At Instapundit Ed Driscoll links this piece at Reason.  It’s basically about how the imbeciles caught the anti-Ivermectin train to nowhere and all looked rather stupid.  But this particular paragraph that stands out.

It is vital for the media to communicate correct information to the public about ivermectin. While the drug is not only used for de-worming horses and is in fact prescribed to humans, overdoses can cause nasty side effects. Moreover, its viability as a COVID-19 cure is highly disputed. As Reason‘s Ronald Bailey noted in a recent article, there’s little evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment for the virus. Reporters should make crystal clear that the best way to fight the COVID-19 pandemic is mass vaccination. But communicating wrong information about ivermectin overdoses works against this goal, as it is likely to convince vaccine skeptics that their skepticism is justified.

“Little evidence,” he says.

So for starters, we could cite the following studies: (1), (2), and (3).  But why stop there?  There are many more such studies.

Here is the source.  And they also monitor studies on Hydroychloroquine.  When something is important, you can’t leave it to the FedGov.

You might be forgiven for saying that “I just want to see more studies.”  That’s a bit strange if you accept the effectiveness of any of the vaccines but reject Ivermectin as a prophylactic.  But if you say something like there is “little evidence that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for the virus,” you’re just parroting talking points developed by people who have a vested interest in how this all turns out, whether from laziness or intent.

By the way, if you reject Ivermectin but accept something like Fauci’s Remdesivir, you are aware of the fact that in the very approval given for Remdesivir, of the two (only two) studies cited, in both of the studies, Remdesivir was pulled before the study was complete due to its propensity to cause liver damage and make the disease even worse?  You are aware of that, aren’t you?

So who decides to write something like “little evidence?”  The author has these creds.

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason. He enjoys writing about culture, politics, education policy, criminal justice reform, television, and video games. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Report, The Orange County Register, and The Detroit News. In 2016, Forbes named him to the “30 Under 30” list in the category of law and policy. In 2017, he became a Novak Fellow at The Fund for American Studies. He also serves on the D.C. Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

I guess as it turns out, when you make enough money to pay professional writers and analysts, it’s tempting for those writers to grab the pronouncements of those who have unearned authority and repeat them, in lieu of doing your own fact-checking.

But wait, isn’t that what Rolling Stone did?