COVID-19 Trials: Why Are We Asking Questions We Know Answers To?
I review a recent randomized clinical trial of ivermectin’s effect on COVID-19 outcomes.
The COVID-19 pandemic is not over, although the public has moved on from it overall, with researchers gradually shifting back to other important medical topics. Part of this is due to governments and public health authorities learning what works and what does not when treating and preventing COVID-19 infections. Vaccinations work (Source); ivermectin and several other non-evidence-based “cures” do not (Sources 1, 2). While there is room for our understanding to continue growing since hundreds of people in the United States are still dying from COVID daily, the best approach scientifically is to focus on topics that answer the questions that matter now: how do we stop people from dying from COVID?
Despite knowing what we know, groups continue to publish on questions that will not necessarily translate toward more meaningful clinical solutions. Recently, a group published another article, following up on a previous article on roughly the same topic, showing yet again that ivermectin does not help COVID-19 (Source). While exploring topics towards finding solutions is essential, especially if they could translate to saved or improved lives, when should we stop asking…
