5 ms·

I have yet to see one large trial confirming or refuting the efficacy of Ivermectin. As long as that doesn't exist, the efficacy of Ivermectin is undecided. I'm

I have yet to see one large trial confirming or refuting the efficacy of Ivermectin. As long as that doesn't exist, the efficacy of Ivermectin is undecided. I'm highly skeptical myself, but the existince of one poorly executed study is completely irrelevant, as is the assocation with "right wingers".

ceejayoz 5y ago
The onus, right now, is on ivermectin proponents to demonstrate significant efficacy. The evidence introduced thus far has not been compelling, and until that changes, the onus remains on them. That its advocacy seems to be driven ideologically rather than scientifically is relevant, IMO.
- panny 5y ago
  There are dozens of studies demonstrating the effectiveness of ivermectin. c19ivermectin.com
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26434247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26434247, and they're still slogging the HCQ thing in the header.
    - panny 5y ago
      >discussed War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Flagged is discussed.
- isaacremuant 5y ago
  Actually, the advocacy comes from many sides of the political aisle but a very specific "anti right wing" sentiment seems to be hell bent on shutting it down as fast as possible and ignoring real world use. https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=IUDyKJlXTFKTzxlBGYhHGw&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=I... That podcast addresses the claims against ivermectin and the double standards regarding the high bar for such a cheap and available treatment and the censorship surrounding it.
jacquesm 5y ago
You apparently do not understand how the evaluation of medicine works. You have to prove efficacy vs a placebo in a test with a control that only receives the placebo (double blind test). Trials do not refute anything, they can only prove that something works, never that it does not work.
- incrudible 5y ago
  What sort of semantic game are you playing? If you have a large RCT that shows no effect of Ivermectin, its efficacy is refuted, for all intents and purposes. I don't know how else you would phrase it.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, there is no semantic game here. You can prove something works but you can not prove something does not work. You might get a different result at different dosage, timing, some other random factor. You can only prove that it works in a certain setting and with a certain dosage. It's like proving a negative. For a nice example: water is normally not toxic. But in large enough quantities it is toxic. That doesn't mean that water isn't normally safe to consume, it normally is. But in certain circumstances it can be lethal. Similar for other molecules.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > It's like proving a negative. "You can't prove a negative" is one of dopey philosophical slogans[1] that are meaningless in practice. It gives undue weight to absolutes that do not exist in reality. The statement "money doesn't grow on trees" is obviously true, yet you can't logically rule out the existence of such a tree. What are the practical implications of this? None. If we tested a hypothesis thoroughly, we can say that it is true or not true, not with absolute platonic certainty, but for all intents and purposes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
      - jacquesm 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago

The onus, right now, is on ivermectin proponents to demonstrate significant efficacy. The evidence introduced thus far has not been compelling, and until that changes, the onus remains on them. That its advocacy seems to be driven ideologically rather than scientifically is relevant, IMO.

panny 5y ago
There are dozens of studies demonstrating the effectiveness of ivermectin. c19ivermectin.com
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26434247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26434247, and they're still slogging the HCQ thing in the header.
  - panny 5y ago
    >discussed War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Flagged is discussed.
isaacremuant 5y ago
Actually, the advocacy comes from many sides of the political aisle but a very specific "anti right wing" sentiment seems to be hell bent on shutting it down as fast as possible and ignoring real world use. https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=IUDyKJlXTFKTzxlBGYhHGw&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=I... That podcast addresses the claims against ivermectin and the double standards regarding the high bar for such a cheap and available treatment and the censorship surrounding it.

jacquesm 5y ago

You apparently do not understand how the evaluation of medicine works. You have to prove efficacy vs a placebo in a test with a control that only receives the placebo (double blind test). Trials do not refute anything, they can only prove that something works, never that it does not work.

incrudible 5y ago
What sort of semantic game are you playing? If you have a large RCT that shows no effect of Ivermectin, its efficacy is refuted, for all intents and purposes. I don't know how else you would phrase it.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  No, there is no semantic game here. You can prove something works but you can not prove something does not work. You might get a different result at different dosage, timing, some other random factor. You can only prove that it works in a certain setting and with a certain dosage. It's like proving a negative. For a nice example: water is normally not toxic. But in large enough quantities it is toxic. That doesn't mean that water isn't normally safe to consume, it normally is. But in certain circumstances it can be lethal. Similar for other molecules.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > It's like proving a negative. "You can't prove a negative" is one of dopey philosophical slogans[1] that are meaningless in practice. It gives undue weight to absolutes that do not exist in reality. The statement "money doesn't grow on trees" is obviously true, yet you can't logically rule out the existence of such a tree. What are the practical implications of this? None. If we tested a hypothesis thoroughly, we can say that it is true or not true, not with absolute platonic certainty, but for all intents and purposes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
    - jacquesm 5y ago