This is so interesting to me.

Perhaps what is most interesting is that people seem to have an opinion already and are not willing to change that opinion, and worse that the opinions seem to coincide with political leanings (at least in Canada and the US -- no idea about the rest of the world.)

The anti-ivermectin side seems to say: we have vaccines. We don't know if this is good enough until large-scale randomize controlled trials are done -- so don't go trying it. There aren't any peer-reviewed, published studies that show it has a positive effect, and, two high profile studies were pulled because they were done poorly.

The pro-ivermectin side says: the drug is cheap -- which means we can easily ramp up production and get it to everyone who needs it, and also means there's no one standing to make a profit to pay for large-scale randomized controlled trials. There are many studies showing a positive effect, some peer reviewed, and others "languishing on pre-print servers are no journals will print them." If you meta-analyze the studies, ignoring the ones that have been retracted, the results are clearly positive.

It is so frustrating. https://c19ivermectin.com says that are 113 studies of using 73 peer reviewed studies, and they all tend to show good results. That sounds convincing to me, but not anti-ivermectin people. Someone told me he read some of the studies and they were garbage. I really should try reading some of them, but it isn't my field, and even if I can understand what they did, I can't gauge the quality.

It seems to come down to "which experts do you trust?"

----

Last night, I was skimming through a book my wife got out of the library on diets called "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II. I flipped at random to a chapter called "Science: The Dark Side", and will share a few excerpts here.

"Scams, tricks ... are as old as history itself... Very few experiences are as personal and powerful as those of people who have lost their health prematurely. Understandably, they are willing to believe and try just about anything that might help. They are a highly vulnerable group of consumers.

"In the mid-1970s, along came a prime example of a health scam, at least according to the medical establishments. It concerned an alternative cancer treatment called Laetrile. [A woman who was sick was told by all her friends about this treatment, which was not available in the states.] 'There are at least a dozen people in this area who were told they were going to be dead from cancel who used Laetrile and are now out playing tennis.'

[The lady went to Mexico for the treatment -- they treated 20 000 Americans each year -- and it didn't work.]

"[One of the authors joined a committee on health and nutrition.] [I]n the spring of 1980, I had discovered that, of the eighteen members on that committee, I was the only individual who did not have ties to the commercial world of food and drug companies and their coalitions.

"The committee was a stacked deck; its members were entrenched in the status quo"

"[In their second meeting, everyone was passed a copy of an intended press release, which] listed examples of the kind of nutrition frauds that our committee intended to expose.

"As I scanned the list of so-called frauds, I was stunned to see the 1977 McGovern dietary goals on the list. [A senator McGovern had convened experts on health and nutrition and they recommended decreased consumption of fatty animal foods and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables because of their effect on heart disease.]

[Because of his dissent, they didn't release this message at this time, but he could tell 'he was the chicken who had wandered into the foxes den'].

[The author talks about good science that was smeared by this group]

"The majority of scientists are honourable, intelligent and dedicated to the search for the common good rather than personal gain. However, there are a few scientists who are willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder. They may not be many in number, but their influence can be vast. They can corrupt the good name of institutions of which they are a part and, most importantly, they can create vast confusion among the public, which often can not tell who is who. You might turn on the TV one day to see an expert praising McDonald's hamburgers, and then read a magazine the same day that you should eat less high-fat red meat to protect yourself against cancer. Who is to be believed?

"Institutions are also part of the dark side of science. Committees like the Public Nutrition Information Committee and the American Council on Science and Health generate lopsided panels and committees and institutions that are far more interested in promoting their point of view than debating scientific research with an open mind. If a Public Nutrition Information Committee report say that low-fat diets are fraudulent scams, and a National Academy of Sciences report says the opposite, which one is right?"

-----

Anyways, to sum up, it is not clear to me who is who in this fight. I can see a case that the people promoting ivermectin are fraudsters or doing bad science, and our medical organizations are trying to save us, but it is also not hard to see that the people writing the papers showing ivermectin is effective are trying hard to save us, and the medical organizations don't like it as it disagrees with their predisposed view of the world. Who is to be believed, indeed?