The dictionary.com definition of quack works for me:This is a C19 topic informative thread.
What is your definition of a quack doctor? In your opinion if a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as a early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, are they a quack doctor?
"noun. a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan. adjective. being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems."
If a doctor prescribes Ivermectin as an early preventative from serious sickness from the virus, AND if there is no scientific basis or little scientific basis for doing so, I would call that doctor a quack.
I noticed this in the journal article you shared. "This work was inspired by the prior literature review of Dr Pierre Kory."
I consider Dr. Pierre Kory to be a quack, so I am highly skeptical of this article's conclusions. I'm not dismissing the conclusions out of hand because of the reference to someone I consider a quack. A wise friend of mine once said "I listen to everybody because even an idiot says something intelligent once in a while." But I'm disinclined to accept the conclusions as valid until they are confirmed by more credible sources like the FDA and CDC; or as Turtle might say, until the conclusions are confirmed by the numbers.
I believe the FDA is sponsoring research now on the use of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 preventative and/or treatment. It will be interesting to learn what those findings are. This is a legitimate question and I'm glad to see it being researched by credible organizations.
Quackery dressed up in a journal wrapper is still quackery. Again, I'm not dismissing this article's conclusions out of hand, but it being presented in journal format does not automatically mean it should be believed.