13 ms·

How my ivermectin research led to Twitter death threats

75 points by shaicoleman 5y ago

the-dude 5y ago
The article starts off with the claim that Ivermectine is a new drug. From Wikipedia : Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History
- wyldfire 5y ago
  s/new drug/new treatment for SARS-CoV-2/g
  - relaunched 5y ago
    that would make more sense.
  - yuubi 5y ago
    I suspect an editor without sufficient medical knowledge might have made the reverse of that edit to tighten up the first sentence.
- batty_alex 5y ago
  Maybe a drug new to their team? > In early 2021, my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin Similar to me saying, my team started using a new framework called React EDIT: missed my comparison
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Ivermectin was discovered in the '70s. A more accurate comparison: my team started using a new language called SQL.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    "My team started using a new programming language called B." That doesn't work to my ear.
- relaunched 5y ago
  I made it difficult to take the article seriously, with such an egregious error upfront.
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I interpreted it as new to them. Similar to how someone will buy a used car and say "I bought a new car". In the context, "new" means "new to me". Ivermectin isn't new. But using it to treat a coronavirus is.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > But using it to treat a coronavirus is. No. Ivermectin was identified as a broad antiviral a long time ago. A large number of papers started to emerge on Ivermectin's applicability to a number of viral infections appeared at least as early as 2012. I'm sure there must be more earlier, it is just that my search skills are bad. There were also patents around some of these applications. Please, do your research before you make incorrect blanket statements.
  - ajkjk 5y ago
    That seems like an .. extreme reaction.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  He means a new drug (against covid). "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  - the-dude 5y ago
    You are quoting the guidelines, and your quote is in the section of guidelines for comments.
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't assume good faith of the article author because it's not in the guidelines? The results aren't pretty as we can see. When you read an article you as a reader have an obligation to try and read the article the way the author meant it imo.
      - the-dude 5y ago
        I didn't assume anything, I just pointed out what in my opinion is a flaw. And subsequently I point out that the 'assume good faith' guideline in the HN guidelines is for comments, not articles. Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so. Finally I expect better from a newspaper as the Guardian.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        It was clear to me that this was about covid. The same problem happens here as well, "Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so." This is not the spirit of my comment and it's assuming bad faith.
        the-dude 5y ago
        That it is clear to you doesn't mean it is not a flaw in the article and more importantly : it might not be clear to everybody. You are trying to drag morality into this where I just pointed out a flaw.
gfodor 5y ago
Certain drugs now, specifically hydroxycholorquin, ivermectin, and the vaccines, now have teams. One negative effect of this is that researchers are highly disincentivized from researching them once they have been picked up by a team, given the consequences of publishing results one team or the other doesn't like. The net effect is not just the manifested stuff like that in the article, but more importantly a chilling effect where only researchers who have an axe to grind take on the subject, resulting in bias and a feedback loop where distrust grows and polarization around the drug's efficacy continues. It'd be fascinating if it wasn't so depressing.
- zarkov99 5y ago
  Its so f*ing dumb. The greatest killer in this pandemic has been our idiotic conformance to one of the two equally imbecilic but diametrically opposed narrative tribes. What a shameful state for such a great nation to find it self in.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - angelzen 5y ago
      A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." I really don't know what you were trying to say. The article you linked was about how those who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dmingod666 5y ago
Everything America touches it divides into two. The reason is the country is not a democracy, it's not controlled by its own people. The only way their leaders are able to keep up this whole charade going is by diving everything into 2 teams. Now the ruling class and it's owners can steal without fear and the people have stupid 2 team games to play. This moronic behavior here is a byproduct of the degeneration of everything being a team thing in the US. It's so toxic and exhausting.
- the-dude 5y ago
  Bush : You are either with us, or against us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_aga...
- stathibus 5y ago
  The "ruling class" really doesn't have to do anything to keep this aspect of media culture going. If American national politics suddenly became more fair and representative I would argue the same problems would persist. The American people love this shit.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    >The American people love this shit. Bingo. We're in the Attitude Era of US politics. Twitter and Facebook have allowed combative politics to break even further through the fourth wall and allow your average American to participate in the scrum.
    - fmdragon 5y ago
      How would the Ruthless Aggression Era of US politics look?
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  If one team paid lip service to not stealing, then that means the other one is the real rulers, progressing policy at their own pace.
newbamboo 5y ago
Didn’t get past, “my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin.” I’m not a believer in ivermectin, not non-believer either, but that’s just factually incorrect. It’s not new, it’s been around for ages. The recent piece in the bbc which “debunked” ivermectin was also a lot of dishonesty and non-science. As someone who is inclined to think it’s efficacy as a Covid treatment is unproven, what am I to conclude from repeated attempts to dissuade the public and medical establishment from using it, when these attempts are dishonest and built upon lies or rhetorical trickery? The more lies I read which are aimed against ivermectin the more I think it must be effective or why would so many people be lying to say it’s not. It’s staggering they think the public are so stupid but maybe they’re right. Even Sam Harris, a pretty bright guy, got suckered in by the bbc piece. There was no underlying research, nothing published, not even a preprint. Just the words of a Twitter sleuth who is still in college, but bbc printed it and smart people like Sam Harris jumped on it because it fit their beliefs.
- tweedledee 5y ago
  AFAIK Sam Harris was always considered the weakest of the four horsemen.
titzer 5y ago
This is so depressing. I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much, but then it slowly dawned on me that some people have financial interests in fake cures like this, and there is only popular attention for one or two at a time. So these "superstar" meds become memes that are intentionally spread by seriously craven people as part of a pump-and-dump scheme. This is truly destructive, selfish behavior. It's not just a pump-and-dump scheme where investors--who have chosen to expose themselves to risk by buying in--lose money. This is a pump and dump scheme costing thousands of lives. The death threats and abuse on top of that...It's just so demoralizing to live in this atmosphere. If we had a functioning justice system it would find these people and charge them with fraud.
- overrun11 5y ago
  Both of these drugs are generic. There’s no more financial incentive to push these than to push Aspirin or Advil.
  - roland35 5y ago
    I believe the financial incentive is not in selling the drug itself, but more in the social media clout and general influencer money.
    - shadilay 5y ago
      I've yet to see an instagram model 'influencer' doing a pose and advertising ivermectin.
      - roland35 5y ago
        Not all influencers are models... I believe there is money to be had peddling all sorts of misinformation. People who get caught up in this stuff are targeted for all sorts of stuff.
  - not2b 5y ago
motohagiography 5y ago
If there are serious problems with Ivermectin clinical trials, this kind of fraud would have more consequences for treating people with parasitic infections than it does for whether it is used in some covid treatment protocols around the world. Between this Guardian article and the Nature article on the harassment of scientists, it sounds like a co-ordinated narrative shift to provoke public feelings of anxiety. Arguing about dumb things neutralizes people from engaging on the important ones, and co-ordinated histrionic appeals to safety are a standard playbook distraction. Surely this politically neutral civilian scientist was harassed by the unvaccinated, the kind of people who are why we also need to end online anonymity, as people with "civil liberties" objections are mostly a violent mob, and vaccine passports are really about protecting society from the violence of the uneducated./s If that bit of sarcasm seems uncharitable, it is for the sake of brevity. We're at the stage where mandates and resistance to them are colliding, and the tactics employed to push through policies that exploit the pandemic are going to include disingenuous agitprop in outlets like the Guardian, and apparently, Nature. The only effective response to that kind of bullshit is truth, and the most effective vessel for truth is humor because it's an honest signal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
drnonsense42 5y ago
Not a popular opinion, but I’m glad in a way. I cannot comment on the efficacy of ivermectin, but the people on the left rabidly against ivermectin usually come across as brainless, anti-intellectual frauds. Many exist on this site and will downvote me surely. In all fairness, I have nothing positive to say about the Bill Gates theorists on the right; they’re the lowest form of idiot as well. Regarding the article, it is fairly clear to me that scientists who seek out projects to debase ivermectin are probably very politically minded. Little Fauci’s. Get that grant money at all costs. While I’m really sorry he will have to wait longer for Twitter fame, I think people seeking attention and fame like this are the largest problem with science today. Granted, he’s in the guardian and on HN’s front page, so maybe mission success? I guess the ship has long sailed, but academia and science should not be a place which attracts people seeking fame and attention.
HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
The threats are awful. They should not happen. But it's practically a matter of physics that they're going to happen under the circumstances. The circumstances are most likely something like this: the danger of the virus is being overhyped, the dangers of the vaccines are being downplayed, the efficacy of repurposed cheap old drugs including ivermectin is being suppressed for the sake of profits. The result is, healthy young people who almost certainly cannot benefit from taking the vaccine are being pressured to take it, suffering extreme adverse side effects, and being told that they're just psych cases (suffering from anxiety or something similar) Here's one example of thousands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebtcTi7EaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebtcTi7EaA Healthy young guy, professional athlete, took the vaccine when there was no need for him to. Now he suffers from excruciating pain, has to flop out of bed in the morning to try to gain mobility, almost passes out when he stands up, etc. Here's another example, a guy reporting 25,000 comments about adverse reactions in Israel. This used to be on YouTube, but it was censored there. https://odysee.com/@TheInformer:1/avibarak:1 https://odysee.com/@TheInformer:1/avibarak:1 Here's a doctor in California writing to the FDA and CDC about personally seeing far too many adverse reactions for the official numbers to be correct. https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-Regarding-Covid-19-Vaccine-Injuries-Dr-Patricia-Lee.pdf https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-Re... Slides from a recent presentation on safety signals from VAERS: https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf I could go on and on. The point is, people are seeing that things do not add up. The things they're personally seeing and hearing are not matching what they see from the MSM. Nobody likes being lied to. Nobody likes being stonewalled when people are dying. That's where the resentment and anger comes from that fuels the threats. Again, the threats are wrong. But what does any cornered animal eventually do?
- titzer 5y ago
  > The point is, people are seeing that things do not add up. That's because they are ridiculous. Side effects from the vaccine are caused by the body's immune response, because the vaccine literally only contains code for the spike protein. Guess what happens when you actually get infected with the live virus? An immune response. It's about 99.9% likely that the people who had such adverse reactions to the vaccine would have had as bad (or worse!) reactions to being infected with COVID. Not to mention the actual damage caused by the virus! The basic fact escaping them has turned this into a giant theatrical production in service of political ends....like everything these days.
thoughty 5y ago
I hate how much Ivermectin has been politicised. They could rather study a country like india where some states prescribed Ivermectin and other state didnt and see what the results were like. L
- tigershark 5y ago
  4.5 Millions deaths looking at the excess deaths. And this was until a while ago, now that figure is probably much higher. What more proof than this do you need?
natenthe 5y ago
Studies have shown that COVID-19 has similar mechanisms of action as parasitic infections that target red blood cells. That's why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (drugs for parasitic diseases, such as malaria, a red-blood cell parasite) have shown success in clinical trials and in vitro studies. That's also why sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua, plant species used for malaria, and the plant that Artemisinin, winner of the nobel peace prize in 2015 is derived from) has been found in laboratory settings to be effective against COVID-19. And why alkoloids from cryptolepis (another anti-malarial herb) are also being researched by various countries and researchers. Vaccines and potential treatments are not mutually exclusive. If you have the biological background like I do then looking up the studies should be a piece of cake. Downvote if you like. Since this is such a polarized topic, I really don't want to spend the energy to share all the studies if people don't have an open mind. But do your own research, the studies are there.
- pajamanaut 5y ago
  This comment does not seem at all relevant to the article
- open-source-ux 5y ago
  "But do your own research, the studies are there." A large clinical trial from June 2020 has shown no clinical benefit to hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19 https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-... From the above: > A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. > These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
gadders 5y ago
Death threats are stupid, but is it any wonder people have started to trust research less, after studies like this had to be retracted? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext#articleInformation https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- naasking 5y ago
  Moreover, 50% of published results in the medical field can't be replicated, and recent studies of non-replicable results show they spread faster and are cited more than robust results. Science incentives are all kinds of messed up right now, so it's no wonder people's trust in science is pretty low.
belter 5y ago
The current knowledge, around Ivermectin, and possible benefits in the treatment of COVID-19 is that this peer reviewed, meta statistical study, published on a respected journal found slightly positive effects: "Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Conclusions: "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." However as this article mentions: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... One large part of the meta analysis and the list of studies included, had also the Elgazzar study and this was one of the discredited studies. It is also claimed, as the Elgazzar study was so large, and massively positive, it would skew the evidence in favor of ivermectin. As far as I know, so far these statements were made by respected practitioners, but no statistical peer reviewed meta-studies to support their claims have been published until now. I would wait for the results of the highly respected, Oxford led, Principle study: https://www.principletrial.org/ https://www.principletrial.org/ https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investi... So far there were able to conclusively confirm the asthma drug budesonide shortens recovery time in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 : https://www.principletrial.org/news/asthma-drug-budesonide-shortens-recovery-time-in-non-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19 https://www.principletrial.org/news/asthma-drug-budesonide-s... They were also able to dismiss Azithromycin, Colchicine and Doxycycline as having no helpful effect. https://www.principletrial.org/results https://www.principletrial.org/results There is plenty of appalling behavior to fuel keyboard warriors, on both sides. The BBC and CNN have not behaved much better: https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1448478540685463552 https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1448478540685463552
- daxfohl 5y ago
uberman 5y ago
What I find stunning is that for some reason that I cannot fathom, other than my assumption that people feel a political loyalty that blinds them... Some people now feel that taking livestock deworming pills is safer than being vaccinated. As if a vaccine is inherently dangerous and that taking a horse pill is safe. News flash: * Taking random animal medicine in any form is inherently risky. * Overdosing on pills designed to deliver medicine to 1000 lbs animals is unreasonably likely * Tampering with over the counter horse medicine is trivial compared to a medically controlled injection. Remember the Tylenol scare? * A bad pill can kill you just as dead as a bad injection. * The US already has required shots. You have almost certainly received them. Diabetics likely take shots 3 or 4 times a day. * There is far more actual research on taking covid shots than taking horse medicine. Other than we know horse medicine overdoses are up 250% this year "for some reason". To those who simply can't get over the political nature of being vaccinated, I ask Would you serve your kids cat food because Tucker Carlson questioned if the food provided by school meal programs was safe because it came from 'the government'? because that is essentially what you are doing now if you take livestock medicine rather than be vaccinated. To those who can't get past the notion of doing something you simply don't want to do, I recommend that you reflect on what the term "Patriot" means at its core. Is a patriot one who is willing to do something they potentially don't want to do in order to protect the people or is a patriot only someone willing to protect their own interests? Sometimes I think people in America confuse liberty with anarchy and patriotism with political loyalty. You say that lockdowns and masks are BS. Well, then here is a way to minimize them. Get vaccinated. I think the FDA sums it up nicely: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it,"
- armagon 5y ago
  I find that when people characterize a widespread anti-parasitic medication, used in humans for over 30 years, as a "horse de-wormer", that I have a great difficulty in believing they have anything meaningful to add to the debate.
  - tigershark 5y ago
    The morons of a certain political faction are actually taking horse dewormer. Stop lying please. 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...
sixstringninja 5y ago
Why is this post flagged?
- angelzen 5y ago
  New medical information in the article: zero. Ivermectin as cure for covid: flamebait. Twitter death threats: flamebait. Both together: thermonuclear flamewar.

75 points by shaicoleman 5y ago

The article starts off with the claim that Ivermectine is a new drug. From Wikipedia : Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#History

wyldfire 5y ago
s/new drug/new treatment for SARS-CoV-2/g
- relaunched 5y ago
  that would make more sense.
- yuubi 5y ago
  I suspect an editor without sufficient medical knowledge might have made the reverse of that edit to tighten up the first sentence.
batty_alex 5y ago
Maybe a drug new to their team? > In early 2021, my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin Similar to me saying, my team started using a new framework called React EDIT: missed my comparison
- angelzen 5y ago
  Ivermectin was discovered in the '70s. A more accurate comparison: my team started using a new language called SQL.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  "My team started using a new programming language called B." That doesn't work to my ear.
relaunched 5y ago
I made it difficult to take the article seriously, with such an egregious error upfront.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I interpreted it as new to them. Similar to how someone will buy a used car and say "I bought a new car". In the context, "new" means "new to me". Ivermectin isn't new. But using it to treat a coronavirus is.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > But using it to treat a coronavirus is. No. Ivermectin was identified as a broad antiviral a long time ago. A large number of papers started to emerge on Ivermectin's applicability to a number of viral infections appeared at least as early as 2012. I'm sure there must be more earlier, it is just that my search skills are bad. There were also patents around some of these applications. Please, do your research before you make incorrect blanket statements.
- ajkjk 5y ago
  That seems like an .. extreme reaction.
cinntaile 5y ago
He means a new drug (against covid). "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
- the-dude 5y ago
  You are quoting the guidelines, and your quote is in the section of guidelines for comments.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't assume good faith of the article author because it's not in the guidelines? The results aren't pretty as we can see. When you read an article you as a reader have an obligation to try and read the article the way the author meant it imo.
    - the-dude 5y ago
      I didn't assume anything, I just pointed out what in my opinion is a flaw. And subsequently I point out that the 'assume good faith' guideline in the HN guidelines is for comments, not articles. Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so. Finally I expect better from a newspaper as the Guardian.
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        It was clear to me that this was about covid. The same problem happens here as well, "Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so." This is not the spirit of my comment and it's assuming bad faith.
        the-dude 5y ago
        That it is clear to you doesn't mean it is not a flaw in the article and more importantly : it might not be clear to everybody. You are trying to drag morality into this where I just pointed out a flaw.

gfodor 5y ago

Certain drugs now, specifically hydroxycholorquin, ivermectin, and the vaccines, now have teams. One negative effect of this is that researchers are highly disincentivized from researching them once they have been picked up by a team, given the consequences of publishing results one team or the other doesn't like. The net effect is not just the manifested stuff like that in the article, but more importantly a chilling effect where only researchers who have an axe to grind take on the subject, resulting in bias and a feedback loop where distrust grows and polarization around the drug's efficacy continues. It'd be fascinating if it wasn't so depressing.

zarkov99 5y ago
Its so f*ing dumb. The greatest killer in this pandemic has been our idiotic conformance to one of the two equally imbecilic but diametrically opposed narrative tribes. What a shameful state for such a great nation to find it self in.
- nuerow 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - angelzen 5y ago
    A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." I really don't know what you were trying to say. The article you linked was about how those who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dmingod666 5y ago

Everything America touches it divides into two. The reason is the country is not a democracy, it's not controlled by its own people. The only way their leaders are able to keep up this whole charade going is by diving everything into 2 teams. Now the ruling class and it's owners can steal without fear and the people have stupid 2 team games to play. This moronic behavior here is a byproduct of the degeneration of everything being a team thing in the US. It's so toxic and exhausting.

the-dude 5y ago
Bush : You are either with us, or against us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_aga...
stathibus 5y ago
The "ruling class" really doesn't have to do anything to keep this aspect of media culture going. If American national politics suddenly became more fair and representative I would argue the same problems would persist. The American people love this shit.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  >The American people love this shit. Bingo. We're in the Attitude Era of US politics. Twitter and Facebook have allowed combative politics to break even further through the fourth wall and allow your average American to participate in the scrum.
  - fmdragon 5y ago
    How would the Ruthless Aggression Era of US politics look?
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
If one team paid lip service to not stealing, then that means the other one is the real rulers, progressing policy at their own pace.

newbamboo 5y ago

Didn’t get past, “my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin.” I’m not a believer in ivermectin, not non-believer either, but that’s just factually incorrect. It’s not new, it’s been around for ages. The recent piece in the bbc which “debunked” ivermectin was also a lot of dishonesty and non-science. As someone who is inclined to think it’s efficacy as a Covid treatment is unproven, what am I to conclude from repeated attempts to dissuade the public and medical establishment from using it, when these attempts are dishonest and built upon lies or rhetorical trickery? The more lies I read which are aimed against ivermectin the more I think it must be effective or why would so many people be lying to say it’s not. It’s staggering they think the public are so stupid but maybe they’re right. Even Sam Harris, a pretty bright guy, got suckered in by the bbc piece. There was no underlying research, nothing published, not even a preprint. Just the words of a Twitter sleuth who is still in college, but bbc printed it and smart people like Sam Harris jumped on it because it fit their beliefs.

tweedledee 5y ago
AFAIK Sam Harris was always considered the weakest of the four horsemen.

titzer 5y ago

This is so depressing. I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much, but then it slowly dawned on me that some people have financial interests in fake cures like this, and there is only popular attention for one or two at a time. So these "superstar" meds become memes that are intentionally spread by seriously craven people as part of a pump-and-dump scheme. This is truly destructive, selfish behavior. It's not just a pump-and-dump scheme where investors--who have chosen to expose themselves to risk by buying in--lose money. This is a pump and dump scheme costing thousands of lives. The death threats and abuse on top of that...It's just so demoralizing to live in this atmosphere. If we had a functioning justice system it would find these people and charge them with fraud.

overrun11 5y ago
Both of these drugs are generic. There’s no more financial incentive to push these than to push Aspirin or Advil.
- roland35 5y ago
  I believe the financial incentive is not in selling the drug itself, but more in the social media clout and general influencer money.
  - shadilay 5y ago
    I've yet to see an instagram model 'influencer' doing a pose and advertising ivermectin.
    - roland35 5y ago
      Not all influencers are models... I believe there is money to be had peddling all sorts of misinformation. People who get caught up in this stuff are targeted for all sorts of stuff.
- not2b 5y ago

motohagiography 5y ago

If there are serious problems with Ivermectin clinical trials, this kind of fraud would have more consequences for treating people with parasitic infections than it does for whether it is used in some covid treatment protocols around the world. Between this Guardian article and the Nature article on the harassment of scientists, it sounds like a co-ordinated narrative shift to provoke public feelings of anxiety. Arguing about dumb things neutralizes people from engaging on the important ones, and co-ordinated histrionic appeals to safety are a standard playbook distraction. Surely this politically neutral civilian scientist was harassed by the unvaccinated, the kind of people who are why we also need to end online anonymity, as people with "civil liberties" objections are mostly a violent mob, and vaccine passports are really about protecting society from the violence of the uneducated./s If that bit of sarcasm seems uncharitable, it is for the sake of brevity. We're at the stage where mandates and resistance to them are colliding, and the tactics employed to push through policies that exploit the pandemic are going to include disingenuous agitprop in outlets like the Guardian, and apparently, Nature. The only effective response to that kind of bullshit is truth, and the most effective vessel for truth is humor because it's an honest signal.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

drnonsense42 5y ago

Not a popular opinion, but I’m glad in a way. I cannot comment on the efficacy of ivermectin, but the people on the left rabidly against ivermectin usually come across as brainless, anti-intellectual frauds. Many exist on this site and will downvote me surely. In all fairness, I have nothing positive to say about the Bill Gates theorists on the right; they’re the lowest form of idiot as well. Regarding the article, it is fairly clear to me that scientists who seek out projects to debase ivermectin are probably very politically minded. Little Fauci’s. Get that grant money at all costs. While I’m really sorry he will have to wait longer for Twitter fame, I think people seeking attention and fame like this are the largest problem with science today. Granted, he’s in the guardian and on HN’s front page, so maybe mission success? I guess the ship has long sailed, but academia and science should not be a place which attracts people seeking fame and attention.

HamburgerEmoji 5y ago

The threats are awful. They should not happen. But it's practically a matter of physics that they're going to happen under the circumstances. The circumstances are most likely something like this: the danger of the virus is being overhyped, the dangers of the vaccines are being downplayed, the efficacy of repurposed cheap old drugs including ivermectin is being suppressed for the sake of profits. The result is, healthy young people who almost certainly cannot benefit from taking the vaccine are being pressured to take it, suffering extreme adverse side effects, and being told that they're just psych cases (suffering from anxiety or something similar) Here's one example of thousands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebtcTi7EaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebtcTi7EaA Healthy young guy, professional athlete, took the vaccine when there was no need for him to. Now he suffers from excruciating pain, has to flop out of bed in the morning to try to gain mobility, almost passes out when he stands up, etc. Here's another example, a guy reporting 25,000 comments about adverse reactions in Israel. This used to be on YouTube, but it was censored there. https://odysee.com/@TheInformer:1/avibarak:1 https://odysee.com/@TheInformer:1/avibarak:1 Here's a doctor in California writing to the FDA and CDC about personally seeing far too many adverse reactions for the official numbers to be correct. https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-Regarding-Covid-19-Vaccine-Injuries-Dr-Patricia-Lee.pdf https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-Re... Slides from a recent presentation on safety signals from VAERS: https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf I could go on and on. The point is, people are seeing that things do not add up. The things they're personally seeing and hearing are not matching what they see from the MSM. Nobody likes being lied to. Nobody likes being stonewalled when people are dying. That's where the resentment and anger comes from that fuels the threats. Again, the threats are wrong. But what does any cornered animal eventually do?

titzer 5y ago
> The point is, people are seeing that things do not add up. That's because they are ridiculous. Side effects from the vaccine are caused by the body's immune response, because the vaccine literally only contains code for the spike protein. Guess what happens when you actually get infected with the live virus? An immune response. It's about 99.9% likely that the people who had such adverse reactions to the vaccine would have had as bad (or worse!) reactions to being infected with COVID. Not to mention the actual damage caused by the virus! The basic fact escaping them has turned this into a giant theatrical production in service of political ends....like everything these days.

thoughty 5y ago

I hate how much Ivermectin has been politicised. They could rather study a country like india where some states prescribed Ivermectin and other state didnt and see what the results were like. L

tigershark 5y ago
4.5 Millions deaths looking at the excess deaths. And this was until a while ago, now that figure is probably much higher. What more proof than this do you need?

natenthe 5y ago

Studies have shown that COVID-19 has similar mechanisms of action as parasitic infections that target red blood cells. That's why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (drugs for parasitic diseases, such as malaria, a red-blood cell parasite) have shown success in clinical trials and in vitro studies. That's also why sweet wormwood (Artemisia annua, plant species used for malaria, and the plant that Artemisinin, winner of the nobel peace prize in 2015 is derived from) has been found in laboratory settings to be effective against COVID-19. And why alkoloids from cryptolepis (another anti-malarial herb) are also being researched by various countries and researchers. Vaccines and potential treatments are not mutually exclusive. If you have the biological background like I do then looking up the studies should be a piece of cake. Downvote if you like. Since this is such a polarized topic, I really don't want to spend the energy to share all the studies if people don't have an open mind. But do your own research, the studies are there.

pajamanaut 5y ago
This comment does not seem at all relevant to the article
open-source-ux 5y ago
"But do your own research, the studies are there." A large clinical trial from June 2020 has shown no clinical benefit to hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19 https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-... From the above: > A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. > These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

gadders 5y ago

Death threats are stupid, but is it any wonder people have started to trust research less, after studies like this had to be retracted? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext#articleInformation https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

naasking 5y ago
Moreover, 50% of published results in the medical field can't be replicated, and recent studies of non-replicable results show they spread faster and are cited more than robust results. Science incentives are all kinds of messed up right now, so it's no wonder people's trust in science is pretty low.

belter 5y ago

The current knowledge, around Ivermectin, and possible benefits in the treatment of COVID-19 is that this peer reviewed, meta statistical study, published on a respected journal found slightly positive effects: "Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines" https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/... Conclusions: "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." However as this article mentions: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... One large part of the meta analysis and the list of studies included, had also the Elgazzar study and this was one of the discredited studies. It is also claimed, as the Elgazzar study was so large, and massively positive, it would skew the evidence in favor of ivermectin. As far as I know, so far these statements were made by respected practitioners, but no statistical peer reviewed meta-studies to support their claims have been published until now. I would wait for the results of the highly respected, Oxford led, Principle study: https://www.principletrial.org/ https://www.principletrial.org/ https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investigated-as-a-possible-treatment-for-covid-19-in-oxford2019s-principle-trial https://www.principletrial.org/news/ivermectin-to-be-investi... So far there were able to conclusively confirm the asthma drug budesonide shortens recovery time in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 : https://www.principletrial.org/news/asthma-drug-budesonide-shortens-recovery-time-in-non-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19 https://www.principletrial.org/news/asthma-drug-budesonide-s... They were also able to dismiss Azithromycin, Colchicine and Doxycycline as having no helpful effect. https://www.principletrial.org/results https://www.principletrial.org/results There is plenty of appalling behavior to fuel keyboard warriors, on both sides. The BBC and CNN have not behaved much better: https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1448478540685463552 https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1448478540685463552

daxfohl 5y ago

uberman 5y ago

What I find stunning is that for some reason that I cannot fathom, other than my assumption that people feel a political loyalty that blinds them... Some people now feel that taking livestock deworming pills is safer than being vaccinated. As if a vaccine is inherently dangerous and that taking a horse pill is safe. News flash: * Taking random animal medicine in any form is inherently risky. * Overdosing on pills designed to deliver medicine to 1000 lbs animals is unreasonably likely * Tampering with over the counter horse medicine is trivial compared to a medically controlled injection. Remember the Tylenol scare? * A bad pill can kill you just as dead as a bad injection. * The US already has required shots. You have almost certainly received them. Diabetics likely take shots 3 or 4 times a day. * There is far more actual research on taking covid shots than taking horse medicine. Other than we know horse medicine overdoses are up 250% this year "for some reason". To those who simply can't get over the political nature of being vaccinated, I ask Would you serve your kids cat food because Tucker Carlson questioned if the food provided by school meal programs was safe because it came from 'the government'? because that is essentially what you are doing now if you take livestock medicine rather than be vaccinated. To those who can't get past the notion of doing something you simply don't want to do, I recommend that you reflect on what the term "Patriot" means at its core. Is a patriot one who is willing to do something they potentially don't want to do in order to protect the people or is a patriot only someone willing to protect their own interests? Sometimes I think people in America confuse liberty with anarchy and patriotism with political loyalty. You say that lockdowns and masks are BS. Well, then here is a way to minimize them. Get vaccinated. I think the FDA sums it up nicely: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it,"

armagon 5y ago
I find that when people characterize a widespread anti-parasitic medication, used in humans for over 30 years, as a "horse de-wormer", that I have a great difficulty in believing they have anything meaningful to add to the debate.
- tigershark 5y ago
  The morons of a certain political faction are actually taking horse dewormer. Stop lying please. 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...

sixstringninja 5y ago

Why is this post flagged?

angelzen 5y ago
New medical information in the article: zero. Ivermectin as cure for covid: flamebait. Twitter death threats: flamebait. Both together: thermonuclear flamewar.