Ivermectin shines in veterinary medicine, effectively treating parasites in animals such as horses and cows. However, its efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in humans remains unsubstantiated, prompting a straightforward warning from the American Food and Drug Administration: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” This advice, seemingly obvious, is crucial in today’s United States.
Skepticism persists, fueled by former President Donald Trump’s endorsement of ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Despite his support, the drug’s safety and efficacy for treating COVID-19 in humans have been questioned. The unwavering trust some Americans have placed in Trump’s recommendation has resulted in serious health consequences and, in some instances, death. Hospitals have faced legal challenges from families demanding ivermectin treatment for their loved ones, though courts have consistently sided with medical professionals against such demands.
The debate over ivermectin has been charged with political tension. Senator Rand Paul, while open-minded about the drug, attributes negative perceptions of ivermectin to political bias against Trump. This stance echoes the controversy surrounding hydroxychloroquine and masks, further polarizing the issue.
Pharmaceutical giant Merck, the manufacturer of ivermectin, has stated there is no scientific basis for its use as a COVID-19 treatment, aligning with the broader scientific consensus. Yet, skepticism of scientific authority, coupled with Trump’s endorsement, has propelled the drug into the spotlight among certain segments of the American public.
The allure of ivermectin is not confined to the United States. In Europe, “corona skeptics” and anti-vaccination advocates have championed the drug, despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness against COVID-19. This phenomenon is part of a wider mistrust in official narratives and expert advice, often intertwined with political populism.
Austrian Freedom Party leader Herbert Kickl’s promotion of ivermectin, despite a fraudulent study, exemplifies the drug’s politicization. Kickl’s case highlights the dangers of misinformation and the consequences of unproven treatments gaining public traction.
The European Medicines Agency has advised against ivermectin’s use for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, underscoring the drug’s dubious status as a “miracle” treatment. Meanwhile, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s advocacy for ivermectin, despite scant evidence, reflects a broader trend of dissent against mainstream medical advice.
In Switzerland, opposition to pandemic containment measures, such as the COVID-19 certificate, has been infused with rhetoric framing such efforts as steps toward authoritarianism. This sentiment is emblematic of a larger distrust in governmental and scientific institutions, often amplified by figures like Christoph Blocher and Martin Janssen.
The persistent promotion of ivermectin, despite overwhelming evidence against its efficacy for COVID-19, underscores a deep-seated skepticism towards the medical establishment. This skepticism, often rooted in a distrust of perceived elite collusion, fuels the adoption of alternative narratives and treatments.
Ultimately, the ivermectin saga reflects broader cultural and political dynamics, including the rise of right-wing populism and conspiracy theories. It raises questions about the responsibility of public figures in promoting unverified treatments and the critical need for public education on health and science.