Like the article says: science is slow, pandemics are fast.
[1] https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminE-HealthProfessiona... [2] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... [3] https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf
So just like the time required to create the COVID vaccines that are "safe" and "effective"?
Snark aside, I'm exhausted hearing how hard it is to do some things, but other's are "science" and don't warrant further exploration.
In the eyes of the world governments, the debate is already over. There isn't clear evidence that it works. There's also a straightforward answer already. Whether you believe this is because they're subservient to Big Pharma or because they actually are looking at the science, they're certainly acting as if they've seen all the data they need to see.
In the eyes of the ivermectin proponents, they just need to do the right study. The debate won't be over until it shows the answer they're looking for.
Nobody is saying, "If I see this evidence, I'll believe it; if I see that evidence, I'll believe the opposite." This is basic grade-school-simplified-scientific-method science. You're supposed to define a hypothesis, design an experiment, and then stick to what the experiment shows. But here, some have already finished their experiment, and others just want to keep running experiments.
(And no, it's not a cheap preventive treatment. Ivermectin tablets cost a couple of dollars per tablet. That adds up to be far more expensive than the vaccines. It would be a cheap reactive treatment, but even assuming it works, if you're not using it as a preventive treatment, you're letting people get awfully sick and spread the disease around, it's just that they can get out of the hospital reliably. That's not a solution.)
If the odds were higher, the government could grant monopoly rights to a willing pharma company. In fact they did this with another very old treatment for gout – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine One company was granted monopoly, they did studies, confirmed that cochicine is effective, gathered more information about safety. It also lead to significant price increase (2000%).
I don't think any serious pharma company would be willing to accept such an offer for ivermectine.
Furthermore, people who are not convinced, will find a reason to doubt the new study as well.
[1] https://www.togethertrial.com/
[2] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04920942
There are already a number of high quality studies, and they are interpreted through people's own lens of preconception. The article points out a real problem in medical literature, but the public perception problem is much worse. Medical literature is at least trying to reach a truthful consensus.
The article does not give me any hope that medical literature is "trying" anything.
So there are plenty of problems, but of an entirely different character from the outright propaganda by non-scientists practicing ideological confirmation bias.