Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

[whell]

Old joke, but it highlights the issues surrounding gov't communications about COVID:

What do Biden, Harris, and Fauci all have in common? They all got vaccinated and bolstered, and they all had COVID.

5/15/2021: Fauci: Vaccinated people become ‘dead ends’ for the coronavirus.
7/21/2021: Biden: "You're not going to -- you're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."
7/21/2022: Fauci: Covid Will Keep Infecting People, Even the Vaccinated
CDC Right Now: Masks and respirators (i.e., specialized filtering masks such as “N95s”) can provide different levels of protection depending on the type of mask and how they are used. Loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection, layered finely woven products offer more protection, well-fitting disposable surgical masks and KN95s offer even more protection, and well-fitting NIOSH-approved respirators (including N95s) offer the highest level of protection.
April 1, 2020, Dr. Lisa Brosseau, University of Minnesota: Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don’t know at this point. We have observed an evolution in the messaging around cloth masks, from an initial understanding that they should not be seen as a replacement for physical distancing to more recent messaging that suggests cloth masks are equivalent to physical distancing. And while everyone appears to understand that this messaging suggests that a cloth mask is appropriate only for source control (ie, to protect others from infection), recent CDC and other guidance recommending their use by workers seems to imply that they offer some type of personal protection.

These are just a few examples of the type of misinformation/contradictory information that was legion when COVID was at its peak. And while politicians bleated constantly about "following the science", it was pretty clear that there was some selectivity about what science they chose to follow.

In any case, is it any wonder that pushback and questioning the "official narrative" on strategies to combat COVID were the result? That's when COVID became "political", and folks, like Dr. Brosseau for example, were challenged with political rather than scientific arguments.

Ivermectin is a petty good example of this, as well. I think the best we can say is that there's disagreement about the effectiveness of using the drug as a COVID treatment, which is supported by evidence on both sides of the argument. While articles posted here reference studies that find no effectiveness, there are other studies that suggest that Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms may be an effective treatment method. Examples:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/1...ing_the.4.aspx

These studies suggest that Ivermectin, combined with other therapeutic drugs, may be a cost-effective and safe way to help folks with mild to moderate COVID infections. Ivermectin when used on its own was not shown to be effective.