The lousy studies aren't lousy because of the constraints of an insufficient budget. They're based on fraudulent/fabricated data. As far as the "real world tri

The lousy studies aren't lousy because of the constraints of an insufficient budget. They're based on fraudulent/fabricated data. As far as the "real world trial" of India, the peak of their delta wave roughly coinciding with an updated treatment guideline including ivermectin is hardly strong evidence. A) Correlation isn't causation. B) An updated treatment guideline doesn't indicate people were actually taking ivermectin. C) Using it as a treatment (i.e. after a case occurs) can't possibly be responsible for preventing cases. There was some buzz about it being offered as a prophylactic, but it never panned out. D) The peak of the wave coinciding with the update necessitates that the reproduction rate was dropping before the update Further, just look at Peru for a clear demonstration that it isn't the miracle some would like to believe it is.