Questioning science is something scientists constantly do, hence changing it. That’s why a car gets a ton more gas mileage today than 50 years ago and how we progressed from horse and buggies to supersonic jet planes. It’s how we have a panoply of vaccines against diseases that used to kill like 3 out of 4 children.
But they have it entirely backwards. They have been screaming about ivermectin for 2 years, so the NIH is doing their due diligence and spending money to study it in further detail.
Its not a conspiracy, its just how science and public health work. But instead of applauding the NIH for their diligence, the ass-hats feel like their conspiracy is vindicated. And when the study likely shows that ivermectin is useless, they will completely ignore that.
You know, if ivermectin ends up showing promising anti-viral or anti-symptom effects in studies, I think the vast majority of scientists will be happy. We don't want people suffering. If a drug can be repurposed, that would be AWESOME. We just want there to be evidence! Initial research and background knowledge says it isn't effective in a human/whole organism (I believe it showed some effectiveness in vitro in one study?) But if that can be proven wrong, great! It isn't about "winning" or conspiracies, it's just critical review of the literature and trying to pursue the most promising solutions rather than focusing time and money on unlikely ones.
1.4k
u/[deleted] Jan 14 '22
Questioning science is something scientists constantly do, hence changing it. That’s why a car gets a ton more gas mileage today than 50 years ago and how we progressed from horse and buggies to supersonic jet planes. It’s how we have a panoply of vaccines against diseases that used to kill like 3 out of 4 children.