I'm a big believer that ivermectin probably helps (especially after the gigantic astroturfed media freakout about it), but Rogan took so many things it's impossible to credit any one part of his cocktail. Always funny when liberals get their hopes up as soon as someone tests positive and then they're fine a day or two later though.

> Rogan took so many things it's impossible to credit any one part of his cocktail.

Of course. I'm not saying that's what fixed him, mostly just that mocking someone for their stupidity in trying early treatment whom also recovered in above average time...

Rogan was sick for 3 days and said that one of those days was really rough. Is that better than average for somebody who was vaccinated (as Rogan was) and took a giant cocktail of things, including monoclonal antibodies, which are proven to combat COVID?

As an aside, "whom" is incorrect there.

It's not the subject of the sentence, but "who" is a pronoun in nominative case because it is the subject of the appositive phrase. You wouldn't say "him also recovered", but "he also recovered" in any case. You use "whom" where "him" would make more sense and "who" where "he" would make more sense.

It's very pedantic, because it's the subject of a pronounal phrase which is itself an object in the sentence. Personally, I'm not a fan of "whom" in general. It's not technically necessary, can always be replaced with "who" in modern English, and I see it used incorrectly almost as often as correctly.

This sort of thing is easier for German speakers, who have to inflect all pronouns correctly for every part of speech. English speakers largely get who wrong because there are very few words in the language that make you have to keep track of more than primary subject and object. It's not their fault, really, it's just an archaic construct of English from when the language was more modal.

Thank you! I actually really do appreciate this. I'll review further.

I think people should outsource their thinking to those tasked with the job:

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-iv...

Summary: Don't take ivermectine, no evidence it helps against Covid-19.

There is at least some limited evidence that ivermectin helps against COVID-19.

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989

That's why the NIH is sponsoring a large scale clinical trial. That should give us more reliable evidence one way or the other.

https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initi...

There is conflicting low-quality evidence:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

Until we get back the results from larger and better studies, people shouldn't say Ivermectin works.

> I think people should outsource their thinking to those tasked with the job

A few decades ago most Americans would've said that was the Pope.

Sorry, but that is low quality evidence. The conclusion of the current evidence is inconclusive and mixed. Don't self-medicate.

And what's with the harping about the nobel price? How does this matter?