4 ms·

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 jus

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.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      The earth may be flat after all. But making that statement absent actual proof is misinformation.
      - jesterson 5y ago
        You may be well right here, but it seems like there is significant difference what everyone is considering as "actual proof", hence definition of what is misinformation and what's not becomes very vague.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Ok, I'll take a stab at this then: 'misinformation is the spreading of information that is known to be false'. That doesn't assign any kind of state-of-mind to the person doing it, it could be because they're useful idiots, griefers, state operators and so on. Of course that kicks the can down the road: what exactly is known to be false and what is not? But we have a pretty good idea in the case of the flat earth and I think that other cases will lend themselves to such analysis. Holocaust denial is a nice example, Hillary Clinton running a pedophile network from a pizza joint is another. 5G phone network used for mind control and so on. All of these share the trait that reasonable people would - I assume, true - agree that these things are not true and that those that spread this do not have our best interests at heart, either through stupidity or malice.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms. That's not evidence that scientific information about ivermectin is being withheld. > That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna. Not really. For a start nobody thinks it's a cure.
native_samples 5y ago
Somehow society managed to take an entirely new, experimental medical technology, run trials and launch it to the world population in < 12 months yet it's been nearly 24 months now and there are zero - zero - large scale useful studies of ivermectin produced by the western medical establishment. As I was reading the article, this is really what leaped out at me. There are lots of people and doctors who think ivermectin works. It's clearly a question worth investigating. Why are all the studies based on 50 people in Bangladesh? That, in turn, is very strongly connected to the cost of running drug trials that will get past the FDA and patent rights. So it's not surprising that people end up being very cynical about this.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  There is currently a 15,000 patient study funded by the NIH which includes the evaluation of ivermectin. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 IT is slower than most would like, but it is one of many in a long list of publicly funded studies. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...

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.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    The earth may be flat after all. But making that statement absent actual proof is misinformation.
    - jesterson 5y ago
      You may be well right here, but it seems like there is significant difference what everyone is considering as "actual proof", hence definition of what is misinformation and what's not becomes very vague.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Ok, I'll take a stab at this then: 'misinformation is the spreading of information that is known to be false'. That doesn't assign any kind of state-of-mind to the person doing it, it could be because they're useful idiots, griefers, state operators and so on. Of course that kicks the can down the road: what exactly is known to be false and what is not? But we have a pretty good idea in the case of the flat earth and I think that other cases will lend themselves to such analysis. Holocaust denial is a nice example, Hillary Clinton running a pedophile network from a pizza joint is another. 5G phone network used for mind control and so on. All of these share the trait that reasonable people would - I assume, true - agree that these things are not true and that those that spread this do not have our best interests at heart, either through stupidity or malice.
Nursie 5y ago
> There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms. That's not evidence that scientific information about ivermectin is being withheld. > That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna. Not really. For a start nobody thinks it's a cure.

native_samples 5y ago

Somehow society managed to take an entirely new, experimental medical technology, run trials and launch it to the world population in < 12 months yet it's been nearly 24 months now and there are zero - zero - large scale useful studies of ivermectin produced by the western medical establishment. As I was reading the article, this is really what leaped out at me. There are lots of people and doctors who think ivermectin works. It's clearly a question worth investigating. Why are all the studies based on 50 people in Bangladesh? That, in turn, is very strongly connected to the cost of running drug trials that will get past the FDA and patent rights. So it's not surprising that people end up being very cynical about this.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
There is currently a 15,000 patient study funded by the NIH which includes the evaluation of ivermectin. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 IT is slower than most would like, but it is one of many in a long list of publicly funded studies. https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...