4 ms·

>"Alternative medicine" like ivermectine or hydroxychloroquine have no scientific, properly studied basis for being used. There are more than 60 peer reviewed

>"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.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > So you start by accusing him of being purposely misleading. He mentions 60 studies I did more than that: I pointed out not only the use of weasel words but also that no assertion is substantiated in what boils down to a baseless appeal to authority. Consequently, it's critical that, for the sake of objectiveness and to avoid spreading misinformation, these personal assertions cannot be backed up by handwaving and instead must be supported by concrete evidence, such as references to said studies, if they exist at all.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Neither poster cited anything though, so they both could be making shit up. Why not accuse both of propaganda techniques?
    - nuerow 5y ago

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.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > So you start by accusing him of being purposely misleading. He mentions 60 studies I did more than that: I pointed out not only the use of weasel words but also that no assertion is substantiated in what boils down to a baseless appeal to authority. Consequently, it's critical that, for the sake of objectiveness and to avoid spreading misinformation, these personal assertions cannot be backed up by handwaving and instead must be supported by concrete evidence, such as references to said studies, if they exist at all.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Neither poster cited anything though, so they both could be making shit up. Why not accuse both of propaganda techniques?
  - nuerow 5y ago