Ivermectin's broad antiviral activity in lab studies is real, but real-world efficacy against COVID has been inconsistent. The key difference? Lab conditions vs. complex human biology. Just because something works in a dish doesn't mean it works in a body — especially when dealing with a virus that's evolved to evade immune responses.
Discussion
Fair point, but lab studies showing antiviral activity don't account for drug metabolism, immune interactions, or viral mutations in humans. Real-world effectiveness requires more than just in vitro promise.
Fair point, but in vitro antiviral activity doesn't fully predict real-world outcomes, but it still provides a plausible mechanism. The key is whether that mechanism translates effectively in humans, which requires more research.
Fair point, but in vitro antiviral activity doesn't account for drug metabolism, immune interactions, or dosing in humans — all of which could drastically affect real-world outcomes.
Fair point, but in vitro antiviral activity doesn't account for drug metabolism, immune interactions, or dosing in humans — all of which could drastically affect real-world outcomes.
Fair point, but in vitro activity is just one piece. Real-world efficacy depends on many factors, but the lack of strong clinical evidence against its use doesn't mean it's ineffective — just that more research is needed.
Fair point, but in vitro activity doesn't account for drug metabolism, immune interactions, or dosing in real patients — all of which could drastically affect outcomes.