The Ivermectin Guys’ Whole Thing Has Fallen Apart | Hacker News Reader

The Ivermectin Guys’ Whole Thing Has Fallen Apart

vice.com

30 pointscomputer2342 comments

This guy put together a great analysis of over two dozen ivermectin studies [0] and he found that the studies done in countries where intestinal worms are common giving ivermectin showed a benefit against covid, and that in countries where intestinal worms are not common ivermectin did not help with covid.

This makes sense because it is known that intestinal worms can compromise the immune system.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

I heard a notion that I’d love to see followed up on, that places which believe ivermectin was working for them have a higher rate of parasitic infections to begin with, and suppressing these does improve COVID outcomes. Sort of lines up with the politics. Rural, not urban.

Scott Alexander thinks this is a plausible hypothesis: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

Wonder how many undiagnosed low-level parasitic infections there are out there?

interesting article: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/how-a-worm-gave-the-so...

Weinstein et al work extra hard to push the narrative that traditional institutions are untrustworthy and discredited. But when stuff like this happens - rather than say "mea culpa", they cry foul and invoke the specter of vast shadowy conspiracies (which they call the "DISC", the Distributed Idea Suppression Complex).

Grifting hypocrites, the lot of them.

I'm confused.

Let's assume that Ivermectin is completely useless, not only against Covid-19 but other things that make Covid-19 more dangerous.

How do you get from there to an official campaign against it? Someone who takes Ivermectin on their nickel doesn't stop anyone from producing or distributing something that does work.

For years every time I saw a forsythia bush flowering in the spring I would think of Jude Law's disaster of a character in Contagion, complete with hearing his lisp in my head.

Then Covid happened, and I discovered that movie was so accurate that I'm not sure I have the stomach to watch it again.

And what? The CDC's narrative has also fallen apart. Moderna is pushing to authorize a FOURTH mRNA injection for otherwise healthy young men who've received 3 shots and may have already had omicron and are immune.

This is contrary to WHO guidance in which the risk of heart problems outweigh the minor benefit of maybe not being hospitalized from contracting a strain of COVID-19 (delta) which has been eradicated thanks to the weaksauce omicron variant.

That is chaos.

The science is literally _years_ behind on this, and it's clearer than ever that Pfizer and Moderna are trying to rake in as much $$$ as their FDA friends will allow them to.

First, do no harm.

"The CDC's narrative has also fallen apart." Are you okay buddy? Are you aware that this is an evolving virus and the reality of a year or two ago is no longer the same as the virus has evolved substantially? The "narrative" has adapted to reflect the changing playfield. OBVIOUSLY many things have changed as the virus changes and as the global health related organizations adapt with it. Go outside and touch grass.

Not defending Ivermectin, but what do people have against trying alternative therapeutics for COVID? I rarely see articles bashing the "other side" for being wrong on many COVID decisions:

CDC flip-flopping on masks

CDC flip-flopping on how vaccine prevents spreads

Airplanes being the safest with high quality filters, yet they are the only place where masking is still required (which even the airlines disagree with)

CNN calling Ivermectin a horse dewormer, when Ivermectin has been administered to a large percentage of the global population

... the list goes on and on

*edit for formatting

> Not defending Ivermectin, but what do people have against trying alternative therapeutics for COVID?

Nothing at all, as long as proper testing procedures are followed.

right there are other therapeutics that look more promising. ex: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04661-w.epdf?shar...

No, we only wish that was true. There's definitely a lot of blind tribalism on the supposedly pro-science side. I've seen it first-hand.

the problem is not that Ivermectin is only for Horse.

It's that the huge amount of misinformation caused people to get the horse version instead of asking a doctor for the version designed for human.

Its basically uneducated peoples trying to self prescribe because they think they know better than a doctor that spent 14 year in school and had GPA of 3.5+.

I went through SARS (v1, high mortality rate) and previously lived in a country where the default is to wear a surgical mask any time you are sick, and it's been utterly strange seeing the US response and severe misunderstanding of how things change.

The vaccine prevented spread amazingly well, assuming the mRNA one and original strain. This changed several strains later. Even when the vaccine actually did an excellent job of preventing spread entirely the US still did not get anywhere near enough vaccination, or even halfway. Most vaccines need something like 90%+ uptake for actual herd immunity, including refreshing when they wear off to maintain it - across the entire population, not just 90%+ of adults. IIRC, measles starts community spreading again when it dips below the mid to high 90s - none of this is new, but the US/CDC somehow treated it like "wow we have reached almost halfway (if you ignore more than half the population that isn't eligible but can still spread it!), what a success".

Masks work excellently when worn by everyone properly (or N95-equivalent+ when worn by one side). Masks do not work when people take them off all the time and pretend to have a water bottle. Bandanas do not work well. Gaiters do not work well.

I also frequently saw some really ridiculous "outdoor dining" where it was tents or bubbles sealed on all ends, with circulated air/heating. That is not outdoor dining, and is pointless if you are trying to reduce spread.

Pretty much all my (APAC-team, most also been through SARS) coworkers were incredibly confused as to why the US/CDC thought the virus was not permitted to infect you if you were actively eating or drinking. Indoor dining and chatter permitted during peak spread while you only had to put on a mask when you got up? What is the point?

Almost every time I see someone wearing even a surgical mask in US imagery, the nosepiece was not pushed down to form a better seal, it's below their nose, or some other form of inanity while complaining how they don't work. One of the worst things is when someone is in an enclosed area and keeps their mask off while exhaling continuously, only putting it on when someone comes in. At that point you already have a full room of aerosol. When everyone does something horrifically wrong, ignoring all guidelines and instructions, then says x doesn't work and is pointless, that is not x's fault.

There is also the whole "you should stay at home and not go to large social events BUT you can go to work that usually has more people than a friend's place, also no sick pay, also no time off" that is another can of worms.

while I agree with you that mask themselves when used correctly (ex: by doctors ) work.

What I learned from the anti-vaxxer on Facebook is that when they say "mask does not work" they mean "the government guideline does not work".

Like you said it need to be cultural and people need to genuinely try to use mask correctly not just because its the rule.

The government guidelines in the US were ... severely lacking, to be overly nice.

You can take off your mask to eat, you can take off your mask to drink, cotton masks are sufficient (I will give them this one, especially during the extreme supply shortage at the start), kids don't have to wear masks because kids can't get sick (they can, and they spread it), you can wear any kind of face covering including ones completely open at the bottom like a triangular bandana or overly breathable and doesn't block much like a gaiter, you don't have to isolate and also no sick pay, thus incentivising actively sick and spreading people back to work, etc.

>The vaccine prevented spread amazingly well, assuming the mRNA one and original strain. This changed several strains later. Even when the vaccine actually did an excellent job of preventing spread entirely

Sorry revisionist historians, the vaccine does not and never has prevented transmission of COVID. You still get infected by, get sick from and can spread the virus. Simply read the documentation from the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA clinical trials to see the claimed benefit spelled out.

The media endlessly bleating "93% effective!" was in reference to preventing serious illness, which is the only benefit it offers.

Yep. Biden, Fauci, and many other CNN/MSNBC contributors lied about this or at least reported mistruths in this regard. Honestly, calling this mRNA injection a "vaccine" (and changing the actual definition of a "vaccine" according to WHO, CDC, and Merriam-Webster) is a complete untruth. It's a prophylactic shot that may reduce the severity of infection.

I've been vaccinated against chicken pox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis, polio, and various other diseases, which means that I will _not_ contract these illnesses. Unlike COVID the Nineteenth, you are _not_ immune, because this product is simply not a vaccine in the 20th century sense.

And 2 years later, people at my (former) meditation retreat are now requiring proof of _three_ mRNA shots, AND require heavy-duty KN95 masks to be on-site. It's utter insanity. I can't believe how radicalized my green-tea-and-kale-salad colleagues have become since this all started. I just can't believe it.

Is it worth even talking about herd immunity when it’s impossible for the COVID-19 vaccines to provide immunity?

That use of the word immunity was attempted, sure. But had to be changed to “protection” as it doesn’t actually prevent infection nor stop the spread. Hence, no herd immunity.

You're looking at tribalism. In my life, COVID has easily been the best example of how tribalistic people are, and how that tribalism just completely stamps out logical thought, in otherwise smart people.

I think the crazy picture of Joe Rogan is enough to indicate that this is probably not a piece with any sort of depth or nuance.

Science is a relatively slow process, it takes a long time to understand how diseases work. Virtually every other disease has been studied for years or decades before a properly understanding how it spreads, how it grows within the body, how it manifests, how it can be defeated. Influenza has existed for over a hundred years and we're still learning more about it.

The CDC needed to make decisions quickly at the beginning of the pandemic before anything about the disease was really understood. As they learned more information they changed those decisions. Did they do all of this perfectly? No. Did they fuck up at moments? Sure. Have aspects of their response been way too political? Yes. They're human and not perfect. They were working under insane conditions and made some mistakes.

At the same time that we were learning about the disease, it was also changing. The strains that are common now behave differently than the strains that existed two years ago. This also complicates the process.

You are criticizing the CDC for "flip-flopping" when they've simply responded to new information and a changing disease. Do you expect them to have known all they know now on Day 1 of the disease? Do you expect them to have said zero for several years until everything was 100% known? Whats your fucking point here?

The problem is that the CDC presented things as fact, without any communication of uncertainty, so their change in stance was perceived as a change is stance, rather than some smooth approach to an "understanding". This was made worse by the fact that health experts (or anyone) who voiced these uncertainties, concerns, or pointed out the flaws/needed changes were silenced and bullied on social media, even if time proved that they were right. The tribalism was/is insane.

The communication from the US government was terrible, especially compared to other countries who's health leaders don't assume their populace are idiots.

My point is that they've received basically no criticism for many of their mistakes. Saying vaccines will prevent the spread of COVID-19 makes no sense if they've not proven so ever, why make a massive policy decision which likely contributed to further spread (many restrictions were lifted due to their announcement, only to be put back later). Or as another example, they continued to require masks for children even as many countries removed that requirement long ago with data showing that it was safe to do so. Or that they mistakenly counted non-Covid related deaths (72k deaths) in their mortality data.

I call out flip-flopping as it reduces what little confidence the public has in their policy decisions and further empowers the fringe in discussions of ineffective treatments. No one is saying they should know on Day 1 of anything. That's a nonsense expectation. I do however expect them to communicate better and to educate the public on the evolution of the disease rather than rushing to any decisions until the data is clear.

I don't think anyone is really against trying alternative treatements... if anything if we had one that worked that would be ideal, as it's already mass produced and the infrastructure already exists.

The problem is people latched onto the idea of Ivermectin being beneficial, when the studies did not show that. So it was just fantasy. And people inevitably died because they thought they knew better than real doctors and decided to treat themselves with it.

There are well-established guidelines for ethically testing and prescribing experimental drugs.

If the individuals who have been peddling ivermectin and vitamin cocktails had instead encouraged enrollment in randomized controlled trials overseen by Institutional Review Boards to protect the rights and safety of human subjects, we would have quickly generated high quality data to determine safety and efficacy of ivermectin for COVID.

The haphazard global distribution of ivermectin meant that no meaningful data could be generated to determine if it worked.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonbatemanhouse/2017/12/20/w...

The rest of your comments are distracting "whataboutisms" but to clarify:

• Airplanes may have good air circulation while the plane is flying but prior to take off and in airports, air circulation isn't so good.

• People were buying horse dewormer based on false claims about ivermectin. This is fact.

• As we learned more about the virus (e.g. the frequency of spread by asymptomatic individuals) and as the virus mutated (e.g. to be more infectious and not as "on target" for the vaccines), recommendations have changed.

I agree with your points on ethically testing and prescribing experimental drugs.

The intent of my comment is to highlight the media's focus on one side of wrong decisions which only further divides the public.

* For airplanes, I am pointing out the requirement for masking currently even when masking is not required anywhere in California/New York (2 of the most restrictive states for COVID throughout the pandemic) for indoor. It's pure theatre to have people show up to the airport never wearing a mask and then putting it on (ineffectively no less) and then taking it off immediately when they leave the airport.

* Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic which has been prescribed 3.7 billion times (and won a nobel prize). Does it help with Covid? Current data seems to imply it does not. My callout is on the media calling its a horse dewormer (which while true is meant to mislead).

* On virus mutations, see my comment on flip-flopping.

> Not defending Ivermectin, but what do people have against trying alternative therapeutics for COVID?

You have to look at everything surrounding COVID in context. The most important context was that prior to COVID, Trump was obviously going to be re-elected. None of the world-ending catastrophes that everyone said would happen under him, did, in fact we got a lot of good out of his administration. The economy was great, taxes were low, gas prices were low, etc.

But then COVID happened, and finally, the opposition saw their opening. If they had any hope of Trump losing reelection, this was their only chance, and so every single day they did whatever they could to blame everything on Trump and only Trump, and did whatever they could to come to the defense of any organization or entity that Trump assigned blame to (WHO, China, etc.), and they also did whatever they could to trash anything that looked like it might help reduce the effects of the pandemic prior to the election.

People on a particular side of the aisle were "TERRIFIED" that the vaccine would be released before the election.

You'll recall, for example, that many of the people and organizations that shame everyone as "anti-vaxxers" for being wary of the vaccine, did that very same thing just prior to the election, spreading FUD (including Biden himself):

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccin...

Ivermectin, a life-saving drug WHO-listed essential drug (found ineffective for most for COVID) that has a side-effect profile close to that of the antibiotics we as a country receive so many prescriptions of like candy, was referred to as "horse paste", and do you know why some idiots were resorting to getting the animal kind instead of the human kind? Because the media and the establishment treated this relatively harmless drug as something evil and so people who are inclined to believe everything is a conspiracy, had that further reinforced in their minds, so they did whatever they could to seek something that the establishment was actively trying to keep from them.

>in fact we got a lot of good out of his administration. The economy was great, taxes were low, gas prices were low

This a mixture of the state of the country Obama left him with and things that presidents and their admin don't have much influence over.

Do you actually think Biden increased gas prices as if the effects of the pandemic and war (that trump likely helped cause by his deference to putin and hostility towards nato) aren't the actual causes?

Trump threw out the pandemic playbook.

Trump and the GOP's raised taxes on a substantial number of middle class and lower income people. Some of it was immediately and some of those increases were left as timebombs.

I really could go on and on, but that will turn in to arguing on the internet. But that statement on how "good" trump's admin suggests extremely rose colored glasses on what actually went on.

> This a mixture of the state of the country Obama left him with and things that presidents and their admin don't have much influence over.

So first it was "Trump is going to destroy the economy!" but now it's "actually he had nothing to do with it, everything was just magically great despite all the bad things he did to try to destroy it", interesting.

> Do you actually think Biden increased gas prices as if the effects of the pandemic and war (that trump likely helped cause by his deference to putin and hostility towards nato) aren't the actual causes?

I think Biden's major hostility towards oil, his poor economic policies, and his poor handling of the pandemic (under Biden we had far more deaths than under Trump during the same time period) resulted in much higher prices (which were already $1-1.50/gallon higher than under Trump prior to the war) as well as Putin realizing he had nothing to fear from Biden, resulting in him invading Ukraine. Do you think gas prices were just magically cheaper under Trump because he asked nicely?

> Trump threw out the pandemic playbook.

And it's looking more and more that he was right all along, given the facts on the ground showing that the majority of deaths and serious illnesses were of people over 65 and obese; the effects it's had on the economy; the effects it's had on younger generations; suicide rates; etc. Can't wait to see all of the other long term studies that show how disastrous our overreaction to everything ended up being overall.

Let's not forget Trump gave us a vaccine in record time as well - a vaccine that Joe Biden spread FUD about until after the election was over.

> Trump and the GOP's raised taxes on a substantial number of middle class and lower income people. Some of it was immediately and some of those increases were left as timebombs.

Most people saw lower taxes. I'm not going to claim Trump didn't have a fairly shit Congress during his administration, which is why it's great he's backing more anti-neocons for the upcoming midterms.

> But that statement on how "good" trump's admin suggests extremely rose colored glasses on what actually went on.

At the end of the day the only bad thing about the Trump admin was the mean tweets. Quality of life was far higher under him than recent past presidents, as well as our current president. We replaced him with a politically correct political veteran and we got all of... this. Simple as.

> And it's looking more and more that he was right all along, given the facts on the ground showing that the majority of deaths and serious illnesses were of people over 65 and obese;

What do you think you sound like to people who experience empathy and sympathy? Your statements are so focused on ignoring anything that may lay any responsibility at the feet of Trump, and it is uncomfortable to see this degree of denial defining your post history at a brief glance.

>"At the end of the day the only bad thing about the Trump admin was the mean tweets."

That's a new definition of "mean tweets", I didn't know it meant the failings of a twice impeached president whose wife wore a shirt saying "I don't care, do you?" when visiting children her husband's admin had caged, plus about 200 hundred other actions that were objectively abhorrent and un-american.

Appearing not to be able to criticize something one views positively despite plenty of severe failings makes endorsements seem unreliable. In this case, it's as if there was some edict that declared if trump did it, it was by definition good.

Sometimes I read comments that seem to be describing an alternate reality and are incompatible with my understanding of the world and it's fun to wonder if the posters of the comment view my description of reality the same way. It's not a matter of different opinions, but a matter being 100% impossible to coexists and both be correct. One view must be false and wrong, but whose?

What if my world is the bizarro world, and what testable facts am I basing my world view on that I can verify or test? And does the other poster ever consider these same thoughts about their views.

> Not defending Ivermectin, but what do people have against trying alternative therapeutics for COVID?

I don't think this is actually a widespread problem and I don't believe that the majority of the people who are "against" Ivermectin are somehow also against trying alternative therapeutics...

> CNN calling Ivermectin a horse dewormer

I'm actually curious because this is a very well coordinated and repeated talking point of the right: what does CNN calling Ivermectin a horse dewormer mean to you and why is that so significant?

Highlighting the deception from the media. It would be like calling Aspirin a dog pain reliever or the Hepatitis vaccine a dog vaccine which while true is meant to mislead and likely framed the people trying alternative therapeutics like Ivermectin as insane. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic which has been prescribed 3.7 billion times to people. Does it help with Covid? Current data seems to imply it does not.

Think of all the things that are Ivermectin-level questionable (cloth masks, 6ft, vaccinated don't spread, 95% effective at preventing illness, airborne, etc.) that have negatively impacted far more people than a few nuts who decided to put all their eggs in the Ivermectin basket.

If you're choosing to go after Joe Rogan and none of the proponents of the other points above, it seems fairly obvious that you're ideologically motivated in your attack.

It is airborne. Distance works. Vaccinated spread less instead of not at all. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting other recommendations to paint them a certain way.

The count of peer reviewed studies showing a benefit for the use of Ivermectin is now 62, and they can be found here:

https://ivmmeta.com/

The earlier the better of course, just like Tamiflu. The best results were attained when Ivermectin was used as a prophylactic.

A rebuttal of this site specifically: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

>Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence

I see that this is from November 2021 when there was 40 peer reviewed studies. Any update to this for the additional 22 peer reviewed studies?

This kind of thinking is what was so exhausting during the height of the pandemic. The "barrier for entry" was very low (a facebook meme, watching a podcast) but the burden of proof was immense (always more research that needed to be done on behalf of the people saying it probably didn't make sense).

That site gets mentioned in the article:

> As we’ve previously discussed, IVM Meta has some curious traits: it resolves to the same IP address as hcqmeta.com as well as c19legacy.com. HCQMeta uses the same kind of purported real time meta analysis to recommend for the use of hydroxychloroquine. C19 legacy has claimed to count the “unnecessary” deaths caused by doctors not using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to treat COVID-19. All of these sites refer physicians to the FLCCC for “treatment protocols” and also promote the World Council for Health, a faux public health consortium that’s made up solely of ivermectin advocacy groups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com