5 ms·

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a world

by toolz 5y ago

The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quality RCTs, who funds them and why? This to me is a clear cut indicator that we have very maligned incentives for health science. How can we be this far into a global pandemic, with all of this funding and not have multiple high quality RCTs on this drug? It's sad to say the least. Even if Ivermectin ends up being fairly weak or completely ineffective - surely there's something to learn here...

peakaboo 5y ago
About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it. The mass media ignored it for over a year and when they did started covering it, they said it was a horse dewormer. The fact is, what people think is trustworthy news today is pure propaganda. You cannot make an informed decision based on what you read in the mass media.. It's all completely controlled, supporting whatever the big corporations wants to push on you.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  > About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it. How were they helped by it when the evidence shows that it doesn't work for COVID-19?
  - toolz 5y ago
    how did you read this article and somehow come to the conclusion that ivermectin doesn't work for covid-19?
    - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
      Happy opposite day. Aside from all the other words, it ends in summary with a first item of 'Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount'.
      - toolz 5y ago
        the final study list he compiled shows 80-85% confidence for <30% mortality reduction and the author confirms that in the comments. This is 80-85% confidence that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved with ivermectin. You didn't read closely enough. Notably though, at no point does the author even suggest it doesn't work - just that the statistical significance isn't high
        throwawaycuriou 5y ago
        I'm not sure where you're reaching 'hundreds and hundreds of thousands', perhaps because there's a big range between zero and thirty percent. In medical trials, statistical significance is the milestone to reach before broadly claiming something 'works'. Dozens of other treatments were put through trials. Some had promising initial results. Most didn't work.
        toolz 5y ago
        No one is claiming it works - I'm refuting the point you've made which is that it doesn't work - which is contrary to what the data shows. The data shows that it's not reaching the medical milestone you refer to, but it does show that it's more likely helping. You've claimed it doesn't work - nothing says that. Nothing even suggests that.
        throwawaycuriou 5y ago
        Quite the mental pretzel there. If no one is claiming it works, and you claim that I claim that it doesn't work, maybe that's reason at work? Unfortunately, I never claimed it didn't work. Edit: I see you might have confused me for a parent post by lalaland1125 who did claim this.
  - peakaboo 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 5y ago
      Would you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar? You've been doing this repeatedly and we've already asked you to stop. It's not what this site is for, it lowers discussion quality dramatically, and we ban accounts that keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - peakaboo 5y ago
        Sure. Enjoy the one sided "discussion".
  - thedorkknight 5y ago
    Not to mention the lunacy of assessing efficacy of drugs by reading internet forums and social media. Why do scientists bother with expensive studies when they can just read Facebook? /s
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MissionInfl 5y ago
We do have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. For example, see ACTIV-6 coming out of Duke University: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 ACTIV-6's tagline is "Outpatient Repurposed Drugs" which matches up with your description. There are other ACTIV trials with other focuses: 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...
czzr 5y ago
There are two large high quality studies mentioned in the article.
resoluteteeth 5y ago
> The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US. > So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quality RCTs, who funds them and why? This to me is a clear cut indicator that we have very maligned incentives for health science. How can we be this far into a global pandemic, with all of this funding and not have multiple high quality RCTs on this drug? It's sad to say the least. Even if Ivermectin ends up being fairly weak or completely ineffective - surely there's something to learn here... The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly.
- Wolf_Larsen 5y ago
  > The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly. Thank God! I was worried it may be a nuanced situation full of brazen conflicts of interest.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    Yes because there's no conflict of interest as to why ivermectin of all drugs is being pushed so hard.
    - tuatoru 5y ago
      Ivermectin is cheap and out of patent. Cui bono?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Sorry, but no. "Ivermectin works" is the standard, not who benefits financially from some other medication.
josho 5y ago
> Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit Maybe the real reason we aren't seeing more trials being funded is that scientists are looking at these early studies and what we already know of the drug and concluding that it's not an avenue worth pursuing? (Especially when we already have several proven vaccines in place). By way of analogy are you going to invest your time to build a web framework for Cobol running on mainframes? I'm sure it's been done, but it's probably not worth your time to build one as we already have many high quality web frameworks available.

by toolz 5y ago

peakaboo 5y ago

About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it. The mass media ignored it for over a year and when they did started covering it, they said it was a horse dewormer. The fact is, what people think is trustworthy news today is pure propaganda. You cannot make an informed decision based on what you read in the mass media.. It's all completely controlled, supporting whatever the big corporations wants to push on you.

lalaland1125 5y ago
> About 1.5 years ago, ivermectin was discussed in "conspiracy" channels like Reddit, and many people were helped by it. How were they helped by it when the evidence shows that it doesn't work for COVID-19?
- toolz 5y ago
  how did you read this article and somehow come to the conclusion that ivermectin doesn't work for covid-19?
  - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
    Happy opposite day. Aside from all the other words, it ends in summary with a first item of 'Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount'.
    - toolz 5y ago
      the final study list he compiled shows 80-85% confidence for <30% mortality reduction and the author confirms that in the comments. This is 80-85% confidence that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives could've been saved with ivermectin. You didn't read closely enough. Notably though, at no point does the author even suggest it doesn't work - just that the statistical significance isn't high
      - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
        I'm not sure where you're reaching 'hundreds and hundreds of thousands', perhaps because there's a big range between zero and thirty percent. In medical trials, statistical significance is the milestone to reach before broadly claiming something 'works'. Dozens of other treatments were put through trials. Some had promising initial results. Most didn't work.
        toolz 5y ago
        No one is claiming it works - I'm refuting the point you've made which is that it doesn't work - which is contrary to what the data shows. The data shows that it's not reaching the medical milestone you refer to, but it does show that it's more likely helping. You've claimed it doesn't work - nothing says that. Nothing even suggests that.
        throwawaycuriou 5y ago
        Quite the mental pretzel there. If no one is claiming it works, and you claim that I claim that it doesn't work, maybe that's reason at work? Unfortunately, I never claimed it didn't work. Edit: I see you might have confused me for a parent post by lalaland1125 who did claim this.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 5y ago
    Would you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar? You've been doing this repeatedly and we've already asked you to stop. It's not what this site is for, it lowers discussion quality dramatically, and we ban accounts that keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - peakaboo 5y ago
      Sure. Enjoy the one sided "discussion".
- thedorkknight 5y ago
  Not to mention the lunacy of assessing efficacy of drugs by reading internet forums and social media. Why do scientists bother with expensive studies when they can just read Facebook? /s

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MissionInfl 5y ago

We do have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. For example, see ACTIV-6 coming out of Duke University: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530 ACTIV-6's tagline is "Outpatient Repurposed Drugs" which matches up with your description. There are other ACTIV trials with other focuses: 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...

czzr 5y ago

There are two large high quality studies mentioned in the article.

resoluteteeth 5y ago

> The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US. > So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quality RCTs, who funds them and why? This to me is a clear cut indicator that we have very maligned incentives for health science. How can we be this far into a global pandemic, with all of this funding and not have multiple high quality RCTs on this drug? It's sad to say the least. Even if Ivermectin ends up being fairly weak or completely ineffective - surely there's something to learn here... The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly.

Wolf_Larsen 5y ago
> The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly. Thank God! I was worried it may be a nuanced situation full of brazen conflicts of interest.
- threeseed 5y ago
  Yes because there's no conflict of interest as to why ivermectin of all drugs is being pushed so hard.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Ivermectin is cheap and out of patent. Cui bono?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Sorry, but no. "Ivermectin works" is the standard, not who benefits financially from some other medication.

josho 5y ago

> Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit Maybe the real reason we aren't seeing more trials being funded is that scientists are looking at these early studies and what we already know of the drug and concluding that it's not an avenue worth pursuing? (Especially when we already have several proven vaccines in place). By way of analogy are you going to invest your time to build a web framework for Cobol running on mainframes? I'm sure it's been done, but it's probably not worth your time to build one as we already have many high quality web frameworks available.