Ok, I'll grant the evidence is not yet in on ivermectin, but that hasn't stopped many of the same folks as were advocating HCQ from pushing it. The paper to be

Ok, I'll grant the evidence is not yet in on ivermectin, but that hasn't stopped many of the same folks as were advocating HCQ from pushing it. The paper to be published in Frontiers of Pharmacology was pulled because it didn't meet the scientific standards of the journal. Or perhaps because the editorial board has an anti-ivermectin agenda and censored the maverick scientists. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes... Another story on this I found fairly credible: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And here's an authoritative source (the NIH): https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... They conclude that the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin. My accusation of Lysenkoism is for the people prescribing it without solid evidence. Obviously if the drug shows promise it should be investigated in real trials, as was done for HCQ. I'm not going to edit my original post but I think it would have been stronger if I had stuck to HCQ and not gotten into the ivermectin controversy - there's definitely still a chance it will turn out to be useful.