It is inappropriate to critique a drug's studies, and to apply them to the overall drug itself. "because the studies are flawed, the drug is useless" A more m

It is inappropriate to critique a drug's studies, and to apply them to the overall drug itself. "because the studies are flawed, the drug is useless" A more measured response would be to look through the actual studies themselves, ferret out good from bad, and then to draw conclusions. Additionally, to ask questions about variables for which we know there are a ton of potential reasons why we'd see differences. Foremost being food/drug synergism, prescription requirements, genetic differences in drug MOA, and variation of actual covid type. It doesn't refute good studies on ivermectin e.g. "the golden hamster" https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202114122 https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202114122 Protocols like Zelenko/McCullough do not list any one drug as a "wonder drug" but instead have a large number of drugs and vitamins to treat all the specific indications in more classes of drugs