It has become almost an article of Faucist faith that Ivermectin must be proven at every turn utterly useless and ineffective against COVID-19, and that no opportunity should be lost to bash the drug.

Thus we get this latest study published in JAMA claiming that Ivermectin offers little benefit for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 symtpoms

Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]).

Still, one has to admire the logical audacity of the study’s authors. The Ivermectin group had fewer cases of pneumonia, and far fewer instnces of venous thromboembolism, yet the conclusion is that the drug offers zero benefit against COVID-19.

That audacity is increased when one considers that the “Conflict of Interest” statement is almost as long as as the “Discussion” section of the paper. Nothing screams “bias” quite as much as massive funding by Big Pharma and the Faucist-dominated NIH. Although we should give the authors credit at least for the integrity to be honest about their mercenary approach to their profession.

Personally, if I were stricken with COVID-19, spending no more than $10 on a series of Ivermectin doses to avoid pneumonia and blood clots while shaking off the bug strikes me as quite beneficial.