He appears to be a credible physician who has a different opinion on what early data is showing on treatments that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. The interview is interesting and addresses these controversies. This looks like part of the scientific process to me and it would be good to allow people to make counter arguments rather than dismissing anyone with a different opinion.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  The only thing "colorful" about his entry is that he dissents from the Government and Media's stance on Covid treatment, which is not an issue in itself, but can only be determined as such if you evaluate the evidence. The flagged video is him providing some of that evidence. It seems like you're jumping the gun here if you condemn him without evaluating his evidence.

17 points by noch 5y ago

I'd never heard of Ivermectin, so I Googled it, and the top result that came up was an official page at America's FDA headlined "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19" https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

briefcomment 5y ago
Many countries are using Ivermectin to seemingly very encouraging effect [1] [1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/india-just-became-latest-country-to-approve-use-of-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/india-just-became-la...
- MilnerRoute 5y ago
  Your headline is from May 4th: "India Just Became Latest Country to Approve Use of Ivermectin to Treat Covid-19." Here's a more recent headline from June 8th: "Drugs including ivermectin removed from [India's] approved covid treatment list" https://www.livemint.com/news/india/govt-removes-ivermectin-other-popular-drugs-from-covid-19-treatment-list-check-revised-guidelines-11623074154396.html https://www.livemint.com/news/india/govt-removes-ivermectin-...
ghthor 5y ago
There is a lot of concern that if the FDA had authorized the research and usage of either HCQ or Ivermectin and they'd proven to treat COVID that their bylaws for have forbid them from issuing an EUA for the "vaccines". This raises lots of conspiracy hairs on me; It points to a conflict of interest at the FDA to discredit effective and cheap therapies for COVID to pave the way for a massively profitable "vaccine" therapy.
rubatuga 5y ago
The only evidence they present why you should not use it: > FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans.

briefcomment 5y ago

This was removed from YouTube after having been up for a week and a half [1] Also, this is nowhere on HN, after being on the front page a couple minutes ago. Wonder why. [1]https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1403561674792075264 https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1403561674792075264

dang 5y ago
Users flagged it. It's common for stories to make the front page and then get flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
- briefcomment 5y ago
  Got it, the title didn't say [flagged] when I posted my comment. Looks like it's still flagged. Does it not pass some criteria to be un-flagged?
  - dang 5y ago
    We sometimes turn off flags, but only if the story is likely to support a substantive discussion on HN. I unfortunately can't imagine that happening here. I think it would be a bigass flamewar, for the same reason that it attracted a lot of flags in the first place.
    - krrrh 5y ago
      I watched the video when it was released on Bret Weinstein’s podcast. I think it could be an interesting discussion if people actually watched the video, but this seems like a touchy subject to people who didn’t for some reason.
      - dang 5y ago
        I don't think it's so much about whether people watch the video or not—that's too optimistic. People will respond based on pre-existing affiliations. A drawback of being a large, open, flat community is that discussions break down when there's, say, an 80/20 split or worse in the community. When it's 90/10 or 99/1, nothing is really possible. You'd need a smaller, more cohesive forum for that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

URfejk 5y ago

Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 96 studies, 58 peer reviewed, 58 with results comparing treatment and control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/

guiraldelli 5y ago

I opened the link and I saw the organisation hosting it is the same one associated with the interviewed person, which is the owner of the URL as well. That sounds too… Suspicious. Thus, I decided to search the internet for the interviewed person, and first link is the "colourful" Wikipedia entry [1]. Judge it for yourself, but I am disappointed to see this kind of links in here. Luckily, it is already flagged. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory

krrrh 5y ago
The organization that he is part of isn’t hosting the video but embedding the video which was on Bret Weinstein’s podcast. What is colourful about the Wikipedia entry exactly? He appears to be a credible physician who has a different opinion on what early data is showing on treatments that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. The interview is interesting and addresses these controversies. This looks like part of the scientific process to me and it would be good to allow people to make counter arguments rather than dismissing anyone with a different opinion.
briefcomment 5y ago
The only thing "colorful" about his entry is that he dissents from the Government and Media's stance on Covid treatment, which is not an issue in itself, but can only be determined as such if you evaluate the evidence. The flagged video is him providing some of that evidence. It seems like you're jumping the gun here if you condemn him without evaluating his evidence.