Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why did people think ivermectim could cure COVID?
Executive summary
Early laboratory signals, celebrity endorsements, political and social-media amplification, and circulating misinformation led many people to believe ivermectin could treat COVID‑19, even though major health agencies warned it was not authorized or proved effective (FDA; UCLA; Wikipedia) [1] [2] [3]. Research later showed trial results were inconsistent or flawed and large trials failed to confirm benefit, but proponents continued to point to selected studies and to ivermectin’s Nobel-linked history as evidence (PMC review; Reuters; Wikipedia) [4] [5] [3].
1. Early laboratory promise met a desperate audience
In 2020 some in‑vitro (lab) studies suggested ivermectin had antiviral effects against SARS‑CoV‑2, and those preliminary results were widely shared at a moment when safe, effective COVID‑19 treatments were scarce; that combination — early science plus public fear — primed the public to hope for a simple drug solution (available sources do not provide the specific lab-study details here; Wikipedia summarizes that early lab research suggested a possible role) [3].
2. Selective studies, meta‑analyses, and the “evidence” that stuck
A number of authors compiled trials and found large statistical benefits for ivermectin in some meta‑analyses, and review articles arguing for efficacy were circulated widely; at the same time subsequent scrutiny found many positive trials were small, poor quality, or later retracted, and larger, more rigorous studies failed to reproduce the dramatic results — a core reason mainstream medicine moved away from recommending ivermectin for COVID‑19 (PMC review; Misinformation Wiki) [4] [6].
3. Official warnings and final scientific verdicts
Regulatory and medical authorities maintained that ivermectin is not authorized to prevent or treat COVID‑19; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration explicitly said ivermectin was not approved for COVID‑19 and warned of serious toxicity from misuse, and by 2023–2025 large clinical studies and public‑health analyses showed ivermectin did not reduce hospitalizations or mortality (FDA; UCLA) [1] [2].
4. Media, celebrities, and the power of amplification
High‑profile endorsements and sensational media moments helped turn ivermectin into a household controversy: reporting notes that celebrity mentions on popular platforms rekindled interest years after the pandemic peak, and fact‑checkers warned those claims were unsupported by clinical evidence (Washington Post; AFP fact check) [7] [8].
5. Politics, distrust, and cultural identity shaped uptake
Analyses tied higher ivermectin prescriptions and online advocacy to political and social factors: some regions and political cohorts prescribed or sought ivermectin at far higher rates, and researchers found links between endorsement of misinformation, lower institutional trust, and use of non‑evidence‑based therapies during the pandemic (UCLA; JAMA Network summary) [2] [9].
6. A “wonder drug” legacy repurposed by advocates
Ivermectin’s real history — a Nobel Prize–related antiparasitic with major global public‑health impact — was reused as rhetorical ammunition: that prestigious past made claims that it should work against COVID‑19 more persuasive to lay audiences, despite the Nobel recognition being for parasitic disease treatment, not antivirals (Reuters) [5].
7. Continuing misinformation and its consequences
Fact‑checking organizations document that false or exaggerated claims about ivermectin persisted and even expanded beyond COVID‑19 (e.g., into cancer claims), prompting public‑health warnings that ongoing research does not support cures and that patients should not delay proven treatments in favor of unproven regimens (AFP; Everyday Health) [8] [10].
8. Why people still believed it — a short checklist
The belief that ivermectin could cure COVID‑19 grew from: (a) early hopeful lab studies and selective trial reports [3] [4]; (b) social‑media and celebrity amplification that simplified complex science [7] [8]; (c) political and cultural distrust of mainstream institutions [2] [9]; and (d) misuse of ivermectin’s respected antiparasitic pedigree as proof of antiviral potency [5].
9. What the sources agree — and where debates remain
There is broad agreement in these sources that large, reliable clinical evidence does not support ivermectin for COVID‑19 and that regulatory bodies did not authorize it [1] [2]. Disagreement appears mainly in earlier and contested meta‑analyses and reviews that reported benefits but were later challenged for including low‑quality or retracted trials — those contested studies fueled ongoing advocacy [4] [6].
Limitations: available sources summarize the arc of scientific inquiry, public response, and misinformation but do not include every individual study or the full timeline of every retraction; specific laboratory results and all contested trial details are not exhaustively reproduced here (available sources do not mention every disputed trial by name) [4] [6].