Thread by @fullydavid

Clarifying my position on Ivermectin. Matt Taibbi's headline called me "Ivermectin critic", while acceptable journalistic shorthand, is not quite accurate. I've been critical of specific claims made about IVM, and still accept it may be proved to have benefit as a treatment 1/n

People struggle to hold the complexity beyond assuming someone is either "pro" or "anti" something. I'm sure the whole sensemaking thing annoys people (or will soon), but one of the key concepts is not to 'collapse into certainty' too quickly, and notice when you've done so 2/n

I try to hold a range of possibilities, and people whose judgement I value like @EdoajoEric still believe it will prove beneficial as a treatment. There seems to be a pattern where many of the frontline doctors who've used it seem more bullish on its benefits as a treatment 3/n

Compared to the people assessing the evidence base from a distance. Though time has certainly validated the latter's criticisms of that evidence base, and most of the dedicated critics of the quality of the evidence haven't rejected the possibility it will show benefit... 4/n

But the claims about its usefulness as a *prophylactic* was always far more consequential, and far more tenuous than the arguments as a treatment. If you have Covid already, then you might as well try IVM, I probably would myself if I got it, little downside... 5/n

Talking about it as a prevention, potentially in lieu of vaccines, was always on much shakier ground, it was much harder to measure, and even the meta studies that advocates were pushing had far fewer studies about prophylaxis compared to treatment (eg: 2 in the Lawrie M-A). 6/n

That's why the Carvallo study being shown to be fraud (and the details have to be read to be believed) is so significant. It was the central case of the public argument for prevention on huge podcasts. Who knows how many decided to take IVM instead of vaccine based on it 7/n

And Carvallo was *always* highly unbelievable, people were saying so at the time IVM was being touted as a "100% effective prophylatic" on these platforms. This isn't just 20/20 hindsight. It was reckless at the time, and incredibly so in retrospect, with huge consequences 8/n

Those buying up veterinary ivermectin are doing it as a prophylactic, because they've been told it's something like 100% effective. That is mainly due to Carvallo & the way it was spun. I'm not "anti-ivermectin", but I am very very critical of the way this has all played out 9/n

It didn't need to be this way. The central figures in this pulled up the drawbridge and only spoke to each other. They isolated themselves from any counter argument, and refused to consider that Carvallo was fraud, despite many people telling them it was, and why. 10/n

Given the stakes, and the impact that their words have had. I find this hard to understand or accept. The other "evidence" for its use as a prophylactic is barely any better, as we detail in our investigation: medium.com/rebel-wisdom/o… 11/11