Did CDC or FDA change guidance on ivermectin for COVID-19 after 2021, and when were those updates published?

Checked on November 30, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The available sources show no evidence that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed or newly authorized ivermectin for COVID-19 after 2021; FDA maintained that ivermectin was not authorized or approved for COVID-19 and the CDC did not add ivermectin to its COVID treatment lists [1] [2]. Independent fact‑checks and reporting through 2023 and later explicitly conclude the FDA “did not change position” and did not authorize ivermectin for COVID‑19 [3] [4].

1. What federal agencies said in 2021 — and what stayed the same

From 2020–2021 the FDA repeatedly warned that ivermectin was not authorized or approved to prevent or treat COVID‑19 and urged people not to use veterinary formulations; that core message remains in the record — FDA pages still state the drug is not approved for COVID‑19 [1]. The CDC likewise did not endorse ivermectin as an approved COVID treatment and did not include ivermectin tablets among its listed COVID therapies in subsequent guidance summaries captured in reporting [2].

2. Claims of a post‑2021 “reversal” and how reporters vetted them

Multiple outlets and fact‑checkers investigated claims that the FDA quietly reversed course. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact report that lawyers’ descriptions in litigation (that FDA warnings were “recommendations”) were misread online as an agency policy reversal — but the agencies’ public positions and authorizations did not change [3] [4]. Those fact checks concluded the agency’s stance remained that ivermectin is not authorized for COVID‑19 [3] [4].

3. What changed elsewhere — trials, guidelines and national regulators

Scientific evidence and large trials continued after 2021. Major randomized trials published in 2022 (for example ACTIV‑6 and NEJM reports referenced in coverage) found no clinical benefit for ivermectin in COVID‑19, and the WHO and other guideline bodies continued to recommend against routine use outside trials [5] [6] [7]. Some non‑U.S. regulators did adjust prescribing policies for practical reasons (e.g., Australia’s TGA removed special prescribing restrictions in 2023 but explicitly did not endorse ivermectin for COVID‑19) — a regulatory change in access, not an approval for COVID treatment [8].

4. Why confusion grew — litigation, statements and social media

Confusion intensified because courtroom remarks, selective reads of FDA webpages, social‑media posts and partisan outlets framed routine legal language as a policy flip. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact show those representations were misleading: the FDA’s public guidance and its lack of EUA or approval for ivermectin did not change, even if lawyers described warnings as “recommendations” in litigation contexts [3] [4].

5. What the evidence base did between 2022–2023 and how agencies responded

Large, higher‑quality trials published after 2021, including the ACTIV‑6 platform and other randomized controlled trials, failed to show benefit; agencies and guideline developers incorporated that evidence into living guidelines that continued to advise against ivermectin for COVID outside clinical trials [5] [7]. FDA communications in 2021–2022 continued to point to safety risks from improper dosing or veterinary products [1].

6. Persistent dissent and political developments

A vocal minority of physicians and advocacy groups continued promoting ivermectin despite the accumulating negative trial evidence and regulatory warnings; that political and policy activity led some states to consider OTC access laws and some pharmacies and legislators to press for different rules — but those state actions do not equal federal authorization or endorsement by CDC/FDA [9] [6].

7. How to read the record: authorization vs. policy language

The crucial distinction in sources is between an agency “authorization/approval” (a formal regulatory act) and public messaging or legal characterizations of guidance. Sources show no formal FDA authorization or CDC approval for ivermectin for COVID after 2021; changes cited in media or courts were descriptions or access‑policy adjustments, not approvals [1] [3] [8].

Limitations and unanswered points

Available sources do not mention any documented FDA or CDC new authorization of ivermectin for COVID‑19 after 2021; if you seek an exact list of every FDA or CDC web update and their timestamps, those granular change logs are not provided in the retrieved material (not found in current reporting). If you want, I can compile a timeline of the major studies, FDA web pages and fact‑checks referenced here and quote their dates and URLs.

Want to dive deeper?
What specific ivermectin guidance did the CDC publish in 2021 and what did it recommend?
Did the FDA issue any new ivermectin statements or safety alerts for COVID-19 after 2021 and on what dates?
How did major medical societies (e.g., IDSA, NIH) update their ivermectin treatment guidance for COVID-19 after 2021?
Were there changes to FDA or CDC ivermectin guidance following new clinical trial data or meta-analyses in 2022–2025?
How have regulatory communications about ivermectin influenced prescribing, pharmacy dispensing, and consumer use since 2021?