No, he's not. Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs on the planet. As evidence was emerging that in some studies it MIGHT work, people should have been taking it, just like masks. Because why not? Risks are low, and it might work.

If you are arguing anything else than you aren't actually being consistent in your reasoning.

It is, but it isn't going to work against COVID, period. That people take it is their problem, the only study that showed actual anti-viral effects was at several times the recommended dose for people and that was in vitro.

Risks are also low for eating 50 Kg of bananas, it might cure COVID, so why not try it? This sort of reasoning is complete nonsense when it comes to picking your medications.

The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard. Anything less simply won't do. 'Might work' isn't a reason for (self) prescription.

As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work. Like everything else in terms of countermeasures, absolutely nothing will be a 100% sure filter so we layer multiple filters on top of each other to improve the degree of protection we achieve, aka the cheese model.

> It is, but it isn't going to work against COVID, period.

It's interesting how you say that so definitively, when there are multiple, large RCTs ongoing, evaluating the question.

Perhaps you're substituting your opinions for science?

> The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard.

> As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work.

Funny how "the standard" shifts from topic to topic, sentence to sentence. When it's an intervention you support, the presumption is positive, even if the collective evidence of effect is...mixed, at best.

if it works it isn't going to work to the degree that has been claimed so far because an effect that big would have been easily observed.

So these studies are in the realm of 'we can't rule it out 100% let's check one more time'. Since this is a forum and not a scientific paper I can claim with some confidence that it isn't going to work, if you want to take the opposite side of that bet be my guest.

Masks work, whether it is 10% or 15% effective is what's at stake there, not whether they work or not. If ivermectin was 10% effective it would have been established long ago.

You are guilty of exactly those things that you accuse me of.

jacquesm, I have no dog in this fight but it's your attitude that comes across weird here. Just a friendly FYI.

timr took the effort to correct you point-for-point. You come back with "Fine! I'll take my ball and go home then!"

I'm not sure what made you dig in your heels like that (personal reasons?), but to good-faith bystanders your arguments appear petty and unreasonable.

No, I'm just done with the bullshit. I even qualified my statement to ensure that it was clear that I just used the 11% as a means to show why no matter what the difference is it can make the balance shift from growing to shrinking.