[SeekAndFind]

RE: This means there is evidence that it is an effective Covid-19 treatment. Otherwise they don’t need to add “conclusive”.

What is their criteria to satisfy “conclusive”?

Remdesivir was approved with limited studies ( arguably much less than Ivermectin ), what was in those studies that made Remdesivir “conclusive”?

[ifinnegan]

“What is their criteria to satisfy “conclusive”?”

Good question. It works rhetorically as well as specifically.

Remdesivir was approved with limited studies ( arguably much less than Ivermectin ), what was in those studies that made Remdesivir “conclusive”?”

I don’t know. I do know there needs to be an IND with the FDA under a sponsor to get drug approval. It’s expensive to do the studies. Drug companies will pay for it with a new drug but no one is going to pay for a generic drug no one owns.

Any doctor can prescribe it as an approved drug.

[Myrddin]

Remdesivir turns out to be toxic to kidneys and very expensive. The Ivermectin "studies" were all performed against patients well down the slippery slope to the cemetery. When Ivermectin is used immediately upon observation of symptoms OR prophylactically ahead of infection, it works just fine. The "orange man bad" segment of the population continues to create "studies" designed to fail by applying treatment far too late. The same was done with the hydroxychloroquine/zinc/azithromycin protocol as soon as Trump mentioned it.