[texasbigdata]

I personally formed a three person reading group with 2 friends (one chemistry PhD and one retired tech CEO that's a longevity genius) and we read a stack of these papers end to end and even attempted to fumble through a recalcution of a meta-analysis following the retraction of one paper.

Before personally taking the medicine we spent 1.5 weeks reading everything we could find. Straight from Google Scholar or pubmed. Respectfully, I disagree with you. But that's based on my own reading and I'm not an MD or medical professional.

I would say, a) it is very common in certain countries, and like hey, they awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine partially for it in 2015, but b) we have to agree to disagree here, were just too far apart on tone. But respect your point of view.

[mikeyouse]

Ivermectin is a fine anti-parasite, and plausibly has a mechanism of action that could benefit specific patients infected with specific viruses. Unfortunately for all of us, it has no measurable benefit on Covid. As shown again and again.

We have hundreds of millions of active infections, it's dead-simple to do research studies to determine whether something prevents hospitalization, or shortens length-of-stay, etc etc. You don't have to spend weeks of your life reading primary materials -- here's the EUA for Paxlovid (Section 14):

https://www.fda.gov/media/155050/download

A pre-registered RCT, with specific endpoints and statistically significant evidence that it lowers viral load, and prevents hospitalization and death. It only took 4 months from study enrollment -> results to see how effective it was. Paxlovid works! Hurray! IVM doesn't. Rats.

Good faith individuals would move on and investigate something else that could help humanity but admitting you were wrong doesn't get you invited onto Joe Rogan so here we are, with people still referencing their nonsense.