A participant in a demonstration in support of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, known for his skepticism about the coronavirus, holds a poster in the shape of an ivermectin package. Ivermectin was called a “miracle drug” for coronavirus and was recommended for use in some countries. “Anti-vaxxers” considered it an alternative to vaccination. However, a BBC investigation revealed extremely serious flaws in the studies on which the drug’s supporters rely.
Ivermectin is an oral medication that controls worms, scabies mites, lice and other parasites in humans and animals. Its developers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine. But with the onset of the pandemic, some individuals and groups began to claim that ivermectin reduced mortality in people with Covid-19 and loudly, if not scandalously, called for its widespread use.
Medical authorities in the U.S., U.K. and EU believe that there is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. However, proponents, including many ideologically opposed to vaccination, continue to vigorously defend their position.
In Peru, ivermectin was approved for the treatment of Covid-19 in May 2020. However, the country’s authorities later withdrew this recommendation. They share advice on social media about where to get ivermectin, claiming that even the versions approved for animals are suitable. Confidence in ivermectin is linked to reports of successful trials of its efficacy, after which many people around the world began taking the drug. Activists point to scientific research that medical authorities allegedly ignore or even hide from the public. However, analyses by independent experts cast doubt on their scientific reliability.
According to the BBC, more than one-third of the 26 studies conducted on the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating Covid-19 have serious flaws or signs of fraud. The remaining studies also do not provide convincing evidence that the drug actually helps against the coronavirus. One of the independent experts, Dr. Kyle Sheldrick, says that among the studies purporting to confirm ivermectin’s ability to prevent fatal outcomes in Covid-19, they failed to find “a single study that did not show obvious signs of fabrication or serious flaws that invalidate the results. The main drawbacks of the research: Dr. Sheldrick and all three of his colleagues – Dr. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Dr. Jeyms Heathers, and Dr. Nick Brown – have experience in debunking pseudoscience. During the pandemic, they volunteered to do this analysis, working together remotely. Scientists decided to review information about the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating coronavirus after medical student Jack Lawrence discovered serious flaws in a high-profile study conducted in Egypt. Among other things, it turned out that the trial involved people who had actually died before it began. The journal that published the article on the study later discredited it. The group members then reviewed all of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19 that proponents cite. An RCT involves one group of patients receiving a specific drug while another group receives a placebo; this type of study is considered the most accurate.
In South Africa, people take to the streets to demand that authorities use ivermectin, January 2021. We explain quickly, simply, and clearly what happened, why it matters, and what will happen next. The number of episodes should not be changed. End of story Podcast advertising The experts also analyzed six other observational studies that only tracked the condition of patients who wanted to take ivermectin. This method is considered unreliable because study participants may be biased and it is difficult to assess whether the positive effect was due to the drug. Five of the 26 studies were found to have evidence of data falsification, such as unattainable numbers or entire series of identical patients whose indicators were simply copied. In the next five, there were also clear alarm signals: the numbers were not coordinated, the percentages were calculated incorrectly, or the local health authorities were unaware of their implementation. Finally, the authors of 14 other studies refused to provide the analysts with the data they had collected, leading the authors to suspect falsification.
Among the studies reviewed by independent experts, there were also high-quality studies conducted worldwide. However, serious problems were found in the trials that supported the effectiveness of ivermectin. In fact, the experts found a pattern – the more favorable the study, the more questionable it was. Dr. Sheldrick, who works at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, suspects that in at least some cases there is deliberate falsification of data, although it is very difficult to rule out random error in such research.
For example, in the results of a study conducted in Lebanon, the data of 11 patients were copied and pasted into a table. This most likely means that many of the participants in the tests did not actually exist. The authors of this paper told the BBC that “the original dataset was distorted, deliberately corrupted or inadvertently copied into the final file”; they reported that they have already withdrawn the study from the scientific journal that published it.
Another trial conducted in Iran appeared to show that ivermectin helps prevent fatal outcomes in Covid-19. However, it turned out that the data recorded by the authors on the iron content of the patients’ blood is unlikely to be found in the real world. In addition, the participants in the experiment were selected so that patients with lower levels of oxygen in their blood received a placebo, meaning they had a higher chance of dying. At the same time, people who received ivermectin started out in a milder condition. The same principle was repeated when a large number of parameters were analyzed: people with poor indicators consistently ended up in the placebo group, while those who improved were in the ivermectin group. The probability of chance coincidence for all these indicators is negligible, Dr. Sheldrick said. The principal investigator of the Iranian trial, Dr. Mortezá Niaee, disagrees with the analysts’ conclusions and defends the results obtained by him and his colleagues. He believes that “such randomization is quite normal” when taking into account many different factors, not all of which are related to the risks of Covid-19. However, the international non-profit organization Cochrane, which studies the effectiveness of treatments for various diseases, excluded the Lebanese and Iranian trials from its review of ivermectin because it found them to be low in evidence. Overall, the organization has found a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating Covid-19. The authors of the Together project, the most comprehensive and high-quality study of ivermectin’s properties conducted by McMaster University in Canada, agree. The study concludes that the drug is not beneficial in treating coronavirus.
The user in the Facebook group asks for advice on how to buy Ivermectin online from India. Ivermectin is considered a safe medicine. In the US, the number of reports of ivermectin poisoning has risen sharply: 1143 cases so far this year compared with 435 for the whole of last year, with the majority of cases being non-serious. Patients complained of side effects including vomiting, diarrhea, hallucinations, disorientation, dizziness and finger tremors. But a much greater harm can be caused by a false sense of security, especially if it leads people to refuse vaccination or hospitalization if they are infected with the coronavirus. Dr. Patricia Garcia of Peru says that of the 15 patients she saw at the clinic, 14 had previously taken ivermectin, and all were “very, very sick” when they arrived. Large groups of ivermectin supporters have appeared on Facebook and Telegram, where people are trying to find ways to obtain the drug. Some people are even trying to buy animal versions of the drug. In some cases, users spread conspiracy theories that information about ivermectin is being hidden. They also oppose vaccination and urge patients to walk out of hospitals if they are not prescribed ivermectin. Often, users from such groups move on to even more radical communities operating on “Telegram”.
In this post, the user complains that hospital staff refuse to prescribe Ivermectin to a patient with COVID-19, even though he requests it and claims that the drug is safe and effective. Online communities are also organizing attacks against practicing doctors and scientists who do not recognize the miraculous properties of ivermectin. Professor Andrew Hill of the University of Liverpool wrote a major positive article on ivermectin, stating that the world “should be prepared to find reserves of the drug and approve it”. Now, under the influence of new data, he has changed his position – and immediately started receiving vicious insults. Several prominent physicians have joined the campaign for widespread use of ivermectin. One of them, Dr. Pierre Kory, stated that he was not convinced by the results of the independent analysis of the clinical trials of the drug, calling them a “superficial interpretation”. Dr. Tess Lowry, a specialist in pregnancy and childbirth, founded the British Ivermectin Advocacy Group (Bird) and is calling for a halt to Covid-19 vaccination. She has also made several unsubstantiated claims that coronavirus vaccines have caused a large number of deaths.
When asked by the BBC what might change her position on ivermectin, she replied, “Nothing. Ivermectin works. The only problem with the evidence is somebody’s persistent attempts to discredit it. In other parts of the world, people turn to ivermectin not because of antivaccine sentiment, but because of a lack of vaccines. This drug has been approved at various times for the treatment of Covid-19 in India, South Africa, most Latin American countries and Slovakia. Medical authorities in Peru and India later withdrew their recommendations. In February, Merck – one of the manufacturers of ivermectin – stated that “the therapeutic efficacy of the drug as a tool against coronavirus has not been scientifically proven. In South Africa, where it is quite difficult to get vaccinated against Covid-19, there are ongoing battles over ivermectin – doctors convincing patients of its futility while patients desperately seek it. A local doctor said her relative, a certified nurse, did not get vaccinated when she had the opportunity, and she contracted the coronavirus. “When her condition worsened, she started treating herself with ivermectin instead of seeking qualified help,” the doctor said. “She did not go to the doctor and continued to take ivermectin and receive oxygen at home. When her oxygen level dropped to 66% [with a normal level of 94%], I started begging her daughter to take her mother to the hospital. At first they refused, but they finally went to the ICU. A few hours later, the patient died,” the doctor concludes. With the participation of Shruti Menton.