> ....there hadn't been a randomized trial the drug
You don't see the contradiction here?
Edit: because it must be made 100% obvious, clinical trial results are the definition of evidence in medical science.
Doctors don't need permission for off-label use. It's just not a thing. We're in strange territory where doctors (professionals) have been demoted to nurses and they can't profess.
So I don't see how your argument contradicts the one you are replying which says there is no an overwhelming amount of evidence for ivermectin as a good treatment for COVID.
I am also not against being used by doctors who have the time for trying it and seeing if works. As we don't have a wide available treatment which we know for sure (with a high probability) that will cure COVID then maybe trying various scenarios could be a way to cure more people. But we have to take into consideration that giving one treatment means not giving other treatments so it is not an easy choice.
What the hell are you trying to say? That doctors treating patients observations can be dismissed because they don't talk the academic language or their results don't follow academic guidelines?
There is more to medicine than just clinical trials.
Many different things can count as evidence, even if they are not up to your academic standard. Doctors observations, population-level improvements, and studies of different cohorts.
There are levels of evidence, there is strong evidence based on reports of observable ivermectin benefit to profylaxis and some benefit in treatmeant of early infections.
I post this because I think it's the exception that proves the rule. Dr. Kyle-Sidell is a physician of great perception and insight. For every one of him, there are no doubt hundreds of "hydroxychloroquine doctors" who peddle bullshit without scientific basis to the harm of their patients. But the existence of doctors like him does boost the "maverick doctor bucking the institution" narrative.
[1]: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156
[2]: https://elemental.medium.com/how-one-covid-19-doctor-became-...
They banned an interview with the inventor of mRNA vaccine tech for saying it might be dangerous and needs more caution and study.
as of today, the mechanism that made HCQ work has been explained scientifically, right? What is your bias regarding this?
Now, that the mechanism is better understood, the doctor who recommended HCQ has now moved on to a better suggestion utilizating the same mechanism.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/01/27/does-lockdown-work-...
Under the heading "The damage inflicted by medical ideas"
Or you know nothing about medical science.
Observational trials, natural experiments, etc. all constitute evidence.
As well, there have been over 25 RCTs performed globally on Ivermectin to date.
The scientific method is a process. Evidence is just one part of the bigger picture.