# The Real Scandal About Ivermectin

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-real-scandal-about-ivermectin/14448>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Article\
**Created:** [October 24, 2021, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-real-scandal-about-ivermectin/14448 "2021-10-24T13:26:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_robert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/frank_robert/32/9272_2.png) [@Frank\_robert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Frank_robert)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2021, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-real-scandal-about-ivermectin/14448/1 "2021-10-24T13:26:17Z")

</div>

> **[The Real Scandal About Ivermectin](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermectin-research-problems/620473/)**
>
> Claims about the drug are based on shoddy science—but that science is entirely unremarkable in its shoddiness.

> Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug, and a very good one. If you are infected with the roundworms that cause river blindness or the parasitic mites that cause scabies, it is [wonderfully effective](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/the-hottest-thing-in-head-lice/264412/). It is cheap; it is accessible; and its discoverers won the Nobel Prize in 2015. It has also been widely promoted as a coronavirus prophylactic and treatment.
> 
> This promotion has been broadly criticized as a fever dream conceived in the memetic bowels of the internet and as a convenient buttress for bad arguments against vaccination. This is not entirely fair. Perhaps 70 to 100 studies have been conducted on the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19; several dozen of them support the hypothesis that the drug is a plague mitigant. [Two](https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx) [meta-analyses](https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214), which looked at data aggregated across subsets of these studies, concluded that the drug has value in the fight against the pandemic.
> 
> So if you’re the sort of person who “[follows the science](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/following-the-science-democracy-experts-covid-19/620138/),” it might seem perfectly rational to join the fervent supporters of ivermectin. It might even strike you as reasonable to suggest, as one physician and [congressional witness](https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/doctor-pleads-for-review-of-data-on-ivermectin-as-covid-19-treatment-during-senate-hearing) did recently, that “[people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine](https://newsconcerns.com/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the-century/).”

> The problem is, not all science is worth following.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-real-scandal-about-ivermectin/14448/2 "2021-10-31T13:26:39Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.