Ivermectin has been hyped without good evidence as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19. One major “positive” ivermectin study was shown to be likely fraudulent. Now others are looking dicey.
Category: Clinical trials
Ivermectin has been hyped without good evidence as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19. Yesterday it was reported that the main study that has driven positive meta-analyses was either fraudulent or so incompetent as to be meaningless. Bottom line: Ivermectin almost certainly doesn’t work.
Share this:
As the drip-drip-drip of negative evidence for ivermectin against COVID-19 continues to roll in, conspiracy theorists are doubling down. Why? It’s always about the grift.
Share this:
The veterinary deworming drug ivermectin has become the new hydroxychloroquine in that it is being promoted as a highly effective treatment against COVID-19—and by many of the same people who previously promoted HCQ—despite evidence that is, at best very weak and at worst completely negative. Unfortunately, with the publication of two new and biased reviews, the “HCQ vibe” about ivermectin is stronger than ever.
Share this:
Joel Hirschhorn argues that the feds should have used “real world evidence” per the 21st Century Cures Act to approve the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. It’s the same argument acupuncturists use to promote their quackery.
