Medical experts and the FDA didn't claim that Ivermectin and HCL didn't work. They stated CORRECTLY that there was insufficient evidence to recommend them as safe and effective COVID therapies.Soloist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 9:30 pmInteresting so what you’re saying is that we have to actually do large scale studies to determine if it works or does not work. Yet it was decried as not working well before the studies were even started. I’m not saying that they work on Covid, but on a cellular level both do. The doctors that were decrying these treatments were not decrying based on large scale studies.Ken wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 8:41 pm We don't have to remember anything. We can look at the actual evidence. Research into the use of both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID has continued to this day. And we are finally getting large-scale fully randomized double-blind studies on the efficacy of both. Guess what? The doubters were actually correct and those promoting those remedies were actually the ones lying. These are the two largest double-blind studies on both remedies and both have been published in the past year or so. They found ZERO benefit from Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine relative to a placebo. ZERO.
So doctors and hospitals were absolutely correct not to prescribe either therapy. Just like they were correct not to recommend patients drink bleach either.
You have to actually do double-blind studies to determine the efficacy of a therapy because the vast majority of people who catch COVID get better anyway. So anecdotal evidence or small-scale non-randomized studies are useless, or even less than useless because they imply a benefit that is not there.
Just like the doctors saying we should do it, neither actually had factual evidence yet both sides insisted they were right. I think that you should be a little less hasty about saying the early statements and stances these places took were based on science. The science wasn’t done yet. In essence both sides were making a hypothesis. Perhaps now we see the fruit of that. And perhaps both sides continue to argue.
The tricky thing with diseases like COVID is that the vast majority of people don't die, they get better regardless of whatever treatment they get. During the first year of the epidemic before vaccines, a quick bit of googling tells me that COVID had a mortality rate of about 1.7%. So out of 1,000 people who catch COVID, 17 of them will die and 983 will recover. And most of those 17 who die will be elderly and/or with pre-existing conditions of some sort.
So if you catch COVID I can tell you to do anything at all. I can tell you to to gargle 2 shots of whisky nightly, touch your nose, click your heels three times and say "there's no place like home" or sleep with a garland of garlic around your neck and guess what? There is a 98.3% chance it will work and you will get better. And if you aren't already sick or elderly the chances of any of those therapies working is much better than 98.3%. They will be near 100% effective. And sure, you can go on Twitter or YouTube and shout about your new garlic cure for COVID. But that doesn't actually mean it works. Even though you might have a ton of anecdotal evidence of people using your garlic cure and then recovering from COVID.
To actually test any of your folk remedies you need to do a large scale double-blind study to see if your remedy does better than the placebo. Because the death rate was so low you need to do a large scale double-blind study for it to have any statistical relevance. And when those were finally done with Ivermectin and HCL it was found that both were absolutely no better than doing nothing. In other words, they had no effect.
As for what the authorities actually said about Ivermectin back during the pandemic? Let's go straight to the horse's mouth so to speak. This is what the FDA actually said about Ivermectin back in 2021 (highlighting mine). Which was entirely accurate back then and remains accurate today: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19
