If Ivermectin did work, it should show up, but it's not.
We're doing the Oxford trial really because of some shady information and results, that could possibly indicate that there's some theraputic value. Not because people have high hopes.
Here is Merk's statement:
" It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."
No, that's a thing you made up. The biggest problem with the "not good studies" of Ivermectin is that they've been underpowered or poorly controlled. The efficacy signal ranges from neutral to strongly positive, but the neutral signal could be due to under-powered studies. The positive results could be due to confounders. Neither are "negative indicators". That's silly. It's like saying that having weak efficacy data for a drug in vitro is a "negative indicator" prior to trials. Any efficacy data is a positive indicator. Some positive indicators are stronger than others.
The Merck quote is an opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, but it's not definitive.
The point is: we'll see. You don't need to predict the future. You can just wait for the data. Science is great that way. Everything else is politics.
That means it (probably) doesn't work.
They've given Ivermectin to a lot of people by now - if it was a solution, then it would stand out.
The Oxford trial will give us a better answer but I'm doubtful.