site banner
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Without having read all that (the Scott article was already "more than you wanted to know" and this is definitely veering into "waay more than I ever could possibly have wanted to know"), this seems to be a useful article since it mostly starts from Scotts article and gives an "overview" (albeit a long one) as to why the author thinks he was wrong.

This seems generally good. And I can imagine that Scott was too harsh in excluding some not so great studies.

But then, directionally my takeaway from Scotts article (at the time it was written) was that Ivermectin actually had a small chance of actually being mildly useful and that it might actually have been a good investment of money and time to run some more well-done studies (though there were already a lot of badly run ones to muddy the water). Mainstream news on that topic on the other hand was that Ivermectin was nothing but "horse dewormer" that only idiots would take against Covid.

So I think that railing against Scott is kinda barking up the wrong tree (especially with the slightly combative tone of the article [0]). But then, we maybe just expect a lot more from Scott (and his long article) than he provided. In any case, it seems that nowadays this matters less as a practical concern (Paxlovid is kinda good) and it boils down more to a debate about epistemic practices.

[0] I only glanced at it ... as I said it's kinda long and my interest in the topic is not huge. But the tone strikes me as somewhat accusatory of someone who IMHO did a reasonable (if not perfect) job. But then, I also really like Scott as an author, so I might be biased.

If we have another pandemic it matters whether or not we spend resources on studies for generics like Ivermectin and Ivermectin in particular. With the current state of affairs, we likely won't run high-quality studies for Ivermectin to be used on a new virus.

I've read a fair bit of this but not all. My main takeaway from what I have read is that there is a decent chance that Ivermectin has a small positive effect but there isn't anything near enough quality to say that it has a pandemic-ending effect. Since I though that was the claim of the Ivermectin people I get a bit confused about why were are still spending so much time talking about it.