13 ms·

Ivermectin and the odds of hospitalization due to Covid-19

21 points by shaicoleman 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HideousKojima 5y ago
The question is when Youtube, Facebook, et al are going to stop banning anyone who suggests Ivermectin is a viable treatment option for COVID (see Bret Weinstein's recent podcast that got removed, for example). One of the most egregious examples of this that I've seen is Youtube taking down videos of the weekly commission meetings for a nearby county in my state. Not because the commissioners themselves are pushing any kind of medical misinformation (actual or alleged) about COVID, but because random members of the public are doing so every week during the public commentary segment of the meetings. The meetings are weekly, and you can see a huge gap in April as well as one missing in May. Friends who work there told me they were removed due to comments made during the public commentary time about COVID that someone decided to report to Youtube. Apparently the same people were coming week after week to comment on it, and some other member of the public who took issue with them/it reported the entire meeting recording to Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbWJtt7g8Zs56rD-etaMLLw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbWJtt7g8Zs56rD-etaMLLw/vid... Even if the things these people were saying was absolutely false/batshit crazy conspiracy nonsense (and I can't tell since the videos are removed) Youtube is making tons of unrelated content unavailable in their attempts to censor any non-mainstream views on COVID.
- jstgord 5y ago
  I'm hoping that the current Oxford 'principle' trial will in time, lend enough social-proof to the existing weight of data showing Ivermectin efficacy in preventing spread and preventing death of Covid19. We need this treatment in addition to the vaccines.
  - shaicoleman 5y ago
    Unfortunately, that study is designed to fail. It's recruiting patients up to 14 days after first symptoms. There's no viral replication by that time. The highest viral load is 2-3 days after first symptoms. Also they are only using Ivermectin for 3 days, when the recommended protocol is for 5 days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s
  - shaicoleman 5y ago
    Update: The FLCCC and BIRD group released an open letter regarding the issues with that trial: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GIlG9Vx/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...
- jfengel 5y ago
  I think it may be a side effect of the overwhelming size of the problem YouTube is dealing with. To me this sounds like fairly ordinary crankery, overstating the case for Ivermectin but not causing immediate harm. But there's a lot of stuff that is causing immediate harm, at a time when other conspiracy theories have led to violence. They're trying to crack down on it, and discovering that there's just way, way, way too much. So they banned something, and stepped in it. Except that they really don't care, because they're too big to care. It's spun as being a conspiracy, but I suspect it's more a Hanlon's Razor case. COVID is a genuine crisis and they've got a sincere interest in not being a primary source of lies about it. They're really sensitive about that after having put up with a prominent conspiracy theorist for far, far longer than they would have had he not held high political office. At this point I'm not really sure what their percentage is in keeping this banned. It may be that they just don't care. That's almost certainly the case with your community meeting. It tripped some poorly-programmed sensor, and it matters way more to you than it does to them.
0-_-0 5y ago
Meta analysis of 60 Ivermectin studies: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/
- xtracto 5y ago
  It blows my mind the way the "mainstream" has closed their eyes to Ivermectin. Here in Mexico it was use in children to cure Lice, and also sometimes used as a "once a year" dewormer. This means that the safety profile is incredibly low. However, even after repeated cases of it helping with COVID19, people just refuse to even talk about it. Luckily, here in Mexico you don't need a prescription to get it, so that anyone can use it if they want to.
- m-p-3 5y ago
  Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings. Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow. The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials. Source: Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19; https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...
noughtme 5y ago
What was the reason for previously flagging this post?
- oxymoran 5y ago
  Politics and greed
- dang 5y ago
  This is all user action. It's the usual tug of war between flags and upvotes.
  - seaorg 5y ago
    Illegitimate flags that you do nothing to correct. You just let people flag whatever they want and never take away their ability to flag things.
    - dang 5y ago
      I'm sorry, but because you keep posting offtopic and flamewar comments, even after we asked you to stop, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
      - seaorg 5y ago
        Fuck you nigger
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- trav4225 5y ago
  It contained the word "Ivermectin".
xiphias2 5y ago
If it works so well and so cheap, why is it rolled out only in the city, and not the whole country? Isn't inaction the worst thing at this point?
- TiberiusC 5y ago
  Big pharma. They have a significant incentive to make sure that doesn’t happen.
gus_massa 5y ago
> Models 2 to 5: Disentangling the effect of the ivermectin-based kit from medical follow-up > The intervention consisted in providing the ivermectin kit, but also in offering a patients follow up implemented by the Locatel call center. To isolate the effect of the ivermectin kit from the Locatel tracking. They claim that the can remove the effect of the follow-up calls by phone, but this is one of the classic spots were there are problem. That's the reason why the studies should have a double blind control group, that has an identical treatment to the test group. > Locatel follow-up: A dichotomous variable in which 1 was assigned to people who agreed to receive telephone and medical follow-up via Locatel. This is not a random subgroup. Probably people with mild symptoms don't agree ("Nah"). Dead people don't answer the phone. If someone goes to the hospital twice and the second time agree to take the kit or the phone calls, how is s/he counted?

21 points by shaicoleman 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

The question is when Youtube, Facebook, et al are going to stop banning anyone who suggests Ivermectin is a viable treatment option for COVID (see Bret Weinstein's recent podcast that got removed, for example). One of the most egregious examples of this that I've seen is Youtube taking down videos of the weekly commission meetings for a nearby county in my state. Not because the commissioners themselves are pushing any kind of medical misinformation (actual or alleged) about COVID, but because random members of the public are doing so every week during the public commentary segment of the meetings. The meetings are weekly, and you can see a huge gap in April as well as one missing in May. Friends who work there told me they were removed due to comments made during the public commentary time about COVID that someone decided to report to Youtube. Apparently the same people were coming week after week to comment on it, and some other member of the public who took issue with them/it reported the entire meeting recording to Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbWJtt7g8Zs56rD-etaMLLw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbWJtt7g8Zs56rD-etaMLLw/vid... Even if the things these people were saying was absolutely false/batshit crazy conspiracy nonsense (and I can't tell since the videos are removed) Youtube is making tons of unrelated content unavailable in their attempts to censor any non-mainstream views on COVID.

jstgord 5y ago
I'm hoping that the current Oxford 'principle' trial will in time, lend enough social-proof to the existing weight of data showing Ivermectin efficacy in preventing spread and preventing death of Covid19. We need this treatment in addition to the vaccines.
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  Unfortunately, that study is designed to fail. It's recruiting patients up to 14 days after first symptoms. There's no viral replication by that time. The highest viral load is 2-3 days after first symptoms. Also they are only using Ivermectin for 3 days, when the recommended protocol is for 5 days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  Update: The FLCCC and BIRD group released an open letter regarding the issues with that trial: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GIlG9Vx/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...
jfengel 5y ago
I think it may be a side effect of the overwhelming size of the problem YouTube is dealing with. To me this sounds like fairly ordinary crankery, overstating the case for Ivermectin but not causing immediate harm. But there's a lot of stuff that is causing immediate harm, at a time when other conspiracy theories have led to violence. They're trying to crack down on it, and discovering that there's just way, way, way too much. So they banned something, and stepped in it. Except that they really don't care, because they're too big to care. It's spun as being a conspiracy, but I suspect it's more a Hanlon's Razor case. COVID is a genuine crisis and they've got a sincere interest in not being a primary source of lies about it. They're really sensitive about that after having put up with a prominent conspiracy theorist for far, far longer than they would have had he not held high political office. At this point I'm not really sure what their percentage is in keeping this banned. It may be that they just don't care. That's almost certainly the case with your community meeting. It tripped some poorly-programmed sensor, and it matters way more to you than it does to them.

0-_-0 5y ago

Meta analysis of 60 Ivermectin studies: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/

xtracto 5y ago
It blows my mind the way the "mainstream" has closed their eyes to Ivermectin. Here in Mexico it was use in children to cure Lice, and also sometimes used as a "once a year" dewormer. This means that the safety profile is incredibly low. However, even after repeated cases of it helping with COVID19, people just refuse to even talk about it. Luckily, here in Mexico you don't need a prescription to get it, so that anyone can use it if they want to.
m-p-3 5y ago
Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/ https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings. Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow. The use of ivermectin, among others repurposed drugs for prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19, should be done based on trustable evidence, without conflicts of interest, with proven safety and efficacy in patient-consented, ethically approved, randomised clinical trials. Source: Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19; https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...

noughtme 5y ago

What was the reason for previously flagging this post?

oxymoran 5y ago
Politics and greed
dang 5y ago
This is all user action. It's the usual tug of war between flags and upvotes.
- seaorg 5y ago
  Illegitimate flags that you do nothing to correct. You just let people flag whatever they want and never take away their ability to flag things.
  - dang 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but because you keep posting offtopic and flamewar comments, even after we asked you to stop, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
    - seaorg 5y ago
      Fuck you nigger
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
trav4225 5y ago
It contained the word "Ivermectin".

xiphias2 5y ago

If it works so well and so cheap, why is it rolled out only in the city, and not the whole country? Isn't inaction the worst thing at this point?

TiberiusC 5y ago
Big pharma. They have a significant incentive to make sure that doesn’t happen.

gus_massa 5y ago

> Models 2 to 5: Disentangling the effect of the ivermectin-based kit from medical follow-up > The intervention consisted in providing the ivermectin kit, but also in offering a patients follow up implemented by the Locatel call center. To isolate the effect of the ivermectin kit from the Locatel tracking. They claim that the can remove the effect of the follow-up calls by phone, but this is one of the classic spots were there are problem. That's the reason why the studies should have a double blind control group, that has an identical treatment to the test group. > Locatel follow-up: A dichotomous variable in which 1 was assigned to people who agreed to receive telephone and medical follow-up via Locatel. This is not a random subgroup. Probably people with mild symptoms don't agree ("Nah"). Dead people don't answer the phone. If someone goes to the hospital twice and the second time agree to take the kit or the phone calls, how is s/he counted?