Why did some promote ivermectin as COVID-19 cure?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ivermectin was promoted as a COVID-19 cure for a mix of early laboratory signals, small and sometimes flawed clinical studies, aggressive advocacy by clinicians and activists, and political and social currents that amplified fringe findings; large, higher-quality trials and health agencies later found no consistent clinically meaningful benefit (see clinical guidelines and trials) [1][2][3]. Prescribing and usage surged in some regions—particularly politically conservative areas and parts of Latin America and the U.S. South—despite regulators warning ivermectin is not FDA‑approved for COVID‑19 and that high antiviral doses seen in vitro are not achievable safely in humans [4][1][5].
1. Early signals, hopeful lab science, and the rush to repurpose
Researchers noted that ivermectin inhibited SARS‑CoV‑2 replication in cell cultures, which generated immediate interest in repurposing an existing, well‑known antiparasitic as a cheap, widely available treatment [1][6]. That in vitro result prompted clinical trials and off‑label use even though pharmacokinetic analyses showed the plasma concentrations needed for the lab antiviral effect would likely require doses far higher than approved human regimens [1].
2. Small trials, mixed results, and the role of low‑quality studies
A scattering of small randomized trials and observational studies reported faster viral clearance or apparent benefit (for example a small Dhaka trial with 72 patients), and some systematic reviews that included these studies concluded possible effects—findings that were later questioned because of small sample sizes and methodological problems [7][6][8]. Investigative reporting and later reanalyses identified serious errors in many influential trials cited by proponents, undermining early positive claims [3].
3. Larger trials and guideline panels moved the evidence line
Large adaptive platform trials and systematic meta‑analyses (including TOGETHER, PRINCIPLE updates, and WHO/NIH guideline summaries) found no reproducible, clinically meaningful benefit for recovery time, hospitalization or mortality in typical outpatient populations, leading major guideline panels and regulators to advise against ivermectin for COVID‑19 [1][9][10]. The NIH and FDA explicitly state ivermectin is not approved to prevent or treat COVID‑19 [1][2].
4. Advocacy networks, prominent champions, and political amplification
Promoters such as the Front Line COVID‑19 Critical Care Alliance and figures who held public hearings amplified ivermectin as an alternative to vaccines and antivirals; social media and some politicians further magnified those messages, creating a movement that treated ivermectin as a “miracle” drug despite weak evidence [4][3]. In the U.S. prescribing patterns tracked to political geography: Republican‑voting areas showed pronounced surges in ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine prescriptions early in the pandemic [4][5].
5. Commercial and local incentives shaped uptake
Manufacturers and distributors in some countries saw large revenue gains from ivermectin sales during 2020, and clinicians in regions with limited access to proven antivirals sometimes used repurposed drugs as readily available options—creating economic and practical incentives that reinforced promotion [4][5]. At the same time, major manufacturers like Merck publicly said there was no scientific basis for ivermectin as a COVID‑19 therapeutic, highlighting conflict between commercial uptake and corporate scientific statements [3].
6. Why the debate hardened: distrust, narratives, and misinformation
The ivermectin story mirrored earlier controversies (for example hydroxychloroquine): a mixture of distrust in institutions, distrust of vaccines, politicized media ecosystems, and selective citation of low‑quality positive studies produced a persistent narrative that “hidden” cures were being suppressed—an explanation critics have called conspiratorial and unsupported by robust evidence [3][6].
7. Current consensus and remaining disagreements
Major health authorities and recent large trials show no convincing clinical benefit and warn about safety and dosing limits; however, some systematic reviews and advocacy groups continue to argue for benefit citing different selections of studies—so disagreement today largely traces back to which studies are counted and how methodological flaws are handled [1][10][11]. Available sources do not mention any definitive new large randomized trial establishing ivermectin as an effective COVID‑19 treatment beyond the published negative and neutral high‑quality trials (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this account is built only from the supplied sources; it stresses how early lab results, uneven clinical evidence, advocacy networks, political alignment and commercial dynamics combined to promote ivermectin despite later, higher‑quality evidence and regulatory disapproval [1][2][3][5].