Hacker News Reader

Comment by blakesterz | Hacker News Reader

Can anyone comment on this site, and the others they run? It LOOKS trustworthy, but that certainly doesn't mean all that much. Trustworthy? Their FAQ only uses "we" as a claim of responsibility, which didn't make me feel all that much better, and they had their Twitter account suspended. I don't know what to think of this. It doesn't look super sus, but at the same time, I don't feel qualified to be a good judge.

https://ivmmeta.com/faq.html

View on HN

I've followed the topic quite a while and there seem to be many trustworthy proponents for the use of Ivermectin at any stage of the disease. On the contrary people against it seem to be only pointing to the fact that there isn't enough quality research in favor for its use (which doesn't seem to be the case), or to this study https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 , which is raising many red flags to plenty of researchers as being a badly designed study.

They're listing that study you link among those showing a positive effect. (Because the effect they found, though small and statistically insignificant, was positive.)

Yes I saw it in the list, but if you expand it they explain the flaws. + every news article on the topic that came out in the last weeks mentions it as proof of how uneffective ivermectin is.

> that there isn't enough quality research in favor for its use

Do they support masks and lock downs? There is little evidence behind those, yet many are pushing for them.

Here is a meta analysis on the best studies available on the topic https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ug...

According to the FAQ, "all sources are public". I followed a few of the links and they lead to papers in recognizable journals. On the other hand, in a cursory search of the studies, I couldn't find any that reported on research done in the United States.

For what it's worth, I would recommend that you get your COVID-19 vaccination as soon as you are able, and continue to practice COVID safety precautions now and even after you get your vaccinations.

I am suspicious of the motives, especially as HCQ[Hydroxychloroquine] is still listed at improving outcomes by "45%"

I have read plenty of reports both for and against Hydroxychloroqiune, to the point that I would say I had no idea what to believe about it. The fact that it appeared to be dismissed after Trump suggested it is really disappointing. Not that I think Trump has any insight, just that the whole thing felt very politicised - like the rest of the pandemic.

This Swedish doctor's blog is pretty good, he has more background and more time to look at the studies than me, and gives a good objective overview in my opinion.

https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/08/20/does-hydroxychloro...

Rushworth is not credible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26436719

Faucci isn't credible.

Seriously though, instead of such a useless comment, why don't you address the issues with what he has said in his blog. He writes clearly and follows the scientific method better than anyone suggesting masks will help. Yes he predicted herd immunity and got it wrong. Neil Ferguson's models predicted nearly ten times as many deaths for Sweden yet his predictions are still used for pressuring into pointless lockdowns. He is still doubling down despite being proven wrong.

There is a lot of politics, but the antidote to that is hard data:

https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/hcq-recovery-statement-0...

The recovery trial is run by the NHS in the UK. They don't have the same pressures that US(or french) hospitals have (mainly to make money, or attract paying customers) There is some argument to the NHS wanting to reduce the cost of medicine.

Crucially its trying a whole bunch of drugs, including normal intensive care treatments (steroids, or dexamethasone)

However, it was a big study, randomised, that showed no improvement. (slight increase in mortality for people taking it.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com