"Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted."
Huh.
I thought this was relevant because of all the disinformation spread on social media, largely driven by the US FDA, during COVID was that Ivermectin was "horse dewormer" and derided anyone who chose to take it. Social media companies silenced anyone who disagreed - including distinguished doctors and experts.
The COVID response should be studied. We need to learn what NOT to do.
There are additional antiparasitics that also appear quite effective against COVID, some of which are being reformulated and brought to market.
There are also a host of treatments that were demonstrated to be quite effective against COVID via placebo controlled double blind trials that were ignored. If something is off patent, it will almost never be repurposed for another indication by a US pharmaceutical company.
Because previous links about Ivermectin and Covid were usually of the conspiratorial "tHinGs THEY doN'T wAnT yOu tO knOw" kind of nonsense.
Phrased differently: Ivermectin was picked up by the republican hype machine, pretty much at random. The medical community, seeing a lot of absolute hucksters pitch a whacky treatment, fought back with mockery and derision. As it turns out, the medical community was right.
All those things could be true and yet it means nothing in terms of whether Ivermectin was ineffective in treating COVID. This article proves that it was at worst on-par with general treatments and at worse better!
This is a misreading of even the abstract.
There was no ivermectin-only test. The study found ivermectin was, at best, ineffective as a complement to usual treatment. It doesn’t bother to characterise the downsides.
Finally, the OP already stated this post wasnt made to prove Ivermectin effective, but to show that its utility is not something dismissed out of hand by actual redearchers. Knowing nothing of the providence of this paper, I can't comment on whether it achueve that, but you're not moving the conversation in any kind of positive direction with your (plural) reactionary commentary, that's clearly hitting a nerve with the OP.
In large unvaccinated populations in, say, Brazil, where there is a siginificant worm problem in humans Ivermectin correlates well with COVID recovery - treating parasitics improves health and the ability to fight infections such as COVID.
However, as this report points out in the body, in large unvaccinated populations with no significant human worm infestation:
The ACTIV-6 and COVID-OUT placebo controlled trials of ivermectin at 400ug/kg for 3 days, and 600ug/kg for 6 days in largely vaccinated Americans, regardless of risk factors, found no clinically significant benefit in sustained recovery, hospital admissions or incidence of long COVID over 10 months