Talk:Ivermectin

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Ivermectin|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Ivermectin|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Ivermectin|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Ivermectin|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Ivermectin|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Ivermectin|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Ivermectin|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Ivermectin|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Ivermectin|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Ivermectin|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

COVID-19

It is truly shocking the lengths taken to suppress information about this potentially life saving treatment for covid. The WHO and CDC have sat on this cheap safe potential treatment since August, meanwhile promoting an unproven expensive vaccine. Why? This is another tool in the toolbox, yet only negative articles are allowed on Wikipedia. When did Wikipedia become so politicized? Is this source good enough for mention? https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04668469 .2mg / kg is a low dosage proven to be safe, not the nonsense stated in this wiki

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4A80:5870:3910:DA7:2204:1AE2 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 

Incoming edits due to https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-australia-ivermectin-antiparasitic-drug-kills-covid19-in-lab/news-story/615c435e56aefc4b704f4fd890bd4c2c for sure.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.241.225 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Right now [48] and [78] are duplicate refs to the same COVID-19/invermectin article. Boud (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article incorrectly refers to SARS-COV-2 as a negative sense RNA virus. It is a positive sense RNA virus.

On December 8th 2020 Dr Pierre Kory, speaking as a representative of a group of doctors who together have published nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed publications appeared at a meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to plead that the NIH be forced to review the most recent evidence on the use of Ivermectin as a treatment and prophylactic for Sars-Cov-2 and Covid 19. He claimed that the use of Ivermectin on Covid 19 patients had a "miraculous impact", and this description was based on "mountains of evidence that has appeared in the last three months". He pointed out that the NIH's recommendation that Ivermectin not be used outside of controlled trials was made in August 2020, before the "mountains of data" that emerged subsequently. Dr. Kory presented a summary of this data, and the committee chairman Senator Ron Johnson promised to pass this on to the NIH for review.... <https://osf.io/wx3zn/> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w>

It is okay to publish the truth about this drug now, and the results it has proven for Covid Treatment. Now that the marxists that control Wikipedia and all the internet have defeated Trump, the truth can come out. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.87.50 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I would delete this comment per WP:TPG, but perhaps it's instructive to leave it as an illustration of where the pro-Ivermectin boosterism is coming from. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AussiePete56 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. Would need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is some more reliable evidence on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in preventing and treating Covid-19 . https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf .

https://c19ivermectin.com/ . AussiePete56 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. Would need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I dispute the claim of "unreliable" by Alexbrn since the two articles are secondary reviews of others' research and therefore qualify as reliable as per the WP:MEDRS guidelines. I notice that the "unreliable" tag was applied to this page three minutes after the links to the two review articles were published - three minutes isn't enough time to read even half of one of the reviews, let alone properly evaluate both. The charge of "unreliable" is therefore itself seemingly unreliable AussiePete56 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

We need secondary sources in reputable medical journals (or medical textbooks, etc). These are obviously not that, and appear to be self-published web sites. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Using medical journals , textbooks etc is ideal, but as the guidelines state, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We are currently in a "war" with a virus which is currently killing nearly 14,000 people a day worldwide - a number which is increasing every day. Information which can save lives is desperately needed. As per guidelines, "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information." I maintain that this is clearly a time where an exception to the normal stringent editorial standards should apply. Ivermectin has been taken 3.7 billion times over 40 years and its safety is not in dispute - the only unknown is its efficacy. There is after all, no alternative medicine for Covid 19, and even ventilation in hospital will allow about 23% of patients to die. Surely the "mountains of evidence that Ivermectin works miraculously on Covid 19" that Dr Kory and his team refers to should be mentioned on these pages to allow access to as many medical professionals as possible the information they need to make their own assessments on how to best treat their patients. AussiePete56 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The current situation is all the more reason why we used the best quality sources, which is why general sanctions apply for this topic requiring WP:MEDRS, of which you have been notified. What you're proposed to add is dodgy (as the word "miraculous" should clue you in to at once). We already cite high quality WP:MEDRS: PMID 33227231. I shall not respond further unless new sources are proposed as this is a clear-cut case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the information being presented in these reviews IS the "best quality source" available - ie, the very latest real-world studies demonstrating life-saving treatments. Alexbrn didn't even read these studies. 6% hospital deaths versus 23% are the results achieved. Some of these studies lack peer-review which typically takes months - time that these 14,000 people who are dying daily no not have. To give priority to ideological purity over thousands of daily deaths is insane and inhumane. To repeat a point that Alexbrm ignores - 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin has been taken over 40 years. It is safe. There is only potential benefits to using it and strong and growing evidence supports such use. Allowing this information to be available, together with suitable disclaimers, is the appropriate and responsible decision. AussiePete56 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"In November 2020 a meta-analysis found only weak evidence of benefit.[89]"

I propose changing this vague and ambiguous sentence to, "In November 2020 a meta-analysis found a 47% reduction in mortality (statistically significant) for Ivermectin-treated Covid-19 patients, however, due to a relatively small sample size (629 patients) the evidence is considered weak. [1] AussiePete56 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn The actual meta-analysis linked as reference is much more positive as to the effectiveness of Ivermectin that what is stated in this wiki: There is only very weak evidence of ivermectin's benefit when used as an add-on therapy for people with non-severe COVID-19; there is no evidence for people with severe disease.[85]

Why not just quote the conclusion of the actual meta-analysis? Ivermectin is an established drug with a long history of clinical use and with minimal safety concern. Recent observational studies have reported the effectiveness of this drug as add-on therapy in patients with COVID-19. Our meta-analysis also supports this finding and suggests the modest utility of ivermectin in reducing all-cause mortality and improving clinical outcomes. Currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidencefor repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriaandh (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

}}

"The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19". In the interests of full disclosure, I propose amending this to, "The National Institutes of Health recommended against the use ivermectin for COVID-19 in August 2020". Since then, dozens of research reports on Ivermectin and Covis 19 have been released. Putting a date on the recommendation flags for the reader that it does not necessarily encompass the most recent research. AussiePete56 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This would be possible is it was also added "... and is still current as of 2021", because of course such guidelines are under constant review. And we wouldn't want to give the false impression that the NIH is somehow outdated, now would we? Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I would accept your suggestion on a "better than nothing" basis. Do you really think that the NIH's position is not outdated Alexbrn? You always exude the attitude that conformity to authority equals virtue. Do you have any theories on why the NIH, CDC and FDA allocated zero public funds to the investigation of re-purposing existing drugs against Covid 19, and instead went "all-in" on developing novel vaccines? I'm not cynical, but cynics would say, "Because that's where the money is." Many billions of dollars. And the vaccines don't work on patients who already have the virus. And it will take about a year for 80% of first-world countries to get vaccinated, and many more years for third-world countries.

So we're up to 15,000 people per day dying from Covid 19 at the moment, most of whom could be saved on the evidence of dozens of studies that the NIH ignores.... AussiePete56 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use Talk pages to push conspiracy theories. As multiple editors have now advised you, WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We should try to avoid turning this into a discussion board, and try to focus on reporting what our sources say. Since regulatory bodies routinely change their positions, their prior positions by their own admission were outdated. Teishin (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you have repeatedly referred to the 28 studies which each independently found that Ivermectin works to alleviate Covid 19 illness as "fake" - that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. AussiePete56 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Something trying to pass itself off as a journal article, when it's just a self-published web site, is a "fake" journal article. As noted, people sharing it on Facebook get banned. Maybe Wikipedia should do the same. Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no skin in this game. I just saw this chart stating far lower cumulative deaths from COVID-19 in the Mexican state of Chiapas compared to all the others and how that correlates with it being alone amongst them in using Ivermectin: https://twitter.com/Covid19Critical/status/1347721731272830976 (That mention of Ivermectin brought me here.) The correlation may be something which can be readily verified or disproved as it claims to be from public official data and the outcome mentioned on the main page. ― Ralph Corderoy (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm late for this discussion. c19early, c19study, c19legacy, c19ivermectin, ivmmeta, c19hcq, hcqmeta, and others, use grossly incorrect methodology, producing biased results with bizarre p-values. They are still being used as "evidence" by political groups in Brazil to spread medical disinformation. (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the recommendation from the ministry of health of India count as a reliable source ? https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/COVID19_Management_Algorithm_22042021_v1.pdf I hear also IVM is used in Mexico city now https://mexicobusiness.news/health/news/ivermectin-controversial-covid-19-drug-used-mexico-city Isn't it enough to say at least that there is no consensus on efficacy? We don't live in Disneyland, health agencie's recommendations in rich countries account for billions in drug purchasing.How could there be no influence when there are choices like $1000 remdesivir vs $5 hcq or ivermectin ? In countries with lower financial resources there are also bright people, but less pressure not to reuse existing drugs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pweltz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable for their view, but since the Indian govt. is a busy hive of quackery and pseudoscience not reliable for any rational assertion about reality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

break

Note the imprecise wording of the Invermectin COVID-19 Wikipedia entry: "As of January 2021, the U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that the evidence for ivermectin is too limited to allow for a recommendation for or against its use." This wording does not make clear that ivermection is now a treatment option for COVID-19. In fact, the “neither for nor against” NIH classification is the "recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation." [2] Unfortunately, this clarification can not be made because the COVID-19 section is locked down for edits even from autoconfirmed users--which is contrary to the edit notification for that section. I hope this is just a mistake and not a tragic example of "cancel culture" impacting Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisswiss (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about reporting of study results:

This statement is false: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo. I quote directly from the study: the median viral load for both genes was lower at days 4 and 7 post treatment in the ivermectin group with differences increasing from 3-fold lower at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) to around 18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N)

The study DID find a difference - it was just not statistically significant based on the threshold chosen. Even the PCR found a difference - RR 0·92. If you want to write something negative based on the results of this extremely small study, then write that it was underpowered to find statistically significant difference. Because every single endpoint found a difference showing benefit of Ivermectin use.Adriaandh (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I found the same error. It is interesting that the one paper cited in support of ivermectin's ineffectiveness actually does a pretty good job selling its beneficial effects - note that, on top of the difference in viral load that did not meet the significance threshold, it did find a significant reduction of symptoms. Whether or not the experimental design designated this as a "primary finding" would seem to me to have no bearing on the scientific merit of the finding, or its relevance to the text of this article. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Not to worry, the editors simply deleted all mention of this study rather than reckon with their error.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:C47C:4E3C:EC7D:831 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The section on Covid seems to be highly subjective

The section on Covid seems to be highly subjective and possibly inaccurate. I believe it should be changed to more neutral and objective as Wikipedia standards dictate - removing the word "misinformation" and to change "no reliable evidence exists" to "no large scale studies have been done."

All research that has been performed to my knowledge has shown that ivermectin is effective at treating Covid. A meta-analysis of four papers, accessible through the NIH, shows a .02 p value that adding ivermectin to a treatment regimen leads to improved clinical outcomes.

While they do stipulate that the quality of the individual papers included in the meta-analysis is "very low," they go on to say "currently, many clinical trials are on-going, and definitive evidence for repurposing this drug for COVID-19 patients will emerge only in the future."

As far as I am aware, all subsequent papers have all found that ivermectin was effective in treating Covid. This website that performs a real time meta-analysis of all papers (as of comment, 55 studies) shows a p value of disproving the clinical results as p = 0.000000000000043.

While there are no large scale studies of ivermectin as of yet, there is nothing but positive research (again, as far as I know) that show that it is effective. Therefore, "misinformation" does not objectively apply to this situation. It should only be applied when we have reliable information that the claim is false. On the contrary, the only reliable information we do have is that the claim is true, though I grant that it is far from settled science due to lack of large scale studies.

Further, while any of the smaller studies on their own might not be considered "reliable," surely a meta-analysis of 55 studies demonstrating a remarkably small p-value, could arguably considered reliable. Notwithstanding the lack of a large scale study, the meta-analysis data should disqualify the descriptor "not reliable" from being used by an objective source such as Wikipedia. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

ivnmeta.com is not a reliable source. This article cites several reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe my overall point stands even with only the first source. The authors find a statistically significant beneficial effect in their meta-analysis of 4 papers (though they stipulate the individual papers to be of very low quality) and say only time will tell when there is more of a body of evidence shown.

As others have pointed out, since the publication of that paper, many other papers have shown significant results in favor of ivermectin, even if not all 55 papers included in the website you mention are legitimate (I wonder, which aren't? I genuinely don't know).

My argument against the use of the word disinformation therefore stands, as this is an active ongoing area of research (and I might add, the overwhelming body of evidence, however inconclusive, points to its efficacy).2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Things have moved on since November, but in fact we already cite that review (actually, at COVID-19 drug repurposing research#Ivermectin which is transcluded here). The line from ivermectin proponents was for a long time that high-quality evidence of benefit was just around the corner. It hasn't appeared, and ivermectin advocacy has passed into the realm of quackery, antivax, COVID denial and conspiracy theorizing.[3] There's not much more Wikipedia can do than report the caution from our best (WHO, FDA, NHS, etc.) sources and the shame of the misinformation that's been spread. Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is science based medicine deemed reliable here and not the other websites of individual physicians? Again, I am relatively new to this issue and am trying to understand the terrain here. As for "ivermectin advocacy has passed into the realm of quackery, antivax, COVID denial and conspiracy theorizing," this again reads as highly subjective.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't cite that SBM article (there's no need when we have top-level WP:MEDRS), but SBM is regarded as a reliable source for fringe medical claims (see WP:RSP). I'm not sure what you mean by subjective. If you want to read about the sociological aspects of ivermectin/COVID advocacy - which Wikipedia does not really cover - there's plenty of reading to be done, starting here maybe? As far as (lack of) evidence of efficacy goes, we have unimpeachable sources already cited. Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your linked source (New Statesman) does not address any of the points I am making RE subjective use of "disinformation." It reiterates that the papers have been included in meta-analyses are low quality, and that a large scale trial at Oxford is underway. Where is the sufficient objective basis to label this issue "misinformation?" 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The subjective/objective distinction, if meaningful anywhere, is not meaningful for the purposes of reflecting what reliable sources say. By any measure the claim that ivermectin is a "miracle cure" or indeed effective at all, is misinformation. Reliable sources contain that knowledge, Wikipedia reflects it. That is the function of an encyclopedia. There is more detail on the misinformation at the COVID-19 misinformation article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"By any measure the claim that ivermectin is a "miracle cure" or indeed effective at all, is misinformation." According to the WHO, no conclusion has been reached on this question. Certainly an investigator who finds an effect, in an ongoing worldwide clinical effort, in not spreading misinformation by reporting their finding. Certainly the WHO's own analysis that no conclusive finding has been reached, should outrank a non-SME deeming ivermectin benefits to be "misinformation." I also question why the European Medicines Agency recommending against its use, is being cited over the WHO, which does not recommend either for or against.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:D89C:66EE:D017:775B (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

From the New Statesman article linked above by Alexbrn as a reputable source - "at the moment the only scientific response is to withhold judgement." This language far more accurately describes the current state of the science as far as I can tell. I remain confused as to why "misinformation" is an accurate characterization of the potential benefits of ivermectin, and further why it should be included in a single-sentence synopsis on the topic - seems to me that something more akin to the official WHO language would serve to inform readers better, rather than arbitrarily shepherd them towards adopting a subjective opinion RE misinformation. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:D89C:66EE:D017:775B (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The WHO is already cited. Claims that ivermectin is an effective COVID treatment are misinformation. A statement that we should "withhold judgement" would not be; but that's not what the advocates are saying. That's the reality according to the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely, under your definition, misinformation is spread about every drug known to humanity. The question is, what is the most informative way to present the relevant information in a one-sentence synopsis? Is it to debunk a notion that the reader may or may not have prior to reading the article, in a manner that easily could lead others to a false understanding of the scientific record - ex. "Wiki says Ivermectin being effective against Covid is misinformation, so this must mean it is not effective!" Or is it to provide a simple summary of the science - "research to ascertain effectiveness is underway"? In my opinion, the current language creates a false impression in the reader and endeavors to "correct" rather than inform. If use of "misinformation" is strictly necessary, then more specificity as to what is misinformation and what is not would seem to me to be of the utmost importance.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"There is no evidence it is effective" obviously means just that. We are not responsible for any misunderstandings by people who cannot read. There are people out there who tell you it works against COVID, and Wikipedia needs to tell you that those people pulled that information out of their own ass. I don't know what is so difficult about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not an accurate characterization of my argument. Allow me to point out what exactly I find misleading: "During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. No reliable evidence exists to back up such claims." Notwithstanding the fact that a paper cited in the body of the article (deemed reliable) does offer evidence that ivermectin is beneficial in the treatment of Covid, labeling the claim "misinformation," which indicates that the information is false, could indeed lead a careful reader to conclude that the information is not simply unsubstantiated (again, I would argue against that claim as an aside) but indeed that it has been falsified (incontrovertibly not the case). The word "misinformation" in the context of this sentence simply is not merited in my view. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We assume our readers are reasonably intelligent. Any reader who was provoked into imagining something nonsensical about the falsifiability of a drug's efficacy would not be a "careful reader", they'd be daft. You seem to be pursuing some kind of Truth™ but Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. Equivalence with a placebo could be easily determined by an experiment designed towards that end. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I will also repeat an argument earlier for which I have heard no response. Why should a researcher, accurately reporting their findings, deemed to be spreading "misinformation?"2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The is good evidence, or there is not. We're in the latter circumstance. It's likely that the True Believers will always find something in any experiment that they say supports their Truth™, no matter how unencouraging it is. Anyway, without new sourcing I think we are done here. Your question has no relevance to our article text. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The article text improperly uses the word misinformation. That is the relevance of my question. As for whether there is good evidence or not, do you now believe the paper that is currently cited by the article is no longer "good evidence," now that you have been informed that it contains significant evidence of benefits of the use of ivermectin in treating Covid?2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:GEVAL we need to make sure misinformation (e.g. "wonder drug") is properly identified. This is policy. There is no good evidence per the WP:MEDRS sources we cite; this is a the sourcing standard for biomedical information on Wikipedia. If you have a specific proposal, make it, but this is just looking like a prolonged waste of time so I shall not respond further if no concrete policy-based proposal is made. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel I have (more than) adequately detailed my concerns over the term "misinformation" as it is deployed currently in the summary of ivermectin vis a vis Covid. Certainly specifying what is misinformation (ex. "miracle cure" has clearly been established by the research not to be accurate) and what is not (the open prospect that it might be deployed as a beneficial treatment and/or preventative measure) would be a good way to begin addressing these concerns.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No, because your "open prospect" narrative is a WP:PROFRINGE one out of alignment with the way in which decent sources refer to the matter. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It aligns perfectly with the language within the paper currently cited in the article (I was not the one who deemed this paper reliable). Regardless, if the term "misinformation" must be used (I wonder why this is the case), it certainly should be directed at a specific target. What exactly is misinformation?2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You have no idea how ironic what you're spouting is. 2402:B801:2867:E200:C5E8:96E4:1417:F9CC (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Miracle Cure or Cruel Hoax (May 6th 2021).Moxy- 21:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If the term "miracule cure" indeed is what is referred to by "misinformation" in the introductory sentence, then that should be specified. As it stands, the vague application of misinformation appears to be directed towards the idea that ivermectin is beneficial in treating covid - a conclusion which by no means is reflective of the current state of the science. Further, I would question why fact checking the "miracle cure" claim would warrant "lede" status, but I am not willing to die on that hill ;) 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:C47C:4E3C:EC7D:831 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS Dhama et al (2020) on Ivermectin and Covid

From p. 29 of this MEDRS in one of the best journals (Clinical Microbiology Reviews):

Recently, another FDA-approved drug, ivermectin, was reported to inhibit the in vitro replication of SARS-CoV-2. The findings from this study indicate that a single treatment of this drug was able to induce an 5,000-fold reduction in the viral RNA at 48 h in cell culture. One of the main disadvantages that limit the clinical utility of

ivermectin is its potential to cause cytotoxicity. However, altering the vehicles used in the formulations, the pharmacokinetic properties can be modified, thereby having significant control over the systemic concentration of ivermectin (338). Based on the pharmacokinetic simulation, it was also found that ivermectin may have limited therapeutic utility in managing COVID-19, since the inhibitory concentration that has to be achieved for effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity is far higher than the maximum plasma concentration achieved by administering the approved dose (340). However, ivermectin, being a host-directed agent, exhibits antiviral activity by targeting a critical cellular process of the mammalian cell. Therefore, the administration of ivermectin, even at

lower doses, will reduce the viral load at a minor level. This slight decrease will provide a great advantage to the immune system for mounting a large-scale antiviral response against SARS-CoV-2 (341). Further, a combination of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine might have a synergistic effect, since ivermectin reduces viral replication, while hydroxychloroquine inhibits the entry of the virus in the host cell (339). Further, in vivo studies and randomized clinical control trials are required to understand the mechanism as well as the clinical utility of this promising drug

I propose we edit the article to acknowledge that this source says "ivermectin, even at lower doses, will reduce the viral load at a minor level.". Forich (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

[4].Moxy- 04:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The source is old in comparison to later good ones, and a WP:REDFLAG flies. It does not raise confidence that the text about "immune response" is cited to a single letter, and misrepresents it (by boosting a "can" to a "will"). We already say why pre-clinical work gave rise to the notion that ivermectin might have utility as a treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ivmmeta and all similar domain names linking to the same site

Tagging in user:Aaronmhamilton to this discussion about sites like ivvmeta.com. These are not MEDRS, and as has been discussed above several times, the findings on that site are not a legitimate reason for any edit on this page. To restate my reasons for this revert:

For 1, you can't change the wording and keep the same citation, that's misleading. Because the citation does not support that claim. For 2, there is actually a great deal to distrust about the website this editor linked. It is not a MEDRS. It is entirely anonymous, no one knows who runs the site or if they actually have any credentials to back up the ad-hoc analysis they're doing.

As a medical researcher and scientist, I can tell you they break a lot of the golden rules of meta-analysis. But you don't have to trust me on that, and you shouldn't, because that's not how wiki works! Trust the RS: There are peer reviewed articles (and several much more informal take-downs that themselves link to MEDRS) detailing exactly what is wrong with that website and how they do their systematic review, and where they go wrong. More than anything, they have cherry picked which outcomes to use from each study, which "informal" studies to include, which patients to include, and they have combined data that is in different settings, different types of patients, all in a way that makes the data look shiny and good for their preferred outcome. You will find that this site differs in conclusion from basically anything published in a reputable MEDRS. There's a reason for that. And it isn't a conspiracy, it's that the scientific community tends to agree on how systematic reviews are meant to be performed. this ain't it, chief. Overall it is a shame that site is so terrible in its methodology, because it has fabulous style. Style points, unfortunately, are not worth much in science. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

When you bring an inappropriately sarcastic and derisive quip like "this ain't it chief" to the table, it is clear that it's personal to you, and honestly, that you haven't evaluated the specific claims of your citations on the matter. I guess I'll revisit this when there are more cold bodies. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha, no no no, I apologize if it came off that way. I just am tongue-in-cheek about most things. I meant no harm by my comments, you are not the first and you will not be the last to find that site trustworthy, and I spend my time criticising data, not people. Like I said, it is visually very impressive. But I judge badly done science especially poorly, and that site needs some work in its understanding of the levels of evidence re: Greeenhalgh. It's particularly flawed methodology to group RCTs and non-RCTs together in a systematic review, as it degrades the quality of the conclusions you can draw from it. In evidence-based medicine, conclusions are drawn based on what the highest quality available evidence tells us, not the plurality of evidence. One million unblinded case reports do not surpass one RCT. And, as wikians, we are supposed to take what the most reliable highest quality systematic reviews of RCTs say, and restate it for the public. Anyway, when you're ready to come back and talk about it, there's always plenty of people around here to talk about it with! --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Ah, yes. Saying one thing in the style of "this ain't it chief" invalidates all the solid reasoning by the same person. That way of thinking is similar to the fallacy fallacy, but not quite the same. If the way you judge an argument is that superficial, it's no wonder that you cannot tell that site is a bad source. It mimicks the style of science, and Shibbolethink did not, and style trumps content for you. Well, as Shibbolethink said, that is not how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Mechanism of action? Stimulant effect? Lacking GABA neurotoxicity because of P-glycoproteins?

There is this statement

      Ivermectin, although still an investigational drug, has become the drug of choice for onchocer-ciasis (river blindness). Ivermectin intensifies GABA-mediated neurotransmission in nematodes and causes immobilization of parasites, facilitating their removal by the eticuloendothelial system. Selective toxicity results because in humans GABA is a neurotransmitter only in the CNS, and ivermectin does not cross the blood-brain barrier.

Im wondering regarding the recent large-scale human use of Ivermectin in central europe: where are the patient reported rejuvenating/stimulant effects coming from? Is it the action of Ivermectin on the intestines or other body parts, or is it a direct action of a minute/trace amounts acting in the brain? Since some other antihelminthic was being metabolised to amphetamine, and is added to all south-american cocaine production, is it possible that Ivermectin has a similar effect on a selected group of patients? How can it make some people feel better, stronger? Or is it just because they have slept better, because of the effect on GABA?

     Another barrier is due to membrane transporters, which actively export drugs from the cellular or tissue compartment back into the blood (Chapter 5). A well-known example is the P-glycoprotein. Although the octanol-water partition coefficient would favor lipophilic molecules to transverse across cell barriers, P-glycoprotein exports structurally unrelated amphiphilic and lipophilic molecules of 3-4 kDa, reducing their effective penetration. Examples of antimicrobial agents that are P-glycoprotein substrates include HIV protease inhibitors, the antiparasitic agent ivermectin, the anti-bacterial agent telithromycin, and the antifungal agent itraconazole.

There are notes on other pages saying that ivermectin is severely neurotoxic to mice that have some genes knocked out, and on another page that the lack of neurotoxicity in humans may be precisely because of the P-glycoprotein membrane transporters, which would mean that some of it WILL exhibit GABA action in humans. You can find those by searching in the 2108-page pdf for ivermectin.

Wikipedia should not be used for crusades

The lead paragraph has this sentence tacked on to it :

> There exists no evidence that the drug works for COVID-19.

Now I'm not interested in arguing the case regarding Ivermectin and Covid at all. What is wrong with this sentence being in the lede is that it is completely out of place. We do not summarise a drug by saying what diseases and afflictions it has so far not shown evidence to treat. So why is this sentence here? I suspect that, as is increasingly the case on Wikipedia, certain ppl want to push an agenda.

Yes, I have not written this dispassionately but I am getting really tired of faux 'enlightened' individuals pushing agendas on wikipedia. Please treat this project as an encyclopedia, not a place to push agendas. This is directed at the person who just reverted my edit removing this rubbish and to all others who can't leave well enough alone. Oska (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be better to say something like "During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. Such claims are not backed by evidence". This is an odd case where the "what it doesn't do" aspect has become part of the knowledge.[5] However, before this we would really need something in the "Society and culture" section about this misinformation phenomenon, summarizing the content at COVID-19 misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Readers are fully capable of scanning the table of contents and jumping down to the section on research into its possible use against Covid, if that is what interests them. It does not need to be in the lead. The reason that that sentence was added to the end of the first paragraph is, I very strongly suspect, because agenda pushers know that just the first paragraph is what Google quotes when it presents a grab from the wikipedia article in search results. Hence the contamination of a lot of 'controversial' articles with agenda-pushers trying to stuff the agenda they are pushing into the first paragraph. As disinterested & dispassionate editors we shouldn't care how Google uses wikipedia articles and it certainly should not influence how we write them. Oska (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Then why do you care? Ledes should summarize bodies, and a sentence or two to reflect the multiple paragraphs on this in the body is not unreasonable, surely? Alexbrn (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I care because it is completely moronic to tack that sentence on to the end of the first paragraph. I'm trying to read an article on an important drug and I get stopped in my tracks by idiotic faux do-gooders pushing an agenda on wikipedia. "Here's information about a drug and wait, did we tell you that 'no evidence has been found' that it 'works for' one of 10 million afflictions that humankind can suffer from. And we'll ignore that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because no, it's very important that we dispel any ideas that you might have that Ivermectin might have a use case against Covid. So we're going to do it right in the first paragraph so that Google quotes us. Because this is a very important agenda that enlightened people like us know is the correct one to push."

And I would not be in a minority in feeling like this. Wikipedia is becoming unusable to casual readers of controversial articles who just want information, not an agenda pushed at them. Oska (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just removed the sentence for a second time. I think the lead three paragraphs read much more naturally now. Imagine, just for a minute, that you're coming to this article without any controversy about Covid and Ivermectin in mind. Shouldn't be that hard to imagine really; Ivermectin is an important drug that has been in continual use around the world for the last 40 years, being taken by literally billions of people. So for those readers they can now just read the lead-in without topical controversy being pushed in their face. And if they are interested in research around Covid and Ivermectin then yes, we have a section discussing that that they can scroll down to. Oska (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling the sentence "completely moronic" and calling the people who are in favor of the sentence "faux do-gooders pushing an agenda" does not help your cause. I could just as well say that removing the sentence is completely moronic and that you are a faux do-badder pushing an agenda, with as much justification. So, just stay on the factual level.

At the moment, the stuff is pushed as a COVID cure, so it needs to be mentioned that it isn't. That you do not want the information is not a reason for omitting it - you are not the only customer, and for others, it is relevant. Alexbrn's suggestion about spreading misinformation is good. After this virus fest is over, we can drop it from the lede again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling I hope you are not purposefully misquoting me. I did not call the sentence 'completely moronic'. I said that tacking it on to the end of the first paragraph (in a disjointed and breaking the flow way) is completely moronic. Please refer back to what I actually said and I would hope that you can see that there is a large difference between the two positions. I don't have any issue with the article documenting the controversy around Covid and Ivermectin. What I do have an issue with is ppl pushing agendas and making articles worse through their crusading. That's my complaint and hence the section title I chose "Wikipedia should not be used for crusades". I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Ivermectin and Covid, despite people trying to colour this discussion that way (but often it seems that crusaders see everything through the prisms of their personal crusades.) I'm just trying to keep wikipedia articles useful and informative to ordinary readers. And readers turn off and become dubious of a source when they feel that they are getting preached to, or that an agenda is being pushed.

Further, I find your suggestion that we promote some statements while an event is happening (in this case the pandemic) and then drop them later concerning. That is an agenda; I do hope you can see that. This is an encyclopedia, not a public health warning service. Readers should be able to come to an article and get information presented dispassionately and not coloured by current events. Oska (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I should have written Calling putting the sentence at this place "completely moronic", but that looked clumsy to me, and I did not expect you to make such a drama about such a minor difference. It does not change my point one bit. My point was "it does not help that you are doing this", and, surprise, surprise, calling putting the sentence at that place "completely moronic" is every bit as disingenious as calling the sentence itself "completely moronic" would have been. I don't know why I expected a drive-by ranter like you to be reasonable enough to recognize this as a non-difference.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Ivermectin and Covid, despite people trying to colour this discussion that way Nobody did. Look carefully at what Alexbrn and I wrote. You are the only person here who is colouring anything.

So, my point whooshed right by your head, and instead, you invent motivations and people coloring stuff. You want to continue blaming your fellow users for your woes. You do not want this to be a discussion about how the article should look, you want this to be a jeremiad about crusaders pushing agendas. You have no objective reason against the existence of such a sentence, your real beef is with the hypothetical sinister motivation you smell out behind it.

Alright, then you should be treated the same way we treat all the other ranters: we, or at least I, will ignore you, and if you continue whining about other users supposedly having non-encyclopedic intentions, instead of working constructively, you will probably be blocked. Don't ping me. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not find the response above by Hob Gadling at all substantive. Most importantly, after betraying that they had an agenda and my criticism (in my second paragraph) of that agenda pushing (and how it worsens wikipedia generally and this article specifically) was not addressed at all. In my view they are dodging the main issue which was my impetus for my removal of that sentence and opening this discussion. Wikipedia articles should be written dispassionately and with no view to 'getting a message out', whatever is currently happening in the wider world. There are other channels for that. Oska (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Your perception is crooked. You smell "agendas" behind everything. The "main issue", your original "impetus", by your own reasoning on this Talk page, was that you did not like what you believed to be the reason behind the sentence. But "I don't like what I believe to be the reason why people wrote this" is not a valid reason for removing something. Unless you come up with something that does not mainly consist of you pointing at other people and squealing, like Donald Sutherland at the end of The Body Snatchers, that sentence will stay in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And ironically, the "crusading" that has been in evidence around ivermectin on Wikipedia, has been from users trying to push the "it's a miracle cure for COVID-19, not the vaccines THEY are deploying" line, as the roster of banned users attests. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What's ironic Alexbrn is that you are blind to crusading from your own 'side'. As someone who has stood completely outside the controversy, that is obvious to me. Propagandists often rationalise their own dubious actions as necessary in the fight against others propaganda. Neutrality and dispassionate documentation in this encyclopedia project loses out. Oska (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've spent a little time now reviewing Alexbrn & Hob Gadling's activity and they are both heavily involved in editing Covid related articles and active crusading on wikipedia in this area. Their talk pages include various back-slapping messages enthusing the valiant to keep up the good fight and sneering at their enemies. And as soon as I entered their orbit - not pushing any Covid related agenda but simply decrying how agenda stuffing had badly affected the lead of an article on an important drug - Alexbrn swung into passive aggressive attempt-to-intimidate mode and whacked an inappropriate warning message on my talk page, which I am still waiting for him to properly justify. Such bullying behaviour (motivated by the desire to 'fight the good fight') is unfortunately what drives a lot of less experienced editors away from the project. Oska (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bravo! you've identified the sterling work of active editors like me! If you have any substantive complaint (though I suspect this is just trolling, so I doubt it), then take it to an appropriate forum with your evidence. Otherwise, you should probably abide by our behavioural policies, unless you want to join the roster of miscreants the Project has needed to block. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oska: Calm down mate and stay focused. It's better to concentrate on sources rather than continuing this never-ending conversation. See below. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I support the proposals by Alexbrn and will be happy to help in drafting something useful. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would just add my two cents here and say that the Covid 19 pandemic situation is nowhere near its resolution and we should be very humble about what we know and what we don't know. I don't believe an objective source like Wikipedia should be involved with sheparding public opinion as to what is true information and what is misinformation, *if we do not have the facts* about that particular issue. Given that there is an ongoing large scale trial on the efficacy of ivermectin at Oxford, and a large body of evidence does exist (albeit, not strong evidence) as to its benefits, I *strongly* believe an objective summary needs to demonstrate more humility and acknowledgement of the uncertainty of the developing situation that is Covid 19 more generally and ivermectin's role in it. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:3CB4:489B:79C1:24A7 (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia rules, such as WP:SOURCE and WP:FRINGE, directly contradict your opinion. When reliable sources say "it's like this", we say it's like this. You are free to start your own encyclopedia without those rules. Suggestions for the name: "OnTheFencePedia", "IHaveNoIdeaPedia", "SomeSayThisSomeSayThatPedia". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  • ”when reliable sources say ‘it’s like this,’ we say it’s like this.” Great, then how about changing the article to reflect the far more neutral and accurate language used by WHO: “The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.“2600:1700:7CC0:4770:D1B7:CD9:6351:3A39 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

    "Inconclusive" means that if there is an effect, it is so small it could not be measured conclusively. That is what will happen when something does not have an effect: statistical noise will ensure that the measured effect size is not zero, but somewhere around zero. Sometimes, in 5% of all studies, it will even be statistically significant; that is the very definition of statistical significance. But those results will not be replicable.

    This is the minimum amount of evidence which is mathematically possible, also called "no evidence" by people who know how measurements work. If they are generous, they call it "inconclusive", but it's the same thing really. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

    • As far as I am aware there was one study that is being widely cited that had an inconclusive result which had some sampling issues that contributed to an insignificant result. If a massive body of evidence had been compiled, all of which show "inconclusive" results, then your argument RE statistical noise would certainly be relevant. As it stands, I don't believe this is anywhere close to a resolved question.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The matter as it stands now is that there is no good clinical evidence of benefit, but most big health organisation have no objection to continued research. The way "questions" are "resolved" in medicine is for good evidence to be produced. Meanwhile, despite the lack of evidence, a number of quacks and fools are falsely promoting ivermectin as a silver bullet. All this is clear from good sources, which we cite. If the situation changes, Wikipedia will change too. We cannot change reality as reported by reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Again, I must disagree with your subjective conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence. You deem anyone with a belief that ivermectin is beneficial to treating or preventing Covid as a "quack" or "fool." This might be a valid position to take, if this were a long standing issue with a substantial body of research which in summation finds no evidence to support the use of ivermectin. It seems to me you repeatedly conflate that hypothetical scenario with the actual current status of the issue - an unquestionably insubstantial body of research leading us to be unable to ascertain whether or not ivermectin in fact has any beneficial effect. This conflation is, in my opinion, reflected in the misleading text of the article.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I would support adding an info on Covid-19 treatment effectiveness but the problem is that a significant share of the research is mostly WP:RECENT. So it's best wait for a certain amount of critical weight to gain. I also disagree with Hob Gadling on that WP:FRINGE is applicable here. See discussion below (#Sources on effectiveness against Covid-19). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  You think claims that ivermectin is a miracle cure, that eliminates the need for vaccination/lockdown etc, and has been covered-up by Big Pharma, doesn't take us into WP:FRINGE territory? That's ... something. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't believe anyone said it did not apply to those claims. Please be careful of WP:TALK RE: mischaracterizing comments. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources on effectiveness against Covid-19

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.

---

Before discussion gets out of hand I got some sources to discuss. Both are reviews but a bit contradictory. The first review finds that Ivermectin brings down morbidity rates. I propose to adopt them in relevant subsections (lead/research). Please checkout:

1. Kory, Pierre; Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto; Varon, Joseph; Iglesias, Jose; Marik, Paul E. (April 22, 2021). "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19". American Journal of Therapeutics. 28 (3): e299–e318. doi:10.1097/MJT.0000000000001377. ISSN 1075-2765. PMC 8088823.
2. "EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials". March 22, 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The "American Journal of Therapeutics" does not look good on SCImago. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah WP:REDFLAG, especially since this article was previous rejected by a Frontiers (a Frontiers!) journal, with a statement that it was bollocks[6]. We have very good sources on this and we shouldn't undercut them with marginal ones. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: ...a Frontiers! ... Frontiers claims that the article didn't review controlled trials meanwhile there were 18 controlled ones (I've checked at least 2).[7]

As a fun fact, the Frontiers in Life Science and Frontiers of Medicine journals are rated lower than AJT by SJR.[8][9]. AJT has 59 points: [10] vs junky 35/33. And what about second source by EMA?

BTW, I wonder now what you would say about Nature as it's rated very highly[11]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

EMA is always good. As is Nature. Assuming all the usual WP:MEDRS boxes are ticked. If we stick to high-quality sources all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ftrebien: Hardly an issue. I think we are obliged to mention it. Probably also worth to mention Frontiers's rejection. It seems baseless though. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS, it surely is an issue. WP:MEDRS exists to prevent Wikipedia from spreading deadly false hopes. If this kind of "good news" was published by a trusted source like Nature, it would have a huge impact on the entire planet. 14 months into the pandemic, with tons of resources invested in research on drug repurposing for a long time in many countries, I'm sure that the EMA and the WHO (as well as the other regulatory agencies already mentioned in the article) have seen this paper and are most interested in changing their current stance if they think they now have better evidence. As there is a lot of potential profit involved, there has been a lot of sophisticated disinformation around ivermectin, particularly in Brazil (currently politically polarized with a denialist president promoting unproven cures), which is the main source of the information in this meta-analysis. Given this political context, Wikipedia should not suggest, by providing what looks like a credible scientific source to lay readers, that taking ivermectin offers any level of protection against COVID-19, unless we see a change in the consensus reported by the most trusted sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ftrebien: ... WP:MEDRS exists to prevent Wikipedia from spreading ... Don't cite guidelines arbitrarely. Reviews are acceptable as they are secondary. Considering that WP:MEDRS is highly abused guideline I would like to see exact provisions (WP:BMI?) forbidding the first source above.

... which is the main source of the information in this meta-analysis. ... Are you saying that the first source is somehow compromised by Brazilian or any other govt? I'm fully aware of politicization over Covid-19 drugs over here but given WP:RS I don't think this opinion has a great weight. Review in Nature says that Ivermectin is promising in treating Covid-19 and should be investigated.[12]

... Wikipedia should not suggest, by providing what looks like a credible scientific source to lay readers, ... You oppose to cite both and let the readers to decide which they trust the most? It would be nice to balance each other per WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS isn't an abused guidelines, so much as the basis of the quality of Wikipedia's well-respected medical content. Granted, we have occasional problem editors trying to undermine it who don't like Wikipedia's quality requirements, but that's the same for pretty much all topic areas on Wikipedia. Per WP:REDFLAG this new review is not suitable for use. If in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED where experienced editors can offer further guidance. (BTW, you have not cited any review in Nature, so I'm not sure what is going on.) Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: WP:MEDRS isn't an abused guideline ... " Whatever. Unless it turns out in provision - it's clear abuse.

... you have not cited any review in Nature. Nature which says that the drugs poses some effectiveness in combating viruses, including COVID-19 (second paragraph in conclusion section): NATURE ARTICLE. In light of this I don't think the WP:REDFLAG makes up a case here. We are obliged to mention the first source under WP:WEIGHT I think. I propose to put it under COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not in Nature; You seem confused. Please do not put quackery in Wikipedia, you could end up sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: My mistake. It's The Journal of Antibiotics . AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Stop citing policies, guidelines and essays arbitrarily or you may end up sanctioned for excessive abuse.

... Please do not put quackery ... There is no evidence for that. SCImago rates it higher than Frontiers: [13] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The promotion of ivermectin is misinformation per multiple RS (see COVID-19 misinformation#ivermectin). As I said, if you want to widen consensus ask at WT:MED. You are now aware of the general sanctions in effect for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Review in Nature says that Ivermectin is promising in treating Covid-19 and should be investigated. June 2020. Research has come a long way since then. We can write at the top of Review / Evidence something like "In June 2020, a review suggested that ivermectin was promising. However, later results found weak evidence." This presents the information (which in fact I find relevant when narrating how the controversy started and unfolded) in the appropriate tone.

Are you saying that the first source is somehow compromised by Brazilian or any other govt? Very likely. If it were in fact neutral, reliable and of high quality, it would have been sent for review by a more reputable publisher, such as Nature, and we would see interest from other important health organizations such as EMA and WHO. But that is not happening at all.

You oppose to cite both and let the readers to decide which they trust the most? Yes, because there is no evidence, because WP:MEDRS exists to prevent the relativizing truths and facts in ways that could harm laypeople, and because the debate around it is currently tainted by economic and political interests, especially in Brazil. If it can cause injury by incorrectly modulating risky behaviours, leave the debate to experts and trusted health organizations.

Simply put, the article already says that ivermectin is being studied and I think that is sufficient because its sources are better than the one you propose. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:30, 15 May 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.

References section

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.

---

• 12:44, May 14, 2021 - «Restored revision 1023063928 by DMacks talk): Let the software do the work; forcing width mucks up the appearance»
• 10:27, May 14, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023063928 by DMacks talk) At 100% width references are completely unreadable. Let's make it more consistent with the rest of Wiki.»
• 04:15, May 14, 2021 - «Making the columns 50% narrower than standard makes this worse and not better. Undid revision 1023014905 by Alexander Davronov talk)»
• 20:35, May 13, 2021 - «‎References»

I propose to change the width of the {{reflist}} to 20em. Currently it's unreadable. Some good examples: Egalitarianism#References, Dendrite#Notes, Gdańsk#References --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The default/standard of {{reflist}} is 30em, not 100%. That specific width has consensus as default on enwiki, so presumably that's what generally is most usable for most readers. If your window is just slightly too narrow for two 30em columns, you get one column. But that's unusually narrow. Try adjusting your window. Setting 20em makes lots of nonstandardly-narrow columns for most readers. Obviously "50%" is not the right math. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 14 May 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.

Misinfo: Pierre Kory

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.

---

• 09:21, May 15, 2021 - «‎COVID-19 misinformation: Witnesses making statements at the hearing - the context makes this sufficiently clear.»
• 07:51, May 15, 2021 - «‎COVID-19 misinformation: Reword and cite EMA per talk.»
• 09:50, May 15, 2021 - «‎COVID-19 misinformation: See Talk:Ivermectin#Misinfo: Pierre Kory»
• 10:03, May 15, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023252048 by Alexander Davronov talk) Let's do it in a right way.»

@Brunton: See WP:DONTREVERT and WP:DETAG. The problem is that Pierre Kory is not mentioned in the NYC article cited before so I'm going to place failed verification tag if you don't mind. Please provide a quote if you can so I can remove it. Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not the cited source. I am beginning to suspect a WP:CIR issue here (or, with the PA in the template, maybe something worse). Alexbrn (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: The source cited in the first statement about hearing. I'm beginning to suspect that WP:CIR is an issue here because you don't catch that two unrelated statements coexist next to each other. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I have clarified what I'm talking about, take a look. NYC article is paywalled but I have access to it. I don't see Pierre Kory mentioned. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

He’s mentioned in the source placed after the statement referring to him (the one you placed the “failed verification” tag against), which would be the usual place to find the reference. If you want a quote, it says, “Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, described ivermectin as a “wonder drug” with immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents at the hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Clips of Kory’s comments on ivermectin during the hearing were shared widely on social media with one clip receiving more than 1 million views on YouTube.” I think that adequately supports the content it is being used for. He doesn’t need to be mentioned in a reference supporting the previous sentence, because that sentence doesn’t refer to him. Brunton (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Brunton: You don't mind I cite the following to prove that he has participated in hearings?: LINK AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, because it's fringe junk. I don't know what you're playing at here, but it isn't good. Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 15 May 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.

Mischaracterization of the results of Chaccour et al

The characterization of the Chaccour et al study appears to be an example of the subjective and selective point of view currently conveyed by this article. I will not question the methodology, findings, or relevance of the paper here, as it has already been deemed relevant and reliable enough for inclusion in the article.

For reference, the text I am responding to is as follows:

"A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 24 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors found no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Point 1: Omission of symptom reduction as a finding of the paper

The study itself, entitled "The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial", finds a strong significant difference in symptom reduction in the patient group using ivermectin vs placebo group. While the procedure did specify a negative PCR test as the primary pass/fail metric, a significant symptom reduction is relevant to the substance of the Wikipedia article, and was seemingly relevant enough to the authors of the paper for them to include the subject in the title.

Point 2: Inaccurate claim of no difference in viral loads

The Wikipedia article states that the study "found no difference...in viral load." This is directly contradicted by the paper itself, which states "the ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day 4 (p = 0·24 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) and day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N) post treatment as well as lower IgG titers at day 21 post treatment (p = 0·24)." The paper did not find "no difference," it found a non-statistically significant difference. To be clear, these findings are closer to "significant difference" than "significant no difference."

Point 3: Overall mismatch between tone of study and characterization of it in article

The authors characterize their study as a "pilot [that] points towards a potential use of ivermectin in COVID-19 which warrants further exploration under larger trials." This is not communicated by the Wikipedia article, which portrays it as one data point of many which illustrate ivermectin's ineffectiveness.

2600:1700:7CC0:4770:8C96:D3CD:38B2:2270 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be citing a primary source per WP:MEDRS, but using it in any way to contradict or undercut the better sources we do cite is absolutely verboten. I wouldn't mind removing this. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The question that remains is, which primary sources *don't* contradict or undercut the better sources? ;) 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

One reliable source trumps an infinity of unreliable ones. We have ample good sourcing. Again, is any actual proposal being made? Alexbrn (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Amending the factual inaccuracies would be a start.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:200A:7D27:DC73:41AB (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Which ones are those? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The ones that were deleted entirely. I wasn't aware the purging of the pro-ivermectin study had already occurred when I made that commment. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:C47C:4E3C:EC7D:831 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources are based on primary sources, and they judge the quality of the primary sources to draw conclusions from the high-quality ones. A high-quality primary source would be a primary source that doesn't undercut the better sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Concur with Hob Gadling. Wiki is not about doing your own research, there's plenty of other websites (of much lower quality and reliability) where you can do that. Wiki is about depicting the consensus of the experts. And the consensus is shown in the secondary sources, not the primary ones. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe you missed the thrust of my original comment, which was to point out that the source the Wiki editors had all verified and deemed reliable enough for inclusion, was mischaracterized in a number of ways, including cherry picking and outright misstatements. I understand the value of citing secondary sources - in fact I believe if the text of this article were to hew more closely towards respected secondary sources such as the WHO, it would be in better shape. As it stands, the level of bombast (summarizing ivermectin vis a vis covid with a report of non-specific "misinformation") is unearned and bordering on misinformation itself. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:24D7:680E:7793:A321 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have actual evidence of misbehaviour take it to an appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:AIN) as complaining here is inappropriate and can achieve nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Right. But even there, you will need to give people more than the rewordings of "you are wrong" we heard from you here. You will need to say what is wrong and in what way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"You will need to say what is wrong and in what way." I don't believe this is a good faith engagement with my argument per WP:TALK. Please read the three points listed in the original comment titled "Mischaracterization of the results of Chaccour et al." If you have any questions as to anything that is unclear, or still believe anything to be a rewording of "you are wrong," please let me know and I can clarify any of the three substantive points made.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:7CAD:F4C3:E926:52A4 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, all those IPs are the same person? If you keep using changing IPs instead of an account, no one can tell. Anyway, Alexbrn already told you we should not use primary studies, so that point is moot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't have evidence of malfeasance on any editor's part, nor is it my intention to accuse any one of this. My intent is for the article, which currently reads as being written from inaccurate and subjective viewpoint, to be edited to properly reflect the current status of the science behind ivermectin and Covid. From my understanding the talk page is the proper venue to do this as I am not authorized to edit the article myself.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:7CAD:F4C3:E926:52A4 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To all editors: This page is not available for general discussion. It is subject WP:GS/COVID19 and an uninvolved administrator such as myself should prevent meandering conversations that waste time and energy of other editors. Any further comments should contain an actionable proposal to improve the article based on WP:MEDRS. Other comments may be removed and anyone repeatedly restoring them will be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Since May of 2021, a paper on Ivermectin was Peer Reviewed by The American Journal of Therapeutics and published, Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Pierre Kory, MD,1* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Now Scientific Fact that Ivermectin is a Preventative & Treatment for Covid 19. Also, see the FLCCC ALLIANCE https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for further details and the latest updates. Also, see Dr. Tess Lawrie, https://medicalupdateonline.com/speciality/Dr-Tess-Lawrie/ Johnlark2095 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021 (3)

n March 2021, both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued guidance that ivermectin should not be used to treat or prevent COVID-19.[79][80] After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin the EMA said that "the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside well-designed clinical trials".[80] Ivermectin is not authorized for use to treat COVID-19 within the European Union.[80] In the United Kingdom, the national COVID-19 Therapeutics Advisory Panel determined that the evidence base and plausibility of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment were insufficient to pursue further investigations.[81] The WHO says that ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID-19 except in a clinical trial.[82]

Since May of 2021, a paper on Ivermectin was Peer Reviewed by The American Journal of Therapeutics and published, Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Pierre Kory, MD,1* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Now Scientific Fact that Ivermectin is a Preventative & Treatment for Covid 19. Also, see the FLCCC ALLIANCE https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for further details and the latest updates. Also, see Dr. Tess Lawrie, https://medicalupdateonline.com/speciality/Dr-Tess-Lawrie/. Johnlark2095 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done WP:REDFLAG for fringe work in marginal journal, or self-published websites. Wikipedia adhere to reputable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

National guidelines

Currently the article contains the positions of the WHO, CDC, European Medical Agency (EMA) whose consensus is that ivermectin should not be used for treating covid until clinical trials are done. Also, the usage of ivermectin in a number of countries in Latin America is mentioned, together with the recommendations of the relevant bodies. Recently India's health ministry has published guidelines recommending the use of ivermectin for treating some Covid patients. The questions are

1. Should the positions of national public health agencies on ivermectin be mentioned in this article?
2. If yes, which public health agencies? Only CDC and EMA or also of other major countries?
3. If no, does this information belong to another article? Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the question is not about the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID (as far as I can see the consensus is that there is no proof that it works) but about the notability of the recommendations issues by various national and supra-national bodies. Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Nonsensical question. EMA and CDC are not "countries". Does the OP envisage a list of countries and if so how many? 30? 40? 50? Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  CDC is a public health agency of the US, while the EMA is the EU's agency in charge of evaluating medicinal products. This is exactly what I meant by national and supra-national public health agencies. Alaexis_¿question? 20:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Just saw that I didn't answer the question. If and when all the countries in the world publish their official guidelines, I would summarise it "The position of the CDC and EMA and X other countries, including BigCountry1, BigCountry2, is A; the position of health agencies of Y other countries, including BigCountry3, BigCountry4, is B." If X >> Y and the minority position is not held by major countries, we can ignore it and only write about the mainstream one per WP:FALSEBALANCE. But it's very hypothetical, now we only have a handful of countries and we can easily deal with new information when it comes. Alaexis_¿question? 12:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another pointless endeavor. Just give up already, only one view can be reflected on this topic. Adriaandh (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  I understand you are in favour of mentioning the positions of health agencies of major countries even if it's different from the mainstream view? Alaexis_¿question? 12:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of an unbiased reporting on the evidence in favor and against the efficacy of ivermectin and I am in favor of classifying peer reviewed scientific studies as higher quality than APNews fact checks. I am also in favor of reporting all the facts and not just the ones that fit with a specific narrative. I am in favor of free speech and objective media/journalism that does not merely report what a certain government institution mandates. Indeed, I consider the government guidelines of a huge country such as India, which incidentally has a very strong pharmaceutical sector, to be noteworthy if not of equal importance to that of the agencies in the United States, especially considering the country has a population of about 4 times that of the USA, thus their policies affect 4 times the amount of lives. All of this is irrelevant since no amount of voting is going to change this section. Adriaandh (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Recommendations from any Public Health Agency or Government could be referred to, not restrained to CDC and EMA. (I was just trying to add a paragraph about the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 based on the decision of the Government of Goa and the Government of Uttar Pradesh.) With respect of WP:GEVAL. It could be presented the way it is in fr.wikipedia. Ceveris (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• By convention, CDC, WHO, and EMA set the standards everybody else follows. That's why CDC has investigators in multiple other countries while other countries usually do not. They did it first, and have, so far, done it best (with a few hiccups). What we have so far about other countries' use of Ivermectin makes sense, because listing a few of the countries that are doing it anyway is clearly notable. But anything further would be undue weight, and an excessively long list would be WP:LISTCRUFT. I think having an entire section on India is clearly and evidently excessive. It would be filled with non-MEDRS, as Alexbrn has already stated the India public health agency has a lot of problems with pseudoscience.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  So you are saying that we need to have WHO, CDC and EMA as they are most reliable and notable cases of countries straying from these recommendations, is it a fair summary? I'm not proposing a section on India, more like a sentence, or even having one sentence about countries that are doing it anyway contrary to the WHO recommendations which would include both India and the Latin American countries that are already mentioned. Alaexis_¿question? 05:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  As a bit of background here, there was a time when certain ivermectin advocates were pushing to include countries that seemed to endorse Ivermectin (Belize IIRC!) but downplay those that didn't, and it was a rapidly changing scene. Rather than try to have a "dashboard" of national positions it was probably better to skim off the most reputable MEDRS. The wider context here is that in the real world (of medical sources too) ivermectin is a very important drug for its antiparasitic properties, and all this COVID stuff is just a fringe shitshow on the side, which we're in danger of giving too much attention to already. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wrong decisions are also notable, if it's the country the size of India that makes it. The statement that ivermectin cures COVID can be described as a fringe position. But it's not the question that is asked here! Alaexis_¿question? 08:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  The fringe-iness is relevant, because per WP:GEVAL we aren't meant to air fringe ideas (like India's wrt ivermectib) without mainstream context. Hence we would need good secondary commentary. Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's a wrong interpretation of policy. Treating dental pain with cocaine is a terrible idea but we mention it in the article about cocaine as it actually happened. Alaexis_¿question? 09:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's not an "interpretation" of policy, it is policy itself. We don't bother with obviously historical but if some idea took hold today that cocaine was a great dental pain treatment then yes, it would be governed by WP:FRINGE (assuming it was not mainstream too!) Alexbrn (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Now you are inventing the distinction between historical and current ideas which is not based on any policy whatsoever. Alaexis_¿question? 10:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well no, Wikipedia in general doesn't attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. As it happens, in this case, there is some specific supplemental guidance on medical history given at WP:BMI. But if you are concerned the description of an 1879 cocaine experiment represents the undue promotion of a WP:FRINGE theory, then you know how it goes (but maybe expect pushback). Why stop there though? You could progress, say, to Cucking stool and demand that Wikipedia clarifies that witches don't really exist as this is a WP:FRINGE notion! Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia say that the Indian government is officially using it? Yes, it's a relevant fact. Can Wikipedia suggest that it prevents COVID-19? No, the justification used by Goa was based on a scientific article published in a journal with poor indicators. Can Wikipedia suggest that the Indian health agency must be right and that CDC, WHO and EMA are all wrong? Not as a biomedical claim. Can Wikipedia suggest that the CDC, WHO and EMA are involved in some sort of conspiracy against ivermectin? No, but it could describe the controversy in a neutral way, but this article is not the right place. Here, the tone must be appropriate for the lay reader, writing that India's use of ivermectin goes against international consensus and at a time of despair. In addition, "to keep positivity" (as The Indian Express says) makes the political intention quite obvious. I suggest reading this article in Politico for context. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia say that the Indian government is officially using it? Well, maybe. But the important question is, should Wikipedia say this? And the answer to that, per GEVAL and FRINGE, is “no”. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that I am as concerned about the bad consequences of this as you are. But the way I understand WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE is that they prohibit stating things like "ivermectin works" and then citing the Indian government as a source to support such claims. Saying who did what would not really violate these policies, especially if accompanied by sourced expert criticism. To some extent, this has already been done for other instances in COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin and Ivermectin#COVID-19 misinformation. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Politico (which presents the political side of the issue), I also recommend reading this BMJ article which provides the scientific side. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That's right, we are not stating that "ivermectin treats covid" but rather "Indian health ministry recommends it as a covid treatment."I think the relevant policy here is WP:BALASP:

“ An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. ”

Applying this to the endorsements by national health agencies, the position of WHO, CDC and EMA should be mentioned first and more prominently that that of Indian health ministry. Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - introductory sentence RE Covid should specify what the word "misinformation" refers to, or the word "misinformation" should be omitted

"Misinformation" should only be used to refer to a claim that has been falsified. As argued above, the use of the word "misinformation" appears to be a subjective conclusion reached by Wikipedia editors and not by a trusted secondary source. Ivermectin's potential for treating Covid is actively being studied by Oxford and others. While it is certainly possible that misinformation about ivermectin's effects have been spread, without specifying what this misinformation is, and how it has been falsified, its use in the introductory paragraph is itself bordering on misinformation.

Since the discussion above RE subjectivity has fizzled out with no action, and the editors have been warned not to "free talk" on this page, I am lodging my previously expressed concerns in the form of a clearly actionable proposal. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:4C3B:1AF9:643D:6055 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree. Header sections are meant to be brief and summarize the content of the article. Not go into in depth definitions of what counts as "misinformation" and what does not. The body of the article should do that. The relevant style guide would be MOS:LEAD.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

But it looks like the body of the article doesn't say what you say it should. ????--TMCk (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Let's do everything we can to not make it worse.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well. That was a clear non response.--TMCk (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In other words, I think we should add elaboration to the body, not the lead. That's what MOS:LEAD would tell us to do.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the guidelines would prescribe your solution vs. mine. What they certainly do establish is that the current lead is poorly matched to the body of the article.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:4C3B:1AF9:643D:6055 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSLEAD as linked by User:Shibbolethink, "...the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The use of "misinformation" fails this criteria on multiple fronts. First, it is not elaborated in the body of the article, suggesting it should not appear in the lead. Second, the requisite importance of "misinformation" necessary to establish "lead" status, has to my knowledge not been established by reliable secondary sources (in fact, the term "misinformation" has not been used by reliable sources to my knowledge).2600:1700:7CC0:4770:4C3B:1AF9:643D:6055 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To further respond to User:Shibbolethink - "Header sections are meant to be brief and summarize the content of the article. Not go into in depth definitions of what counts as 'misinformation.'" At no point did I suggest the lead section should discuss definitions of "misinformation," as I agree that would be wildly inappropriate. Rather, the concern is that "misinformation" is not being directed at a specific target. Please be careful to respond to the actual proposal and not to mischaracterize what is being requested. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:4C3B:1AF9:643D:6055 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My overall ask of you would be "Why don't we elaborate on it in the body instead of changing the lead?" Seems a much better and more justifiable approach in my opinion. And per my reading of the article, there actually is some elaboration on it. Could be more. Specifically under "Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation." You asked for the introductory sentence to be changed, I think it would be more appropriate to add more content about misinformation in the body.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If the article gave me a clear understanding of what justified the term, I would be more willing to adopt your approach. Unfortunately, I am still unclear on what "misinformation" in the lead is intended to refer to. As I described above in this talk page, I believe it to be a wholly inaccurate descriptor RE potential treatment of Covid. As highly reputable secondary sources report, its potential benefits are currently under study by Oxford and others, and by no means a settled question. If instead, "misinformation" refers to specific falsifiable claims such as "miracle cure," its usage would be more justifiable, though I would question its inclusion in the introductory section on a relevance basis. Nevertheless, until the claim is more clearly articulated in the header, and fully substantiated in the body with reliable secondary sources cited, I struggle to understand what merits its current usage.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:4C3B:1AF9:643D:6055 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are several RSes that use the term "misinformation" about ivermectin and COVID. I'll integrate them into the article when I get a chance. As for now they are a reliable source for the fact that the term "misinformation" has been applied to the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. We don't need MEDRS for that, by the way, since it's a matter of "are people saying X" not "is X a medical fact." Small distinction, but an important one. MEDRS would be better, but RS will do.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, why's this hard? The misinformation is that ivermectin is a safe & effective COVID-19 treatment (or even a "miracle cure"!) peddled all over the web. We have a whole section about it at COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin which is linked. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

comment - We have to follow WP:LEAD. It's bad idea to ignore misinformation around the drug. We know that it's under investigation currently. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Yes, the word "misinformation" should be omitted. To use it in this context is ... misinformation. No long term study has been done on Ivermectin's efficacy as a treatment for Covid, but many respected clinicians and scientists have suggested that there is empirical evidence that it could be an effective treatment.

This is a perfect example of a wikipedia article where the "talk" section is far more interesting and informative than the main page. The way in which so many wikipedia pages (like this one) are hijacked by vested interests pushing their agendas is incredibly disappointing. Pages should always be written in encyclopaedic format, with objective fact clearly separated from subjective opinion. Subjective opinion is still subjective opinion even if you can reference it! John2o2o2o (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

many respected clinicians and scientists - how many is "many"? how "respected" are they? - uttered a subjective opinion containing words like "suggested" and "could", which is is still subjective opinion, according to you, and suggesting that there is solid evidence for their opinion is misinformation.

Your claims of hijacking and vested interests are not appreciated either. They just show that your thinking runs on conspiracy theories rather than actual evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Setting aside claims of hijacking, etc. Here are some high quality papers that show significant benefits of ivermectin in treatment of Covid. This paper which was previously included in the Wiki article, until it was removed when I pointed out the article was mischaracterizing it in a number of ways. And this paper, which I haven't seen any discussion of here. Caveat that I understand secondary sources take precedent over individual papers. But let's not act as though ivermectin's potential benefits could only possibly be a fringe belief that no "respected" clinician would support. Evidence exists to clearly contradict that, in my view.2600:1700:7CC0:4770:E5BA:10D5:B084:E7DA (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Two broken links. The issue is not whether ivermectin has "potential benefits". The quacks boosting it are saying is has actual benefits which Big Pharma is concealing from you, and that it is a "miracle cure". Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Two repaired links (Was easy, why didn't you do it?):

1) Carlos Chaccour, Aina Casellas, Andrés Blanco-Di Matteo, Iñigo Pineda, Alejandro Fernandez-Montero, Paula Ruiz-Castillo, et al., The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, EClinicalMedecine, Published by The Lancet, Volume 32, 100720, February 01, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100720

12 patients of 24, were given high doses of Ivermectin (400 μg/kg i.e 28 mg for a 70 kg patient) in summer 2020.

Conclusion: “The positive signal found in this pilot warrants the conduction of larger trials using ivermectin for the early treatment of COVID-19. Such trials should include patients with risk factors for severe disease as well as patients with pneumonia. The potential for a mechanism of action different to direct antiviral effect also opens the door for pre-exposure prophylaxis in high-risk groups.”

2) O E Babalola, C O Bode, A A Ajayi, F M Alakaloko, I E Akase, E Otrofanowei, O B Salu, W L Adeyemo, A O Ademuyiwa, S Omilabu, Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: a randomized controlled double-blind, dose-response study in Lagos, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 2021;, hcab035, https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcab035

3 groups totaling 60 patients: (IV: Ivermectin)

“Conclusions: 12mg IV regime given twice a week may have superior efficacy over 6mg IV given twice a week, and certainly over the non IV arm of the study. IV should be considered for use in clinical management of SARS-COV2, and may find applications in prophylaxis in high risk areas.”

From those two article one cannot conclude that saying (as now written in the intro of the article) that “claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19” is “misinformation”! Ceveris (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Study (1): The positive signal found in this pilot warrants the conduction of larger trials using ivermectin for the early treatment of COVID-19 This does not mean that it works. This means that more research is needed. The article also says that The ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads (one cannot conclude much from that), as well as lower IgG (perhaps a good sign, but these are not neutralizing antibodies), Patients in the ivermectin group recovered earlier from hyposmia/anosmia (looks similar to favipiravir, which shortens disease length but has no effect in reducing mortality; more research is needed). In any case, a sample size of 24 participants is too small.

Study (2): QJM is not a good source, check SCImago.

From those two article one cannot conclude that saying (as now written in the intro of the article) that “claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19” is “misinformation” Promoting this treatment to the lay public is misinformation until a benefit is demonstrated through serious research. Ivermectin is mildly hepatotoxic and prolonged use may cause liver damage. On a large scale, this in itself can do a lot of harm, and the illusion of protection will likely lead to risk compensation which will increase transmission rates of the new coronavirus.

Speaking of sample sizes, the EPIC trial had 398 participants. Its conclusion is that ivermectin did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. and that ivermectin does not significantly affect the course of early COVID-19, consistent with pharmacokinetic models showing that plasma total and unbound ivermectin levels do not reach the concentration resulting in 50% of viral inhibition even for a dose level 10-times higher than the approved dose. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, two unreliable sources failing WP:MEDRS. For a source to be admissible it needs to be a secondary source (like if this systematic review ever got reputably published - it's a preprint now so unusable). Until then we know from the WP:BESTSOURCES that there's no good evidence of benefit, some risk of harm, and that despite this a number of quacks and conspiracy theorists are spreading misinformation that "#ivermectinworks". Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the sources in the article clearly support the advice against indiscriminate use. But I hope this gets reviewed and published soon. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Study (2): QJM is not a good source, check SCImago." *checks SCImago* "QJM is a long-established, leading general medical journal" 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:49D9:257:F3AA:50DD (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To further defend my post you are replying to, while the sample is small in the first study, they found a symptom reduction result with a < 0.001 p value. I of course would like to see that result replicated, but they themselves report this as a significant benefit. You are correct that they found non-significant viral load reduction on top of that result, which the study was not properly powered to detect, unlike the symptom reduction finding (sample size). Note also that I am not trying to claim that "it works," just that some respected scientists (not fringy nuts) have performed studies showing significant benefits. These claims are somewhat different. In order to be sure that "it works," I would agree that I would like to see replication and larger sample sizes. Note that the study you cite with 398 participants was subject to a number of procedural errors and post-hoc modifications. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:49D9:257:F3AA:50DD (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin as a medical treatment for Covid-19, Goa, India, May 2021

I added this to the paragraph Medical Use:

=== Covid-19 ===

Vishwajit Rane, Minister of Health of the Government of the State of Goa, India, announced on May 10, 2021, the Government's decision to administer Ivermectin 12 mg, for five days, to all above 18 as a prophylaxis treatment against Covid-19.

but user:Alexbrn reverted 6 minutes later with comment “fringe/pseudoscience without context, failing WP:GEVAL”

I am okay with the usefulness for someone else to add context in order to avoid WP:GEVAL, but not with the plain revert of this information about an official medical use of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19, be it fringe/pseudoscience or not. It is official in one State. Would someone else transform this information in a acceptable way for all?

Ceveris (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Politicians decide what is allowed and what is not allowed within their jurisdiction. They do not tell Wikipedia what is true and what is false. Reliable scientific sources do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A Medical treatment is a “ the attempted remediation of a health problem”. Is it efficient? True or false, this is the topic that “reliable scientific sources” will clarify. In that Goa case, Ivermectin IS a medical treatment for Covid-19. We could add, in order to comply with WP:GEVAL:

In Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India, with a high density of population, “The state Health Department introduced Ivermectin as prophylaxis for close contacts of Covid patients, health workers as well as for the treatment of the patients themselves through a government order on August 6, 2020“

Those individual governments decisions to use Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 don't comply with WHO's March 31, 2021 recommendation “that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials”.

Any objections?

Ceveris (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that Indian Express source is utter quackery and shouldn't be used. There's some at least sane secondary commentary here - but really this is just part of the terrible story of how quackery has compromised India's COVID response. It may be due to mention in that light at COVID-19 pandemic in India‎, but this page shouldn't become a directory of every region on the planet that's authorized a drug (even if it were a good decision). We just don't do that for drug articles. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Until we set clear criteria what belongs to the article, I don't see why this information is less relevant than the information about other countries which is already included. I'd be happy to remove or leave it based on the results of the RfC above. "Terrible response" is noteworthy and notable. Alaexis_¿question? 14:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ceveris, Hob Gadling please note that I've opened a RfC about the notability of various uses of ivermectin. Please leave a comment there, I think the article would benefit from clear criteria. Alaexis_¿question? 14:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn the RfC above clearly shows that the use of Ivermectin is notable, irrespective of its effectiveness against Covid. I'm happy to discuss how this information should be presented in the article to avoid making it look like an endorsement by Wikipedia. Refusing to mention it in any way against the position of the majority of other editors is disruptive. Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is still running. We're not going to do a shopping list of nations/regions/governments with daft policies, as it is of no encyclopedic worth. You are now aware of the sanctions for this topic (which you are in breach of, by restoring disputed content). Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

India, population 1.38 Billion, with official (not draft) policy on a “shopping list”. You make my day! The content is most official and undisputed. Ceveris (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: to say that India is endorsing this pseudo-scientific treatment, it is not necessary to inform the dosage and duration of the treatment. This is an incentive to self-medication. Do not use Wikipedia to promote this treatment. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Totally dishonest to ignore the recommendation to the public by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India (version for the public) (pop. 1,380 M) but leave those of US (pop. 332 M) FDA and EU (pop. 513 M) EMA.

You banned it under the pretext it is “irrelevant to "research" - the topic of this article”. This is hypocrisy because such recommendations to the public by health authorities (the Indian one as well as the US and European ones) about a drug are made after consideration of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceveris (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

— Ceveris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And the consensus of relevant credentialed qualified health experts does not support that recommendation. That's why it's irrelevant and adding a WP:LAUNDRY.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ceveris: do not use Wikipedia to promote this treatment. When writing about it, you should also say that the Indian government is using it against international consensus. This last part is very important. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's kind of obvious if we mention it right after saying that the WHO, CDC and EMA do not recommend it, but we can say it explicitly too. Alaexis_¿question? 05:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree too. No problem!

Alexbrn reverted my last edit ¯\(°_°)/¯

His series of reverts is the cause of this ongoing discussion:

We have to find an acceptable presentation of that Indian decision… (Be it good or bad, what is Wikipedia to judge?) Ceveris (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like India's High Court will block the prophylactic use of ivermectin. I think the best we can do right now is something along these lines:

In May 2021, with hospitals overrun with critically ill COVID-19 patients, the Indian states of Goa and Uttarakhand announced plans to use ivermectin to treat mild cases of COVID-19. The Indian Council of Medical Research issued the recommendation to doctors while warning that the decision was based on low certainty of evidence. WHO chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan reiterated that the WHO does not recommend the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, except in clinical trials, citing the statement by the manufacturer and developer of ivermectin Merck against off-label use.

I'm not sure where this should be placed. Please wait a while for opinions before adding this to the article. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe add a new first-level section on covid and put everything related to it there (research, actual usage and misinformation)? Alaexis_¿question? 06:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we've already got enough (too much) on this fringe aspect of what is otherwise a useful drug. Need to be wary of WP:UNDUE and giving too much attention to a fringe sideshow. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn please next time notify other editors when you solicit feedback at the Fringe_theories dashboard. Alaexis_¿question? 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no need. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn You misrepresent WP:UNDUE. Fact that ivermectin is, since April 28, 2021, part of the treatment proposed by Indian health authorities for mild/asymptotic covid-19 patients is no “views of tiny minorities”, whose representation is the topic of WP:UNDUE. It is not a “view”. It is a fact. The “view” that ivermectin is efficient as a treatment for Covid-19, although shared by more than “a tiny minority”, is only presented by Wikipedia as “misinformation”. Ceveris (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE to give attention to some confused politicians who gave some dumb advice in one part of the world for a few weeks, for a drug which is actually changing the world for the better because of the work of informed policy makers and scientists. We already mention some misguided countries/regions. How does it help convey knowledge to add more? Anyway, you can add your view to the RfC and we'll see where things stand in a month or so. Alexbrn (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, (as usual,) you misrepresent the subject. We are not talking about any “confused politician”, but about the “REVISED GUIDELINES FOR HOME ISOLATION OF MILD/ASYMPTOMATIC COVID-19 CASES” published on April 28, 2021 by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Government of India, directly accessible (one clic) from this page: https://www.mohfw.gov.in/

Presented by the press: Govt issues new guidelines for home isolation of mild, asymptomatic COVID-19 cases, BusinessToday.In, April 29, 2021.

This is notable information for the article about Ivermectin. Ceveris (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: thank you Alaexis to let us know about that mean Alexbrn conspiring behind our backs… Ceveris (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure that the Indian government is a particularly good authority on medical issues. On the same ministry website, for example, you can find recommendations for using Ayurveda to prevent COVID, and the government has also issued guidance on the use of homeopathy for prevention and treatment of COVID symptoms. They have an entire ministry devoted to this sort of thing. Brunton (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not providing medical advice here. Wrong decisions can be notable and should be covered by Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 14:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Better to have sources on the "wrong decisions" then, rather than letting it somehow be implied. We already know, and say, some countries have made wrong decisions - if you must, put this India stuff in that country's COVID article. This is an article focused on an anti-parasitic drug. Look at the weight of serious sourcing on that (800+ scholarly secondary sources). Next to that, piling up a list of tittle tattle about how it doesn't work - which we already cover - is undue. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct. There are loads of references in the article saying ivermectin doesn't work for covid. This balances the Indian choice to have it as a treatment. This choice is a notable information about IVERMECTIN, has its place in Ivermectin.

I put the info as you propose into COVID-19 pandemic in Goa but your accomplice Brunton reverted, instead of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM! Ceveris (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This piece of random trivia doesn't belong in this article. If we put every crackpot medical idea that the Indian Government has in the individual treatment article, they would be an incredible mess. WP:FRINGE applies here, because that's exactly the Indian Government's approach to medical issues. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is Wikipedia:Fringe theories, don't apply:

You confuse the ideas, the “theories”, with the events.

The publication by the Indian Government, 28 April, of a revised guidance for covid with “Treatment for patients with mild/asymptomatic disease in home isolation”, containing Ivermectin, and the decisions taken in such states as Goa (10 May), Karnataka (11 May) and Uttarakhand (12 May), (not talking about Uttar Pradesh) to distribute ivermectin tablets to their population are not ideas or theories (fringe or not)! Ceveris (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The distinction is really simple. Flat Earth is a fringe idea - to put it mildly. Still we mention that it was the dominant theory in the past in the Earth article. Alaexis_¿question? 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ftrebien, thanks for improving the article and incorporating the information about India. Alaexis_¿question? 20:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope this settles the controversy a bit. I only disagree about the direct link to the national guidelines, as it can be an incentive to self-medication because it contains usage instructions. It is ok to link to news articles that puts this in the adequate context. I understand that the High Court will block Goa's intention to use it prophylactically, and the national guidelines are only for people with mild symptoms, not prophylactically. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the guidelines themselves, I think it's fine the way it is now. Alaexis_¿question? 06:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - added context for Merck's statement on Ivermectin/Covid

As reported by PBS, Merck is developing a novel drug for treating Covid. From the linked article:

"Another existing drug, ivermectin, may also have potential against SARS-CoV-2. A May meta-analysis suggests it could speed recovery and reduce mortality from COVID-19. The idea is controversial; some experts are unconvinced while proponents are eager to put it to use as a cheap, effective treatment. The anti-parasitic, developed by Merck in the 1980s, is no longer under patent. The company has contended there is not sufficient evidence for its use against COVID. Merck declined to respond to PBS NewHour’s request for comment."

Merck's position creates a potential conflict of interest that means proper context needs to be provided when citing their statement on ivermectin. Given that Merck would stand to make far more money through a novel treatment than they would on a generic. The danger with the current text of the article is that it veers from a WP:NPOV and adopts Merck's framing of ivermectin's effectiveness (or lack thereof) without fully disclosing what incentives they may have had to make that statement.

I propose including additional text, using the neutral language provided by WP:RS PBS in the above linked story as a reference. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:1905:B5EA:593B:F994 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Silly news piece, not WP:MEDRS. Merck's position is reported correctly, satisfying WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What is "silly" about a report that Merck is developing a novel drug for treatment of Covid? Surely you are not questioning the underlying facts, or their potential for creating a conflict of interest?2600:1700:7CC0:4770:1905:B5EA:593B:F994 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)