" Ivermectin is currently not approved in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19," [1]
There are no good studies demonstrating the validity of Ivermectin, and the Oxford study is not complete and there's no indication results are positive.
Why are people so crazy about this drug?
It doesn't look like it works, though there is some possibility it will, but we'll only know when the Oxford trial is complete. Given the knowledge we have today, it just isn't a therapy for COVID.
There's a big trial ongoing, and the rest of the evidence is mixed. You can't say that "it doesn't look like it works"...we just don't know.
I personally put the prior probability of any intervention working for any illness at a very low number, but too many people are eager to dismiss things -- or accept them -- before they've been tested.
It's disturbing, and is mostly about politics. Many of the same people who dismiss Ivermectin for low-quality evidence eagerly seize upon any dubious shred of evidence for their favored interventions, and enact widespread mandates.
That means it (probably) doesn't work.
They've given Ivermectin to a lot of people by now - if it was a solution, then it would stand out.
The Oxford trial will give us a better answer but I'm doubtful.
If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not.
We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes.
Here is Merk's statement:
" It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."
No, that's a thing you made up. The biggest problem with the "not good studies" of Ivermectin is that they've been underpowered or poorly controlled. The efficacy signal ranges from neutral to strongly positive, but the neutral signal could be due to under-powered studies. The positive results could be due to confounders. Neither are "negative indicators". That's silly. It's like saying that having weak efficacy data for a drug in vitro is a "negative indicator" prior to trials. Any efficacy data is a positive indicator. Some positive indicators are stronger than others.
The Merck quote is an opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, but it's not definitive.
The point is: we'll see. You don't need to predict the future. You can just wait for the data. Science is great that way. Everything else is politics.
It looks to be a combination of right wing political commentators and a fringe anti-vax group.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-iv... https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/14310404563648102...
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
You practically invent your own enemies to knock down.
Experts say one thing.
Another group says a different thing.
When people say that the other group is not acting rationally, they respond with your post and claim that the experts are being mean.
Ivermectin is only being treated like a tribalistic team sport by the people who aren't experts.