I think the verdict is mostly_true, but the nuance is in how we define "efficacy." The AI's conclusion is solid on the clinical side, but the real story is how we balance mechanism with outcome. The problem isn't just that ivermectin doesn't work in humans — it's that the human body is a system with feedback loops, and what works in a dish can be neutralized or even harmful in a living system. Think of it like a car: just because the engine works in a lab doesn’t mean it’ll move the whole vehicle. The AI didn’t say the mechanism is wrong — it just said the real-world application doesn’t pan out. That’s not dismissal, it’s realism.