3 ms·

>Make sense or nah? Nah. Hard nah. I don't quite understand how you went from, "I'm an enthusiastic researcher who enjoys..." to, "Ivermectin works on Republic

>Make sense or nah? Nah. Hard nah. I don't quite understand how you went from, "I'm an enthusiastic researcher who enjoys..." to, "Ivermectin works on Republicans because Republicans live in squalor so they have worms but we don't know if Ivermectin actually works against COVID or not because our healthcare system sucks."

vmception 5y ago
We know that ivermectin doesnt work on covid, it works on worms People with worms only notice they have a problem after getting sick with covid How did you read that differently Read it again
- jjulius 5y ago
  That's a minor detail that I, admittedly, got incorrect while paraphrasing you but ultimately doesn't change the crux of my point.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Its about a crossover and assumption error in the models The patient and their doctor are assuming the wrong thing and coincidentally get a nice result And the people trying to make a controlled review are assuming the wrong thing Its a dewormer acting as a dewormer and thats actually saving people’s lives, would be useful policy wise to acknowledge why that is, instead of invalidating that group of people
- ben_w 5y ago
  I suspect the thing people are anchoring on is the word “republican”. I’ve heard a similar claim about the mechanism you describe, but it was with regard to a group actually likely to have worms — I don’t have a strong reason to think the USA has a worm problem, despite all the anger I see directed at the American medical system.
  - vmception 5y ago
    yeah I led with a lot of trigger words, it just wouldn't be accurate to pretend there is a more generalized group of people that would seek it. that drug doesn't/didnt get airtime as a remedy in non-republican news sources. > I don’t have a strong reason to think the USA has a worm problem Two thoughts on that 1) I don't know if we really need to quantify it. We need to verify/validate that this pipeline happens. Worms -> Covid -> Ivermectin -> less deaths/hospitalizations, but maybe we could just give it to people. Just throw it in the drug cocktail for treatment. 2) We already do this in some cases. Untreated but latent gonorrhea can cause miscarriages. People planning pregancies get a variety of preparatory treatments from doctors, within the long list of stuff can be a gonorrhea treatment, just by default. There is no need to even test for it, "hun I've only been with youuuuu where did this positive result for gonorrhea come frommmmm", we just spare everyone that conversation and just give the treatment for it to help avoid the complications or miscarriage. I could honestly see the same for Ivermectin.
- r721 5y ago
  This was Scott Alexander's hypothesis btw if you missed this piece on ivermectin from him: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... "The Summary Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence Fraud and data processing errors are of similar magnitude to p-hacking and methodological problems in explaining bad studies (95% confidence interval for fraud: between >1% and 5% as important as methodological problems; 95% confidence interval for data processing errors: between 5% and 100% as important) Probably “Trust Science” is not the right way to reach proponents of pseudoscientific medicine: ???% confidence"

vmception 5y ago

We know that ivermectin doesnt work on covid, it works on worms People with worms only notice they have a problem after getting sick with covid How did you read that differently Read it again

jjulius 5y ago
That's a minor detail that I, admittedly, got incorrect while paraphrasing you but ultimately doesn't change the crux of my point.
- vmception 5y ago
  Its about a crossover and assumption error in the models The patient and their doctor are assuming the wrong thing and coincidentally get a nice result And the people trying to make a controlled review are assuming the wrong thing Its a dewormer acting as a dewormer and thats actually saving people’s lives, would be useful policy wise to acknowledge why that is, instead of invalidating that group of people
ben_w 5y ago
I suspect the thing people are anchoring on is the word “republican”. I’ve heard a similar claim about the mechanism you describe, but it was with regard to a group actually likely to have worms — I don’t have a strong reason to think the USA has a worm problem, despite all the anger I see directed at the American medical system.
- vmception 5y ago
  yeah I led with a lot of trigger words, it just wouldn't be accurate to pretend there is a more generalized group of people that would seek it. that drug doesn't/didnt get airtime as a remedy in non-republican news sources. > I don’t have a strong reason to think the USA has a worm problem Two thoughts on that 1) I don't know if we really need to quantify it. We need to verify/validate that this pipeline happens. Worms -> Covid -> Ivermectin -> less deaths/hospitalizations, but maybe we could just give it to people. Just throw it in the drug cocktail for treatment. 2) We already do this in some cases. Untreated but latent gonorrhea can cause miscarriages. People planning pregancies get a variety of preparatory treatments from doctors, within the long list of stuff can be a gonorrhea treatment, just by default. There is no need to even test for it, "hun I've only been with youuuuu where did this positive result for gonorrhea come frommmmm", we just spare everyone that conversation and just give the treatment for it to help avoid the complications or miscarriage. I could honestly see the same for Ivermectin.
r721 5y ago
This was Scott Alexander's hypothesis btw if you missed this piece on ivermectin from him: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... "The Summary Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence Parasitic worms are a significant confounder in some ivermectin studies, such that they made them get a positive result even when honest and methodologically sound: 50% confidence Fraud and data processing errors are of similar magnitude to p-hacking and methodological problems in explaining bad studies (95% confidence interval for fraud: between >1% and 5% as important as methodological problems; 95% confidence interval for data processing errors: between 5% and 100% as important) Probably “Trust Science” is not the right way to reach proponents of pseudoscientific medicine: ???% confidence"