4 ms·
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
by 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 agos/new drug/new treatment for SARS-CoV-2/g
- relaunched 5y agothat would make more sense.
- yuubi 5y agoI suspect an editor without sufficient medical knowledge might have made the reverse of that edit to tighten up the first sentence.
- batty_alex 5y agoMaybe 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 agoIvermectin 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 agoI made it difficult to take the article seriously, with such an egregious error upfront.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y agoI 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 agoThat seems like an .. extreme reaction.
- cinntaile 5y agoHe 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 agoYou are quoting the guidelines, and your quote is in the section of guidelines for comments.
- cinntaile 5y agoAre 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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 agoThat 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.