it also doesn't mean that it does work.
Stating that something doesn't work, and then stating that this doesn't mean that something does work, is just saying the same thing a different way(tautology). Since you won't answer my questions, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You say that Ivermectin doesn't work. This is a lie. We can prove that it stops viral replication in the lab. You say that there is no evidence. This is also another lie. How many more results and findings will it take, before you call them evidence? I just have no idea why you would say that Ivermectin doesn't work, when there is so much evidence supporting that it does. The best vague conclusion the government can claim. is that the evidence is inconclusive.
Are all these articles and experiments just lies? Are the doctors all idiots? Are the researcher all delusional? Ivermectin is still the first line of treatment for this illness in many countries. IT IS A TREATMENT, NOT A VACCINE!! So stop implying that Ivermectin is also a vaccine. Secondly, doctors still prescribe and treat their patients with Ivermectin. Are they all knowingly treating their patients with a placebo?? Thirdly, lab results show conclusively that Ivermectin does stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus, by stopping it from replicating itself.
Although several clinical trials are now underway to test possible therapies, the worldwide response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been largely limited…
www.sciencedirect.com
Ivermectin has been used for over 30 years, against malaria, and for the control of other parasites. It has a very good safety record in all animals.
What it DOES mean however is that there was no evidence that it worked. Like I said, if it worked they'd know by now.
So the reason why it doesn't work, is that if it did, then there would be evidence that it did work. Ignoring that the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence, why are you dismissing without explanation, all the findings and evidence, supporting the efficacy of Ivermectin? Do you even know what the articles, the results, the trials, and the underlying science even mean?? Is this why you keep ignoring my questions?
that's like someone with mild covid taking an aspirin then claiming the aspirin cured his covid.
So you are saying that these researcher are claiming that Ivermectin is the cure for Covid-19? Really? Do you know anyone who is claiming that aspirin is the cure for Covid-19?? Or, anyone claiming that Ivermectin is the cure for Covid-19?? But to be clear, people will take aspirins for the pain, and to lower an elevated temp. And, people who already have Covid-19(any severity), will take Ivermectin to stop the virus from replicating and causing more tissue damage(infections).
So again not sure the relevance or accuracy of this analogy.