7 ms·

I hope this isn't attacked, because this isn't an "alternative" drug. Things move from "alternative medicine" to being "medicine" when people do good, peer-rev

I hope this isn't attacked, because this isn't an "alternative" drug. Things move from "alternative medicine" to being "medicine" when people do good, peer-reviewed science to actually study the effects and find them to be effective. "Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used.

chrisco255 5y ago
Yes, all you need to do is conduct a study and you will get an objective peer review from other researchers funded by pharmaceutical giants and news outlets funded by the same.
twofornone 5y ago
>"Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used. There are more than 60 peer reviewed studies showing positive effect for ivermectin. Similarly the single trial that the media touted as "proof" that HCQ did not work administered what amounted to an overdose to terminally ill patients, in contrast to the recommended early/prophylactic regimen. These lies have gone on for far too long - no thanks to irresponsible and, frankly, inexcusable censorship by fb, youtube et al on grounds of "misinformation". This site[0] has been up for over a year now and the citation count has continued to grow. It seems people are more interested in poo pooing proponents of ivermectin/HCQ than actually examining evidence. Medicine should not be a political team sport. 0. ivmmeta.com
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- javagram 5y ago
  There are multiple trials showing HCQ didn’t work. It was heavily studied and bombed over and over again in all 3 contexts: prophylaxis, early treatment, and treatment of hospitalized patients. Just use google directly to find the trials I’m talking about, instead of being blinded by the ivm meta site creators (who created a similar site last year for HCQ). IvmMeta mixes in poor quality studies with studies that actually found no significant effect for IVM and claims they all are pro IVM.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > There are more than 60 peer reviewed studies showing positive effect for ivermectin. I couldn't help but notice your use of purposely vague and misleading weasel words such as "positive effect". Meanwhile I recall reading one of those ivermectin studies presented on another discussion on HN, and it certainly raised some red flags regarding how it was put together. For instance, if my memory doesn't fail me, it relied on an astonishingly small sample (100 patients, all reported as mild cases, divided into control and treatment) and to make matters worse the control group was given hydroxychloroquine instead of a placebo, effectively comparing ivermectin to hydroxychloroquine. In the end the study reported that the fatality rate in the control and treatment groups was the same, and the only claim was that the statistical analysis suggested more patients from the ivermectin group were discharged earlier, which could very well be just statistical noise. Other than this the paper reported no benefit at all. So, this is what weasel words buy: they are used to hide facts and misguide people. So unless you actually substantiate your claims and point exactly the very best study you feel shows that said "positive effect" is and how it was quantified, I have to dismiss your claim as something between a baseless assertion and blatant misinformation.
  - useragent86 5y ago
    So you start by accusing him of being purposely misleading. He mentions 60 studies (which he didn't cite specifically, but at least offered a link which one could use to verify his claims). But then you pull a bait-and-switch in your own comment, complaining about just one study, which you completely neglect to cite (so it could be made up, for all we know). You subtly outsource your opinion, trying to lend it an air of objectivity by saying that it "raised some red flags" (after you accused him of using weasel words). You couch the whole comment in an air of faux fairness by writing as if you are some judge called upon to arbitrate a dispute, who just has to rule a certain way because, of course, that's what the evidence requires. And you imply that your unsourced complaint about one study invalidates all such studies, therefore he must be wrong. You accused him of being purposely misleading, but at least he offered a link, and he didn't try to trick people into thinking that a criticism of one thing invalidates other things, which you did. Your whole comment is a textbook example of propaganda techniques. And then you wonder why people don't know what to believe anymore. It's like the whole Internet is a political, psychological battleground for public mindshare, and the truth doesn't matter at all.
6nf 5y ago
Ivermectin is approved for covid use in the UK and many other countries with good results and a large Oxford study is close to completion to add to the dozens of positive studies
- robertbarbe 5y ago
  No. Ivermectin is not officially approved in the UK for the treatment of COVID-19. Source from the government : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-responses-from-the-mhra-week-commencing-28-june-2021/freedom-of-information-request-on-ivermectin-for-treatment-of-covid-19-foi-21-708 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-inform...
  - 6nf 5y ago
    I was under the impression that it was approved in July and your source predates this but I could be wrong What do you say to the multitude of positive studies though? https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ Are all of them wrong?
    - argonaut 5y ago
      This epidemiologist points out several major flaws with that website. For one, the website selectively picks the best result from each paper, which results in the website aggregating a bunch of unrelated measurements, including measurements that were not even each paper's main outcome/measurement. https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947 https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947
      - 6nf 5y ago
        I'd like to see an alternative meta-study if one is available, do you know if a better meta-study exists?
- jollybean 5y ago
  No. " Ivermectin is currently not approved in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19," [1] There are no good studies demonstrating the validity of Ivermectin, and the Oxford study is not complete and there's no indication results are positive. Why are people so crazy about this drug? It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID. [1] https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100202110/ https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100202110/
sdhfjg 5y ago
>"Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used. When a medical doctor prescribes a drug for a purpose that is currently being studied scientifically, that is not "alternative medicine". Ivermectin is still being studied. Hydroxychloroquine was emergency authorized by the FDA.
- foota 5y ago
  Hydroxychloroquine seems like a weird example to bring up now, since it's been completely debunked.https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-c...
  - sdhfjg 5y ago
    I didn't bring up Hydroxychloroquine. My point was that it wasn't "alternative medicine" for the time it was authorized by the FDA.
  - raffraffraff 5y ago
    I actually think it might be a good example because it highlights the distinction between "medicine" and "alternative medicine": approval for use. Many drugs have been approved for a use in the past, only to be superseded by better drugs or found to be dangerous or ineffective. Take for example acetaminophen (aka paracetamol/tylenol): it is borderline ineffective, has been superseded by ibuprofen for almost all use cases, and the required dosage for its tiny effect is also very close to dangerous levels. Yet it is still the go-to drug of parents, GPs and hospitals for a range of ailments from the common cold to post-operative pain. "Good old paracetamol" is in every medicine cabinet in the Western world. I've told my folks a hundred times that it simply doesn't work, but they use it for pretty much any condition. Mum even gave it to her old dog. It's trusted like oxo cubes, Campbell's soup or a nice cup of tea. And that's why it's the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world. While it hasn't had it's approval removed yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it did some day, and I doubt it would be approved today if it were being introduced. Even so: is it still very much "medicine", not "alternative medicine".
chiefalchemist 5y ago
It might not be an alternative drug but it's certainly an alternative narrative. The momentum for the jab is all but unstoppable at this point. The continued talk of jab passports, and such. Once a narrative becomes normalized it's difficult to change. Note: This isn't a political statement or criticism. It's Human Comms and Human Behaviour 101.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- becuzThrowaway 5y ago
  >This isn't a political statement or criticism. It's Human Comms and Human Behaviour 101. Seems pretty political to me.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Then clearly you need to read more. I suggest starting with "Power for All." Words matter. They create worlds. Narratives matter. They enable myths to persist. Again. These are properties of human behavior. https://www.powerforallbook.com/ https://www.powerforallbook.com/
addicted 5y ago
Things go from “under investigation” medicine to medicine once good peer reviewed science shows them to be effective. If the peer reviewed research shows them to not be effective, and if snake oil salesmen figure out a business model to fleece people with it, that’s when it becomes “alternative” medicine.
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  I am somewhat curious how many products used in scams were not actually scams themselves. Meaning, the molecule had benefits but the people pushing it were shady and deceptive exaggerating claims of beneifts so now people psychologically associate the word with a scam or quackery. I ask this as someone that consumes Krill Oil, Coconut Oil, Oregano Oil and misc other oils. Perhaps Snake Oil [1] is worth a study or two. [1] - https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/oils/snake-oil.html https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/oils/snake-oil....

chrisco255 5y ago

Yes, all you need to do is conduct a study and you will get an objective peer review from other researchers funded by pharmaceutical giants and news outlets funded by the same.

twofornone 5y ago

>"Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used. There are more than 60 peer reviewed studies showing positive effect for ivermectin. Similarly the single trial that the media touted as "proof" that HCQ did not work administered what amounted to an overdose to terminally ill patients, in contrast to the recommended early/prophylactic regimen. These lies have gone on for far too long - no thanks to irresponsible and, frankly, inexcusable censorship by fb, youtube et al on grounds of "misinformation". This site[0] has been up for over a year now and the citation count has continued to grow. It seems people are more interested in poo pooing proponents of ivermectin/HCQ than actually examining evidence. Medicine should not be a political team sport. 0. ivmmeta.com

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
javagram 5y ago
There are multiple trials showing HCQ didn’t work. It was heavily studied and bombed over and over again in all 3 contexts: prophylaxis, early treatment, and treatment of hospitalized patients. Just use google directly to find the trials I’m talking about, instead of being blinded by the ivm meta site creators (who created a similar site last year for HCQ). IvmMeta mixes in poor quality studies with studies that actually found no significant effect for IVM and claims they all are pro IVM.
nuerow 5y ago
> There are more than 60 peer reviewed studies showing positive effect for ivermectin. I couldn't help but notice your use of purposely vague and misleading weasel words such as "positive effect". Meanwhile I recall reading one of those ivermectin studies presented on another discussion on HN, and it certainly raised some red flags regarding how it was put together. For instance, if my memory doesn't fail me, it relied on an astonishingly small sample (100 patients, all reported as mild cases, divided into control and treatment) and to make matters worse the control group was given hydroxychloroquine instead of a placebo, effectively comparing ivermectin to hydroxychloroquine. In the end the study reported that the fatality rate in the control and treatment groups was the same, and the only claim was that the statistical analysis suggested more patients from the ivermectin group were discharged earlier, which could very well be just statistical noise. Other than this the paper reported no benefit at all. So, this is what weasel words buy: they are used to hide facts and misguide people. So unless you actually substantiate your claims and point exactly the very best study you feel shows that said "positive effect" is and how it was quantified, I have to dismiss your claim as something between a baseless assertion and blatant misinformation.
- useragent86 5y ago
  So you start by accusing him of being purposely misleading. He mentions 60 studies (which he didn't cite specifically, but at least offered a link which one could use to verify his claims). But then you pull a bait-and-switch in your own comment, complaining about just one study, which you completely neglect to cite (so it could be made up, for all we know). You subtly outsource your opinion, trying to lend it an air of objectivity by saying that it "raised some red flags" (after you accused him of using weasel words). You couch the whole comment in an air of faux fairness by writing as if you are some judge called upon to arbitrate a dispute, who just has to rule a certain way because, of course, that's what the evidence requires. And you imply that your unsourced complaint about one study invalidates all such studies, therefore he must be wrong. You accused him of being purposely misleading, but at least he offered a link, and he didn't try to trick people into thinking that a criticism of one thing invalidates other things, which you did. Your whole comment is a textbook example of propaganda techniques. And then you wonder why people don't know what to believe anymore. It's like the whole Internet is a political, psychological battleground for public mindshare, and the truth doesn't matter at all.

6nf 5y ago

Ivermectin is approved for covid use in the UK and many other countries with good results and a large Oxford study is close to completion to add to the dozens of positive studies

robertbarbe 5y ago
No. Ivermectin is not officially approved in the UK for the treatment of COVID-19. Source from the government : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-responses-from-the-mhra-week-commencing-28-june-2021/freedom-of-information-request-on-ivermectin-for-treatment-of-covid-19-foi-21-708 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-inform...
- 6nf 5y ago
  I was under the impression that it was approved in July and your source predates this but I could be wrong What do you say to the multitude of positive studies though? https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ Are all of them wrong?
  - argonaut 5y ago
    This epidemiologist points out several major flaws with that website. For one, the website selectively picks the best result from each paper, which results in the website aggregating a bunch of unrelated measurements, including measurements that were not even each paper's main outcome/measurement. https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947 https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1422044335076306947
    - 6nf 5y ago
      I'd like to see an alternative meta-study if one is available, do you know if a better meta-study exists?
jollybean 5y ago
No. " Ivermectin is currently not approved in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19," [1] There are no good studies demonstrating the validity of Ivermectin, and the Oxford study is not complete and there's no indication results are positive. Why are people so crazy about this drug? It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID. [1] https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100202110/ https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100202110/

sdhfjg 5y ago

>"Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used. When a medical doctor prescribes a drug for a purpose that is currently being studied scientifically, that is not "alternative medicine". Ivermectin is still being studied. Hydroxychloroquine was emergency authorized by the FDA.

foota 5y ago
Hydroxychloroquine seems like a weird example to bring up now, since it's been completely debunked.https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-c...
- sdhfjg 5y ago
  I didn't bring up Hydroxychloroquine. My point was that it wasn't "alternative medicine" for the time it was authorized by the FDA.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  I actually think it might be a good example because it highlights the distinction between "medicine" and "alternative medicine": approval for use. Many drugs have been approved for a use in the past, only to be superseded by better drugs or found to be dangerous or ineffective. Take for example acetaminophen (aka paracetamol/tylenol): it is borderline ineffective, has been superseded by ibuprofen for almost all use cases, and the required dosage for its tiny effect is also very close to dangerous levels. Yet it is still the go-to drug of parents, GPs and hospitals for a range of ailments from the common cold to post-operative pain. "Good old paracetamol" is in every medicine cabinet in the Western world. I've told my folks a hundred times that it simply doesn't work, but they use it for pretty much any condition. Mum even gave it to her old dog. It's trusted like oxo cubes, Campbell's soup or a nice cup of tea. And that's why it's the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world. While it hasn't had it's approval removed yet, I wouldn't be surprised if it did some day, and I doubt it would be approved today if it were being introduced. Even so: is it still very much "medicine", not "alternative medicine".

chiefalchemist 5y ago

It might not be an alternative drug but it's certainly an alternative narrative. The momentum for the jab is all but unstoppable at this point. The continued talk of jab passports, and such. Once a narrative becomes normalized it's difficult to change. Note: This isn't a political statement or criticism. It's Human Comms and Human Behaviour 101.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
becuzThrowaway 5y ago
>This isn't a political statement or criticism. It's Human Comms and Human Behaviour 101. Seems pretty political to me.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  Then clearly you need to read more. I suggest starting with "Power for All." Words matter. They create worlds. Narratives matter. They enable myths to persist. Again. These are properties of human behavior. https://www.powerforallbook.com/ https://www.powerforallbook.com/

addicted 5y ago

Things go from “under investigation” medicine to medicine once good peer reviewed science shows them to be effective. If the peer reviewed research shows them to not be effective, and if snake oil salesmen figure out a business model to fleece people with it, that’s when it becomes “alternative” medicine.

LinuxBender 5y ago
I am somewhat curious how many products used in scams were not actually scams themselves. Meaning, the molecule had benefits but the people pushing it were shady and deceptive exaggerating claims of beneifts so now people psychologically associate the word with a scam or quackery. I ask this as someone that consumes Krill Oil, Coconut Oil, Oregano Oil and misc other oils. Perhaps Snake Oil [1] is worth a study or two. [1] - https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/oils/snake-oil.html https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/oils/snake-oil....