This is a linkpost, created for the 2021 Review.
I know I’m two months late here. Everyone’s already made up their mind and moved on to other things.
But here’s my pitch: this is one of the most carefully-pored-over scientific issues of our time. Dozens of teams published studies saying ivermectin definitely worked. Then most scientists concluded it didn’t. What a great opportunity to exercise our study-analyzing muscles! To learn stuff about how science works which we can then apply to less well-traveled terrain! Sure, you read the articles saying that experts had concluded the studies were wrong. But did you really develop a gears-level understanding of what was going on? That’s what we have a chance to get here!
Alexandros Marinos (LW profile) has a long series where he reviewed Scott’s post:
This is his summary of the series, and this is the index. Here’s the main part of the index:
He also wrote a response right after Scott published (and before writing this series).
Here’s some excerpts from the summary that show his position (but without arguing for it):
Towards the end:
I only read his initial response in full, and thought it was very good. I haven’t read his series, and haven’t fully read his summary of it yet, but Alexandros seems to me like a serious and competent guy, and Scott also took him seriously and made some corrections due to his review, so it seems to me that he did great work here. And if reviews made before the reviews phase can be considered for prizes, and I think his deserves a prize.
Good and important, but long. I’d like to see a short summary in the book.