Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
The flawed studies showed promise. The better conducted and peer reviewed ones didn't. They can study all they want. Until they have actual results acceptable to a professional standard, there shouldn't be any fuss about them at all. Instead, the rubes are being sold another hydroxy.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ive...-prize-gambit/
However, as I’ve also discussed before (and will again in this post), there is no good evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, although there are low quality studies and, yes, meta-analyses. Worse still for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, the prior plausibility on the basis of basic science is low, because the in vitro cell culture studies that showed activity against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, required a much higher concentration of ivermectin than is achievable in the blood with standard (or even high) doses of the drug. So, as I have said repeatedly, it’s possible that ivermectin might have activity against COVID-19 in humans, but not very likely and, even if it does, it’s even less likely that it will be as efficacious as is being claimed. |
Great, I'm sure all the scientists working on further advancements will be happy to know that until they have a proven results no one should mention anything about their work and have zero hope that it will provide any useful benefit to treating Covid in any way.
Shame on VilleN for having a hopeful and optimistic outlook!
Hoping something becomes useful is not advocating people take it currently.