Hacker News Reader

Comment by fshbbdssbbgdd | Hacker News Reader

I think ivermectin as treatment for a virus counts as snake oil.

Was that the only "treatment" he did at the time? No. He also took Monoclonal Antibodies and prednisone. Why didn't you bring that up?

> In addition to mentioning ivermectin, the podcaster, who has previously stated that the young and healthy should not "worry" about being vaccinated against COVID, said he had also taken monoclonal antibodies and prednisone to treat the disease.

> Thus far, three anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody products have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by the FDA for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID in high-risk sufferers, though this is different from full FDA approval.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-covid-drugs-ivermectin-mo...

Based on my interactions with Rogan fans, this just confirmed biases that ivermectin works and is on par with, or better, than actual treatments like monoclonal antibodies.

Sure, let’s talk about Rogan’s overall approach toward COVID-19. I personally know people who haven’t gotten vaccinated because of Rogan’s influence. He may have caused more harm than Gwyneth Paltrow - you’d need to gather a bunch of data to measure the effects to know for sure.

What’s the harm in that? Efficiency decays rapidly (to about half in 5 months) and a false sense of security isn’t beneficial for anyone. Would you rather have vaccinated people who think they're invincible while infecting others because they think having the vaccine gives you the ability not to get infected at parties and bars?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.

prednisone shouldn't be taken until you've got severe COVID.

if your immune system is still attacking the virus you don't want to weaken your immune system.

once your immune system is just attacking itself then you want to throw immunosuppressants at it in order to weaken the response.

This is such a polarised view - there is clinical evidence that suggests it may reduce the symptoms of COVID. Its not a full on miracle cure. The problem is that what should be a medical discussion is now political - and people have drawn battle lines around it.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...

This supports your argument that this is polarizing but worth noting that other medical groups have highlighted a ln undisclosed conflict of interest in your linked study and selective data use in the meta analysis.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-abo...

Ivermectin is being used in many countries and is supported by a large community of physicians and medical professionals. It may or may not be useful for covid - I'm not a medical worker so I will not opine on it's usefulness, but any person is capable of browsing the medical fields support for its efficacy as an antiviral.

Ivermectin is a miracle drug against parasites due to its effects on the nerve and muscle cells of invertebrates. The evidence for its use as an antiviral in vivo is weak.

Here is a list of 83 peer reviewed studies, conducted by medical professionals, showing the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID.

https://c19ivermectin.com/

Does this mean it works? No. But it does mean that your characterization of it as "snake oil" is completely incorrect. The real question is what kind of manipulation has taken place that could lead people to such a conclusion and who was behind this manipulation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com