>Again, lived experience Describing your "lived experience" is fine. What's not fine is saying "I took ivermectin and felt a little better the next day, theref

>Again, lived experience Describing your "lived experience" is fine. What's not fine is saying "I took ivermectin and felt a little better the next day, therefore it definitely works". That's not science. In fact it's the opposite of science - it's motivated reasoning. You want ivermectin to be effective, so you're eager to accept the results of an uncontrolled, unblinded trial with an n = 1. Presumably that's also why you incorrectly describe this position as "backed by quite a lot of research". >since when is consensus something to strive after in science... Where does this one size fits all approach suddenly come from? Since always. Replication is the heart of science and Truth is indeed one size fits all. The more people study a thing and get similar results, the more confident we are about that thing. When most scientists agree, we call that the "scientific consensus". >Should we just move from one panic to the next, always being afraid, always looking for shelter? ...Hell no, we shouldn't, nor will we. Your response to an accusation of political motivation is... to double down on the politics. This rather reinforces the impression that your "scientific" claims are emotionally motivated.