[rsclient]

Things to not do include: randomly picking medicine "X", have it hyped up by a weird republican hype machine, and then bitterly complain when the unwarranted, evidence-free hype is denounced for being unwarranted and evidence free.

Phrased differently: Ivermectin was picked up by the republican hype machine, pretty much at random. The medical community, seeing a lot of absolute hucksters pitch a whacky treatment, fought back with mockery and derision. As it turns out, the medical community was right.

[typeofhuman]

You sound like someone who clearly bought into the derision. All the comments you made were the same shallow arguments made against it without providing any meaningful point.

All those things could be true and yet it means nothing in terms of whether Ivermectin was ineffective in treating COVID. This article proves that it was at worst on-par with general treatments and at worse better!

[JumpCrisscross]

> article proves that it was at worst on-par with general treatments and at worse better

This is a misreading of even the abstract.

There was no ivermectin-only test. The study found ivermectin was, at best, ineffective as a complement to usual treatment. It doesn’t bother to characterise the downsides.

[SuperNinKenDo]

Going purely off memory, I don't believe the Ivermectin hype was purely random. It was thought early on that anti-parasitics may be helpful with CoViD, and Ivermectin was one that people explored. It showed some early promise, although I can't recall how rigorous this promise was. Eventually the hype machine got hold of it, but that was largely an engineered situation, where those who were interested in its early promise dug their heels in in the face of over-the-top derision and bad faith attacks like "horse dewormer" jibes, which then mixed with anxiety and conspiracy thinking on both sides and resulted in a total inability to discuss this stuff reasonably. You should also keep in mind that while all this derision is going on, there isn't actually a medicine around that shows promise. People talk about this stuff like there was a perfectly good cure going around, but that was never the case.

Finally, the OP already stated this post wasnt made to prove Ivermectin effective, but to show that its utility is not something dismissed out of hand by actual redearchers. Knowing nothing of the providence of this paper, I can't comment on whether it achueve that, but you're not moving the conversation in any kind of positive direction with your (plural) reactionary commentary, that's clearly hitting a nerve with the OP.