Ivermectin has been a hard sell, since most of the evidence showing its effectiveness consists of retrospective studies. I suspect that it’s highly effective at keeping people out of the hospital.
But the problem is political, not medical. For a lot of bad reasons, the Democrat party, the MSM, and the howler monkeys on Twitter have decided that There Must Be No Treatment, Only A Vaccine Will Do. (Well, until they think of their next demand.)
This strikes me as different, in that there’s a real, double-blind RCT, published in a JAMA property, and that this was used as an off-label treatment right in ground zero of Covid madness: the San Francisco Bay area.
With a competent media, or even a functioning opposition party, it would become difficult for Gavin Newsom, London Breed, or Eric Garcetti to continue their draconian war against small business in FR’s home state.
On balance, I think that would be a good thing.
Yeah, getting someone to do a legit trial on an off label use for a generic drug is a hard sell. Trials are expensive and mostly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, who can recover the cost if the drug is approved. For a drug like Ivermectin, you need a grant or a philanthropist to fund it, as there is no way to recover the cost. The study I linked to on Indomethacin (not Ivermectin) was funded by a philanthropist. Retrospective studies can be informative, or like the Retrospective HCQ study by Didier Raoult, they can be a joke. But they are not a replacement for a legit trial.