June 24, 2021 - 4:30pm
There’s an old Carl Sagan line: “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
The Establishment gets a lot of things wrong. In the pandemic, for instance, institutions were wrong about airborne transmission, and about masks. They were wrong about herd immunity. Lots of nerdy outsiders got things right when the Establishment got them wrong.
But, to ape Sagan, the fact that the Establishment believed some things that were wrong does not imply that all things that the Establishment believes are wrong. The world’s stupidest man may say the sun is shining, but that doesn’t mean it’s dark outside. The Establishment also thinks vaccines work and hydroxychloroquine doesn’t, and it turns out the Establishment is right about that.
The latest thing-the-Establishment-might-be-wrong-about is ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug used to kill various worms and flukes and such. Various prominent people, including Bret Weinstein, the evolutionary biologist, say that it has been shown to improve Covid outcomes and should be used; the US FDA, on the other hand, says it should not.
Now, the PRINCIPLE trial, a large-scale clinical study at Oxford University, is investigating it. If it turns out to be effective, it wouldn’t be the first time an off-label drug showed good results against Covid: remdesivir, dexamethasone and tocilizumab have all been shown by the RECOVERY trial to reduce patient mortality.
So is ivermectin another hydroxychloroquine, or another remdesivir? Will it save lives or waste time? My unconfident suspicion is that it won’t be effective — a meta-analysis regularly quoted in support of it that finds positive results seem to be affected by publication bias (here’s what I mean by that), while this one finds no effect. A scientist friend says this seems to be the best RCT so far carried out and it finds no result either. I suppose I ought to make an explicit forecast and say I think it’s 60% likely that PRINCIPLE will find ivermectin does not have a statistically significant improvement over placebo.
That said: I’m wary of the FDA’s stance as well, and here’s why. Back in early 2020 I might have said I was 60% confident that masks didn’t work. If I had said that, I hope I would have also said “that means there’s a 40% chance that they do work, and a 40% chance of a good outcome at low cost is probably worth taking”.
Ivermectin is, apparently, cheap, and very safe for everyone other than those on blood thinners. The FDA reports that some people have been self-prescribing massive doses and making themselves ill, but if doctors were allowed to prescribe it for hospitalised Covid patients, they wouldn’t do that. (Huge doses of a drug and small doses of the same drug have very different effects.)
If Ivermectin really is very safe, and if there’s a reasonable chance that it would have some non-trivial impact on survival, then doctors should be able to make the decision to use it at their discretion. Currently it can be prescribed off-label, in both the US and UK, but some sort of temporary authorisation for use in Covid seems reasonable.
The risk is that ivermectin becomes politicised: believing that it works marks you out as a particular kind of right-wing Covid sceptic or anti-vaxxer, and the “correct” view is that it doesn’t work. But as this Italian doctor writing to the BMJ says, medical practice, especially in a fast-moving situation like a pandemic, has to work on best guesses and clinical judgment as well as rigorous RCTs. When you have a drug that might work but might not, and you know that it’s safe and cheap, waiting for perfect data might cost lives.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBit of a flimsy piece, but courageous of Unherd nonetheless.
The greatest risk is not that Ivermectin becomes politicised. The greatest risk is that there is no money in Ivermectin and there is a LOT of money in big pharmaceuticals, corporate media, WHO and other large organisations, governments, big tech and various other money grubbing people along the chain. The dumb people following the left/right divide just add fuel to the fire.
I could write a thesis on this, but let us use a couple of examples. Merck, who used to own the patent on IVM until about 1996, distributed billions of doses of IVM over the decades with astounding safety records. Fast forward to long off patent and more billions of doses distributed by manufacturers the world over with an unassailable safety record to match. Covid arrives and IVM is found to have anti-viral and anti-inflammatory efficacy and prophylactic benefits according to professors and doctors on the ground and meta-analyses of RCT, clinical and observational trials done by reputable experts in their fields.
BUT according to the FDA, emergency authorisation of vaccines (already a multi billion investment and counting with gazillions of interested parties involved) can only be granted if there is no effective therapeutic available.
Along the way, various bodies move to discredit IVM generally and smear meta-analyses done. This includes a takedown by the WHO, who produce a shoddy cherry-picking analysis and quote Merck as a source – Merck who has now moved to loudly discredit even the safety record of the drug they distributed for decades.
Parallel to this, the US government moves to allocate $1.2 billion dollars to Merck (and Ridgeback) to develop…. tada… a new antiviral with the promise of millions more to be accrued over the years.
Maybe a movie should be made of this…. and there is much, much more. As Bret Weinstein said…. the crime of the century with millions of lives, livelihoods and futures lost unnecessarily.
I do not see how it is possible to even have this conversation without Dr Campbell being called on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYv30g7TKVM as he has been making youtubes on this issue from the start. His calm, reassuring, style and voice (and teddy bear in window) is very soothing as well. This doctor works in third world and has great style on not making claims, but just showing numbers from good sources.
The writer above always does add in his ‘unconscious’ bias though, like:
“I might have said I was 60% confident that masks didn’t work. If I had said that, I hope I would have also said “that means there’s a 40% chance that they do work,”
Which is a crazy statement as ‘Do’ needs to be changed to ‘May work’ I guess he is ascribing himself some magical Schrodinger cat Observer status where the truth or untruth of his observations locks in the reality for all. He adds that if the 40% work it is a “low cost is probably worth taking”.”
But what does that even mean? A mask giving 100% chance of stopping covid spread? a 0.001% chance? I mean if all males were required to wear condoms at all times, always, it would stop many STDs 100%, but with many side effects, so is that a “low cost is probably worth taking” is unlikely to be true.” Masking has had HUGE societal ills of making people thing others are dirty and society is unhealthy – it has been a BAD thing and I never masked even though it was much harder than just rolling over and being a sheep. Masking was LOSS OF PERSONAL FREEDOM made to be worn like a badge by all, and was a shameful thing to be imposed on a free people.
And hydroxychloroquine? not so sure it can be used as a code word for failure as is implied above.
Thank you for the excellent summary. Of course the vaccine/pharma industry has a record of undue influence on the WHO as was illustrated in 2009 and the Swine Flu pandemic that never was. ‘UK mainstream media outlet Channel 4 News actually exposed the UK, EU and WHO’s Swine Flu hoax scandal shortly afterwards in 2010. By contrast in 2020-2021, no mainstream media outlets has dared to question the official Covid crisis narrative. Interestingly, the vested interests and stakeholders have hardly changed” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9qeLcq3y8w
This piece is not only weak but also fallacious. Quite frankly I challenge Tom Chivers to write a piece detailing the evidence that masks have had any effect either as a method of source control or a means of protection. With regard to the latter the Danish trial which was sufficiently well powered indicated no significant benefit whatsoever in the community. With regard to the former there is absolutely no evidence that masking in the community has any effect whatsoever. The only evidence is constant repeating that it does as if this is well established fact but clearly it isn’t. Just compare the data from North Dakota (masks) with South Dakota (no masks) and the curves for daily deaths per million are completely superimposable. Not to mention that Florida did absolutely fine without mask mandates.
So Tom, if you wish to write about science and be taken seriously, you should investigate the facts seriously. And this applies equally well to Ivermectin where there is no doubt whatsoever from the currently available clinical data from doctors in the field (as opposed to white coat bureaucrats who haven’t seen a patient in 30 years) that Ivermectin absolutely works (especially in combination with doxycycline or azithromycin) when given at the onset of symptoms.As for the Oxford trial, it is probably designed to fail as the drug will be given way too late in the time course of the disease.
As for the Oxford trial, it is probably designed to fail as the drug will be given way too late in the time course of the disease.
I wonder if this is the trial that Kory et al refer to as ‘The Fix’. Searching memory banks unsuccessfully.
Yes, I believe it is, see comments above.
The Danish trial showed no protection for the wearer: it did not look at protection for other people, although it has been misreported as such.
Well said. USA locked down right along political party lines, there has been no study showing those locked down fared better than those which did not. Such studies are not allowed.
If this is just a question of the establishment perhaps getting it wrong, why the censorship? Why is every mention of this anti-viral posted on social media censored? Why are discussions about it with doctors, Pierre Kory’s senate hearing taken down from YouTube? Where is the investigative journalism? This is a very weak piece that totally bottles it.
Yes, it is, although at least the facts are BEGINNING to trickle past the censorship dam. Anyone contracting covid has a 99% chance of survival but its absolutely destroying the scientific institutions western civilization has spent centuries building up. People will forgive honest mistakes but cover-ups will kill you stone dead every single time.
Yes this is one of my biggest concerns from the pandemic. We already have enough trouble with conspiracy theories and other nonsense, so to add a genuine grievance will only add petrol to the fires
And already in the space of just over a year the Covid ‘conspiracy theory’ accusations are starting to sound shaky. Wuhan lab leak obviously and digital vaccine passports another.
People might have been willing to believe the medical establishment if they had trialled Ivermectin when it was first noticed that there seemed to be a correlation between its use and favourable outcomes. Despite the assumption of the tiny, inbred, “all on the same page” political/administrative class who presently run the world that everybody outside their circle is a “Brave New World” delta, incapable of complex thought patterns, most of us out here fully appreciate that correlation does not necessarily imply cause. But the fact that they fought even the IDEA of testing tooth and nail has meant their credibility has gone off a cliff.
The UK has now announced they will do a large trial. I do wonder if this has a pre-ordained outcome – much like the WHO/Unitaid funded meta-analysis done by Dr Andrew Hill of Liverpool University. This analysis found good results, but the final recommendation was that it was inconclusive. When challenged by his peers, he said the recommendation was the requirement of the sponsors.
Study Flaw?
The Times reports that some experts such as Penny Ward, visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at Kings’ College London critiques the study, sharing with The Times’ Rhys Blakely that, “They’re allowing a recruitment window 14 days from the onset of symptoms, but the virus peaks on day three—and it’s too late to use an antiviral after the peak of virus replication.”
Dr. Ward continued for The Times, “And if you don’t intervene very rapidly with an antiviral, you will have a failed trial—even though the drug itself might, in fact, have been effective if given correctly. If they do get the skates on and get patients into those trials within two or three days of the first onset of symptoms, then there’s a fighting chance that one or two of those might actually be effective.”
https://tinyurl.com/8br9a2y
Quite possibly.
Better studies from real use of ivermectin will come from India before the West. And real action:
https://tinyurl.com/3v3edmb9
Jonathan thanks for link. I know no-one who specifically references the Principal trial with the STUDY FLAW, so don’t know why you are selecting that grain of information from mountains of IVM data? I didn’t reference RCT, observational trials and anything to do with evidence that it works. Certainly on the ground, protocols followed are taking IVM prophylactically and immediately on onset of symptoms.
There might be lack of a very large RCT because of the way this has played out, but during a pandemic with such a high death rate the moral and ethical argument is that if you have a very safe and cheap drug with a strong efficacy profile, you start treatment. See Dr Kory’s reference to the Helsinki Declaration in your referenced article. This is why the FLCCC is calling for urgent emergency use after the huge successes they have experienced on the ground. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Who should be the large quantity of people across age groups volunteering in the Covid early onset symptoms double blind randomised control trials with placebo? While people get sent home without a viable therapeutic and whiles thousands die.
For the above reason (and also because of funding), there is certainly a problem with size of trials, but the meta-analysis of course does show strong efficacy of IVM and FLCCC certainly lead the charge in the West from early on last year. The FLCCC was created by Prof Paul Marik one of the most published medics in the US with a hugely impressive array of qualifications. Interestingly I seem to remember that they claim that they discovered the effectivity of corticosteroids for Covid.
A fascinating watch for anyone interested in contributing to the discussion is Dr John Campbell’s interview with Dr Tess Lawrie where she explains the meta-analysis. Spend the time, you won’t be disappointed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYF8bnmdQfY
Good comments. yes, my comment on the flaw should have been posted on your above conversation with Johann Strauss.
All our comments went into censorship for ages! I had to complain to get them back up…
Here? I thought Unherd was better than that. It’s why I joined.
I think it was the links. They are very responsive if you email them though. There is a real person who replies and is vey polite…
As for India…. There are many states that started widespread roll out of IVM about third week April… this started to crush their curves. One state headed by one Mr Stalin, I kid you not, went with Remdesivir at $3000 dollars a dose and cases soared. Interestingly there have been no obstacles out in the way of rolling out Remdesivir with little efficacy. Follow the money.
Your posts are fascinating.
It would have been worth mentioning that remdesivir, dexamethasone and tocilzumab are all drugs which may be helpful for severely sick, hospitalised Covid patients, whereas ivermectin, it is claimed, stops people from catching Covid, and cures the disease at the early viral stage, greatly reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death.
Quite a big difference really.
What most of us mere mortals will find so hard to understand, is why, about a year after evidence about ivermectin began to emerge, the medical establishment still haven’t worked out whether the doctors who say that it works are right or not. Can it really be that difficult?
Follow the money. Simple as that. Many doctors are compromised, don’t follow emerging data (especially if it is being routinely discredited), or are too afraid to speak out.
and the data is not being (properly) recorded. Too much money is at stake and too many big reputations are on the line for a serious honest debate to take place. There is now ample evidence that the powers that be are doing everything they can (basically FUD, but also financial incentives and disincentives ) to a) bury any alternatives to vaccination b) hide or confuse any evidence in favour of the alternatives and most frightening of all c) hide any evidence that the vaccines are not totally wonderful and without risk. I’ve been vaccinated twice with Pfizer, no problems, but I do not have ovaries, and I’m too old to care about leukaemias.
Many older people have taken the vaccinations for travel purposes…. myself included. A gamble on age, risks and rewards. I would never take it if I were young.
I wouldn’t take it if I were young either.
Tom,
I guess my problem is that the proponents of Ivermectin make a number of claims that should be easy to refute when false: Mexico City, Peru, and Delhi. I’ve not seen these locations mentioned in any of the many articles that are trying to put Ivermectin in the HQC corner. (Which has a story of its own.)
There are also currently 60 studies on https://ivmmeta.com analyzed in real time and they overwhelmingly show positive results, sometimes massively. And there are random control trials, peer reviewed, etc. Are they not relevant because the majority does not come from western countries? Or is the site suspect?
Or follow the money? Big pharma has tens of billions at stake because Ivermectin might cause the temporary authorization of the vaccines to be removed. Who is trying to fight the Ivermectin information and is there a money angle?
I am more than willing to be convinced by the establishment but, please, please, please, take the claims of the Ivermectin proponents serious, assume they are in good faith, and then, one by one, refute them with verifyable facts and logic.
You know, like newspapers used to work.
Investigative journalism is dying. It is a hard job in this case and made harder by the fact that trials for IVM are mostly done by clinicians (on the ground and saving lives during their day jobs) and there are many of these trials.
To tell the truth, Unherd does mostly have a stable of ex-Guardian social issues writers, so looking for Journalism here is slim pickings.
The VERY biggest lack here, though, is the lack of a ‘Finance’ writer. The world teeters on a knife edge of either deflation on one side, or inflation on the other. Globally 50,000,000,000,000 of $$$ created as Stimulus, Monetary and Fiscal, and this is something only seen after WWII, and then there was a world to rebuild. This $ was to keep union teachers out of the classrooms on full pay and to make the billionaires greater billionaires and all went to Equities, Bonds, Commodities, and hard asserts in the end – and a reckoning is coming as, unlike WWII a commensurate increase in productivity will not fallow such stimulus!
Couldn’t agree more. Well said.
There is a long Joe Rogan interview with Dr Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein (see picture) on Spotify (free, number 1671). They say that as Ivermectin has already been used to treat Covid, there is real world data to show its effectiveness. They give examples such as it being used in some Indian states, but not in others, with clear benefits. (I have not looked at this data). Trials are not the only useful form of evidence. Trials take time and while the clock is ticking, people will die. There is a clear risk that, in the meantime, useful treatment is being withheld from the sick.
I don’t know what protocols or drugs should be used, I’m calling for a quick analysis of real world data.
There are hundreds of interviews out there and plenty of analysis of real world data. I posted one above showing presentation of the meta-analysis done by BIRD (Dr Tess Lawrie). This is the shortened version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix8i7dfsCJg
I have just seen that my lengthy reply to a post has been removed (ie my reply disappeared with the original post). What a waste of time. Here is the long version of the interview done with Dr Tess Lawrie where she explains her meta-analysis in detail. As a layman I found it very absorbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYF8bnmdQfY
Please dont watch this. I will try and see the long video. I thought the summary was awful, utterly unclesr and unconvincing.
The long one is better although Dr Lawry is not a natural public speaker. Fewer people will watch it though. However I don’t think Dr John Campbell is unclear and unconvincing and even though he is conservative and mainstream, I do like his presentations.
The problem with Campbell is the same one this article (opinion) writer has, he steers through the rocks of canceling by adding in gratuitous Pro Masking and Lock down. I suppose it is best to attack one enemy at a time as hitting all three would mean Social Media deleting as the ‘Fact Checkers’, those ‘Ministry of Truth’ apparatchiks would reuse to let it be posted.
Do you have to buy into a basket of ideas? I don’t agree with him on everything, but I appreciate that he approaches issues earnestly and that he is open to things that are not conservative. If you followed him you would have noticed that he has suddenly lurched far off mainstream on the Ivermectin issue, frequently railing against Whitty and Vallance which is a marked difference to his normal demeanor.
Further I don’t know what this poster thinks particularly and nor do you ‘wink’ and I don’t find it a compelling argument: Please dont watch this. I will try and see the long video. I thought the summary was awful, utterly unclesr and unconvincing.
Interesting how masks and lockdowns were apparently not a waste of time but something where multiple studies have shown promising effects is a waste of time according to Chivers. Worst scientific correspondent ever…
It would have been worth mentioning that remdesivir, dexamethasone and tocilizumab are all drugs which may be helpful for severely sick, hopsitalised Covid patients, whereas Ivermectin, it is claimed, stops people from catching Covid, and cures the disease at the early viral stage, greatly reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death.
Quite a big difference really.
What most of us mere mortals will find so hard to understand, is why, about a year after evidence about ivermectin began to emerge, the medical establishment still haven’t worked out whether the doctors who say that it works are right or not. Can it really be that bloody difficult?
Stop saying pandemic, use ‘Plandemic’ and all your answers become clear.
I realise the author is very busy writing articles for UnHerd but he really should take 3 hours to listen to the whole discussion on Ivermectin and other re-purposed drugs, and the failure to properly record side effects from the vaccines and the unusual way in which the vaccines are working. YouTube predictably removed the recording because it broke their “community guidelines “ although it didn’t bother to explain how or why they were”broken”.
See here for a full version of the discussion between Bret Weinstein, Kirsch and Malone – https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-in-three-easy:0?r=FuWwFotRbicqY9GHyWBqDdTNNHpaTgC9 . It is 3 hours long but worth listening to in full
I agree that the author should have spent way more time on research and concentrated on keeping an open mind rather than being glib and slightly jokey (just in case the muti doesn’t work). Muti is a South African word, mainly derogatory for a miracle drug. I have been following this for almost a year, so can attest to the fact that there is plenty of material out there and also a lot I haven’t gotten to. It takes more work because it is censored so quickly.
Lesley, OK now the medical issues are over, how about the financial? I see them as the real cause of coming death and despair, coming soon(ish) and of a scale which will dwarf the virus. And all for naught.
Try ‘Peter Schiff’ for fun on Youtube, he is easy to listen to, but a inflation nut – so look for some Deflation nuts too – Harry Dent perhaps…
Sanford, I plan to be dead by then…. but I do get your point and in the bigger scheme of the financial issues, I certainly agree that they will dwarf Covid. One of the main thrusts of the Ivermectin argument is that it can stop the lockdown narrative in its tracks. I will check out the people you suggest….
I’m not a conspiracy theorist but why would anyone want to subvert information that may help in the fight? Perhaps big Pharma followed the money to keep it that way? I guess if water could power engines, the oil industry would do the same. BTW, has Hydroxychloroquine been proven to have no or negative effect on Covid-19?
No, it hasn’t. In fact, there’s mounting evidence that hydroxychloroquine is an effective early treatment for Covid-19. A paper in the Lancet showing the opposite was retracted because it was so obviously false (fake). Like many other Tom Chivers articles on Covid-19, there are lots of unsupported assertions.
What is cool is the choice of vaccines…. Frankenstein mRNA, made in a Lab and makes your cells grow spike proteins like some Alien bursting out of the Abdomen in the Alien franchise movies – and changing your genetic content for ever….. OR the conventional, like Johnson and Johnson which is made from the cloned cells of aborted fetuses.
But what the heck, ethics is so 1970’s. Hand me that bottle of sheep placenta cream, I heard it helps against hair loss…..
The argument in favor of Ivermectin is pretty flimsy. There is not much clinical data to show that it reduces COVID disease severity / improves outcome. Then, the claim that taking Ivermectin as a prophylactic is IMPOSSIBLE to clinically verify because it has the highly unethical requirement of deliberately infecting a placebo group with COV-2 (so as to establish whether or not Ivermectin actually prevents symptomatic disease)
There is no way to actually run this trial until an antiviral is available, at which point it would become pointless to run the trial because an antiviral is available!
Here is a recently dropped peer reviewed paper on the efficacy of Ivermectin.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx?fbclid=IwAR06MUHrixISVfkfjKWYfTgkaG11LTk_w2F8oKLVbk_H8WzeHdjge5WVCQg
I have posted a link in one of the comments above to one of the authors presenting her meta-analysis with full explanations of all considerations for laymen and professionals alike. I don’t think you have been following Ivermectin research at all – unless you are looking at corporate media? Following the WHO? There are also many observational trials that have been done – large and small (reference your comment re ethics)
Whilst you are correct about running large RC trials being unethical during a pandemic (ESPECIALLY using a safe drug), your logic is not sound thereafter. There was a reasonably large trial done in Argentina if memory serves – quite early on, testing the prophylactic benefit of Ivermectin by giving Ivermectin to some frontline healthcare workers and not to others. Ivermectin was shown to be effective in prophylaxis. It was not necessary to deliberately infect the workers with Covid as they were in contact with many infected people on a daily basis. There were other studies done as well.
There should be some data herein:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf
Taking this line would eliminate a huge number of accepted medical positiions and treatments/interventions.Smoking would be the most obvious one. This is why we take notice of epidemiological studies.
(not) smoking cigarettes and taking an anti-parasitic are not the same thing
Unless, everyone who is in favor of ivermectin is currently self dosing, yes? Its not hard to get a hold of.
This is simply rubbish. Ivermectin is a proven safe drug, in the correct dose. Two control groups – one given Ivermectin, one not, and then see how many catch Covid, have severe symptoms, die. It will cost $20 million, but as Ivermectin is out of patent, no one is prepared to pay for the trial because no one will make any money. Much better to vaccinate everyone, and see what happens (not)
“Then, the claim that taking Ivermectin as a prophylactic is IMPOSSIBLE to clinically verify because it has the highly unethical requirement of deliberately infecting a placebo group with COV-2 (so as to establish whether or not Ivermectin actually prevents symptomatic disease).”
It is not correct that worthwhile studies can only be done by having a group deliberately infected with CV. For instance, the data can be harvested by noting the number of people from each group who get infected from the environment, just living their normal lives. That’s how the solid Danish mask-effectiveness study was conducted—they didn’t deliberately expose the subjects to CV and then note whether the mask-wearers were less like to become infected, or conversely, take people who were known to be actively ill with CV, put masks on some of them, and then set them loose in spaces full of healthy people to see whether wearing masks reduced the level of transmission. Instead, they focused on two municipalities that were statistically identical and got a large number of people in one municipal area to wear masks (at the time, universal mask-wearing was uncommon). They found that mask WEARERS were contracting CV at the same rate as their surrounding municipality, but that the overall rate of transmission went down. So the mask protects others to some degree when the mask-wearer is sick but may not protect the mask-wearers themselves.
Researchers could track large groups of people who are all living in a given area where the rate of CV transmission is being tracked. If only .001% of those taking IVM end up contracting the disease, versus .5% of those taking the placebo pills, then that’s highly valuable data.