Dexamethasone is a cheap generic drug that has been proven to reduce covid-19 mortality and is being used worldwide including in the USA. The studies showing that it worked occurred before the EUA for the vaccines was issued. It is officially recommended on https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/imm...

I am not sure there is any actual proof that if ivermectin was shown to be, e.g., as effective as dexamethasone in reducing covid-19 mortality that it would stop the FDA from issuing a EUA for a vaccine. After all there is a big difference between a vaccine and a treatment anyway.

Ivermectin is however being promoted both as a prophylactic and a cure - https://ivmmeta.com/ (I have no idea about the reputation of this source). With big Pharmas also relying on the internet and social media to market their medicines, it has really become quite difficult to sift through bullshit and facts. Look at all the hype before with HCQ and Remdesivir last year ...

> Dexamethasone is a cheap generic drug that has been proven to reduce covid-19 mortality and is being used worldwide including in the USA. The studies showing that it worked occurred before the EUA for the vaccines was issued. It is officially recommended on [nih.gov]...

These are the same doctors that recommended the use of corticosteroids when everyone else was recommending against it.

These are the same doctors that recommended anti-coagulation treatment when everyone else was recommending against it.

These are the same doctors that identified airborne transmission of disease, the WHO is only starting to acknowledge it more than a year later.

They were ridiculed and criticised at the time for things that are now standard of care, and proved right time and time again.

They are the same doctors that are now recommending Ivermectin, and are now being censored (e.g. senate hearing removed from YouTube) and labelled as spreading medical misinformation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UTuT9TSRFQ&t=110s

This is the same technique the Motley Fool uses for their stock picking newsletters. Make lots of predictions; highlight the ones that wound up working.

All of FLCCC's work is public, and is done with no financial conflict of interest.

Dr. Pierre Kory also testified multiple times to the senate.

He published multiple studies on the matter.

If they get it right again and again it's because they follow the data, and have actual expertise in the matter.

That said, the WHO reputation is becoming more and more tarnished day by day. That's why more and more countries are starting to ignore the WHO, and with great results.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...

https://ivmstatus.com/

> Pro-vax people don't want an effective treatment to be found because it would invalidate the EUA.

This seems highly unlikely. Do you have a reputable source for this, because thus far I’ve only seen it as a conspiratorial anti-vax talking point.

Not all vaccines are created equal. Grouping people in "pro/anti-vax" carries a risk of creating a huge backlash against vaccination in general, if the relatively new and unproven mRNA vaccines end up less than ideal. For example the virus mutates to bypass the very specific protein the vaccine targets, or there are serious side effects, possibly on the reproductive path, a few years down the pipeline. Consider being more specific, for example 'pro/anti mRNA Covid vaccines'.

Thank you for pointing this out. I've been vaccinated for many things, they're vaccines that we've had years of experience administering to people. I'm not anti-vax in any way. I'm not even anti-mRNA vaccines. What I am is cautious of new and rushed medicine rolled out at large scale. The chances of it going wrong don't have to be big, I just don't believe the risk is worth taking without more conclusive research. I'd have the same worries if WHO recommended everyone start taking IVM weekly for the duration of the pandemic (if I'm not mistaken almost all research on IVM has focused on short-term usage).

Politicians talking about "getting everyone medicated (or vaccinated) as soon as possible" with anything that doesn't have long-term studies should be worrying to all. And the fact that some SV companies will not allow this discourse to happen should be even more so.

Why do you assume that „pro-vax people“ would not want to see an effective treatment? They are „pro-vax“ because it prevents harm to them and others. Effective treatment helps with that.

No, they're pro-vax because they observe that it's the socially and professionally high-status position to take.

People are pro-vax because they want this pandemic to end! The majority of Americans have taken it and it's safe, I have taken it and feel happy knowing I won't have to worry about getting long covid. Anti-vax people are only extending this pandemic and fail at the most basic reasoning. I mean I can understand people being hesitant when the vaccines were first authorized, but now that most Americans have taken it, the idea someone would still risk COVID over getting vaccinated is insane.

Wanna know what does have high risk for long term side effects? COVID.

I’ve heard this said, but is this accurate? Would love a source.