Hi Mitch, I am new to Twitter and hope that this doesn't turn into a Twitter fight. Matt did 'cover it". but only in the sense that he essentially took no position and repeated many Big Pharma talking points. He seems afraid to engage in the central issue "Does IVM work?". He seems to uncomfortable confronting this scientific question while he is fearless in confronting Big Business, Silicon Valley, etc. I understand that this is true for many people, but while some science is difficult to understand, clinical trials are relatively easy: two groups, one treated and one not. Sure there is some statistical analysis that my be intimidating to the laymen, but if he engaged serious scientists they could easily walk him through this. Even statistical information using the highly flawed Fisher p test would do the job for most people. There are subtle decisions in these studies, but if he would just read many of them he could get a first order approximation of whether they are evidence for or against the use of IVM. I am not asking him or anyone to conclude that IVM works, but simply that it may work, and therefore since in has an incredible safety profile, it should get a recommendation for use by the NIH--much like remdesivir, which doesn't work, and like their newly approved Alzheimer's drug which their own panel thought was worthless.

I think your comment is well taken, but I expect more from him.