Your comment should be higher. I had no idea NIH was doing a 15k patient study before reading your comment! If I had, I would have mentioned it explicitly whe

Your comment should be higher. I had no idea NIH was doing a 15k patient study before reading your comment! If I had, I would have mentioned it explicitly when writing my above comment, and never lumped it in with bleach drinkers and flat earthers. I was wrong! thanks for the info! My (previous!) perception that it's bunk science was rooted in the story of its origin. https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/ivermectin-misinformation/ https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/ivermectin-misinforma... After reading that, I dug into the sources they cite. Then the sources they cited. The whole thing STINKS! (which I know is not an objective scientific measure) -- and the more familiar you are with academia, the more the narrative of "this stinks like something bad" rings true. You've got plagiarism, a non-peer reviewed preprint with OBVIOUS data fraud being cited and used as a large source in a meta-study, now-retracted papers, and _political motivations of the scientists_... they all reinforce the narrative of "this is BS". Check out the paper https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1003006/v1 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1003006/v1 "Ivermectin for COVID-19: addressing potential bias and medical fraud" Money quote: "These observations demonstrate that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on the inclusion of studies with a high risk of bias or potential medical fraud." ALL THAT BEING SAID, it's undoubtedly true (to me, anyway) that the NIH doesn't do a 15k person study unless there's some scientific merit! So there's gotta be something worth investigating, the process is working, and, today I learned, thanks to you, that it's "not as stupid as bleach". It just rose to prominence in a quite sketchy way.