Comment by gorwell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gorwell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Conflating veterinary horse paste ivermectin with the human version of ivermectin is one of the most brazen lies I've ever seen from the American media, who is actively pushing pharmaceutical industry propaganda.

Just one of many examples this week:

"Joe Rogan has told his Instagram followers he has been taking ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug formulated for use in cows and horses, to help fight the coronavirus."

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033485152/joe-rogan-covid-iv...

That's framed as though he took a drug for cows and horses! He certainly did not.

Meanwhile, this is the human version of ivermectin, the one Joe Rogan took:

"In 2015, William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines... Between 1995 and 2010 the program using donated ivermectin to prevent river blindness is estimated to have prevented seven million years of disability whilst costing US$257 million."

Re-read that. It's on the WHO's list of essential medicines. It prevented seven million years of disability for less than $300M. Is that anything remotely like the way it's being portrayed by the media?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin

It's a cheap, Nobel Prize winning medication that is proven safe, having been used billions of times in humans.

Oh, but you can overdose on it? Just like most drugs?

As for its use with regard to Covid, I'm vaccinated and wouldn't personally seek it out, but here's a meta analysis of 63 studies https://ivmmeta.com/ which would suggest it's worth looking at. If doctors are prescribing it, such as in Joe Rogan's case, I don't see why that should be a problem.

The one that Americans would have access to for self treating COVID would be the horse variety unless they found doctors to prescribe them some.

I've seen so much on this subject here lately, I cannot resist asking the following question: If there's really such an altruistic, humanitarian concern, why not disclose the actual differences between the veterinary and human variety rather than vaguely implying possible absorption issues. The difference of a 1200lb beast vs 160lb human is a bit too easy. The ingredients, however, might offer a clue.

Also, as I understand, ivermectin is more commonly used as a cat (and sometimes dog) medicine, ie Revolution, that is, if cats outnumber domestic horses. I wonder if the cute-factor of people using catpaste would reduce the outrage.

Ivermectin seems to be prescription for pets and over the counter only for livestock. So if you are using cat ivermectin, you need a prescription too.

https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&catId=-1&id=601847...

Not sure on the specific differences of horse vs human ivermectin.

This. You can't buy Ivermectin off the shelf except in animal preparations.

The "debate" is hilarious, overblown and infantile, like always, but yeah the facts are pretty simple: Great for worm problems (river blindness being a worm problem). No reason thus far, other than wishful thinking, to believe it's good for anything else.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic, but it also has well-known antiviral properties too [1] [2]. Chose a study that did not relate to C19 since I think we all hate HIV/AIDS, Dengue Fever, and what was once a scourge in Yellow Fever.

As with any other drug, it is important to consider Ivermectin toxicity [3]. That would be my primary concern for the general population taking veterinary sized doses intended for large animals. I would never do that - I would talk to a doctor, preferably an infectious disease doc that has experience treating this malady, and get a prescription for it, and follow dosing instructions.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327999/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22535622/

[3] https://books.google.com/books?id=P4U0cEel-54C&pg=PA196&lpg=...

they are not conflating it. they literally describe the difference in the article you posted.

> Dr. David Boulware of the University of Minnesota says the drug’s side effects are mild at two or even three times the usual human dose. But formulations for farm animals might contain 1,000 times what’s safe for humans.

People need a prescription for Ivermectin (human dosage) but since they can't do that. They're taking the horse paste version without understanding the difference or knowing that its a much higher concentration..

And what are you talking about with "pharmaceutical industry propaganda?" Ivermectin is literally owned by Merck, who has said not to take it. The pharmaceutical industry would be the ones actively profiting of Ivermectin.

Ask yourself: why does the big photo only show the veterinary version? Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine? They are fully aware most people only read the headlines or above the fold. They bury mention of human dosage to have plausible deniability, knowing most people won't ever see it.

As for Merck, they are creating a new, patented version for Covid use. They want ivermectin discredited because anyone can make it. This is how that industry operates.

> Why do so many headlines classify it as horse paste medicine?

Because, convinced in the absence of evidence, some people are acquiring it by the path of least resistance, which is farm-related retailers.

Some ask their doctors. Some of those doctors say sure because it's relatively safe. Others say no because they point out there's scant evidence it's effective.

The worst part is people are taking this in lieu of a vaccine because they're so convinced that it's ineffective or gene therapy or experimental and dangerous, etc. We're not dealing with data based reasoning. It's an emotional response rooted to some degree in American partisanship.

If that was the concern the headlines would say: "Don't confuse horse ivermectin with prescribed ivermectin!"

That would be the PSA and approach. But it's not about warning people or any kind of concern about those who foolishly take a horse sized dose. It's about shaming them and pushing the interests of the pharma industry.

People are taking unsubstantiated therapeutics/prophylactics in response to a single YouTube comment but refusing to take the vaccine for ... reasons.

I don't agree that this is shaming but perhaps some is in order.

And from what a doctor told me most of those studies refuse to recall themselves after purposefully and heavily weighting a study that has been recalled for blatantly falsifying data and lying about the math.

Additionally horse ivermectin is a big part of the problem. People are literally going to vets and getting horse ivermectin and taking it. So it isn’t the media that is conflating them. At least not the so called “leftist media”. It is idiots who insist on lying about its effectiveness.

But people are buying the more dangerous horse paste variety, which is a funny, juicy headline. There’s even a shortage now.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8160269/people-seeking-horse-dewo...

People are literally buying horse paste and eating it.

It's a privileged view to see this as a new phenomenon. People without financial means to access the human medical system have been using things like fish antibiotics for years: https://fishmoxfishflex.com/collections/fish-antibiotics

I don't think anyone's saying they shouldn't stop. That's not the point the person you're replying to is making.

That person is claiming issue is not about horse version, but about human version. He implies media spread false information when they talk about the issue.

They are. If they weren't, they'd say "People are overdosing on ivermectin by taking doses intended for Horses." Instead they call the drug itself a "horse dewormer," and make it sound like that's its exclusive use, and that it should not be taken by humans in any dose. That's false.

Well, they should not be taken by humans in any dose to try and treat respiratory problems. If your doctor gives you a prescription of ivermectin to treat some worm problems, knock yourself out, but there's nothing wrong a simple general message "do not take ivermectin just because you thing you want it" - it's a prescription drug, so use only if explicitly, personally advised by a doctor who has looked into your particular problem and decided that this is the right thing for it.

I agree. People are doing the wrong thing by taking horse-sized doses, and should be careful with drugs that are not prescribed to them. The way you're phrasing things would be a much more understandable message that would not push people further away.

The question of whether or not to take things not prescribed to you is another question I suppose. LSD is an illegal drug but helps a lot of people. Ivermectin is widely, widely used and safely at that. Not being prescribed is not the same as being dangerous, so when it comes to self-medication my personal belief is that it is acceptable to work outside those boundaries, so long as you're being knowledgable and safe about it. (Which a lot of people are not doing in this case.)

Sounds like you are really splitting hair there.

People know when they're being played for fools and if you don't treat them as if they're capable of nuance you will only lose their trust and push them further away.

We are talking about people who refuse nuance generally and act in quite insulting ways toward those they disagree with. This whole question is moot.

Ivmmeta is pseudoscientific. It should not be taken seriously by anyone. See a short analysis e.g. at https://mobile.twitter.com/gidmk/status/1422044335076306947.

It is inappropriate to critique a drug's studies, and to apply them to the overall drug itself.

"because the studies are flawed, the drug is useless"

A more measured response would be to look through the actual studies themselves, ferret out good from bad, and then to draw conclusions.

Additionally, to ask questions about variables for which we know there are a ton of potential reasons why we'd see differences. Foremost being food/drug synergism, prescription requirements, genetic differences in drug MOA, and variation of actual covid type.

It doesn't refute good studies on ivermectin e.g. "the golden hamster" https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202114122

Protocols like Zelenko/McCullough do not list any one drug as a "wonder drug" but instead have a large number of drugs and vitamins to treat all the specific indications in more classes of drugs

[deleted, misread Ivmmeta as Ivermectin]

but not for covid-19, which Ivmmeta is all about... So how is this in any way relevant to the comment you reply to?

Calling an established anti-viral medicine "pseudoscientific" is just team politics.

It is probably more accurate to describe IVM as a safe antiparasitic with well-known antiviral qualities.

However, we don't always know when something has antiviral properties whether it has efficacy or not against a specific virus. That is why a number of studies is a great contributor to determining when it can be of use, or not.

Just to point out, I wasn't talking about Ivermectin, I have no qualifications to say anything about the medicine. Just commenting on the bogus "scientific" site the parent linked to, ivmmeta.

Ivmmeta is a website, not a medicine.

Honest question regarding the data on ivmmeta.com: I had heard that there was some pre-existing fraud in some Ivermectin studies. I don't know how true that is. Is it true? And if so, does this website account for that by withholding those ones?

The problem is people using it off label, in dangerous quantities, INSTEAD of taking the vaccine.

Why would it matter if the medical community thinks ivermectin is safe or not, if the people making this choice don’t trust medical science enough to take the vaccine.

Nobody doubts Ivermectin for what it was made to do. Coronavirus is not one of those things.

Moreover,

> https://ivmmeta.com/

we're on "Hacker News". This is anonymous website. WHOIS is hidden. It runs on Google Cloud. Nobody is signed, they use mysterious "we". And what is "real-time meta analysis" - that's not a real scientific term.

You know, all and all pretty suspicious website, for what it claims to be.

But people are self medicating with horse paste. That’s a big part of the problem, the dosage is horse sized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com