4 ms·

Ivermectin has to be one, presumptuously, of the most ridiculous foreign PSYOP interventions in recent memory. I believe that somewhere there's a bet going on f

Ivermectin has to be one, presumptuously, of the most ridiculous foreign PSYOP interventions in recent memory. I believe that somewhere there's a bet going on for how many Westerners they can get taking dog medication thinking it makes them immune to COVID19. We already have a cure! In most countries, it's even _free_! And yet I read paranoid blogs online from conspiracy theorists who refuse a vaccine but guzzle down veterinary medication user to treat heartworm and digestive parasites. Pound me with downvotes, I'll hold my breath until I see a large scale randomized double-blind trial.

dang 5y ago
Please don't post flamebait to HN, and especially not on divisive topics. That amounts to trolling, in effect if not in intention, and it leads to exactly the opposite of what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you posted this right after I asked you to stop doing it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563671). If you pull a trick like that again, we will ban you.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  Citing Roman et al. > Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have effect on AEs or SAEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v... I would prefer to see a single RCT with at least a few thousand patients, but the early results aren't looking positive. It's a repeat of HCQ-AZ and that people are lending credence to RCTs with double digit cohorts is what causes people to rush out and eat medications intended for dogs. It _actively promotes harm to individuals who take medications for no reason, which have side effects_. I would prefer that HN not allow discussion of what appears to be medicine advice without a basis in clinical results.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    I have seen people pointing out the low price of the horse formulations on Twitter without the obvious caveat that dosage will definitely make the poison in this case.
  - dang 5y ago
    This is one of those cases where it's helpful, in fact indispensable, to remember that there is exactly one thing we're optimizing for on HN, namely intellectual curiosity: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... The fact that we have a clear guiding principle is my favorite thing about moderating HN because how the hell would one decide these things otherwise. It seems clear that the community has genuine intellectual curiosity in discussing this topic. It's also a flamewar topic so we need to take the usual care not to end up in a flamewar; that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. This thread doesn't seem to be doing too badly. The OP seems like a substantive enough article to at least provide a basis for a good discussion.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      Not sure if this is too far down in your inbox, but I will write nonetheless... > This is one of those cases where it's helpful, in fact indispensable, to remember that there is exactly one thing we're optimizing for on HN, namely intellectual curiosity... Dang, respectfully, is it not true that "we are optimizing for" is a function of not only moderation, but the inherent (lack of) capabilities of rather feature sparse threaded internet discussions with upvotes/downvotes/flagging? There's no doubt, "it is what it is", but perspectives upon reality that are limited to only how reality currently is overlooks how reality could be, such as if moderation here was not so good (a portion you seem to see clearly, as ample evidence exists elsewhere) or if the features of a forum were strategically expanded (a portion you may not see so clearly, since afaik there's not really anything much more sophisticated out there). As you say in another comments: > To repeat, lest anyone misunderstand: my remarks are limited to HN, which is the space I've observed enough to speak about. I'm not saying HN is an exception, and I'm not saying it isn't an exception; I don't know. > Edit: two more points. First, I think there's a perspective bias here. We all assume that we're the smart one capable of making judgments about what the dumber ones might think, but literally everyone sees themselves that way. That shows not only that we can't all be right about that, but—more interestingly—that this entire line of thinking is invalid. It's a hard-wired unreliable narrator. As you clearly know, human judgment (even that of intelligent people) is highly unreliable, and this unreliability is typically invisible to the individual. I believe that features could be added to forum software that could improve upon this situation, over and above the manual moderator moderation and downvote mechanisms that are currently our only defences. > Second and last, if HN readers aren't smart enough to make up their own minds, then this place is fucked, so we might as well make a Pascal's wager. Or, we could transform the fabric of reality, which is to some arguably significant degree composed of the forum software that facilitates communication between nodes (human minds) within this system. Of course, I am not insisting that you do this, I am only offering it as an idea for your consideration.
nojokes 5y ago
Ivermectin has wide antiviral properties https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z The fact that you call it a dog medication shows that you lack a basic knowledge about the history of this drug. Problem with vaccines is that they take time to be effective (for AZ vaccine up to 14 weeks). In addition vaccines are not 100% effective. Therefor it is definitely beneficial to have some form of cure.

dang 5y ago

Please don't post flamebait to HN, and especially not on divisive topics. That amounts to trolling, in effect if not in intention, and it leads to exactly the opposite of what we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you posted this right after I asked you to stop doing it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563671). If you pull a trick like that again, we will ban you.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
Citing Roman et al. > Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have effect on AEs or SAEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.21.21257595v... I would prefer to see a single RCT with at least a few thousand patients, but the early results aren't looking positive. It's a repeat of HCQ-AZ and that people are lending credence to RCTs with double digit cohorts is what causes people to rush out and eat medications intended for dogs. It _actively promotes harm to individuals who take medications for no reason, which have side effects_. I would prefer that HN not allow discussion of what appears to be medicine advice without a basis in clinical results.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  I have seen people pointing out the low price of the horse formulations on Twitter without the obvious caveat that dosage will definitely make the poison in this case.
- dang 5y ago
  This is one of those cases where it's helpful, in fact indispensable, to remember that there is exactly one thing we're optimizing for on HN, namely intellectual curiosity: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... The fact that we have a clear guiding principle is my favorite thing about moderating HN because how the hell would one decide these things otherwise. It seems clear that the community has genuine intellectual curiosity in discussing this topic. It's also a flamewar topic so we need to take the usual care not to end up in a flamewar; that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. This thread doesn't seem to be doing too badly. The OP seems like a substantive enough article to at least provide a basis for a good discussion.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    Not sure if this is too far down in your inbox, but I will write nonetheless... > This is one of those cases where it's helpful, in fact indispensable, to remember that there is exactly one thing we're optimizing for on HN, namely intellectual curiosity... Dang, respectfully, is it not true that "we are optimizing for" is a function of not only moderation, but the inherent (lack of) capabilities of rather feature sparse threaded internet discussions with upvotes/downvotes/flagging? There's no doubt, "it is what it is", but perspectives upon reality that are limited to only how reality currently is overlooks how reality could be, such as if moderation here was not so good (a portion you seem to see clearly, as ample evidence exists elsewhere) or if the features of a forum were strategically expanded (a portion you may not see so clearly, since afaik there's not really anything much more sophisticated out there). As you say in another comments: > To repeat, lest anyone misunderstand: my remarks are limited to HN, which is the space I've observed enough to speak about. I'm not saying HN is an exception, and I'm not saying it isn't an exception; I don't know. > Edit: two more points. First, I think there's a perspective bias here. We all assume that we're the smart one capable of making judgments about what the dumber ones might think, but literally everyone sees themselves that way. That shows not only that we can't all be right about that, but—more interestingly—that this entire line of thinking is invalid. It's a hard-wired unreliable narrator. As you clearly know, human judgment (even that of intelligent people) is highly unreliable, and this unreliability is typically invisible to the individual. I believe that features could be added to forum software that could improve upon this situation, over and above the manual moderator moderation and downvote mechanisms that are currently our only defences. > Second and last, if HN readers aren't smart enough to make up their own minds, then this place is fucked, so we might as well make a Pascal's wager. Or, we could transform the fabric of reality, which is to some arguably significant degree composed of the forum software that facilitates communication between nodes (human minds) within this system. Of course, I am not insisting that you do this, I am only offering it as an idea for your consideration.

nojokes 5y ago

Ivermectin has wide antiviral properties https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z The fact that you call it a dog medication shows that you lack a basic knowledge about the history of this drug. Problem with vaccines is that they take time to be effective (for AZ vaccine up to 14 weeks). In addition vaccines are not 100% effective. Therefor it is definitely beneficial to have some form of cure.