[gardnr]

I wonder how Dr Walter would describe the difference between "animal and human cells". The statement makes it sound like he's a Young Earth creationist.

One criticism[1] of the above linked study, the one that states Ivermectin acts as a 3CL protease inhibitor, is that it uses an "in silico approach" (computer simulation).

The way that we know PF-07321332 is a 3CL protease inhibitor is via an "in silico approach".

It's important to note that the dosage of Ivermectin required to act as a protease inhibitor would be way above the accepted levels for human use.

Even still, this "animal/horse drug" rhetoric along with asymmetric acceptance of evidence is what lead me to want to understand more about the ivermectin controversy. It smells more like propaganda than science. Then, the sheer number of studies showing positive outcomes made it hard for me to accept that all the science was bad. Astral Codex did a great job of explaining why the studies were flawed.

[1]: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-merck-pfizer-covi...

[unanswered]

Sure, and I almost edited my original comment when I made it to clarify that as far as we know, Ivermectin isn't a very good protease inhibitor. That's what the fact-check should have said. Instead, we were fed a pile of garbage because the garbage sounds more comforting to those who emotionally need Ivermectin to be horse medicine.

But I don't think that Scott has done more than offer a suggestion as to how the studies might be flawed; no matter how compelling the suggestion, it isn't evidence. Otherwise you're just consuming more nicely-dressed garbage, which is even more dangerous because you get to feel superior to those consuming the normal garbage.

What would constitute good evidence for the worms theory is, you know, a study actually studying that. Otherwise the theory is just assuming that a lot of the people benefited by Ivermectin do have worms, when that hasn't even been measured.

[gardnr]

The worm theory was amusing but that's not what changed my mind. For me, it was "The Studies" section where Scott goes over each study and discussed why they were deemed to be low quality or suspect.

[unanswered]

But... he didn't? Most of the studies he found no fault with. This seems to be a striking example of alternate facts you have picked up from the same article...