850
We're so back
(thelemmy.club)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
And so, five years after we conclusively know ivermectin doesn't help with anything but parasites, you still find people who believe in its global efficacy, which has become greater and greater over time in reaction to more and more proof against it. Because the believers are stubborn reactionaries.
The problem is that there are a bunch of studies that have proven that ivermectin can prohibit rna viruses from replicating in cell cultures to an impressive degree. The main problem is that ivermectin isn't very water soluble, and thus there is no way to deliver the drug to the targeted cells.
It's what happens when you develop assumptions based on a study when you don't really understand the relevant field of the study. It also makes it hard to disprove to people who have read studies that in their mind allude to it as an effective treatment.
Is ivermectin an effective way to controll the replication of rna viruses in a laboratory setting? Yes, amazingly so. Does that mean we can extrapolate upon that claim and assume it would be effective to treat humans? Absolutely not.
I imagine in the next 5-10 years ivermectine will be used as a treatment for rna viruses. However, that will require someone to find a way to turn it into an inhaled medication or some kind of nanosized medication that can be given intravenously.
Don't forget the number of people who take ivermectin in response to getting sick and immediately start seeing an improvement of symptoms... Because they've been full of parasites for years or decades leading up to that point and getting rid of them improves their health, completely independent of the virus they caught. Then they associate ivermectin with feeling better so it had to be interacting with the disease they took it in response to.