Which groups and influencers promoted ivermectin and what were their motivations?
Executive summary
Ivermectin’s rise from an antiparasitic to a politicized COVID remedy was driven by a small set of physician-led advocacy groups, conservative media personalities and social-media influencers, telemedicine vendors, and some national politicians — each motivated by a mix of ideological distrust of mainstream medicine, financial opportunity, and political advantage [1] [2] [3]. Scientific and regulatory bodies ultimately rejected ivermectin for COVID on the basis of poor-quality evidence and failed large trials, but by then an ecosystem of promoters had already amplified positive-but-flawed studies and social-media sentiment to sustain demand [4] [5] [6].
1. Fringe physician networks that professionalized promotion
Groups such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) acted as the organized medical face of ivermectin advocacy, publishing protocols, offering paid telemedicine access to prescriptions, and reframing ivermectin as a “safety net” for the vaccine-hesitant; leaders like Pierre Kory became prominent voices, shifting from clinical desperation to broader skepticism of vaccines and “Big Pharma” [1] [2].
2. Conservative media and celebrity influencers amplified demand
High-reach personalities — notably podcasters and commentators — normalized and promoted ivermectin in mainstream conservative circles, with figures such as Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk publicly endorsing or defending its use, which fed social-media momentum and framed ivermectin as an alternative to conventional public-health messaging [7] [8].
3. Social platforms, grassroots groups and telehealth companies created distribution channels
Hundreds of Facebook groups and other online communities coordinated sourcing, dosing advice and ways to evade moderation, while telemedicine companies and clinics monetized demand: reports documented large numbers of ivermectin-focused groups and telehealth appointments that charged significant fees for prescriptions, keeping dispensing well above pre-pandemic baselines [9] [1].
4. Political leaders and state programs used ivermectin for political ends
In several Latin American countries and some subnational U.S. politics, ivermectin distribution was adopted by officials as part of “COVID kits” or public campaigns; researchers judged these moves as political signaling and “pharmaceutical messianism” intended to win support, despite regulatory bodies not authorizing ivermectin for COVID treatment [3] [10].
5. Motivations: a tangled mix of genuine hope, distrust, profit and politics
Promoters cited a desire to find cheap, widely available cures amid catastrophic early COVID deaths — a plausible humanitarian impulse — but that sat alongside profit motives (telemedicine fees and prescription volume), ideological opposition to vaccines and institutional medicine, and political incentives to appear responsive to constituents; academic reporting and investigative journalism trace how these overlapping incentives sustained the movement even after high-quality trials failed to show benefit [2] [1] [11] [3].
6. The evidence ecosystem and misinformation dynamics that enabled promotion
Early low-quality trials and a few high-profile meta-analyses that were later questioned or retracted created a perception of scientific controversy; that gap was exploited by advocacy groups and influencers, and amplified by polarized news consumption patterns, producing persistent positive public sentiment on social media despite later randomized trials (ACTIV-6) finding no clinical benefit [4] [6] [5] [12].
7. Counterarguments, conflicts and limits of the record
Proponents point to observational studies and meta-analyses suggesting benefit and describe their push as an ethical attempt to save lives with inexpensive drugs, but many such studies have been criticized for bias or retractions, and major health agencies warned against routine use outside trials; reporting documents both sincere clinical motivations among some doctors and clear financial and political incentives among others, and available sources cannot fully disaggregate individual motives in every case [6] [4] [2].