I wonder how Dr Walter would describe the difference between "animal and human cells". The statement makes it sound like he's a Young Earth creationist.

One criticism[1] of the above linked study, the one that states Ivermectin acts as a 3CL protease inhibitor, is that it uses an "in silico approach" (computer simulation).

The way that we know PF-07321332 is a 3CL protease inhibitor is via an "in silico approach".

It's important to note that the dosage of Ivermectin required to act as a protease inhibitor would be way above the accepted levels for human use.

Even still, this "animal/horse drug" rhetoric along with asymmetric acceptance of evidence is what lead me to want to understand more about the ivermectin controversy. It smells more like propaganda than science. Then, the sheer number of studies showing positive outcomes made it hard for me to accept that all the science was bad. Astral Codex did a great job of explaining why the studies were flawed.

[1]: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-merck-pfizer-covi...