Hacker News Reader

I still don't know whether Ivermectin works or not, but mainstream media calling it horse paste is absolutely disingenuous and what increases distrust from me. It's as if they are incapable of understanding that same substance could be used for multiple species for multiple different conditions and in fact it has been used for multiple species.

So anyone calling it horse paste, horse medicine or even focusing on that makes me question their intelligence.

People are literally buying veterinary pharmaceutical preparations though, and taking horse paste.

Sure, it's used in humans too. But there are people dosing with equine supplies.

How many people who believe Ivermectin works are actually doing that? Are there differences besides dosage and is it possible to split that dosage for appropriate human levels?

I don't know numbers, but there are credible reports of farming supply companies starting to restrict sales (so greater than zero, but I haven't a clue how many).

Differences can be that not all the preparations contain only the one active ingredient. Dosing appears to be whole other kettle of fish, because understandably people have no idea what a therapeutic or prophylactic dose actually might be - because as far as we know there isn't one for coronavirus.

Two of my relatives are running Covid wards in a rural part of the country, and they are filled with people who had their vets get them IVM or who had picked it up off the shelf. My next door neighbor told me he had his dog’s vet write him a prescription. You can guess his political persuasion and vaccine status.

That's so sad. And the proponents of that BS will happily continue to push it, what's in it for them I'll never understand. It's like a very indirect way of trying to kill people.

A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it"

A number of people—probably not including myself, if I'm honest—would take this statement more seriously if it wasn't a complaint that a thing which has already happened, and continues to happen, isn't happening.

Seriously. There are trials for any number of medications underway, including Ivermectin. There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way. The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying

> There is, at the point, no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is being unreasonably withheld in any way.

There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms.

> The cult of "magic miracle cure" that has built up around this one particular drug is fucking terrifying

That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.

> There is a plenty of evidence for that. We can start with censorship of ivermectin on social platforms.

That's not evidence that scientific information about ivermectin is being withheld.

> That's a perfect definition for people believing in phizer and moderna.

Not really. For a start nobody thinks it's a cure.

Since when removing misinformation that can cause harm is censorship? If I had any say I would absolutely remove all your posts that are spreading the same lies, you are literally killing people by furthering a specific agenda and trying to convince people that the vaccines are dangerous and ivermectin is the only cure. It’s honestly shameful that hacker news is letting this happen.

Something that you (or anyone else) insubstantiatedly label as misinformation may just not be so. That's pure censorship - "I think this is wrong, therefore it has to be removed". That's the rigidity and simplemindedness as opposed to intellectual curiosity, doesn't spark intellectual discussion and creates echo chambers of people regurgitating the same narratives over and over.

Fortunately people sharing your approach are not having any say here so we keep HackerNews a civilised place where all opinions expressed without arrogance are having light of day.

Somehow society managed to take an entirely new, experimental medical technology, run trials and launch it to the world population in < 12 months yet it's been nearly 24 months now and there are zero - zero - large scale useful studies of ivermectin produced by the western medical establishment.

As I was reading the article, this is really what leaped out at me. There are lots of people and doctors who think ivermectin works. It's clearly a question worth investigating. Why are all the studies based on 50 people in Bangladesh?

That, in turn, is very strongly connected to the cost of running drug trials that will get past the FDA and patent rights. So it's not surprising that people end up being very cynical about this.

There is currently a 15,000 patient study funded by the NIH which includes the evaluation of ivermectin.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530

IT is slower than most would like, but it is one of many in a long list of publicly funded studies.

https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...

Studies have been done. It has been found lacking. You're getting mocked because you're blind to this and sticking to something that bad actors are touting as a miracle cure, while science and medicine move on in the search for things that actually help.

Like dexamethasone, remdesivir etc etc

The way you have responded is a perfect illustration of the crowd we are talking about.

You are trying to make a personal offence and claims without any references. That sounds like a blind repeating of the narrative, even if it wasn't intended to be so.

I'm not "trying to make a personal offence", I am explaining why you may find people mock you. Your view of the situation on the ground is incorrect. The studies you are claiming have not been done are a mere google search away. In fact in this case the link at the top of the HN discussion contains a lot of relevant information.

Here's the major question I have for folks like yourself who are still on about ivermectin though - why?

Why are you invested in this one particular pharmaceutical? What is it that makes you think this specific chemical, which has been looked at and found not to be particularly beneficial for covid use, stands out from the other things which have been looked at and not found useful? Why are we allowed to dismiss and move on from them but not from this?

I wasn't soliciting for an explanation why people are trying to mock - too much studying of psychology provided enough information to answer this question. The answer, as it may come at a surprise for you, is not related to plausibility of statements. But that's totally different matter.

As for your question, let me give you a very simple answer. As a layman in certain area, I see few facts - several families who I know in person chose to take Ivermectin as part of their treatment when family member contracted covid. All of them successfully recovered from covid.

And at the same time, a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths. Doctor said that if he wouldn't intervene and put him in ICU, he would be dead by now. Another person got cardiac arrest after jab (being 24yo) and was paid a lump sum (more than $200k) by government to suck it up and keep his mouth shut.

Certainly I am not going to draw any conclusions from those observations. Except one - why Ivermectin is so actively dismissed and the pharma jabs are so actively promoted? There is clearly some evidence ivermectin does help, but we have no means to know at what extend or at what price. This atmosphere of ignorance and narrative-pushing has nothing in common with intellectual curiosity, which is something we have to use when dealing with challenges like covid. Sadly not many of us are capable of that.

> several families who I know in person chose to take Ivermectin as part of their treatment when family member contracted covid. All of them successfully recovered from covid.

Are you aware that this doesn't constitute any sort of evidence about ivermectin's effectiveness?

> a person I know lost 2 legs shortly after "safe" jab due to blood cloths.

Are you aware that coronavirus causes clotting much more frequently than the vaccine? I'm sorry for your friend, but if this were commonplace then every other person in the street would be an amputee, given how many billions of doses have been administered.

> Another person got cardiac arrest after jab (being 24yo) and was paid a lump sum (more than $200k) by government to suck it up and keep his mouth shut.

So how do you know about it? Wasn't a very good gag order then was it if you know and are spreading it on the internet? I'm just going to say it - I don't believe this story.

> why Ivermectin is so actively dismissed and the pharma jabs are so actively promoted?

Well because Ivermectin hasn't been shown to do anything for covid, but quacks are promoting it online. The vaccines, on the other hand, have been tested and found to be a useful way to reduce the consequences of the pandemic. A pandemic that's killed millions so far. So those are pushed. I mean seriously - how weird is that? Who would ever think, something that's been shown to help in a worldwide health crisis, and it's being pushed!

By the way, ivermectin is a pharma product too.

> There is clearly some evidence ivermectin does help

Where do you draw this from? This is not clear at all, this is a bland assertion.

> This atmosphere of ignorance and narrative-pushing has nothing in common with intellectual curiosity

I agree - you have shown no intellectual curiosity there, asking for studies to be done that have already taken place and you could easily find, and throwing vague allusions about cover-ups around. This isn't intellectual curiosity, it's clinging to a conspiratorial narrative. Perhaps you could use your knowledge of psychology to figure out why you prefer this narrative.

My apologies for jumping into this discussion. Not going to tolerate arrogance and inability to listen. All the best in life and apologies once again. Dixi.

Which government is that? The one who paid.

I'm aware of frequent vaccine complications, but haven't heard of government doing any payouts.

Singapore government. There is a special fund for people who got severe health complications due to vaccination and as far as I know, it’s being used quite often. Although, personally i can only speak about the case I have mentioned.

How's the current mentality towards vaccines in Singapore?

Short answer - it's complicated.

Long answer - quite a significant number of people are resistant to vaccines, particularly to mrna-based ones. Government offered voluntary vaccination and managed to vaccinate around 50%, after that different coercion and segregation measures (mandating without actually mandating) were used to raise the number to 94% (among eligible population).

Disappointment is starting to grow lately because despite total vaccination there is no removal of restrictions. While being reasonably open with data, government still plays with it - once vaccinated ppl become constituting majority of cases among fatalities they just stopped reporting how many vacc/unvaxx were among fatalities. This leaves people frustrated and disappointed in govt approach to tackle covid, particularly in this "vaccinate everyone" idea.

A lot of resistance spotted in people 60+, younger generation mostly just goes for shots.

Interesting that younger generation is willing to go for the shots, according to my impression danger curve for the shots compared to covid is vaccines better for elderly, and worse for young. Not to mention all the unknown health implications for the future if spike protein can increase chances of cancer or similar.

I wonder if older gen has seen enough to not take everything at face value.

You are spot on. Older generation knows if government pushes something too hard, that's most likely not going to bring any good. Older people more willing to accept traditional vaccines like Sinovac/Sinopharm instead of mrna.

Younger generation remained hesitant but government insinuated huge social pressure in schools and colleges. My spouse's 14yo son was initially very resistant to vaccines and we supported it, but immense peer and school pressure pushed him to get the jab.

Additionally government mandated vaccination in cafes and dining venues so younger generation just sees it as obstacle for fun and getting it easily. At younger age you don't think about long-term effects.

> Studies have been done. It has been found lacking.

TFA found that more reliable studies found it was helpful than not. You are the one who is anti-science.

Not sure you're reading it right there - "I think this basically agrees with my analyses above - the trends really are in ivermectin’s favor, but once you eliminate all the questionable studies there are too few studies left to have enough statistical power to reach significance."

So I'll revise - studies have been done, but no conclusions about positive efficacy can be supported.

"I think the conventional wisdom - that the most extreme ivermectin supporters were mostly gullible rubes who were bamboozled by pseudoscience - was basically accurate."

> A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it.

I don't think i've ever mocked any ivermectine taker (at least not for taking a medecine that may help some of his problems), and most "vaxxed" didn't either. And i'm aware than not all unvaccinated people are anti-vax (my brother is waiting for the Valneva himself). But as long as people tell me "look at the data", i will send them the data from the least vaccinated country in europe, Bulgaria (i even have a quick link on my phone), and ask them to explain to me their mortality rates, and grin a little. I'm not really mocking them, i just like seeing people trying to justify themselves, i find it fascinating. Note that i like seeing this in the "i fucking love science" crowd as well (people really have trouble explaining the moon's crescents, it is really funny), but as this is a novelty, it have more potential.

> people really have trouble explaining the moon's crescents, it is really funny

If you don't have that difficulty then you probably haven't thought about it long enough - yet.