: Ivermectin has drawn national headlines of late because some elected officials
. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin
), as well as some anchors on Fox News
, have pushed it as a possible way to lessen the effects and severity of Covid-19.
That misinformation has led to a surge in people trying to get their hands on the drug
. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent a health advisory Thursday warning doctors and the public about the
” in prescriptions for the anti-parasitic drug
The run on ivermectin has been so frantic that some people are resorting to taking the animal form of the medicine
, which is prescribed to cows and horses who have worms
. 미시시피에서, 70% of the recent calls to the state’s poison control center were about ingestion of ivermectin formulations meant for animals and purchased at livestock supply centers
. Calls to Alabama’s poison control center regarding ivermectin have more than doubled of late
Things got so bad that the US Food and Drug Administration tweeted about ivermectin usage
: “You are not a horse
. You are not a cow
. 진지하게, y’all
. Stop it.
” In the article linked to in the tweet
, the FDA notes that
“ivermectin is not an anti-viral
(a drug for treating viruses
)” and that you should
“never use medications intended for animals on yourself
. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.
(Sidebar: That feels like the sort of thing the FDA shouldn’t have to say. 그러나 …)
Why did supporters become convinced that
, contra science
, ivermectin is an effective treatment for Covid-19
? A study that has now been debunked
. As Nature wrote recently
“Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic…
“…The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90% — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 칠월, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of ‘ethical concerns’.”
Then there’s this
: A recent review of
14 studies involving ivermectin produced zero evidence that the drug is an effective means of treating Covid-19
. As the study’s authors wrote
“Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. 사무용 겉옷, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.”
So there were at least 14 studies into the efficacy of ivermectin to treat the coronavirus. Which doesn’t seem like, as Paul has contended, no one is willing to do studies on the drug because they hate Donald Trump.
Paul’s problem isn’t that ivermectin is being ignored as a potential treatment for Covid-19 patients. It’s that the data, which makes clear there is no benefit (at least to date) of using the drug, doesn’t comport with what his base wants to believe. Which is his problem, not ours.