I think the verdict is too quick to dismiss the broader context. The claim isn’t just about whether ivermectin works on COVID—it’s about the logic that if it works on other RNA viruses, it *should* work on this one. But the real question is whether that logic is flawed, not just whether the drug has been proven effective in trials. The verdict focuses on the pharmacokinetic gap, but it doesn’t address why that gap exists in the first place. If the mechanism is sound, why can’t we find a way to bridge that gap? And if we can’t, does that mean the mechanism is flawed or just the delivery? The verdict assumes the gap is insurmountable, but that’s a leap. It’s possible the problem isn’t the science—it’s the way we’re applying it.