[mikedilger]

Thanks for that correction. However they are functioning like journalists here. Notice all of the judgemental, ideological, political one-sided narrative. They fail to apply Hanlon's razor as they claim at the end "[they] know exactly what they are doing." It's paranoid talk. The case for/against ivermectin is very complex and this short diatribe is not helping anyone.

They also clearly are Americans who seem to think this is an American issue. Ivermectin use for COVID-19 is worldwide and isn't aconsequence of "rejecting American Institutions" but was a desperate attempt by caregivers to keep their patients alive. They think they are seeing a pattern - that it works. But humans are easily fooled and see patterns everywhere, so we need better data. In the meantime, those doctors will continue to use ivermectin, and an upcoming Oxford study will get us some better data.

Might I also add that the evidence in support of Remdesivir is much much weaker than the evidence in support of Ivermectin, that the WHO recommends against Remdesivir, and yet in America it's widely used and nobody is bitching about it. Hypocrisy.

[bb88]

No, I disagree. They're functioning like doctors. There is not, nor should be, a political side to science. Facts are facts, and numbers are numbers. And false cures give false hope to the afflicted -- it's no different than snake oil.

In fact their argument is that it's too early to know so going in front of congress and the media is irresponsible.

Hydroxychloroquine, too, showed promise in the early studies. When it became clear it wasn't efficacious, the media and politicians had already grabbed hold informing millions of americans that it was a cure when it in fact was not.

The EUA for remedesivir and EUA revocation of hydroxychloroquine are here. They seem to be self explanatory about why the FDA took the action they did.

https://www.fda.gov/media/137564/download https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download

[OrvalWintermute]

> Hydroxychloroquine, too, showed promise in the early studies. When it became clear it wasn't efficacious, the media and politicians had already grabbed hold informing millions of americans that it was a cure when it in fact was not.

I think you are mischaracterizing what the research has actually shown.

Similar to HIV/AIDS, the most current clinical research on the field shows to treat it with a cocktail of drugs

E.g.

Antivirals

Immunomodulators

anti-senescent cells

Anticoagulants

ACE2 inhibitors

And a long list of other ones that singularly have some efficacy, but as a large cocktail together dramatically improve patient outcomes.

[bb88]

> I think you are mischaracterizing what the research has actually shown.

Oh no. Look at the early data on HCQ on https://c19early.com/. Results were showing around 66-70% reduction in death with a high confidence interval.

Then look at both the revocation of the EUA from the FDA on HCQ, and look at the NIH study.

FDA: https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download NIH: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroq...

[OrvalWintermute]

Standard of Care is moving towards a multi-drug cocktail NOT a singular drug.

One of those drugs happens to be one mentioned in TFA.

We should not remove whole classes of drugs such as antivirals from the treatment regimen just because some political figure mentioned A, B or C.

Leave the treatment plan for which antiviral with different effects (of which there are many) to the ID Doc and Internists.

[bb88]

If you believe in evidence based medicine, which apparently you do not, there is no evidence.

Studies which use HCQ are fine -- because they're providing evidence.

What we do have evidence for are vaccinations.

[OrvalWintermute]

We have evidence for vaccinations, and we have evidence for COVID treatment protocols.

Are you disputing that fact?