Jump to content

Talk:Ivermectin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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

Last updated (diff) on 13 May 2025 by GreenC (t · c)

It is time to remove any negative FDA mention.

[edit]

The FDA over played their hand and has had to walk it back. The repeated mention (3 times) of the conflict between invitro dose concentration and practical dosing is not meaningful. All the invivo studies that have shown benefit have used typical treatment doses. There has never been a call to use high doses so claiming this is why it does not work is spurious.

The "You are not a horse" comment was in bad faith, the FDA had no right to say it and has been ordered to remove it, this should be made very clear.

While Wikipedia is in thrall to the pharmaceutical industrial complex and global politics their credibility is in freefall and until they decide to clean house they position as puppets of the globalists is plain for all to see. [Trickle Truthing] is not what encyclopaedias are about.

Wikipedia was captured, the editors were played it is time to earn the trust of humanity again.
87.95.122.66 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the more moronic parts of your comment, this topic is covered in the Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic article. The US courts ruled the FDA couldn't post content which might amount to medical advice so, so the FDA removed all of it. They did not however 'walk back' their view that there is no good evidence ivermectin has any use for COVID-19, in common with every other reputable medical information source on the planet. Some of the ivermectin cultists on social media have tried to spin this as the FDA somehow reversing their view; we cover that too. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ivermectin is currently used in most second and third World countries for a variety of illnesses. And Covid is one of them. 199.19.163.209 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
first part true, second part not true. If it is used that not to treat other illnesses it was approved for. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


In NY Times article, especially comments, there is still a lot of faith in the drug. Yet the section here on Covid is terse. The link is confusing, and people need to know more so they won’t think this drug is effective. There should be additional information in that section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C601:6010:710E:4A04:9A83:4B6A (talk • contribs) P https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/opinion/doctors-vaccines-patients.html

WP:MEDRS doesn't consider opinion pieces in newspapers, far less the comments sections. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FDA retractions on COVID treatment.

[edit]

Considering that the FDA agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by three doctors and retract their statements saying that ivermectin is not an appropriate drug for treating COVID-19, shouldn't this article be updated to reflect that?

It's been two months since the FDA was forced to make those retractions, and this article has still not be updated with this very relevant information. 24.146.98.33 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned here and covered in more detail at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. As is noted there, it is widely-touted misinformation to claim this ruling has anything to do with ivermectin being an "appropriate drug" for COVID-19, since The FDA position remains unchanged that "currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19". Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bon.
The lawsuit is about a specific, funny wording ("You are not a horse"). Maybe they should have stated: "Don't behave like a horse"...--Julius Senegal (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19" The point is that they couldn't prove that in a court of law. The trial was not about saying "you are not a horse". Do you really think the trial was about calling people horses? You think that's why the doctor's were suing? Really?? Maybe you should read about the case. The trial was about the FDA hurting the reputation and careers of doctors who prescribed ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment based on their medical expertise. The FDA could not defend their position and instead settled with these doctors.2603:8080:2B00:11D4:DFA2:E8A0:4E30:8E97 (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's repeating the misinformation. The court narrowly considered how the FDA "has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce or advise. The doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s posts fell on the wrong side of the line". In other words they can say Ivermetic for COVID is a steaming pile of hore shit, but they can't add "so don't use it that way". This is covered in Wikipedia's article Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, including how the court result has been spun into being more than it is by the ivermectin stans. Bon courage (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

[edit]

The article states "Sklice, an ivermectin lotion, cost around US$300 for 120 mL (4 US fl oz)." The reference: [1] seems to be unavailable other sources across the internet suggest around £40 for 4oz topical treatment, and $300 seems unlikely. 92.30.162.222 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kliegman RM, St Geme J (2019). Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 3575. ISBN 978-0323568883. Archived from the original on August 3, 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2020.

RFK and Ivermectin

[edit]

https://publichealthcollaborative.org/alerts/rfk-jr-continues-to-promote-disproven-covid-19-cures/

One, I think the fact that RFK is now the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, some mention of his past and present statements regarding Ivermectin should be made in this Article. This Article should at least attempt to "straighten out" public perceptions of RFK's position on the drug, one way or the other. This idea is predicated on the idea that RFK may have tempered his views now that he is HHS Secretary. Or maybe he has not, IDK. It would sure be nice if this Article addressed this question. Two, there are some states that have allowed OTC sales of the drug, and some mention of that should also be made.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/ivermectin-over-counter-pharmacy-states-rfk-jr-rcna205616

72.180.111.79 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer research

[edit]

A new ===Cancer=== subsection has been added with a single source:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

There are other review articles addressing this subject: [2][3][4][5] The question is probably less "Shall we mention it?" but "How (un)enthusiastic should that mention be?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citations WAID. Of the four review articles, the last one is published in the highest impact journal, and is specific to ivermectin and cancer. So I suggest that we cite the last review article:
Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):
The citation doi:10.3390/ph18101459 was replaced in this edit with PMID 40715995, which was published in a higher-quality journal, and the accompanying text was adjusted accordingly. Boghog (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&oldid=1322566711"