Originally Posted by Sunvox

I don't want to take a ton of time to quote everyone and show the links, but the information is there for the taking for those that are truly interested in digging deeper.

1)The links above both from Merck and PubMed against Ivermectin suffer from several flaws.

First everything Merck says in their public statement is essentially false. Yes, they make money from Ivermectin, but no where close to the $7 billion in grants and $1.2 billion in government purchases for their investigative drug against COVID which the government already agreed to buy. Then there's the remark about a lack of pre-clinical evidence. That is a straight up lie. There is a great deal of research. They also remark on a lack of safety in the studies, but that is ludicrous as drugs are constantly repurposed without safety studies specific to the new treatment. Ivermectin has 4 decades plus of safety in humans. Merck does not appear to be trustworthy on this issue.

Second, the PubMed surveys of studies as well as the CDCs own analysis focus in on Clinical Trials that are mostly too small to be considered of value and furthermore they ALL, to the one, fail to examine combination therapies or therapies not involving people who have already been admitted to the hospital in serious condition. They utterly fail to examine large populations BEFORE infection.

The real world meta-analyses are not what the CDC likes to see as evidence, and that is the heart of the issue. Some doctors look at 100s of thousands of data taken from a meta-analysis and say "whoa" that's interesting, but the CDC and big pharma look for very specific Clinical Trial data. Real world results seem to indicate the CDC style of review is not optimum, but clearly people around the world, including Dr. Fauci, consider it the only acceptable means of making public recommendations.