> The position of medicine the whole way was "we can't prove ivermectin works" which is a valid position. That position also means - "we can't show ivermectin D

> The position of medicine the whole way was "we can't prove ivermectin works" which is a valid position. That position also means - "we can't show ivermectin DOESN'T work" either, which seems to be how people are running with it. OK, I have to agree. > The armchair science here is, "LOL ivermectin doesn't work against viruses". Absolutely true, but not how it is meant to work. It's meant to kill the consequent inflammation. It's easy to prove that. Just do a double blind randomized controlled trial published in a serious peer review journal. (Bonus points for preregistering) I read a lot of the ivermectin papers and preprints during peak ivermectin. IIRC neither of them had a double blind randomized control group. Do you know a paper where they show positive results with ivermectin? For covid-19 is perhaps too late, because after the vaccines and omicron everyone has some level of inmunity. But every 10 years there is a new regional coronavirus outbreak (like SARS1 or MERS), so it would be easy to test this in 5 years and it would be even more useful to confirm the effect and use it. But it must be confirmed, because otherwise we will just give a coctail of 10 miracle drugs, with 10 side effects an iteractiosn, that nobody is sure any of them work.