14 ms·

> However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest

> However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth. That's an excellent point - unfortunately people who are easily labeled as "anti-vaxxers" and perceived as uneducated anti-scince crowd quite often happen to be the people who just don't digest unsubstantiated narratives easily, which actually is a right way to listen to people and companies with potential conflict of interest. A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it. That attitude makes people think there is an agenda behind and big pharma revenues makes all of us think it's not entirely untrue. Regrettably a lot of people related to science forget that science is not a blind belief in authority but actually quite the opposite - question authority in everything.

mewpmewp2 5y ago
I still don't know whether Ivermectin works or not, but mainstream media calling it horse paste is absolutely disingenuous and what increases distrust from me. It's as if they are incapable of understanding that same substance could be used for multiple species for multiple different conditions and in fact it has been used for multiple species. So anyone calling it horse paste, horse medicine or even focusing on that makes me question their intelligence.
- Nursie 5y ago
  People are literally buying veterinary pharmaceutical preparations though, and taking horse paste. Sure, it's used in humans too. But there are people dosing with equine supplies.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    How many people who believe Ivermectin works are actually doing that? Are there differences besides dosage and is it possible to split that dosage for appropriate human levels?
    - Nursie 5y ago
      I don't know numbers, but there are credible reports of farming supply companies starting to restrict sales (so greater than zero, but I haven't a clue how many). Differences can be that not all the preparations contain only the one active ingredient. Dosing appears to be whole other kettle of fish, because understandably people have no idea what a therapeutic or prophylactic dose actually might be - because as far as we know there isn't one for coronavirus.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        Two of my relatives are running Covid wards in a rural part of the country, and they are filled with people who had their vets get them IVM or who had picked it up off the shelf. My next door neighbor told me he had his dog’s vet write him a prescription. You can guess his political persuasion and vaccine status.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        That's so sad. And the proponents of that BS will happily continue to push it, what's in it for them I'll never understand. It's like a very indirect way of trying to kill people.
matthewmacleod 5y ago
A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it" A number of people—probably not including myself, if I'm honest—would take this statement more seriously if it wasn't a complaint that a thing which has already happened, and continues to happen, isn't happening. Seriously. There are trials for any number of medications underway, including Ivermectin. There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying
- jesterson 5y ago
  > There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms. > The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.
  - tigershark 5y ago
    Since when removing misinformation that can cause harm is censorship? If I had any say I would absolutely remove all your posts that are spreading the same lies, you are literally killing people by furthering a specific agenda and trying to convince people that the vaccines are dangerous and ivermectin is the only cure. It’s honestly shameful that hacker news is letting this happen.
    - jesterson 5y ago
      Something that you (or anyone else) insubstantiatedly label as misinformation may just not be so. That's pure censorship - "I think this is wrong, therefore it has to be removed". That's the rigidity and simplemindedness as opposed to intellectual curiosity, doesn't spark intellectual discussion and creates echo chambers of people regurgitating the same narratives over and over. Fortunately people sharing your approach are not having any say here so we keep HackerNews a civilised place where all opinions expressed without arrogance are having light of day.
Nursie 5y ago
Studies have been done. It has been found lacking. You're getting mocked because you're blind to this and sticking to something that bad actors are touting as a miracle cure, while science and medicine move on in the search for things that actually help. Like dexamethasone, remdesivir etc etc
- jesterson 5y ago
  The way you have responded is a perfect illustration of the crowd we are talking about. You are trying to make a personal offence and claims without any references. That sounds like a blind repeating of the narrative, even if it wasn't intended to be so.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    I'm not "trying to make a personal offence", I am explaining why you may find people mock you. Your view of the situation on the ground is incorrect. The studies you are claiming have not been done are a mere google search away. In fact in this case the link at the top of the HN discussion contains a lot of relevant information. Here's the major question I have for folks like yourself who are still on about ivermectin though - why? Why are you invested in this one particular pharmaceutical? What is it that makes you think this specific chemical, which has been looked at and found not to be particularly beneficial for covid use, stands out from the other things which have been looked at and not found useful? Why are we allowed to dismiss and move on from them but not from this?
    - jesterson 5y ago
      I wasn't soliciting for an explanation why people are trying to mock - too much studying of psychology provided enough information to answer this question. The answer, as it may come at a surprise for you, is not related to plausibility of statements. But that's totally different matter. As for your question, let me give you a very simple answer. As a layman in certain area, I see few facts - several families who I know in person chose to take Ivermectin as part of their treatment when family member contracted covid. All of them successfully recovered from covid. And at the same time, a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths. Doctor said that if he wouldn't intervene and put him in ICU, he would be dead by now. Another person got cardiac arrest after jab (being 24yo) and was paid a lump sum (more than $200k) by government to suck it up and keep his mouth shut. Certainly I am not going to draw any conclusions from those observations. Except one - why Ivermectin is so actively dismissed and the pharma jabs are so actively promoted? There is clearly some evidence ivermectin does help, but we have no means to know at what extend or at what price. This atmosphere of ignorance and narrative-pushing has nothing in common with intellectual curiosity, which is something we have to use when dealing with challenges like covid. Sadly not many of us are capable of that.
orwin 5y ago
> A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it. I don't think i've ever mocked any ivermectine taker (at least not for taking a medecine that may help some of his problems), and most "vaxxed" didn't either. And i'm aware than not all unvaccinated people are anti-vax (my brother is waiting for the Valneva himself). But as long as people tell me "look at the data", i will send them the data from the least vaccinated country in europe, Bulgaria (i even have a quick link on my phone), and ask them to explain to me their mortality rates, and grin a little. I'm not really mocking them, i just like seeing people trying to justify themselves, i find it fascinating. Note that i like seeing this in the "i fucking love science" crowd as well (people really have trouble explaining the moon's crescents, it is really funny), but as this is a novelty, it have more potential.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > people really have trouble explaining the moon's crescents, it is really funny If you don't have that difficulty then you probably haven't thought about it long enough - yet.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

I still don't know whether Ivermectin works or not, but mainstream media calling it horse paste is absolutely disingenuous and what increases distrust from me. It's as if they are incapable of understanding that same substance could be used for multiple species for multiple different conditions and in fact it has been used for multiple species. So anyone calling it horse paste, horse medicine or even focusing on that makes me question their intelligence.

Nursie 5y ago
People are literally buying veterinary pharmaceutical preparations though, and taking horse paste. Sure, it's used in humans too. But there are people dosing with equine supplies.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  How many people who believe Ivermectin works are actually doing that? Are there differences besides dosage and is it possible to split that dosage for appropriate human levels?
  - Nursie 5y ago
    I don't know numbers, but there are credible reports of farming supply companies starting to restrict sales (so greater than zero, but I haven't a clue how many). Differences can be that not all the preparations contain only the one active ingredient. Dosing appears to be whole other kettle of fish, because understandably people have no idea what a therapeutic or prophylactic dose actually might be - because as far as we know there isn't one for coronavirus.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Two of my relatives are running Covid wards in a rural part of the country, and they are filled with people who had their vets get them IVM or who had picked it up off the shelf. My next door neighbor told me he had his dog’s vet write him a prescription. You can guess his political persuasion and vaccine status.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        That's so sad. And the proponents of that BS will happily continue to push it, what's in it for them I'll never understand. It's like a very indirect way of trying to kill people.

matthewmacleod 5y ago

A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it" A number of people—probably not including myself, if I'm honest—would take this statement more seriously if it wasn't a complaint that a thing which has already happened, and continues to happen, isn't happening. Seriously. There are trials for any number of medications underway, including Ivermectin. There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying

jesterson 5y ago
> There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms. > The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.
- tigershark 5y ago
  Since when removing misinformation that can cause harm is censorship? If I had any say I would absolutely remove all your posts that are spreading the same lies, you are literally killing people by furthering a specific agenda and trying to convince people that the vaccines are dangerous and ivermectin is the only cure. It’s honestly shameful that hacker news is letting this happen.
  - jesterson 5y ago
    Something that you (or anyone else) insubstantiatedly label as misinformation may just not be so. That's pure censorship - "I think this is wrong, therefore it has to be removed". That's the rigidity and simplemindedness as opposed to intellectual curiosity, doesn't spark intellectual discussion and creates echo chambers of people regurgitating the same narratives over and over. Fortunately people sharing your approach are not having any say here so we keep HackerNews a civilised place where all opinions expressed without arrogance are having light of day.

Nursie 5y ago

Studies have been done. It has been found lacking. You're getting mocked because you're blind to this and sticking to something that bad actors are touting as a miracle cure, while science and medicine move on in the search for things that actually help. Like dexamethasone, remdesivir etc etc

jesterson 5y ago
The way you have responded is a perfect illustration of the crowd we are talking about. You are trying to make a personal offence and claims without any references. That sounds like a blind repeating of the narrative, even if it wasn't intended to be so.
- Nursie 5y ago
  I'm not "trying to make a personal offence", I am explaining why you may find people mock you. Your view of the situation on the ground is incorrect. The studies you are claiming have not been done are a mere google search away. In fact in this case the link at the top of the HN discussion contains a lot of relevant information. Here's the major question I have for folks like yourself who are still on about ivermectin though - why? Why are you invested in this one particular pharmaceutical? What is it that makes you think this specific chemical, which has been looked at and found not to be particularly beneficial for covid use, stands out from the other things which have been looked at and not found useful? Why are we allowed to dismiss and move on from them but not from this?
  - jesterson 5y ago
    I wasn't soliciting for an explanation why people are trying to mock - too much studying of psychology provided enough information to answer this question. The answer, as it may come at a surprise for you, is not related to plausibility of statements. But that's totally different matter. As for your question, let me give you a very simple answer. As a layman in certain area, I see few facts - several families who I know in person chose to take Ivermectin as part of their treatment when family member contracted covid. All of them successfully recovered from covid. And at the same time, a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths. Doctor said that if he wouldn't intervene and put him in ICU, he would be dead by now. Another person got cardiac arrest after jab (being 24yo) and was paid a lump sum (more than $200k) by government to suck it up and keep his mouth shut. Certainly I am not going to draw any conclusions from those observations. Except one - why Ivermectin is so actively dismissed and the pharma jabs are so actively promoted? There is clearly some evidence ivermectin does help, but we have no means to know at what extend or at what price. This atmosphere of ignorance and narrative-pushing has nothing in common with intellectual curiosity, which is something we have to use when dealing with challenges like covid. Sadly not many of us are capable of that.

orwin 5y ago

> A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it. I don't think i've ever mocked any ivermectine taker (at least not for taking a medecine that may help some of his problems), and most "vaxxed" didn't either. And i'm aware than not all unvaccinated people are anti-vax (my brother is waiting for the Valneva himself). But as long as people tell me "look at the data", i will send them the data from the least vaccinated country in europe, Bulgaria (i even have a quick link on my phone), and ask them to explain to me their mortality rates, and grin a little. I'm not really mocking them, i just like seeing people trying to justify themselves, i find it fascinating. Note that i like seeing this in the "i fucking love science" crowd as well (people really have trouble explaining the moon's crescents, it is really funny), but as this is a novelty, it have more potential.

jacquesm 5y ago
> people really have trouble explaining the moon's crescents, it is really funny If you don't have that difficulty then you probably haven't thought about it long enough - yet.