| | | I have skimmed two of the reports you've posted about ivermectin. Both of them liberally use the words/phrases "may", "could", "potentially" and "further trials are needed". This brief excerpt stands for them all:
Since significant effectiveness of ivermectin is seen in the early stages of infection in experimental studies, it is proposed that ivermectin administration may be effective in the early stages or prevention. Of course, confirmation of this statement requires human studies and clinical trials.Ivermectin, owing to its antiviral activity, may play a pivotal role in several essential biological processes, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of different types of viruses including COVID-19. Clinical trials are necessary to appraise the effects of ivermectin on COVID-19 in clinical setting and this warrants additional investigation for probable benefits in humans in the current and future pandemics. On April 10, 2020, FDA issued a statement concerning self-administration of ivermectin against COVID-19 [ 43] referring to recently published in vitro study on this subject [ 15]. FDA highlighted that this type of in vitro study is usually used in the early stages of drug development. Moreover, further trials are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for human use against COVID-19 to discover preventive or therapeutic window [ 43].
As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally.
nature.com
Not to mention the fact that they were written in 2020. What is your point? You don't seem to be able to find act RCTs on it that prove its effectiveness.
But of course, Trump and node know, so why would anyone need anything else? |
|
