Higher ivermectin dose, longer duration still futile for Covid
cidrap.umn.edu
cidrap.umn.edu
"Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19."
My guess is this study will likely not convince certain doctors to stop prescribing ivermectin for unvaccinated patients with mild symptoms.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
Even with the politics of it, I'm still glad we're sciencing the hypothesis.
We have limited resources. We have to be smart about what to research. If the hypothesis is widely discredited, we should not be sciencing it, because that means something else is not being scienced.
Should we also be glad if an astronomy department starts seriously researching the geocentric model instead of exoplanets?
That the reasok why we are are with this debate is probably the very hamfisted approach that was taken early on with banning even medical doctors from mentioning it.
There has been a some times over the years were some seemingly miracle cure was announced for something but as new facts came in, everyone moved on.
This could easily have been the case here too. But by banning talk about a very safe over-the-counter medication social media reinforced the feeling that someone was hiding something and here we are f today.
Certain political groups cling on to seemingly random things, whether there's a research ban or not. For instance, I just recently learned that the 15 minute city concept is now officially part of the conspiracy theory canon.
I had commented at the earlier link pointing out that their study might be a little off unless they're using a new water soluble very short half life formulation of ivermectin.
Also ivermectin is not used as an antimalarial in standard dosages, rather it controls the vectors that spread the disease. Either the reporter made the mistake or the science people who churned it out ... need help.