Another large randomized controlled trial for ivermectin showed no efficacy for the early treatment of COVID-19. This is not a surprise to science-based medicine advocates. Here’s why the story of ivermectin shows that SBM isn’t just for “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) —and never was.
I have been critical about John Ioannidis over a number of his statements about the COVID-19 pandemic. Now he’s done it again, producing a poor-quality paper whose unwritten assumptions suggest that the Carl Sagan effect, in which scientists are penalized professionally by their peers for becoming popular science communicators, still holds considerable sway in science and medicine.
In 2016 and 2020, scientists expressed surprise and alarm at the results of the Presidential election. In 2016 it was alarm that someone as antiscience as Donald Trump was elected, and in 2020 it was over how close the election was, given Trump’s dismal record on science, medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Are scientists out of touch? And now what, for federal science policy and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Science is the most effective means of determining medical treatments that work and whose benefits outweigh their risks. Those who promote pseudoscientific or prescientific medicine, however, frequently appeal to other ways of knowing, often ancient ways of knowing from other cultures, and pointing out deficiencies in SBM to justify promoting their treatments. Do their justifications hold water?
Orac loves to bask in the adulation of his “fans.” This time around, one of the old men of quackery, Gary Null, has decided that he really, really doesn’t like science-based medicine. That includes Steve Novella, Susan Gerbic, and…Orac.