The article starts off with the claim that Ivermectine is a new drug.
From Wikipedia : Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981
From Wikipedia : Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981
Ivermectin isn't new. But using it to treat a coronavirus is.
No.
Ivermectin was identified as a broad antiviral a long time ago.
A large number of papers started to emerge on Ivermectin's applicability to a number of viral infections appeared at least as early as 2012. I'm sure there must be more earlier, it is just that my search skills are bad.
There were also patents around some of these applications.
Please, do your research before you make incorrect blanket statements.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Would it be wise to always assume good faith in articles? I don't think so.
Finally I expect better from a newspaper as the Guardian.
You are trying to drag morality into this where I just pointed out a flaw.
> In early 2021, my research team was analysing a new drug called ivermectin
Similar to me saying, my team started using a new framework called React
EDIT: missed my comparison
That doesn't work to my ear.