bbb2019

What evidence do you have for your assertion? Here is a meta-analyses showing 95% of 56 studies support ivermectin to prevent and treat covid: https://ivmmeta.com/.

If you are skeptical of financial motivated misinformation - are you concerned that the parent article - touting an unapproved FDA cure for covid - is placed on a website that advertises it sells sponsored content articles: https://www.postmediasolutions.com/solutions/content/

Or that the FDA promotes Remdesivir which make's Gilead billions of dollars, where the largest non-manufacturer sponsored trial by the WHO showed 0 benefit for saving lives?

Why is hacker news so excited about something that may take months to get to market, currently has less efficacy data than ivermectin, and will never have the safety profile of ivermectin?

The discovery came years ago: "Dr Wagstaff made a previous breakthrough finding on Ivermectin in 2012 when she identified the drug and its antiviral activity with Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute’s Professor David Jans, also an author on this paper. Professor Jans and his team have been researching Ivermectin for more than 10 years with different viruses." https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/n...

It's not a botnet. Am a long-time hacker news reader who thinks ivermectin is a better covid cure based on science than what Pfizer is rushing to produce (Pfizer's drug hasn't even finished Phase 1 FDA trials, Ivermectin is FDA approved with ~40 years safety data). I use multiple machines and didn't remember the password for this account so created a new one. My interest is not in spamming, but having a genuine discussion, why ivermectin isn't more widely used. There are multiple prominent doctors who believe it could end the covid pandemic. Why get so excited about new medications when generics are cheaper, and have better safety data.

Other treatments have good data like Fluvoxamine, here's a good article from Steve Kirsh: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-cure-for-COVID-19/answer/...

Am interested in a genuine discussion of facts. There's a lot of censorship around Ivermectin. Youtube specifically says it can delete videos mentioning ivermectin as a treatment for covid. Since when is science advanced through censorship instead of debate?

Thanks to the pandemic, Ivermectin, a widely-used anti-parasite that won the Nobel prize for virtually eliminating river blindness (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-releas...), a medicine on the the WHO essential medicine list, which has shown broad-spectrum antiviral properties in the lab (zika, dengue, west nile virus, covid and more https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7564151/), has also proven very effective against preventing and treating sars-cov-2 virus in vivo: https://ivmmeta.com/

The probability that ivermectin generated results as positive as the 52 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 85 trillion (p = 0.000000000000012).

A doctor who thought they had covid, took ivermectin and turned out their covid results were negative, but it still aided their recovery for the flu.

Dr. Pierre Kory gave an excellent discussion on the latest scientific findings of ivermectin as as a treatment for covid and general antiviral treatment on John Campbell's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19DPijOoVKE

Personally, I think a drug with 37 years safety data makes a more promising candidate than a novel therapeutic that is rushed to the market.