Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pure propaganda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

That picture and caption with the horse reads like propaganda from one of the former Soviet bloc countries, it certainly has no place at the beginning of the article. There's over 40 research papers which have identified Ivermectin as effective in the treatment of COVID. Monash University is one of them, though they said it was initial research. The original paper is here "The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro".

Here is an extract from a research institute in Japan [1] written in Japanese:

Approximately 80 clinical trials have been reported, mainly in developing countries, that ivermectin, a silver bullet for antiparasitic diseases discovered by Dr. Satoshi Omura of Kitasato University, is effective against coronavirus infection (COVID-19).

Many doctors in the United States and the United Kingdom have insisted that they be used for prevention and treatment as "effective", but pharmaceutical companies and government authorities are also moving to prevent their use, saying that "clinical trials are insufficient".

Japan has approved the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, subject to the agreement of doctors and patients, but there is no intention to actively approve it. We should take the initiative in confirming the effects of the drug.

The Indian Bar Association sued the WHO for misleading the public on Ivermectin. Ivermectin has been used in abundance in Indian states like Uttar Pradesh and they have some of the lowest numbers of COVID cases in the country.

I like to assume good faith in our editors but I'm seeing the same couple of editors putting out this propaganda on Wikipedia and trashing articles on anybody who has spoken out against the vaccine. ₪ Encyclopædius 17:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, especially for medical claims, and you have produced none. Ivermectin is now just the province of quacks, fools & grifters as our sources tell us. The FDA tweet is a significant part of the story covered in multiple RS, and the horse picture adds nice colour and sets the scene. I commend it! Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Antiviral Research Volume 178, June 2020 is very much a reliable source. No, the media tells us it's the province of quacks, fools and grifters because they're pushing the agenda that only the vaccine can save people. There's numerous respectable papers which have been published on this.₪ Encyclopædius 17:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we're not basing our evaluation of sources on the "media" interpretation or "agenda" as you claim here. We're basing it on the preponderance of views expressed in the most reliable and widely circulated academic review articles and systematic meta-analyses from topic-relevant scientific journals.

Please see the template at the top of this page for more information. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Role of ivermectin in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study National Library of Medicine. "Two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers for the following month. "₪ Encyclopædius 17:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance of reliable sources for medical claims. To save time, some excellent WP:MEDRS are listed in the box at the head of this page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin has been extensively used to treat COVID in countries like India and Japan. Do you dispute this?₪ Encyclopædius 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been attempted in India, with no credible evidence of success. The Japan stuff is bogus, as covered in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

“Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. The India Express via MSN.₪ Encyclopædius 17:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

https://gidmk.medium.com/ivermectin-didnt-save-uttar-pradesh-from-covid-19-17684f49d8b3

Dec 29, 2021

Ivermectin Didn’t Save Uttar Pradesh From Covid-19

We don't have reliable covid-19 data from developing countries like India.

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Quote: "He said that apart from aggressive contact tracing and surveillance, the lower positivity and fatality rates may be attributed to the large-scale use of Ivermectin use in the state, adding that the drug has recently been introduced in the National Protocol for Covid treatment and management. “Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself,” Vikasendu told The Indian Express. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopædius (talk • contribs)

Philippine Daily Inquirer : "Uttar Pradesh is ivermectin’s best practice success story" In two weeks’ time, the cases in the ivermectin-using states started to drop by half, and in six weeks, they achieved 85- to 90-percent reduction in cases. In three months, the cases further decreased by 95 percent to 99.9 percent compared to peak levels. For several months now, many states are enjoying near-normal, pre-COVID activities. ₪ Encyclopædius 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

We've had soooo many discussions about this topic. It's clear that you have no understanding of WP:MEDRS, which means that we don't cite individual trials. I endorse what Alexbrn has said above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how the BBC is a reliable source for assessing the effectiveness of Ivermectin, while the research of actual scientists says otherwise though..₪ Encyclopædius 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Good job the BBC is not used for that purpose then. (It is however, a good source to report on the burgeoning research fraud scandal around ivermectin/COVID). Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about the BBC not being a reliable source then approvingly citing The India Express and Philippine Daily Inquirer? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Even the BBC has said Though there have been some early "promising" results from small and observational studies, though Prof Richard Hobbs said it would be "premature" to recommend Ivermectin for Covid. Sorry but I'm not seeing anything which convinces me this is just nonsense from conspiracy quacks.₪ Encyclopædius 18:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The prevailing view is that it should only be used in clinical trials, but that the data from large trials so far is not looking good. That's what MEDRS tell us. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not approving of any source, I'm simply pointing out that mainstream sources in those countries have reported that Ivermectin has been effective or shows a lot of promise and I don't think it's right to imply that it is just utter nonsense spouted by loony anti vaxxers/conspiracy theorists. ₪ Encyclopædius 18:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well this is a talk page intended to be used for concrete and specific suggestions on how to improve the article. Do you have any of those? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to promote Big Pharma conspiracy theories and even relies on WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims. Since this talk page is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM), unless you provide MEDRS quality sources, not much can be done. Other kinds of general RS can also be good to report that some are still pushing for its use despite the lack of evidence for its efficacy and that already appears to be covered: "Despite the absence of high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy and advice to the contrary, some governments have allowed its off-label use for prevention and treatment of COVID‑19. [...]". —PaleoNeonate – 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should strive to report fact and truth from a neutral perspective. A picture of a horse and a Twitter quote which pokes fun at the situation is not neutral. We should mention large-scale use in Uttar Pradesh and that it was listed on the National Protocol for Covid treatment and management but later removed. ₪ Encyclopædius 19:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The FDA "horse" tweet is reliably-sourced and had much secondary coverage, so is ideal for inclusion. You have produced zero reliable sources in support of your fringe POV. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the Uttar Pradesh trash, which has been debunked. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You think Newswise.com is a leading authority on judging the success of Ivermectin? ₪ Encyclopædius 19:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why no WP:INDENT? Is this some kind of trolling? You have still produced zero reliable sources but are pushing medical misinformation. Shame on you; it's a fucking disgrace. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horse image

May I suggest removing the horse image and going back to the tweet box? I am worried the horse image gives off a userspace essay vibe. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Done - but I rather liked the horse. Trying to think of another image that sums up the whole topic ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. File:Ivermectin tablets (51710488204) (cropped).jpg is boring, but would fit the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What would be really good is a pic of someone sorting ivermectin tablets, or stockpiling them. The tablets themselves instead of the box... I'll see if I can find something CC or take it myself at the pharmacy... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to have the horse at a different place in the article. Thoughts? Just not as the top image — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It adds nothing educational in context (the reader doesn't need to see what a horse looks like to understand the article), and visually reinforces the message that Ivermectin is only for horses, which is misinformation. --Animalparty! (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think the tweet template is fine, then — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

section needing clarity

I think the section Scientists targeted needs attention for accuracy and context. As written it appears to imply that Hill himself committed some unspecified fraud (Hill posted video, "serious methodological limitations" identified, research fraud emerges, Hill revises findings). The BMJ-EBM piece, after discussing several flawed or inconclusive studies, only mentions Hill et al.'s preprint in a reference, following the statement: "Concluding, research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow", citing 3 studies, one of which is Hill et al. From this one could reasonably infer several things: that the 3 studies represent more examples of "serious methodological limitations"; that they represent growing "research related to ivermectin in COVID-19"; that they collectively comment on methodological limitations; or some combination of the three. The distinction is not clear. It does not explicitly say Hill et al.'s findings are cast into doubt, although other sources likely support this. Even when that's clarified, the leap between "methodological limitations" and "fraud" is not made, such that the next sentence "As the research fraud emerged, Hill revised his analysis to discount it." is jarring and confusing: where was fraud previously mentioned? Did Hill revise his analysis to discount the fraud or his own earlier analysis? An ideal article should be fully comprehensible to general Wikipedia readers who aren't versed in the nitty gritty and who's-who of ivermectin research. And lastly, the header "Scientists targeted" implies more than one scientist, but the section only mentions attacks received by Hill. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the "methodological limitations" stuff is worth retaining - it only refers to a prior version of a paper which was subsequently revised in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Fraud" is still unspecified, and mentioned only in lead and this sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian, anti-vax, right-wing, conspiracy theorists

Cause celebre is never used in the source. A strange choice of word. The characterizations here are a direct quote from one person. Probably shouldn't be stated in wikivoice when we are quoting a medical student named Jack Lawrence. Rightwing appears unquoted once in the article, but they never say who these right-wingers are except for naming a conservative Australian MP. Please reconsider the application of this source in the article. Not a big fan of “nevertheless” in the lead either. SmolBrane (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't quoting a student. It says "The efficacy of a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide ..." in its own voice. The lede should summarize the article and we definitely need something about the continued promotion, though I don't care about "right-wing" so that can go in my view. Note this was discussed before.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The way this is cited it definitely looks like we are quoting Jack Lawrence, there are probably better ways to cite this. Cause celebre should go, it's not English, it's not used by the source, and in my opinion it doesn't have use in common parlance. Given that it is your phrasing on the three articles it appears(originating here: [3]) I would simply ask you to copyedit this. MOS:EDITORIAL says 'nevertheless' should go, clearly. SmolBrane (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cause celebre has been used in English for a long time. As the saying goes:

English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.

I refrain from commenting on the rest of the suggestions at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:EDITORIAL doesn't mention "nevertheless", WP:CLEARLY or not. Pretty much every thing you have said seems to be wrong. That a particular wording is "not used by the source" is a good thing, because we are meant to summarize in our own word and not plagiarize. I would not mind "focus" or "obsession" instead, mind. Alexbrn (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"cause celebre" is a fair summary of the source in my opinion. They celebrated and promoted the drug's use in COVID treatment, despite its lack of efficacy. As Alexbrn said, there is no quoting of any medical students here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol this was elucidating, to say the least. Thanks for the replies. SmolBrane (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we call it "safe" in the lede + are we accurately interpreting the Bloomberg source

My edits were reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic&type=revision&diff=1070502520&oldid=1070499080

The reason I thought these would improve the page is (for the "safe" edit): that a reader may not realize why it's controversial, since it's a safe drug, and that "risks" have more to do with how if the drug is ineffective, if people at risk of dying from covid are taking it instead of the vaccines which are proven to reduce death and hospitalization, they could be harmed, and (for the "profit" edit): the Bloomberg article doesn't make the claim that profits were significantly increased. If Ivm. is generic, that's a bold claim. Anyone can make it and sell it, as there is no exclusive patent anywhere. Assuming a free market, that is what happens in a capitalist system--prices go down, and the consumer benefits. The source makes one indirect reference to profit, but provides no figures, nor the claim that profits were significantly increased. The case for increased revenue, on the other hand, is backed up by the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IVERMECTIN ADDICT (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No drug is 100% safe for all uses, and, with this article being about this drug's use to treat COVID-19 rather than about its use as an antiparasitic drug, the word "safe" would appear to be actively misleading. And, by basic economics, increased demand for anything leads to increases in both revenue and profit in the short term in a free market. Nobody, and no company, can step up supply immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two issues here; the first one is profit. Increased revenue does not necessarily imply increased profits. That's original research. If a supplier is taking a loss on each sale, for example, then they are seeing decreased profits as revenue increases. Moreover, in a highly regulated industry like pharmaceuticals, the price equilibrium can be disrupted by legal requirements that a drug be sold at a specific price, regardless of supply constraints or increasing demand. All that is to say that we cannot infer that profits increased absent a source that says just that. Per WP:PROVEIT, it should say revenue. The second issue is safety. A drug's "safety" also usually depends on dosage, and in the case of Ivermectin, we have people using way too much of it and harming themselves. It would be irresponsible to call it "safe" in Wikipedia's voice with no qualifications. It should not be called safe in the lead as it was in the disputed edit. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no particular issue with revenue vs profit (though the source does mention companies are "cashing in" and that one company enjoyed a "bonanza", which gives a strong steer as to what they think happened). It was the (now blocked) OP however who restored "profit" with this edit so one wonder what was going on. Trolling probably. But as to safety, yeah, calling it flatly "safe" in the context of this article is irrelevant/misleading; also a WP:LEDEBOMB. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin does not work as an antiviral in humans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlovid-compare-ivermectin-15967

Ivermectin does not work as an antiviral in Humans (only in lab).

IF ivermectin is proven to be an effective Covid treatment, it must be acting by some yet-unknown mechanism.

Perhaps killing the PARASITES in your body gives some protection against covid-19, so one can travel to a country selling ivermectin OTC, eat the pills, travel back to home country and get some protection?

In developing countries they have problems with human parasites.

In India, ivermectin might work, but we need better studies than this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8417612/

Same study:

https://www.cureus.com/articles/64807-prophylactic-role-of-ivermectin-in-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

In the section entitled "Covid Mis-Information" at your page on Ivermectin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation), in fairness to the body of research that has been produced on the topic, this medicine, and its effect on treating Covid patients, you have at the minimum an obligation to include a link to the following website : https://c19ivermectin.com/ , along with a statement that there have been 78 different research studies that examined Ivermectin's safety and effectiveness in treating Covid 19.

Presently you cite only one research paper that used only one evaluative method to evaluate only 41 total Ivermectin studies, and that paper is more than six months old. As there are a large number of other more recent studies and evaluations of Ivermectin as found in the website I list above that have come to opposite conclusions, your present entry is mis-leading and seems to reflect bias against all known information regarding Ivermectin and its effects in treatment of Covid illness.

Hence the need to balance your paragraph to allow readers the opportunity to read all available information on the topic and come to their own conclusions. Considering that there are millions of people around the world (including me) who have recovered from Covid illness with the administration of Ivermectin as a part of their therapy, by relegating their experiences to the category of "Conspiracy Theory" you are being intellectually dishonest and not serving the public interest.

You can contact me at rayfcom@optonline.net or at 516-521-5021 with any questions regarding this request.

Ray Commisso 69.114.52.141 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:MEDRS. Your linked website https://c19ivermectin.com/ is specifically named in this paper https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678 which notes it as carrying out junk science with really no standards. Cannolis (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please also see Template:COVID-19 treatments (current consensus) #3, which specifically disallows the use of c19ivermectin.com, stating that expert opinion describes this website as unreliable because it violates basic methodological norms. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Itajai, Brazil Study.

This study shows good results with a clear indication of the study methods.

Itajai, Brazil study is well supported by external statistics and is under review. As the political heat fades and the editors and american left moved on to something else, perhaps the normal editors could have some introspection on the echo chamber they have created.

A cheap off patent drug, widely available and stocked, used in everything from dog, horses and humans is reported to work better as a treatment than an on patent drug with a millions spent to support it.

It would be the medical story of the century if a well known prevention regium with near zero cost is more effective than an on patent drug.

This drug and its covid history is just now being studied by people who are serious external to North American and EU political motivations.

"Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching"

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching Loopbackdude (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Cureus is not considered a reliable journal. It is not a suitable source for inclusion on wikipedia. And, secondly, I would tell you to look at the data provided in the template at the top of this page, and see that more reputable sources are what we use to determine what should be included on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, another instance of ivermectin boosters getting their stuff published in junk journals. Meanwhile, the (genuine) science is solid. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

PLOS study showing Beneficial uses of Ivermectin

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/peerReview?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247163 This study meets the requirements at WP:MEDRS, and is considered a reliable high quality source. Any objections to including it in the wiki? 192.86.86.201 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Primary source failing WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin and COVID-19

"Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds".

"Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19". doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2115869. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

2600:1000:B03F:2983:4FD:F300:B6A2:155 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately a WP:PRIMARY source, but will likely be included in new secondary reviews which would be suitable for inclusion here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. FYI, you don't need to post on a bunch of different talk pages [4] [5]. This is actually frowned upon on Wikipedia. Better to post on one page, and see what kind of discussion ensues. Only post elsewhere if really necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV re some science PhDs in favor of ivermectin

I made an edit in one section that has a non-neutral POV: “Social Media Advocacy” under “Misinformation and Advocacy,” titles which themselves very arguably don’t have a NPOV. Regardless of where one comes out on each individual point, there is cumulatively, strikingly clearly an impermissibly misleading non-neutral POV. Following is the original text with my additions in brackets:

“Ivermectin has been championed by a number of [science YouTubers] social media influencers.” I also struck out “social media influencers.”

American podcaster[, evolutionary biologist] and author Bret Weinstein took ivermectin during a livestream video and said both he and his wife[, biologist] Heather Heying had not been vaccinated because of their [concerns about] fears concerning COVID-19 vaccines.[67] In response, YouTube demonetized the channel.[68]” I struck out “fears concerning.”

In the United Kingdom, retired nurse educator and YouTuber John Campbell[, PhD] has posted videos carrying false claims about the use of ivermectin in Japan as a possible cause of a "miracle" decline in cases.”

This was reverted by @Alexbrns with the note that it was “fringe puffery.”

I wasn’t puffing them up, merely partly restoring a neutral POV. They are painted as social media influencers with no relevant training or experience (other than Campbell as a nurse educator). It is essential that the fact that Campbell has a PhD and that Weinstein and Heying are biologists is made clear as that shows they have the training to analyze studies, and that “fears” about the vaccines are changed to “concerns about.”

I would also change the text calling them “social media influencers,” as I did in my edit and also the very arguably NNPOV headings (which I did not edit). I am willing to let these issues above in this paragraph go but there HAS to be some at least compromise change to make the bias and NNPOV less egregious. I am reverting back to my edits of “biologist” for Weinstein and Heying and “PhD” for Campbell. Please let’s discuss here before any reversions or edits. JustinReilly (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Also reverting “fears” to “concerns.” JustinReilly (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia to push fringe agendas. Nobody calls misinformation merchants "science youtubers" (except perhaps other misinformation merchants). Trying to highlight the prior careers of such people is also a WP:PROFRINGE gambit. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If countries and states promote the use of Ivermectin how can the topic simply be dismissed as a fringe agenda? You posit that entire countries are irrelevant when you leave out alternate viewpoints in a contentious issue as if there were none.

Hubris is a funny thing, few realise until the fall.

If the state of Tennessee in the USA makes Ivermectin available over the counter due to genuine demand and lack of harm how can anyone call it fringe with a straight face. Call it out for what it is, anti narrative, and then be ready to support it when it becomes part of the narrative because the data will no longer change, the narrative will. Both House and Senate voted over 70% in favour, are they all fringe?

One of the sister sites (ivmstatus) of that 'evil' one mentioned above has simply collected facts, kind of like Wikipedia and done a basic calculation showing that over 25% of the world uses Ivermectin to manage covid-19. Calling that fringe is laughable yet editors on Wikipedia are smug about it when they do so when I read the comment above, emotive gloating words like misinformation merchants, profringe gambits, for shame, what agenda are you trying to promote because it is not facts? Why accuse someone of pushing a fringe agenda when you are propping up a false narrative that is not supported by facts?

Also see if you can find many mentions in the mainstream media about the Senate Directive SA0620, it should be shouted out by all the Horse Paste news channels to say at least in TN you can get the human form and the Horse Paste is no longer needed but maybe it is just too much facts that are better kept quiet. The anti-Ivermectin lobby is much stronger and more dangerous than the pro-Ivermectin movement and the only reason for the narrative you hold dear. As editors on Wikipedia it behoves you to have a balanced view and this Ivermectin4covid page has only negative things to say, it is the height of biased editing and reflects very poorly on the original goals of Wikipedia.

Idyllic press (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just cite some sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and then everyone will be happy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

lack of harm

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither politicians nor a vaguely-defined "popular demand" are medical experts. If you read the Conspiracy theory article, you can see that health-based psuedoscience has a long history of influencing the policy of governments. StuckEarlier (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

These edits by JustinReilly bring this page farther away from NPOV rather than closer to it. If a spade is a spade, we should call it as such, and not dilly dally around weasel words to make people feel that a subjective non-evidence-backed position is sufficiently "respected." It does not matter how many countries' politicians champion this treatment. What matters is what the data in MEDRS say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)