[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...