Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
Albert Buhr questions the “insufficient evidence” narrative.
Anyone following the ivermectin story will be aware of the widespread erosion of public trust in regulatory agencies and public health authorities worldwide (except perhaps in countries where access is unhampered, with promising results).
In the context of ﬁnancial conﬂicts of interest and extensive regulatory capture, it is reasonable for curious individuals to reserve their trust and attempt to assess for themselves the studies upon which public health recommendations are based. History is littered with public health advisories that were eventually overturned – often despite considerable institutional resistance, psychological gaslighting, and disdain towards those who would question sponsored “consensus.”
This dismissive attitude provoked me to penetrate the review by a South African government sub-committee that recommends “not to use the option” of ivermectin. As current South African guidelines effectively barricade access to a potentially life-saving drug with a superb safety ...
Note: If you need assistance with your subscription or would like to discuss a corporate subscription for more than 10 employees please contact us or use the chat (bottom right).