4 ms·

You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as m

You sound more like a fan of the mainstream narrative than science. The studies on ivermectin are ongoing. By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. No evidence doesn't guarantee something isn't true. In fact, if you had read the article you would have learned that they haven't ruled out ivermectin and are still researching it along with other treatments. If you want to take ivermectin they want you to be part of the study. This is how science works. "The NIH is studying the drug in a large trial comparing a half-dozen established drugs to see if they have some effect against COVID-19. Experts say those interested in ivermectin should ask about enrolling in such studies."

kergonath 5y ago
> By just ignorantly saying "there is no evidence" as meaning that it's been proven to be ineffective, you show how scientifically illiterate you are. There is less than no evidence, and yet there are several studies already. It’s chloroquine all over again. The quacks are those who jump at any random drug, justifying the lack of evidence as a reason for their support, while decrying vaccines for a supposed lack of evidence. A study being done is not a reason to support prescribing a drug.
sixstringninja 5y ago
Agreed. I have a friend who is a dr who already says a “hard no” on ivermectin even after I’ve stated that I’m ok being wrong about the issue and I want further investigation. I just don’t want this drug to be politicized but here we are. Full stop, you can’t talk about the drug, etc. I’m just trying to keep an open mind here