> The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better.
First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US.
> So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quality RCTs, who funds them and why? This to me is a clear cut indicator that we have very maligned incentives for health science. How can we be this far into a global pandemic, with all of this funding and not have multiple high quality RCTs on this drug? It's sad to say the least. Even if Ivermectin ends up being fairly weak or completely ineffective - surely there's something to learn here...
The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly.
First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US.
> So you have to ask yourself - when do we get high quality RCTs, who funds them and why? This to me is a clear cut indicator that we have very maligned incentives for health science. How can we be this far into a global pandemic, with all of this funding and not have multiple high quality RCTs on this drug? It's sad to say the least. Even if Ivermectin ends up being fairly weak or completely ineffective - surely there's something to learn here...
The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly.