3 ms·

I love that proving that a bunch of frauds who were promoting a drug that didn't work at all shows a "political slant". Funding studies to show which drugs trea

I love that proving that a bunch of frauds who were promoting a drug that didn't work at all shows a "political slant". Funding studies to show which drugs treat (and don't treat) covid is unambiguously good and it's insane that it's considered political. Edit: Great timing - DailyBeast literally just published a story exposing how the leader of one of those idiotic COVID misinformation groups spent her millions in ill-gotten gains: https://www.thedailybeast.com/covid-misinformation-group-americas-frontline-doctors-implodes-over-dr-simone-golds-extravagant-spending?ref=author https://www.thedailybeast.com/covid-misinformation-group-ame...

yonaguska 4y ago
It is insane that it's political. But that's what you get when pharmaceutical companies both test their products on behalf of the regulatory agencies and spend money on politicians. And there are incentives to either not study repurposing existing drugs or even spending money on proving they shouldn't compete with your patented drugs. Let's talk about Andrew Hill and how a grant from Bill Gates resulted in him changing course on his Ivermectin findings. I've been seeing articles here on hn for years disparaging corruption within academic journals, but suddenly with COVID, every journal maintained impeccable ethics right?
loceng 4y ago
There are plenty of studies and cohort analysis of Ivermectin studies that show it is highly effective with the right protocol; most of the Ivermectin studies showing it doesn't work aren't using proper doses, nor at the right time, nor for long enough period of time.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  No there aren't. It doesn't work and most of the studies showing any effect were fraudulent. I can't believe there are still ivermectin dead-enders out there.
  - loceng 4y ago
    https://c19ivm.org/ https://c19ivm.org/ - 83% average prophylaxis. Which of the 93 studies do you have trouble with, what specifically in each of those studies, and how much does that change the numbers/conclusions such as 83% average prophylasxis rate?
- moistly 4y ago
  That is a load of lying horseshit.
  - loceng 4y ago
    I bet you believed that Pfizer studied for transmission of COVID-19 up until a week ago too, or maybe you haven't heard that news yet? P.S. https://c19ivm.org/ https://c19ivm.org/ - 83% average prophylaxis.
    - moistly 4y ago
      And where is it “effective”? Why, countries where internal parasites are a huge issue. Funny, that. It’s almost as if it isn’t a Covid treatment, but a parasitic infection treatment!
      - loceng 4y ago
        You bought into that narrative too eh? You're correct that in Africa, in places where Ivermectin is regularly deployed due to parasites had much lower rates of COVID and death from COVID - but no, you're wrong - that's not where those 93 studies were conducted.

yonaguska 4y ago

It is insane that it's political. But that's what you get when pharmaceutical companies both test their products on behalf of the regulatory agencies and spend money on politicians. And there are incentives to either not study repurposing existing drugs or even spending money on proving they shouldn't compete with your patented drugs. Let's talk about Andrew Hill and how a grant from Bill Gates resulted in him changing course on his Ivermectin findings. I've been seeing articles here on hn for years disparaging corruption within academic journals, but suddenly with COVID, every journal maintained impeccable ethics right?

loceng 4y ago

There are plenty of studies and cohort analysis of Ivermectin studies that show it is highly effective with the right protocol; most of the Ivermectin studies showing it doesn't work aren't using proper doses, nor at the right time, nor for long enough period of time.

mikeyouse 4y ago
No there aren't. It doesn't work and most of the studies showing any effect were fraudulent. I can't believe there are still ivermectin dead-enders out there.
- loceng 4y ago
  https://c19ivm.org/ https://c19ivm.org/ - 83% average prophylaxis. Which of the 93 studies do you have trouble with, what specifically in each of those studies, and how much does that change the numbers/conclusions such as 83% average prophylasxis rate?
moistly 4y ago
That is a load of lying horseshit.
- loceng 4y ago
  I bet you believed that Pfizer studied for transmission of COVID-19 up until a week ago too, or maybe you haven't heard that news yet? P.S. https://c19ivm.org/ https://c19ivm.org/ - 83% average prophylaxis.
  - moistly 4y ago
    And where is it “effective”? Why, countries where internal parasites are a huge issue. Funny, that. It’s almost as if it isn’t a Covid treatment, but a parasitic infection treatment!
    - loceng 4y ago
      You bought into that narrative too eh? You're correct that in Africa, in places where Ivermectin is regularly deployed due to parasites had much lower rates of COVID and death from COVID - but no, you're wrong - that's not where those 93 studies were conducted.