by journalists who lacked the training to completely decipher the material
That is (to two significant digits) always the case. In the AP case, it wasn't lack of training, as I explained.
Ivermectin is not an antiviral;
It is an antiviral -- if the data is correct. (Although what we call it matters not at all to whether it works.) The term "antiviral" isn't reserved only for compounds that attach to the viral particle itself. There are lots of mechanisms of action for antivirals: Enfuvirtide binds to gp41 on cell membrane (i.e., "gums up" the pore), aciclovir is processed into a compound that inhibits DNA polymerases in the cell (i.e., "gums up" the polymerase enzymes), etc.
It also need a very high dose
False according to the in vivo studies, as we discussed already.
There haven't been any double blind efforts for this drug.
Here are your techniques:
-- First, try to focus only on in vitro to exclusion of more-meaningful in vivo.
-- When that doesn't work, try to focus on the one no-effect study to exclusion of stronger in vivo studies.
-- When that doesn't work, focus on double blind (because you can't pick on randomized or controlled).
You are like the book If You Give a Cat a Cupcake.
If there's a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, I expect next will be "it's not big enough". Then, if there is a large one, I expect next will be "but there aren't 10 of them". And so on.
Since you have that much training in science, then you most certainly know that you need more work to show anything worthwhile here.
There is plenty worthwhile here. I completely disagree with you.
You go by the data you have, and then see -- compared to alternatives -- if that data is strong enough for you to use a thing.
In this case, Ivermectin has very low risk. The alternative currently is no treatment. There is some data indicating efficacy.
For me, that would be good enough to use it instead of no treatment. For you, you might use no treatment until the body of data is stronger. Up to you.
if all you're doing is forcing a selection event, you really aren't doing anything at all.
You seem to think "use Ivermectin" = "do not get vaccinated" (hence my earlier question to you). Those are not linked. You can use Ivermectin and do vaccinations.
The choice is give Ivermectin, or give nothing, which has about zero impact on selection dynamics.
