prosper in the way T wrote:
a) The fact that people are spending so much time trying to disprove IVM shows you that it isn't being treated fairly. Remdesivir, which has far less evidence and at this point essentially has nothing but a disproven trial from 14 months ago, has very few people spilling ink about how poor the data are or that it should be removed from standard of care.
b) From what I remember, HCQ was talked about seriously at the beginning of the pandemic, but anyone legitimate had walked back support by the summer. It was a shot in the dark when we were all running around like chickens with our heads cut off, and it didn't work out unfortunately. IVM has been talked about seriously, and increasingly, for eight months, and it's been administered for COVID even further back in time. It's not the flavor of the month.
c) You're informed and educated, so I respect that. But you go after the character of the FLCCC and Kory (which is strange given there track record...again, given their previous success with standard of care protocols for COVID, shouldn't they be taken seriously?).
d) The M-A being done are high-powered and by some of the leaders in M-A, so I'm not sure where these claims keep coming from.
e) I linked an article that showed IVM being introduced before the peak in India. And then add on Peru, Mexico, the stark contrast between outcomes in African countries that use IVM prophylactically for river blindness. Then add observation by doctors, then add RCTs (that admittedly have some flaws). The amount of evidence, the proposed mechanism that fits the data, it all fits. We come back to the idea that in a pandemic doctors are being denied the ability to fill prescriptions for something they believe in. Even if I weren't 100% sold that it's an extremely effective treatment, I would have a massive problem with this. At the very least, I'm certainly not trying to actively campaign against it, and so it confuses me why you (among many others) are.
f) I'll link the FDA's page. It doesn't stipulate that the alternative needs to be a vaccine, but merely any effective treatment. An alternative that is deemed effective would remove the EUA.
g) To be clear, I'm pro-COVID vaccines. It's incredible that we have them at our disposal. I think both you and I want to seek the truth, don't have hidden agendas, and could even be on the same side. What's upsetting is when the bar is set so high for some things, but for others we're letting things slide (and understandably, it's a pandemic). We can advocate for vaccines and also other forms of treatment that are less profitable.
And I'm not trying to get to conspiracy theory land. I don't think Big Pharma and Fauci are sitting around a room thinking they sent 100,000s of people to their unnecessary deaths by shutting down alternatives just so they could make a buck. They made decisions they convinced themselves were for the good of the country. But this is what cognitive dissonance does to us when there is a profit motive. We start to rationalize decisions, see certain things as more dangerous than others (IVM) while other things worth the risk. And this contingent does influence public policy, the message, and they've reigned over the RCTs (I cited before a study illuminating how much bias that introduces.
I'm not fighting you, not trying to win a debate, but I do hope that I can convince you that the path we're pursuing with IVM is not in the best interest of the people and it's a wakeup call for the flaws in how the system is built. We're all playing a part in the outcome and the nuance is uncomfortable, but we have to accept it if we want positive outcomes.