Hacker News Reader

Comment by titzer | Hacker News Reader

This is so depressing. I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much, but then it slowly dawned on me that some people have financial interests in fake cures like this, and there is only popular attention for one or two at a time. So these "superstar" meds become memes that are intentionally spread by seriously craven people as part of a pump-and-dump scheme. This is truly destructive, selfish behavior. It's not just a pump-and-dump scheme where investors--who have chosen to expose themselves to risk by buying in--lose money. This is a pump and dump scheme costing thousands of lives.

The death threats and abuse on top of that...It's just so demoralizing to live in this atmosphere. If we had a functioning justice system it would find these people and charge them with fraud.

View on HN

> I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much

They care so much for exactly the same reasons you expressed in your post: because they think this is costing thousands of lives, and they have little trust in institutions that typically study these, and often for good reasons.

The same financial incentives that drive some fraudsters to push "fake treatments" are even greater in pharma where literally billions of dollars are on the line, which is why people's skepticism of pharma is so significant.

You see how much symmetry there is in how you're thinking about this and how the people on the other side are thinking about this. The only way to come to a common understanding is to agree on who can ascertain the truth on these questions, and so the loss of institutional trust is the real problem here.

Journalists these days are viewed as partisan hacks, and science journalism has been almost universally terrible for decades now anyway, so arguably people have no reason to trust journalists.

Scientists are much better on factual questions generally, but even here the replication crisis has shown that up to 50% of published results can't be replicated [1], so a coin flip would be equally likely to ascertain the truth on any new question. Fixing this has only just begun and the remedies will take years to be adopted everywhere.

This reckoning has been a long time coming, but people are so caught up in their partisan politicking they're missing the forest for the trees and putting the blame in all the wrong places.

[1] Edit: 50% in medicine, it's even worse in other disciplines like social sciences.

> I have been wondering what makes some people so motivated to push Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, because for the life of me I just couldn't imagine that some people could care so much, but then it slowly dawned on me that some people have financial interests in fake cures like this

We have no idea if Ivermectin works. The randomized trials are ongoing.

It would be great if it works. Fantastic. We should all hope that it does. If we're asking questions, let's ask this: why are people so eager to leap to the conclusion that it doesn't work?

Both of these drugs are generic. There’s no more financial incentive to push these than to push Aspirin or Advil.

I believe the financial incentive is not in selling the drug itself, but more in the social media clout and general influencer money.

I've yet to see an instagram model 'influencer' doing a pose and advertising ivermectin.

Not all influencers are models... I believe there is money to be had peddling all sorts of misinformation. People who get caught up in this stuff are targeted for all sorts of stuff.

Even for generic drugs there are a limited number of manufacturers and distributors, and there are lots of shady operators making money off of whatever "cure" is being promoted this week.

If Ivermectin ever were proven to be effective at preventing or treating COVID, literally every major pharma company in the world would look into producing it en masse.

> There’s no more financial incentive to push these than to push Aspirin or Advil.

lol

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-dri...

> The website advertises consultations for $90 and fills prescriptions through Ravkoo Pharmacy, an online pharmacy that America’s Frontline Doctors advertises as “partners,” who provide “the option to have that prescription delivered right to your door, the same day.” On a SpeakWithAnMD.com intake form viewed by NBC News, prospective patients are asked, “What medication do you prefer?” The user is then presented with three options: “Ivermectin,” “Hydroxychloroquine” or “Not sure.”

There is a financial incentive, maybe not for the manufacturer but certainly for the people involved in schemes like these:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/covid-telehealth-hydroxy...

> If we had a functioning justice system it would find these people and charge them with fraud.

The people who are making these threats feel as though they are being persecuted by a media-corporate-legal complex that is out to get them. The more you attempt to penalize these individuals for their beliefs, the more radicalized they will become.

I'm not talking about the people spreading memes, they are just pawns. I am talking about people who own huge amounts of stock and actively trying to personally financially benefit from creating and spreading misinformation. Quadruple bad if those people are in positions of power, like politicians, doctors, or the drug companies themselves.

But that's just it: there aren't very many influencers telling people to take ivermectin. There were some official endorsements for HCQ, but ivermectin has largely been a grassroots response to people feeling as though they're not being included in the political process. Figures on the right have been telling people to take "Donald Trump's vaccine". The influencers who have discussed ivermectin, like Joe Rogan, only did so after it was already popularized.

The counterpoint to this is that they're not going to be deradicalized at this point, and that the only other option is to prevent the ideology from spreading

The feeling of persecution is literally what's driving it though, and they're not entirely wrong if the focus is "containment".

The problem with crazy people is that their entire world passes through their crazy distortion field. So even attempts to help them look threatening.

Does this now suddenly mean we stop enforcing the law (against financial fraud) because it might hurt their feelings?

This is dysfunction. What can we do if we're not allowed to present facts and evidence because it might trigger people? We end up walking on eggshells while the crazies take over.

> This is dysfunction. What can we do if we're not allowed to present facts and evidence because it might trigger people? We end up walking on eggshells while the crazies take over.

It's not that simple: you can't just label an entire political faction as crazy. The left also holds viewpoints that moderates think are absolutely bonkers (which specific viewpoints I can't even say without risking a flamewar on HN), but we've been taught to be respectful of other people's opinions.

> you can't just label an entire political faction as crazy.

I didn't say that. It was a general statement about crazy people. Everyone has their own distortion fields; they are myriad and contradictory and situational. Please don't start with this left/right splitting and victimization stuff. There's a ton of shit I won't say on HN because it doesn't go over well. It's not a left/right thing, believe me.

> you can't just label an entire political faction as crazy.

What would you say if - hypothetically - an entire political faction went crazy? There are examples from history.

Yes, but the evidence thus far is that deplatforming is pretty effective, especially in the short term— which matters for time-sensitive things like getting everyone vaccinated:

- https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-n...

- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...

- https://theconversation.com/does-deplatforming-work-to-curb-...

>So these "superstar" meds become memes that are intentionally spread by seriously craven people as part of a pump-and-dump scheme.

I don't even think it's that deep. These medications are just memes to fuel a shallow grift. It gives them something to talk about in between pushing for donations, that's all.

Shouldn't more treatment options be a good thing? I can never understand this logic.

> Shouldn't more treatment options be a good thing?

If they work - if they are safe and effective for the given disease, then yes.

If.

It's not a treatment option, that's the problem; it's being presented as if it was.

No.

Here, eat this rock. That's be $500. Look at that, another treatment option.

Critical thinking is important in medicine. You can't just trust any yahoo with medical advice.

Science hasn't established them as actual treatment options. The ivmmeta.com study shows that one horse oil pill doesn't always improve the prognosis.

Enjoy your horse paste if you think that is more effective than a vaccine that has been administered 6.5 Billion times and it has a proven very high efficacy.

I don't think it's money. As others have said there's not enough money in it. My guesses are the following.

Survivorship and confirmation bias. If a thousand doctors try it out then a few of them will statistically see incredible results. They will then be "on board", confirm amongst each other, and be skeptical any data that shows otherwise.

Plain bias. Just being anti-vax and jumping onto anything that avoids vaccination. Or being anti-government and jumping onto anything that is opposite of what CDC promotes. Or being among the anti-science variant of religious and jumping onto anything that shows religion over science.

It's not particularly these people's "fault" that they're behaving how they do. It's just human nature.

There are others that I think are doing it primarily for notoriety. Joe Rogan, Simone Gold, etc. But the thing is, the people enamored with the anti-science or anti-vax or anti-government schtick are going to find someone to champion their cause, and once you start down that path it's hard to turn back.

I would certainly understand that argument if the individuals involved benefited financially from HCQ or ivemectin being used. It seems these are generic drugs however with relatively low margins so that line of thinking isn't very convincing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com