Talk:Ivermectin

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

“[S]uch claims are not backed by sound evidence.”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence.[15][16][17][18][19]”

This passage assumes that the only evidence of medical efficacy is the conduct of large scale, double-blind trials. This is incorrect. Clinically practicing doctors can detect the efficacy of treatments, and routinely do so. As an extreme example, surgeons generally do not conduct large scale, double-blind trials…people would die if they did. Yet we routinely consider the life-saving surgical practices of surgeons as “sound evidence”, because they demonstrably change the survival rates of patients with certain conditions or injuries. Let’s change this passage to be more accurate…there may not be large-scale double-blind trials, but I do hear compelling evidence that there are practicing physicians who are detecting a beneficial effect. Ivermectin is not known to have serious side-effects, therefore it seems a low-risk alternative that does no harm, and may do some good. We’re at vaccine saturation in the US…why not make a safe treatment acceptable for consideration by doctors, especially since it might pull in a portion of the vaccine skeptical public? Can we tone this down so it highlights that there is one very specific form of evidence that is lacking, while leaving open the question of emerging evidence from clinical practice? BleedingKansas (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You are espousing a fringe view. Wikipedia's policy is to align to reliable, mainstream sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that BleedingKansas has espoused a "fringe" view. As a rule, wikipedia editors should refrain from base rhetoric such as labelling viewpoints by other editors "fringe". Rather, BleedingKansas has espoused a common sense viewpoint. Where a common sense viewpoint diverges with alleged mainstream sources, giving room for the common sense viewpoint should be considered. In this instance, the alleged mainstream sources have given no rationale for excluding ivermectin from the medical practitioner's toolbox insofar as it is considered a safe drug by the same sources. The line of thinking that the editor collective should rigidly parrot perceived "mainstream sources" would preclude us to inform readers in a Semmelweis moment, and is therefore false. Esperion (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This page is in desperate need of correction. There is sound research demonstrating the efficacy of ivermectin in inhibiting viral replication in COVID-19[2], as well as in several other viruses[1]. It could be more correctly described as an anti-parsitic and selective antiviral. Note the last reference here is a double blinded randomised control trial[3]. Please make use of research search engines DevnullNZ (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of voices that have been asking for this paragraph to be toned down, at the very least. Does the new meta-analysis by Andrew Hill meet the standards for inclusion here? Hill is a researcher for the WHO. The peer-reviewed analysis is published by the Open Forum of Infectious Diseases, which has a journal impact factor of 3.835. The editorial accompanying the analysis (Mark J. Siedner MD MPH, Harvard Medical School), states the following: "The results are compelling. They identify a clinically significant benefit in pooled estimates for most of their selected outcomes. For example, they estimate a mean reduction in time to viral clearance of 3 days (95%CI 1-5), a reduction in time to clinical recovery of 1.5 days (95%CI 0.4-2.8), a reduction in duration of hospitalization of 4.3 days (95%CI 0.0-8.6) and 56% reduced risk of mortality. Notably, their estimates remain largely similar after excluding studies at high risk of bias. And, although the included studies do not overlap, their results are largely consistent with many (but not all 20) other meta-analytic evaluations of ivermectin conduct by other groups. Even the most ardent skeptic should be given pause by this data."

Clearly, this can no longer be considered only a fringe view, nor can we characterize it as misinformation that is not backed by sound evidence. Meta-analysis is here: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 Editorial is here: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab318/6298585

WP:CLEARLY? It's the same issue as the others: an ivermectin advocate publishing a review of low quality data that oddly comes out different to all the reputable medical organisations considering it. WP:REDFLAG applies. Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So, a well regarded researcher who comes in unbiased and with no apparent conflict of interest, but forms a positive opinion after reviewing good evidence gets labeled "an ivermectin advocate," and is therefore eliminated from consideration when he presents the evidence in a respected peer reviewed journal from Oxford University Press? Are the journal editor and those doing the peer review now denigrated as well to "ivermectin advocate" status? This reasoning does not make sense. It's not just presenting an opinion (like the numerous links allowed, written by authors of questionable expertise), but rather is sharing results from "24 randomized clinical trials (3328 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv and trial registries."

Perhaps you can read the study and tell us where it goes wrong, and what the peer reviewers and the editor from Harvard missed? Then you can write a letter and inform them why they should retract the study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidM58 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please learn how to WP:SIGN and how to WP:INDENT.

This is an encyclopedia, not a science-journal monitoring center. When we judge a source not good enough for inclusion in an article, there is no compulsion to inform the publisher of the source of our decision. And if all studies which are not strong enough to overturn a consensus were retracted, all research would screech to a halt. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite. If we were going just by normal rules of thumb, the new piece is in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal, which would rule it out for non-mundane claims. But since we're in a highly problematic field with sourced expressions of concern about ivermectin research, we can rely on the stronger sources (EMA, etc.) to ensure we aren't unduly boosting fringe science. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Seriously? This treatment is still said to be invalid and fringe on the page? Maybe Wikipedia has missed the boat on yet another current topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  As long as you do not supply WP:MEDRS sources, we have to assume that the boat is at the bottom of the ocean and it was a good idea to miss it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sunken treasure. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Reading this section was disheartening, to say the least, but reading the talk section about this section is much more so. Leaving aside the question of which position on Ivermectin for either prophylaxis or treatment of Covid19 turns out to be more accurate, the tone of this section is blatantly propagandistic, which should be rather the opposite of the style of writing used to address the factual basis for claims of a given substance's efficacy as disease treatment. The section starts with (heavily politicized) assertions and conclusions about Ivermectin and Covid19, then casts not only opposing viewpoints but opposing evidence (and, whether one considers it high quality evidence or not, said opposing evidence has been widely published in relevant [and reputable, fwiw] sources, including a number of medical journals) as, essentially, baseless conspiracy theories of the sort no doubt common to the writers' political opponents (yes, tongue firmly in cheek here). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one which I've usually appreciated in the past for its even handed tone on biochem/small molecule/drug articles when the 'Research Directions' section comes up. This entry should be no exception, and its far from unreasonable to expect editors and contributors to put aside their political motivations and adhere to this standard. Even if we don't admit that there is far from consensus on this issue, we could write it in a much more factual way, using neutral language (i.e. "Some clinicians have advocated for" "various political figures have drawn attention to" "this evidence has, as of X date, not been accepted by X, Y, Z") instead of using words like "erroneously" and "misinformation" and the like, which are claims that are no different than the ones purportedly being "debunked". This section is really off on the NPOV, which given the importance of the topic could possibly have serious (life and death) IRL consequences. Truth is always important, but seems especially important here. As for the data, a simple perusal of The Lancet, CHEST (one of the top Pulmonary/Crit Care Journals) and even Nature should show that from an clinical trial/research data perspective, Ivermectin efficacy is at least an open question, nevermind its widespread use in actual clinical practice in many different jurisdictions (which is EXACTLY how we landed at using Dexamethasone for severe covid when existing "Gold Standard" reviews of the evidence for/against corticosteroids in ARDS had created doubt it would be of much use - fast forward some months, and now its a Gold standard treatment for critical covid patients. Ditto IL-6 inhibitors like Toci - they were pretty fringe but achieved widespread acceptance as part of the toolkit in no small part because some clinicians experimented). This style of writing seems reminiscent of mask wearing being dismissed as "ineffective" and 'misinformation' during the pandemic's early days. Even the WHO made that mistake in their public health advice. Please let's remember that, not make the same mistakes here, and keep the language measured and precise, instead of strident. 108.175.233.87 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

After reading the top 30% of this diatribe: So you disagree with the conclusions of our reliable sources, and you want the article to be more on the fence. And why exactly? You should be aware that empty reasoning like "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one which I've usually appreciated in the past for blah blah" does not help at all when deciding that specific question. You could say the same, and people actually do say the same, about Holcaust denial. See WP:YWAB. So, cut all the filler and try again, restricting yourself to reasoning that actually says anything about ivermectin, using reliable sources. Ideally, sources that have not been brought forward and rejected for a good reason before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this count as a source? Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. Authored by

• Andrew Hill - Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L73NY, UK
• Anna Garratt - Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Vale, University Health Board, UK
• Jacob Levi - Department of Intensive Care, University College London Hospital, ULCH NHS Trust, London, UK
• Jonathan Falconer - Department of Infectious Diseases, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, Imperial NHS Trust, London, UK
• Leah Ellis, Kaitlyn McCann, Victoria Pilkington, Ambar Qav, Junzheng Wang, Hannah Wentzel - Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK

The 13th 4postle (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

The 13th 4postle, here is the important text of that meta-analysis: "Many studies included were not peer reviewed and a wide range of doses were evaluated." If this were the only source, then that would be one thing. But we have many other sources saying the opposite, that are more stringent and reliable and include only peer-reviewed studies. Indeed, the IDSA itself (which you reference) does not yet agree that the evidence is robust enough to recommend use. We must defer to the highest quality sources. See the consensus template at the top of the page. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink The problem is the wikipedia article explicitly states "Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence." That's not true and you're basically admitting it. There is scientific evidence and you're admitting that IDSA says that their is. That the scientific evidence is not robust enough to recommend treatment does not equal that there is no scientific evidence. The article is not giving readers a true picture of the scientific debate around Ivermectin and it's use in treating Covid. And we as editors of Wikipedia should not seek to be the arbiters of truth. We should simply point out the evidence for and against and let the readers decided. That would be a true neutral point of view. These are high quality sources and the Wikipedia article is acting as if they are conspiracy theories. The Wuhan lab leak was also considered a conspiracy theory and evidence against it censored. The 13th 4postle (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Hill source has already been discussed. It's an article by an Ivermectin advocate in a low quality journal reliant on likely fraudulent research. When we have the EMA, Cochrane collaboration, etc. we're not going to undercut them with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims from such a poor source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The key word is "credible". You keep pretending that the article says "no scientific evidence", but it says "no credible scientific evidence". Before, there were other adjectives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And now, inevitably.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are 9! Double Blind Randomized Control Trials which suggest that Ivermectin has a positive effect in treating patients with Covid-19. How is this not considered "credible scientific evidence?"

The 13th 4postle (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Primary sources are generally prohibited because they require expertise to interpret. This job has been done by many reliable secondary sources which are cited. Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sure, but the problem is with the specific language that "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[19][20] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.[21][22]". There is credible scientific evidence. Why can't we change the wording of the article to reflect that while there are some double blind randomized controlled trials that support that Ivermectin could be used as a treatment for SARS-COV-2, it has not been recommended for treatment by the WHO, FDA, etc... because many of the trials have been criticized for their lack of size, procedures, and accuracy." Or something along those lines. I just don't think the wording in the article is accurate of the true scientific discussion going on. This isn't a conspiracy theory. The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence that backs the preposterous claims made for ivermectin. Sorry, Wikipedia isn't going to indulge quacks and quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be doing a deep disservice to its readers if we included language like "some double blind randomized controlled trials" support the use of treatment X. There are almost no treatments so pseudoscientific that there haven't been primary trials showing positive evidence. Stating so in all cases would actually cause harm. Instead, we rely on WP:MEDRS-quality sources to review the primary evidence, and we report their conclusions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We go by what the bulk of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note, we comment on the content, not users. If you have an issue with user take it to their talk page or wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources and "current consensus"

It is disingenuous to caution against websites that are anonymous (see above “Current consensus”, #3), since WP itself is proud to be anonymous. Niemandsbucht (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We are fairly consistent on the point: WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Stromectol?

Why does "Stromectol" get top billing at the top of the article? Is this not pure commercial promotion?

200.68.169.188 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) baden k.

• No idea. It doesn't even appear to be the dominant brand. Changed. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated information by Dr. Kylie Wagstaff about ivemectin "high dosage for COVID-19" claim

In an online presentation during the Ivermectin Global Summit, hosted by the site TrialSite News, uploaded to VIMEO on May 25, 2021, Dr. Kylie Wagstaff, Head of the Nuclear Therapeutics Laboratory, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Australia, and team leader for the group that published the ivermectin in vitro study using monkey kidney cells, indicated that the claim many have made, that while her research team's efforts showed that ivermectin does mitigate the COVID-19 virus, the dosage needed to accomplish this in humans would be "very high" and "toxic", is "a fallacy."

Dr. Wagstaff explained how monkey kidney cells are very different from human tissue and do not produce an immune response, nor do they produce interferon. She went on to point out that because ivermectin accumulates in human lung and other tissues, there is no need for a 1:1 ratio of drug to virus and, consequently, the IC50 of the original monkey-kidney culture does not carry over into humans. She pointed out that ivermectin works with the human immune system to produce a 6-8 fold increase in the IC50 using the 0.2 mg/kg of body weight dosing commonly found in protocols treating SARS-CoV-2, which is within the standard dosage range for treating parasites. --Bdmurrell (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

This is a primary source, which is not suitable for referencing or inclusion on wikipedia. We need secondary sources to discuss this claim and give it weight or lack thereof. Please see our policies on WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV, particularly WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. Her claim has also not been peer-reviewed. In particular, it fails PRIMARY pts 1, 2, and 4. As to the specific claim, as a scientist who studied antiviral compounds in the lab, she makes some claims here that are not scientific. For example, it is not easy to convert dosages from petri dishes in the lab to human treatments, and she makes it sound quite easy in that talk. Secondly, it is not easy to extrapolate immune system effects from cell culture studies, and so what she says is similarly misleading. And finally, she makes claims of efficacy in humans which are not substantiated by the epidemiological literature.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional Pharmacokinetic Information And Contraindications

Peak levels from oral dosing in humans occur within 4 to 5 hours. Ivermectin is fat soluble and highly protein bound, with a terminal half-life of 57 hours in adult humans. Almost no original drug appears in the urine. It is Extensive metabolised by hepatic CYP3A4 to many different substances mostly hydroxylated and demethylated metabolites. Ivermectin is contraindicated in people with impaired blood brain barriers (head injury, CNS infections) due to its effects on GABA receptors.

Source: Goodmand and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 11th edition, pages 1086-1087.

Request Wikilink to the COVID-19 misinformation article

There is a small paragraph discussing how this drug is not proven or certified to be safe and/or effective for treatment of covid-19. Currently it has links to the Covid-19 article and the Covid-19 pandemic, but I think that a link to the COVID-19 misinformation article would be useful as well, as that directly addresses this piece of misinformation. 2601:644:8B80:2690:7093:CDFE:71EE:6AF6 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed, that is kind of a missed opportunity and a hole in our ability to educate readers. Will change. Thanks for the tip. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

brand names section is problematic for footnotes

Several cn's are missing in the section below, as well as at least one misplaced footnote. In addition it would be nice to have in the history section reference to this link.

Brand names

Ivermectin is available as a generic prescription drug in the U.S. in a 3 mg tablet formulation. It is also sold under the brand names Heartgard, Sklice and Stromectol in the United States, Ivomec worldwide by Merial Animal Health, Mectizan in Canada by Merck, Iver-DT in Nepal by Alive Pharmaceutical and Ivexterm in Mexico by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. In Southeast Asian countries, it is marketed by Delta Pharma Ltd. under the trade name Scabo 6. The formulation for rosacea treatment is sold under the brand name Soolantra. While in development, it was assigned the code MK-933 by Merck.

Albertbelgium (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

That link (to the Merck program) is not a secondary, independent, reliable source, so we typically would not reference it. We could describe the program if it is covered by such sources.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Source for ivermectin not being beneficial for Covid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Slatersteven, you reinserted that the claim "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation (i.e. untrue), citing the BMJ. I don't see where the BMJ source says that ivermectin has been proven to not be beneficial for treating or preventing Covid. Could you maybe quote the specific sentence(s) in the source stating that? Than we could attach the source to the claim you reinserted in the article. --Distelfinck (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19" is its title. So yes it says its misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also if POltifact is not an RS for the claim, it's not an RS for disputing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. We don't use Politifact for that claim in the article. --Distelfinck (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" doesn't need to be untrue for it to be misinformation. Promotion of unproven medical claims is misinformation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Then we should change that part of the sentence from misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. to misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin has been proven beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. That's what reliable sources say -- the jury is still out if ivermectin is beneficial, but the claim that it has been proven beneficial is false. Would you be okay with me changing it in that way, Slatersteven? --Distelfinck (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I can live with that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you --Distelfinck (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I oppose that change, but no so forcefully that I'd revert it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The change seems to be splitting a very fine hair, in a way that misleads the reader. --Hipal (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems to me a reasonable compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The BMJ article's title ("Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19") doesn't specify what claim the "Misleading" is referring to. It could be about ivermectin being beneficial, but also could be about other information around that topic. Again, please provide a quote supporting the claim you reinserted into the article. A drug not being beneficial is a biomedial claim and needs a reliable source per WP:MEDRS --Distelfinck (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not have to, it just has to say some claims are, which it does.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The OP is reversing the burden of evidence. The assumption is that a drug is ineffective unless evidence shows otherwise, and this is why no reliable source source says ivermectin has any benefit for COVID-19 (while many fringe/unreliable ones claim otherwise). To be neutral, Wikipedia frames the misinformation as misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"The assumption is that a drug is ineffective unless evidence shows otherwise". You can make that assumption, and conclude that Ivermectin is ineffective for Covid, but to put that conclusion into Wikipedia, you would need a reliable source that also makes that conclusion. See WP:Verifiability. Also, I would contend that your assumption is right about 99 times out of a 100, just because most candidate drugs don't turn out to be useful, but being right 99% of the time is not good enough for Wikipedia. We have to be right 100% of the time. --Distelfinck (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That is the assumption of EBM, which is why sources say the ivermectin promoters are spreading information. To be neutral, Wikipedia reflects those sources. We don't want ingenious weasel wording which muddies the issue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the sources don't say that it's not beneficial against Covid. That's a conclusion you have drawn, and just seem to have admitted to have drawn. This is a textbook case of breaking the No original research policy . Please self-revert --Distelfinck (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, as you seem to have misunderstood. Certain people are spreading misinformation about ivermectin; there is no credible evidence it is of any benefit for COVID-19. Wikipedia reflects this well-sourced knowledge to be neutral. OR doesn't come in to it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You put back the claim that "misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19." into our article. Misinformation is by definition false information. None of the sources cited say that the claim that ivermectin is beneficial against Covid is false, or misinformation. That makes what you put into our article missing a proper source. Ergo you should revert your edit. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

At least one says "misleading".Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Then let's change "misinformation" to "misleading claim" in the article. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of misleading claims is misinformation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk about "splitting a very fine hair", sorry, but I really am not seeing why that change changes anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we should stray from the wording used in the source (if the source really exists, I am trusting what you say here). Either way, the source still isn't added to the claim in our article, the claim currently has only two mainstream media articles attached to it, but no source that satisfies WP:MEDRS. As a first step, could you maybe add the source to the claim in our article? --Distelfinck (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We have two medical sources, one saying "misleading". We have media sources that saying "misinformation".Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at both medical sources. None of them calls the claim that Ivermectin is beneficial against Covid misleading. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It's a claim in our article without a source. This either gets reverted back to the okay version, or I will bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard --Distelfinck (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin has been researched for anti-Covid benefits, and found to be helpful. s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 Claims of anti-Covid efficacy are not misleading or misinformative. The article header should be updated to remove that statement. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 15:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the head of the page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see anything labelled "FAQ". I did post a review of evidence (not primary source), and a media article covering a government statement. But the tone of the discussion here makes it sound like the types of secondary sources allowed is so narrowly constructed that any dissent, no matter how well-referenced, will be thrown out. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 15:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's labelled "Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus". Plenty of good sources referenced there, and there has since been a Cochrane review.[5] Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, ChristTrekker, but I am not so bold as to attempt to make an edit that gets past the self-appointed anti-ivermectin police. I will restrict myself to observing that the article as currently written brings not only Wikipedia but also its "approved" sources (WHO, FDA, CDC and NIH) into disrepute. Piedmont (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn None of the sources in that paragraph that you edited state that the claim "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation, or untrue. Even though, you added this statement to our article with your edit. You added unsourced information. Unsourced information is against Wikipedia policy, in this case. A correction is in order, i.e. you should remove that statement. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it verifiable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shibbolethink You are missing the point with your above close. Statements, even if true, if challenged, need a inline citatation (e.g. in a footnote). The statement that "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation doesn't have an inline citation supporting it. --Distelfinck (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I really suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Some sources

https://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-science/no-ivermectin-is-not-a-drug-for-treating-the-coronavirus-says-the-fda/article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/09/02/internet-vigilantes-are-fighting-ivermectin-misinformation-with-memes-and-explicit-horse-cartoons/?sh=334f3f2215df

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2021/sep/03/covid-19-ivermectin-and-reporting-on-misinformation-in-australia-with-lenore-taylor

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-shaky-science-behind-ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-cure

All are variations on Ivermectin misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources: [6] [7] [8] [9] which are all directly attached to the statements in question.

And additionally these sources also back up the claim: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, we are clearly paraphrasing a wide range of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. (from WP:Citing sources).

None of the four sources cited in that intro paragraph support the statement that "ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19" is misinformation.

Even if the statement is true, it is still against policy, because none of the inline citations support it.

--Distelfinck (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the sources we have provided do support the statement. I think we are approaching WP:IDHT territory. Please read WP:SATISFY.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Our Verifiability policy says:

any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. and A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. You said "That statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources: ...". But if it's not directly present in at least one ouf the sources, per our policy that's not sufficient.

So please provide a quote from one of the four sources used in that paragraph, that directly supports the statement.

--Distelfinck (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In the early hours of New Year’s Eve, former Liberal MP Craig Kelly logged on to Facebook to make one of his regular contributions to the global network of misinformation about Covid-19 – this time, to promote the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a treatment for the virus....For months, Kelly had faced increasing criticism from health experts for promoting the use of drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as coronavirus treatments, against scientific evidence...[18]

"There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong," the FDA said... Currently, there are no "mountains of data" to show its benefit. The existing evidence is limited and documents mixed results. We rate the statement False. [19]

a general publication from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) stated that “…ivermectin is incorrectly being used for the treatment of COVID-19, without any scientific evidence of its efficacy and safety for the treatment of this disease.” [20]

False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19. [21]

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information. Our statement is an encyclopedic summary of these sources per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. Encyclopedic summary is absolutely allowed on wikipedia, in exactly the fashion we have with these statements here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Its time to close this, and take it to other venues.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If the unsourced information doesn't get removed in the next 2 days, or this doesn't get reported at ANI in the next 2 days, then I will personally report this to ANI. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely up to you who you report, how, and when. But from my perspective this is fundamentally a content dispute. ANI does not typically like having content disputes brought to the noticeboard. I would advise you against bringing it there. However, I have no intention of removing the well-sourced material. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PAHO/WHO source, a current source and frequently updated

[22] Ongoing Living Update of COVID-19 Therapeutic Options: Summary of Evidence. Rapid Review, 26 August 2021

--TMCk (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Summary of findings:

"Although pooled estimates suggest significant benefits with ivermectin, included studies’ methodological limitations and a small overall number of events results in very low certainty of the evidence. Based on the results reported by the RCTs classified as low risk of bias, ivermectin may not significantly reduce mortality nor mechanical ventilation requirements, and probably does not improve time to symptom resolution. However, ivermectin may reduce hospitalizations in non-severe patients. Further research is needed to confirm or discard these findings."

--TMCk (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's very thin soup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

AMA resource

[23] "Why ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19" from the American Medical Association

Is this something that ought to be used, or does it not count as a reliable medical source? It's a few months newer than the sources given at the top of this article, but it's a very different kind of source. 2600:1003:B862:A86D:29BF:4640:593:3900 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes this would count as a WP:MEDRS as a guideline from a professional body. Sorry I was thinking about the AMA statement I had just read, did not realize this was to a different link: [24]. Arguably both are "professional body statements" however. Similar to how the WHO statement for covid origins was an "international body statement." It is, in that way, useful to understand the scientific consensus.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC))

Re correction: sure.--TMCk (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Since when is a news article a professional guideline??????--TMCk (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The above link is indeed to a news piece. We may want instead to discuss this link, a statement by the AMA and others. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That's done with one sentence: Don't take medication meant for animals or order them online but get a prescription from your doc if you have one.--TMCk (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: This is not a discussion page so please leave your personal beliefs elsewhere. There are cited uses of Ivermectin in humans linked directly in this article. --24.113.44.75 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I added the AMA statement to the misinformation section along with others from the FDA, CDC and WHO. I'm not sure if Merck's press release is reliable enough to use here, although it is mentioned by the AMA for what it's worth. It's not our job to steer folks away from bad medical decisions but I think it serves the reader well to say up front that use for COVID-19 treatment is specifically advised against, rather than using uncertain terms like "no evidence". –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Request Edit to Mechanism of Action Section

Pleaase change "In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier" to "In mammals, glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord, and ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier".

The "Mechanism of Action" section currently notes that "In mammals, ivermectin cannot cross the blood-brain barrier", but omits the reason why this is important. After all, mammals also have nerve cells and muscle cells outside the blood-brain barrier. The sentence in the original source referenced is "However, mammals only possess glutamate-gated chloride channels in the brain and spinal cord and as the avermectins have a low affinity for other mammalian ligand-gated channels and do not usually cross the blood–brain barrier, they are very safe for mammals." This may be too much information, hence the suggested correction. It still leavs open the question of why ivermectin does not affect the spinal cord in humans (or perhaps it does?), but that is a problem in the original reference, and thus needs to be left for expert correction. Urilarim (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[18][19] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence.[20][21]

Not true. There's over 40 credible scientific papers by top research scientists stating it is beneficial, including a Monash University study revealing Ivermectin kills COVID within 48 hrs, paper snippet here and National Library of Medicine here which indicates a five day treatment is effective. The media is lying and trying to make Ivermectin look like a controversial medicine when it is even on the WHO list of essential medicines and is considered safe for human use. † Encyclopædius 08:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a lot of ifs buts and maybes. When you have a source that says it is beneficial we can change the wording.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible issue with NPOV and "right-wing" allegation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See: WP:NPOV & MOS:TERRORIST

In the Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation section the seond paragraph states "Ivermectin became a cause célèbre for right-wing figures promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment." Upon clicking the reference I find no mention of anything related to the "right wing". Can this sentence be reworded or removed altogether? --Skarz (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The first line of the article: "The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19 is in serious doubt..." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative" AKA "right-wing" in US parlance, and this article is written from an american perspective. From that source: The conservative Australian MP Craig Kelly, who has also promoted the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 – despite World Health Organization advice that clinical trials show it does not prevent illness or death from the virus – has been among those promoting ivermectin....Lawrence said what started out as a simple university assignment had led to a comprehensive investigation into an apparent scientific fraud at a time when “there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists” — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

So if I understand this corretly, the original editor used the singular quotation from Lawrence, without citing his research, to extrapolate that Ivermectin is a cause celebre? That violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Nothing in that linked article, other some random quote from some random person references the right wing / ivermectin connection. --Skarz (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your comments about the linked article are incorrect. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, please explain why - because you disagree with me or because my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is incorrect? --24.113.44.75 (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Because Feathers found, and quoted above, that mention of anything related to the "right wing" you say you failed to find - in the very first sentence of the source. Why does this need explaining? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim about sterilization in men

Recently found this claim. The validity of this claim needs to be tested. Sharing the links to the claims on some news portals below.

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/ivermectin-causes-sterilization-in-85-percent-of-men-study-finds/

https://illinoisnewstoday.com/ivermectin-causes-sterilization-in-85-percent-of-men-studies-find/367625/

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1435422132884881411

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/pko3zz/ivermectin_causes_sterilization_in_85_percent_of/

-- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this is a medical claim, we need WP:MEDRS quality sources to support its inclusion in this article. (e.g. a review published in a reputable topic-relevant journal). These news sources unfortunately do not cut it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

So you now suddenly think WP:MEDRS is important? In the above discussion, you found it perfectly fine to back up your view that ivermectin has been proven to be not beneficial against Covid with The Verge, Fox News and the website of an obscure radio station --Distelfinck (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's because we already have numerous WP:MEDRS to back up that claim. See the consensus banner at the top of this talk page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)