Okay. Think your way through this.
Hydroxychloroquine has been around since the 1950s. It's first and principal proposed mechanism of action as an antimalarial and antirheumatic drug was discovered only in ~1980-1990s. You spent months touting a novel potential mechanism of action for it that was only discovered about ten years ago. Let's take some other example. Barbiturates date from around 1900 and benzodiazepines from the late 1950s. The main molecular target of these drugs was only discovered in the 1980s.
What does this tell you about our knowledge of drugs, and how much we need to know about their mechanism of action for clinical application?
The simple answer is that we don't know a lot of things that drugs do. We prescribe some drugs for conditions where we pretty much don't know what they do at a molecular level at all. If we're still finding out things that HCQ might do sixty years after it was first approved, what are the chances we know everything that remdesivir does when it was approved last year?
So what happened is that there was a plausible theory that remdesivir (along with a lot of other drugs) might work. They hustled it through approval on the back of some weak studies to make sure that if it did do any good, it would be available. Just because - like you surely want - society should prepare availability of potentially useful drugs when we need novel treatments. Then later, more evidence rolls in, crushing hopes by suggesting it's probably little or no use for covid-19, therefore it gradually gets dropped. I'm sure there are still some physicians out there prescribing it for covid-19. But you keep saying doctors should be able to doctor. Therefore they can dose people up on remdesivir much like they can dose people up on HCQ and ivermectin: in my opinion, ill-advisedly.
Bottom line, there's not a problem here.
But let's imagine a scenario where remdesivir was effective, but this made no sense in terms of the currently established mechanism of action. An obvious answer is that it does something else, another interaction, it's just we haven't identified what that is yet. Drugs can do lots of things we haven't yet identified, and the newer they are they less we tend to know.
So you finally jump onto the wagon saying we don't know stuff, which is what I've been saying for months here. You think vitamin d is 100% known and we have perfectly accurate dosage guidelines.
Anyway back to the remdesivir discussion. What doctor actually thought this would work? I fully agree that we don't know things and some random thing could be the cure for covid. But we also tend to test things that someone with prior knowledge and experience thinks will work for actual reasons. Shouldn't we focus on testing things that we think could work because of scientific/logical reasons first and then kinda move to the "throw stuff at the wall" phase? Remdesivir is a known anti-viral (or at least developed to be one as I don't know if was tested against other viruses prior) so why would you think an anti-viral would work after the virus is gone? Why would you test something that is an anti-viral that needs to be administered at the hospital when the people going to the hospital most likely don't have a viral problem anymore? Why would you keep treating (to this day) with remdesivir when the trials already showed it didn't work and there is really no reason to think it'll work because anti-viral + no virus = no chance it'll work? Doctors mainly treat via guidelines and recommendations and that's why they treat with remdesivir because it's on that list. You're tip-toeing around the fact that it became a treatment most likely because it makes tons of money. If HCQ and ivermectin only had to meet the testing standards of remdesivir, they'd be recommended drugs too.
HCQ has 2 mechanisms that one would hypothesize it would work, the zinc-ionophore mechanism and anti-inflammatory mechanism.
Giving people drugs that make them ill with no superior benefit is unethical. It's as simple as that.
The drugs don't make people ill, we have decades of showing that they don't. Remdesivir creates more harm than HCQ or ivermectin and has been shown to be ineffective.
There's starting to be a push for getting kids vaccinated when the vaccines will make them ill and have basically no benefit to them.
Why are you declaring something to be true when you're also saying you're unable to research it effectively? Wouldn't it be better to have some humility and accept you don't actually know? Do you really think that "turned up on a YouTube channel I watch so I drank the Kool-aid" is a good rationale to decide who's right and wrong?
Again, I've said before and I've said again, indulging your demands for citations is supremely pointless because, fearless seeker for truth that you are, you're just going to argue they're bullshit. Don't bother posturing to us about having an open mind and following the science. You are literally telling us you have not read the science, and yet are still advocating.
Why are you holding my claims and your claims to different standards? If empirical data is needed to show a drug works then the same empirical data is needed to show it doesn't work. The data we have for ivermectin definitely points in the direction that it works. Kory and his team are 3 for 3 right now.
The main argument not to recommend ivermectin is literally that we don't have enough good data vs we have data that shows it doesn't work.
Why would I waste my time analysing vague bullshit from a propaganda article that obviously has no hard data or analysis, and clearly does not understand the difference between correlation and causation?
How is that propaganda? Look up when country approved ivermectin and then look at their curve. Hell, you can just wait on India and watch their curve as they approved ivermectin there. No propaganda website required to do that.
