Covid-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,006 studies | Hacker News Reader

Covid-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,006 studies

c19early.com

4 pointsdukeofdoom5 comments

Random pooling of studies and putting it online like this is only going to encourage incorrect conclusions from a non-medical audience. Peer review, deeply understanding the reliability of protocols and what’s being compared isn’t something that can be easily pulled together. Meta-analysis is generally quite problematic in itself as it treats all studies as equally valid when that’s not the case, and there’s such random fraud out there in bio papers generally.

I understand the points you are making. Just don't agree with the implication that this information should be suppressed from the public.

Some of these treatments have very low risk profile. Ivermectin, Zinc, Vitamin D, are basically harmless to take. For example, if the 50+ studies are wrong that Ivermectin offers benefit, than at worse it does nothing, but a good chance based on the studies that it does offer a benefit.

The ivermectin stuff is absolutely not harmless. People are taking it instead of seeking medical attention or getting vaccinated, and that’s leading to both a prolongation of Covid and serious harms to individuals and the people around them (and the people around them and so on).

Than it's not ivermectin that is harmful. It's not seeking other medical attention. Which is logically a different thing. People self medicate because they are afraid of hospital costs. We don't blame the hospitals for people self medicating.

I don’t think it’s the hospital costs here. There’s a very strange ideological war going on about a virus with plenty of (dis)information online telling people that vaccines aren’t safe or otherwise bad, and the government is purposefully hiding these “miracle” drugs from people. There’s no shortage of finding advice for taking it prophylactically, for example. It’s HCQ 2.0.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com