Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that's been used for decades, mostly for things like river blindness and scabies. It's not exactly a miracle cure, but it's been studied for its antiviral properties too. Some research suggests it might have some effect on viruses like Zika and Dengue, which are also single-stranded RNA viruses. So, if it works on those, why wouldn't it work on COVID? It's not like the virus is that different from others in its family.

But here's the thing—just because something works on one virus doesn't mean it'll work on another. Viruses can be tricky, and even if they're in the same family, their structure and behavior can vary enough to make a drug ineffective. Plus, a lot of the studies on Ivermectin and COVID have been small, poorly designed, or even questionable. That doesn't mean it's useless, but it doesn't mean we should take it as a guaranteed solution either. Science is about evidence, not just "it would be weird if it didn't work."

Ivermectin has a long history of use as an antiparasitic medication, and while it's not a magic bullet, its broad-spectrum antiviral potential is worth exploring. It's been shown to have some activity against other single-stranded RNA viruses like Zika and Dengue, which are in the same family as SARS-CoV-2. That makes it a bit strange that we're so quick to dismiss it for COVID without more thorough investigation.

The real issue isn't whether it could work—it's about the rigor of the studies and how we interpret the results. If a drug shows promise in lab settings, we shouldn't just throw it out without looking deeper. The fact that it's been studied in so many different ways, with mixed results, just means we need more high-quality research, not less. Optimism doesn't mean ignoring the science—it means staying open to possibilities, even when the answers aren't clear yet.

Ivermectin has been around for a while and is used for parasites, so it's not like it's some new miracle drug. It's been tested on other RNA viruses like Zika and Dengue, which are similar to SARS-CoV-2. If it had some effect on those, why not on COVID? It's not like the virus is completely different in every way.

But I get that people are skeptical. Lab results don't always translate to real-world results, and a lot of the studies on Ivermectin and COVID have been messy. Some are well done, others aren't. The problem isn't whether it could work—it's about whether we've actually proven it works in a way that matters.

Still, it's worth looking into more seriously. If it's safe and has some potential, why not test it properly? We shouldn't just dismiss it because some studies are bad. The fact that it's been used for other viruses makes it a bit strange that we're so quick to write it off for COVID.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug, not an antiviral miracle worker. While it has shown some antiviral activity in lab settings against certain RNA viruses, that doesn’t mean it’s effective in humans. The key difference is that lab tests don’t account for the complexity of the human body, immune responses, or drug metabolism. Just because a drug works in a petri dish doesn’t mean it will work the same way in real people.

The studies on Ivermectin and COVID-19 are all over the place. Some are poorly designed, lack proper controls, or have conflicting results. This makes it hard to draw any solid conclusions. We need high-quality, peer-reviewed research before we can say anything definitive. Rushing to use a drug without proper evidence can be dangerous, especially when there are already proven treatments available.

So, while it’s interesting that Ivermectin has some antiviral properties, we can’t assume it works on all RNA viruses, especially not without solid proof. The real question isn’t whether it *could* work—it’s whether it *does*, and whether the evidence supports that.

Ivermectin's antiparasitic use is well-established, and its antiviral potential, especially against other single-stranded RNA viruses like Zika and Dengue, is a point worth considering. If it shows promise in lab settings for similar viruses, it's not unreasonable to think it might have some effect on SARS-CoV-2. The key is to look at the evidence with an open mind, not just dismiss it outright.

The real issue isn't whether it could work—it's about the quality of the research. While some studies are flawed or inconclusive, others show potential that deserves further exploration. We shouldn't ignore the possibility just because the results aren't perfect. Science is about testing ideas, even when they're controversial.

There's a lot we don't know about how viruses interact with our bodies, and Ivermectin is one of many drugs being studied. Being open to new possibilities, even if they're not fully proven, is part of what makes science progress. If there's a chance it could help, why not keep looking?

Ivermectin isn’t some magical cure, but it’s been used for a long time to treat parasites. It's also been tested on other RNA viruses like Zika and Dengue, which are similar to SARS-CoV-2. If it shows some effect on those, why would we assume it wouldn’t work on COVID? It’s not like the virus is entirely different in every way. The real question is why we’re so quick to dismiss it without more solid research.

Lab results are just the start. You can’t just take a drug that works in a dish and assume it’ll work in people. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the possibility. If there’s even a chance it could help, we should be looking into it more thoroughly. The problem is that a lot of the studies on Ivermectin and COVID have been done poorly, with conflicting results. We need better, more reliable data before jumping to conclusions.

I don’t think it’s weird that it might work on COVID. I just think we need to approach the evidence with more caution and not let hype or fear drive the conversation. Science should be about testing ideas, not shutting them down before they’re even fully explored.

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug, not an antiviral miracle. It's been used for decades to treat things like river blindness and scabies. While some lab studies suggest it might have antiviral effects against certain RNA viruses like Zika or Dengue, that doesn’t mean it works the same way in humans. The human body is way more complicated than a petri dish, and drug effectiveness can change dramatically when moving from lab to real-world use.

The real issue isn’t whether it *could* work—it’s whether the evidence supports it. A lot of the studies on Ivermectin and COVID-19 are weak, poorly designed, or even conflicting. Some show promise, others don’t. Without high-quality, reproducible research, it’s hard to say if it’s worth the risk or hype. We need to be careful with drugs, especially when people are desperate for solutions.

Ivermectin has a long track record as an antiparasitic drug, and while it's not a miracle cure, its antiviral properties—especially against other single-stranded RNA viruses like Zika and Dengue—make it worth looking into. If it shows promise in lab settings for similar viruses, why not consider it for SARS-CoV-2? The virus isn’t that different from its relatives in the same family.

The real issue isn’t whether it *could* work—it’s about the quality of the research. Some studies are promising, others are flawed. We need more rigorous, well-designed trials to know for sure. Dismissing it outright without looking at the evidence is short-sighted. Science is about exploring possibilities, not shutting them down before we even try.

There’s always room for optimism when it comes to new treatments. Ivermectin’s potential shouldn’t be ignored just because some studies are inconclusive. Let’s keep an open mind and keep pushing for better answers.