11 ms·

I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are c

I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are correct. Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct? There is a lot of harm promoting quack ideas during a pandemic. Based on reputation? Twitter followers? Their passion? I do not believe anyone censored research and scientific literature that was mainstream nor did they say they can not try to get your theories proven, rather they were basically saying do can not claim you have the truth if there is nothing solid backing you up. Basically skipping showing your work (e.g. peer review), and just saying you have the answer. I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable journal -- because that is how science works. You do not go and make YouTubes first promoting it as the cure first. Did Steven even have a role in this paper or are these professionals operating completely independently of him? So Steven didn't even bother to make this mainstream? Too much work?

bananapear 5y ago
Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that it doesn't work (unless you have idiots taking horse-size doses). Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work.
- gzer0 5y ago
  > Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] 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...
  - bananapear 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.
    - javagram 5y ago
      There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
      - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though. The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        I used Azithromycin for a reason, because until Covid Brand Viral Pneumonia came along, Azithromycin was considered a standard part of the treatment protocol for viral pneumonia just in case. And because of this study, which I suggest reading carefully. [0]. (And it's funny, that the surgisphere study that showed that HCQ didn't work was published straight away, even though the data was fraudulent? And a similar one that showed that ACE inhibitors didn't work too? They both got published in the Lancet straight away, and noone has any questions about _why_ that was done.) [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/
- msbarnett 5y ago
  > Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). There are a number of low-quality (low numbers, methodological issue) studies with varying results. The primary "evidence" that got people excited about Ivermectin was a meta-analysis of these studies, but the meta-analysis itself pointed out that the largest amount of data and strongest evidence in their dataset came from one very large study – the study that was later withdrawn for having faked its data. Since then, there's been no real compelling evidence at all that Ivermectin has any real impact beyond placebo. > Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). There's a bias towards using treatments for which: 1) there is a reasonable expectation, based on understood science, that the treatment should impact the course of the virus (preferably) and 2) there is some non-fraudulent, non-obscure and tiny dataset, indicating an effect. The lack of strong data in support of Ivermectin is coupled with the fact that there's no particular reason to expect Ivermectin should have any impact on any particular virus. > Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work. This is mistaking correlation with causation. We know that many people who suffer serious respiratory illnesses, and who die from COVID-19, have low vitamin D levels. This is not believed to imply that low vitamin D levels cause death from COVID-19; rather it's simply the natural outcome of many old people having low vitamin D levels and age being a significant factor in COVID-19 deaths. People who die of old age also have low vitamin D levels; would you argue we should hand out vitamin D in an attempt to cure aging? The idea that because these things are relatively safe we might as well just do them seems, in whole, silly. Sugar pills and crystals have a great safety profile too, but we don't expect physicians to use those on the theory of "well there's no real downside" either. Science, not superstition, is the goal here.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Apparently you haven't kept up on current research. Multiple studies have shown that vitamin D has prevention and treatment benefits. There's more going on than just a correlation with age. https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/ https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/
nradov 5y ago
Hardly anything is ever "proven" in medicine, or biology in general. The best we can do are varying levels of probability. So then it becomes a discussion about how to set the minimum acceptable level of confidence.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
>Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. >I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed. Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitalizations. The government could have spent the last 18 months encouraging people to lose weight, stop smoking, drinking, and eating fast food. The ONLY tool silicon Valley, the msm, much of acamdeia, the DNC and their loyal sycophants care about is the vaccines and even the slightest discussion of any potential alternative gets promoted as inherently anti-vaxx even if it could be used in conjunction with vaccines
- aemreunal 5y ago
  > You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. I'm not sure this applies to medicine or vaccines. I don't think any of us are in the position of "making up our own mind" about what works in medicine and what doesn't, which is why we have double-blind clinical studies. We can't even explain why/how placebo works.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    You have to be in the position of being your own medical advocate. I had a condition that was misdiagnosed repeatedly, including in the ER. My condition is not even "rare", just slightly uncommon, and I had a very textbook case of it. Your doctor is not an oracle. They are a car mechanic that works on organics.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Not to mention that it’s hardly extraordinary for two doctors to have two different opinions on the same case. What does that mean? That there are two conflicting absolute truths?
      - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
Vrondi 5y ago
Yes, but why should people who are calling for studies to be done get censored? Scientists who are talking about interesting possibilities that _should_be_studied_ should not get their content taken down.
- bhouston 5y ago
  No one calling for studies should get censored for simply doing that.

bananapear 5y ago

Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that it doesn't work (unless you have idiots taking horse-size doses). Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work.

gzer0 5y ago
> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] 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...
- bananapear 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.
  - javagram 5y ago
    There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
    - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
      If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though. The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        I used Azithromycin for a reason, because until Covid Brand Viral Pneumonia came along, Azithromycin was considered a standard part of the treatment protocol for viral pneumonia just in case. And because of this study, which I suggest reading carefully. [0]. (And it's funny, that the surgisphere study that showed that HCQ didn't work was published straight away, even though the data was fraudulent? And a similar one that showed that ACE inhibitors didn't work too? They both got published in the Lancet straight away, and noone has any questions about _why_ that was done.) [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33465426/
msbarnett 5y ago
> Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). There are a number of low-quality (low numbers, methodological issue) studies with varying results. The primary "evidence" that got people excited about Ivermectin was a meta-analysis of these studies, but the meta-analysis itself pointed out that the largest amount of data and strongest evidence in their dataset came from one very large study – the study that was later withdrawn for having faked its data. Since then, there's been no real compelling evidence at all that Ivermectin has any real impact beyond placebo. > Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). There's a bias towards using treatments for which: 1) there is a reasonable expectation, based on understood science, that the treatment should impact the course of the virus (preferably) and 2) there is some non-fraudulent, non-obscure and tiny dataset, indicating an effect. The lack of strong data in support of Ivermectin is coupled with the fact that there's no particular reason to expect Ivermectin should have any impact on any particular virus. > Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work. This is mistaking correlation with causation. We know that many people who suffer serious respiratory illnesses, and who die from COVID-19, have low vitamin D levels. This is not believed to imply that low vitamin D levels cause death from COVID-19; rather it's simply the natural outcome of many old people having low vitamin D levels and age being a significant factor in COVID-19 deaths. People who die of old age also have low vitamin D levels; would you argue we should hand out vitamin D in an attempt to cure aging? The idea that because these things are relatively safe we might as well just do them seems, in whole, silly. Sugar pills and crystals have a great safety profile too, but we don't expect physicians to use those on the theory of "well there's no real downside" either. Science, not superstition, is the goal here.
- nradov 5y ago
  Apparently you haven't kept up on current research. Multiple studies have shown that vitamin D has prevention and treatment benefits. There's more going on than just a correlation with age. https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/ https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/

nradov 5y ago

Hardly anything is ever "proven" in medicine, or biology in general. The best we can do are varying levels of probability. So then it becomes a discussion about how to set the minimum acceptable level of confidence.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

>Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. >I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed. Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitalizations. The government could have spent the last 18 months encouraging people to lose weight, stop smoking, drinking, and eating fast food. The ONLY tool silicon Valley, the msm, much of acamdeia, the DNC and their loyal sycophants care about is the vaccines and even the slightest discussion of any potential alternative gets promoted as inherently anti-vaxx even if it could be used in conjunction with vaccines

aemreunal 5y ago
> You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. I'm not sure this applies to medicine or vaccines. I don't think any of us are in the position of "making up our own mind" about what works in medicine and what doesn't, which is why we have double-blind clinical studies. We can't even explain why/how placebo works.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You have to be in the position of being your own medical advocate. I had a condition that was misdiagnosed repeatedly, including in the ER. My condition is not even "rare", just slightly uncommon, and I had a very textbook case of it. Your doctor is not an oracle. They are a car mechanic that works on organics.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Not to mention that it’s hardly extraordinary for two doctors to have two different opinions on the same case. What does that mean? That there are two conflicting absolute truths?
    - loudtieblahblah 5y ago

Vrondi 5y ago

Yes, but why should people who are calling for studies to be done get censored? Scientists who are talking about interesting possibilities that _should_be_studied_ should not get their content taken down.

bhouston 5y ago
No one calling for studies should get censored for simply doing that.