In a “pandemic”, it’s astounding that someone would try and discredit a drug already prescribed to people for decades. That at worst doesn’t work and at best is an effective, accessible treatment.
You’d have to be completely far gone to think this way. You’d have to be so brainwashed you can’t even think straight anymore.
You’d have to be a strong proponent of a vaccine that doesn’t do what “they” said it would do.
You’d have to have swallowed the horsepaste claims, regardless of the absurdity of them.
At a pure guess, you’d have to be an expert in moving the goalposts on your stance constantly, taking whichever stance suits the narrative at the time. Then excusing being wrong by citing paid for fact checks and claiming it to be so simply because you say so. Regardless of the fact that the actual data has never mirrored the forecasted data.
What a position to find yourself in, claiming the narrative as the basis for your “facts” despite being wrong at every turn.
Sheesh. Good luck with it.
It's not about discrediting it. It's about crediting it. When it comes to drug treatments you don't try to prove they don't work. You try to prove they work.
In the case of Ivermectin, it looked promising at first. Wagstaff's research showed promise. But her research was ex-vivo. Unfortunately ex-vivo and in-vitro aren't the same thing. And as Wagstaff pointed out herself, the dosage they used on Covid ex-vivo was more than a human could take without overdosing. Which is why more research was needed.
Another study came along that showed that Ivermectin was 90% effective against Covid. That was extremely promising. The study showed strong efficacy and a large sample size but... Turned out the study was a scam. A complete scam. Not only were they including people in the study who died long before the study started, but they also copy and pasted the patients hundred of times to get enough patients.
There were follow up studies but the sample sizes were so small that they couldn't give accurate data. Certain websites tried to collate the data and the websites even stated that it was epidemiologists and professors collating this data. But the data they collated is completely incompatible. Things like studies that used 20 different treatments, they counted it all as Ivermectin. Studies with completely different doses, different age categories, different health conditions, some double blind, many single blind, some not blind at all. Epidemiologists would have realised the immediate flaws in this but these websites refuse to provide any names of these so-called epidemiologists who are studying this stuff. So all we have is a bunch of incompatible data mashed together that means nothing.
Unfortunately we only have one large study on Ivermectin's efficacy against Covid and it found that Ivermectin had no effect.
This was raised with many Ivermectin proponents and their response was that it's a conspiracy to repress these drugs because big pharma wants to make money off other drugs. When it was pointed out that certain steroids have been shown to actually be effective, they are cheap available drugs with no trademark, and they are recommended by most health bodies, the Ivermectin advocates generally have no good answer.