(03-25-2024, 09:49 AM)Cleatwood Wrote:

(03-24-2024, 11:52 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: The first set of studies against Ivermectin were weak and poorly executed, but sometimes a placebo is huge, and I suspect that is why the early studies were all over the place. Eventually, I came to accept it probably didn't do anything, but it took WAY too long for the government to produce something that was executed properly, that included placebo effect.

It doesn't help that it was banned, mocked as an unsafe drug for horses, all while pharmaceutical companies started trying to make a new, patented version of it. You know, despite it being more harmless than asprin. Your early adoption that Ivermectin was an inadequate treatment is about the only thing you got correct early, and, even then, it probably did help people as a placebo.

I will admit this is one of the few things I was wrong about, as I suspected it was having a marginal impact on the virus in the early stages.

Such a long winded answer.

“I was wrong”. Much quicker and to the point.

You’re welcome!

I have a long track recorded of conceding when it's warranted. My concession was short and to the point.  

The first two paragraphs are why people have a problem with the way the CDC handled this issue, which is relevant to the discussion we are having. You might want to spend more time contextualizing than gloating about something you didn't even research. 

You're welcome!

---