So, Luka's post got me thinking. Why is Ivermectin considered not effective in treating COVID 19? And I started wondering about any clinical trials that have (or have not) been conducted and what the outcomes are. I think the usual assumption, at least for me, is that if a trusted health authority says that something isn't effective in treating a disease, then clinical trials have been done and the results showed that the drug did not work, or that the side effects were bad enough to outweigh the benefits.
Evidently, there are 83 Ivermectin clinical trials that are in some stage of that process. i.e., completed (has results), recruiting, not yet recruiting, in progress... They are listed on this page:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov...
Using the filters on the left of this page, 11 are shown as having results.
There are over 100 clinical trials listed with the WHO:
https://trialsearch.who.int/
There's an awful lot of data to swim through on those sites. With apologies for posting the following page because it does have a bit of political stuff in it, this gives a basic rundown of the current status of the results of the completed studies as of the date of publishing (updated end of Oct., '21):
https://www.factcheck.org/2021...
The update at the bottom of this page has some very interesting information!
I think what's really good and available to see on the .gov site is how many and what type of studies are being done on the use of Ivermectin in various forms and combinations with other drugs. Like the pandemic, these studies (and so many others) are ongoing and evolving. In the process, ruling one thing out, for whatever reason, is progress in the process of elimination that eventually brings a solution.
My opinion is that I don't think the image of official science will be destroyed if Ivermectin in some form or combination is found to be effective in treating or preventing COVID-19. If we look at the percentages of people who got vaccinated since vaccination availability, I think we'll see various groups:
1. People who have full faith in science and so rushed to get vaccinated.
2. People who sort of trust science, but are wary and so waited a while and eventually got (or will get) vaccinated.
3. People who do not trust science or scientists and so either waited or decided not to get vaccinated.
4. Obstinate anti-vaxxers.
I think these groups represent the range of attitude toward science and scientists. I don't really see any of those groups changing, though individuals may move from one to another.
What I would really like to hear scientific spokespeople saying each time they speak about Ivermectin is that there is ongoing research into it's possible usefulness in the treatment of COVID-19, and that it's possible that in a derivative form, or in combinations with one or more other drugs, it may prove useful for treatment or prevention of COVID-19. And to stress that it's an ongoing process of research that started back in 2020, and that will eventually bring us to conclusions, one way or another. I think that would go a long way in reinforcing or repairing any lost of trust in the scientific, medical community.
My two cents.
