> The top part of the article is excellent, and literal worms as a confounding factor in trials of a deworming treatment makes a ton of sense. The blogger's id

> The top part of the article is excellent, and literal worms as a confounding factor in trials of a deworming treatment makes a ton of sense. The blogger's idea is supported by 9 data points, 7 or 8 that kind of match the hypothesis when plotted on an at least somewhat arbitrary axis. Not a statistics expert, but pretty sure you could find many things that correlate that well. It's a tempting idea that a 'horse dewormer' works by deworming because people believed to be idiots turn out to be idiots, faith in institutions is unshaken, and everything makes sense. But ivermectin has been and is being investigated for efficacy against many single-strand RNA viruses so 'deworming' is only one possible explanation and must be supported by actual evidence.