Too bad it is not Ivermectin. Then I would know it is safe and effective.
Well, we know that IVM is safe, beyond any reasonable doubt. One of the safest drugs ever marketed.
And we’re pretty sure that it’s got some effectiveness, but even Tess Lawrie’s very solid meta-analysis has to rely on small, poorly funded studies. The error bars are bigger than anyone would like.
The trials that Merck is relying on for their new drug were designed to put it in the best possible light, which is fine. They recruited only people at high risk of complications, and within 5 days of onset of symptoms.
The big “Together” trial, which the media and our ruling junta rely on to show that IVM doesn’t work, did the opposite. No screening for high risk (ie, young healthy people will get fine on their own, so reducing possible efficacy data), and recruited out to 10 days post symptom (so a bunch of the study group were already out of the viral phase where IVM appears to have the most efficacy.)
No one had to conspire to get these results, they just let the existing system run on the rails that had already been laid.
What would a large, multi-center trial of IVM show, using the same design as the Molnupiravir show? We’ll never know, because no one will fund it, so it won’t be conducted.
I don’t blame the drug companies, but if this isn’t a core responsibility of a functioning government, I don’t know what is.
This is moot. For an EUA, there cannot be another viable approved drug available to treat the illness.
The reason why they stomped on Ivermectin so hard is because if Ivermectin were declared safe and effective against COVID, then none of the gene therapies would have been eligible for EUA.
I will point out that STILL there are no approved gene therapies for Covid 19. The existing Pfizer one is still on EUA. They have not made the switch to Comviranty or whatever the f*ck that poison is called.