So this happened.
Ignoring for now the “who decides what truth is” stuff, I just want to settle the argument.
This looks like a decent quality study on ivormectin vs covid.
Firstly, they used an anti-parasite with an anti-bacterial to treat a viral infection. If they threw in a fungicide too, we’d know it’s a joke.
But this study is four months old. There must be some commentary on it from other experts, follow up studies, etc. Where are they? What’s the answer?
Flawed or unreproducible study, or clue in the search for novel anti-viral treatments?
The first link won’t open for me. Can you post it without markdown syntax?
As for the main argument, there is nothing in theory that stops a drug from having multiple beneficial effects. Covid treatment is still mostly hit and trial conducted by qualified medical professionals, and as hit and trial is generally done, the “experiments” will be done with whatever the experts have access to.
Sure, I understand that. But this is a very high quality study with very promising results. Why no stampede of follow-up research and rush to get the combination approved?
You’re right there’s something wrong with the link. Here is the correct one
This is why big pharma is generally blamed for suppressing the research that harms their bottom line. They control funding of much of research publication anyway.
EDIT: Btw, Ivermectin is prescribed to many covid patients here in India.
