How Ivermectin Became The New Focus Of The Anti-Vaccine Movement

Enlarge this image

People opposed to COVID-19 vaccines often embrace ivermectin, a drug that’s been touted as an effective prevention and treatment for COVID-19, which they think is not getting the attention it deserves. Here, an anti-vaccination protester takes part in a rally against vaccine mandates, in Santa Monica, Calif.

Ringo Chiu/AFP via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Ringo Chiu/AFP via Getty Images

Shots — Health News
The Life Cycle Of A COVID-19 Vaccine Lie

How did a science question about the efficacy of an inexpensive, everyday drug become an inflamed public morality debate — where people on both sides believe the wrong position could cost lives? It’s a tale that spans science and politics, pitting health officials against celebrities and communal responsibilities against individual rights.

And it’s a debate that public health experts worry could prolong the pandemic, as individuals forgo vaccines and proven prevention measures and instead take up alternative treatments that may not be effective.

Enlarge this image

Protesters gathered for an anti-vaccine rally in Cincinnati in August carry a sign backing ivermectin. Belief in the drug’s efficacy often goes hand-in-hand with vaccine hesitancy.

Phil Didion/USA Today Network/Reuters

hide caption

toggle caption

Phil Didion/USA Today Network/Reuters

Shots — Health News
This Doctor Spread False Information About COVID. She Still Kept Her Medical License

Meanwhile, some people are overdosing on ivermectin. While the drug is generally considered to be safe in doses approved for human use, many who are taking it as an unproven treatment for COVID-19 are using more than the typically prescribed amount, says Michael Ganio of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, or using concentrated forms meant for livestock. And that has prompted warnings from U.S. federal agencies.

Bristow says the research community is devoting more time and resources to studying this drug, compared with other treatments, because of the immense interest around it. As was the case with hydroxychloroquine, though, she cautions that interest in the drug may be driven more by ideology than science.

A growing national passion for ivermectin

In May 2020, as the nation struggled to contain the coronavirus without a vaccine, then-President Trump announced that he was taking hydroxychloroquine in an attempt to ward off infection, despite warnings from the FDA. The idea that a cheap, widely available drug could end the pandemic provided an alternative solution for an administration struggling to contain the virus.

«It fits a political narrative, which is about reopening the economy as soon as possible, says Yunkang Yang, a disinformation researcher at George Washington University, who recently co-authored a book chapter on how right-wing media and the Trump administration worked together to push hydroxychloroquine. «The miracle cure paints a rosy picture of the situation. It is portrayed as a quick fix that is designed to persuade people to go back to work.

Enlarge this image

A protester at a «Freedom Rally to protest vaccination mandate in New York City in September carried a sign supporting ivermectin.

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Enlarge this image

Ivermectin is a very effective treatment for certain parasites in humans and animals but there’s yet no clear evidence that it helps treat COVID-19.

Mike Stewart/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Mike Stewart/AP

Ivermectin is a very effective treatment for certain parasites in humans and animals but there’s yet no clear evidence that it helps treat COVID-19.

Mike Stewart/AP

The toll of a misplaced faith

Midway through the summer, the delta variant started to burn through the United States. Cases exploded in places with low vaccination rates. In hotspots across the South and Midwest, worried people sometimes turned to the internet for answers.

Online mentions for ivermectin spiked: 74% of the topic’s mentions for this year have taken place in the past two months, with a huge increase in August, Zignal’s analysis shows. «That’s where we’re really starting to see this story take off, Zignal’s Granston says, «I’d also say, that’s when we really start to see the story split.

Rhetoric on both sides heated up. The CDC, FDA and other public health agencies came out strongly against the use of the drug on the basis of the poor quality of evidence supporting it so far. Meanwhile proponents of the «miracle cure dug in, often citing the handful of medical experts affiliated with the FLCCC who defend it.

«Clear instances of disinformation are relatively easy to debunk, says Granston. «The really hard stuff is where you have conflicting information. This is a very personal issue for people, because you’re talking about their health and everybody’s really grasping for answers. And that is outpacing the public health officials’ knowledge because the scientific studies haven’t been conducted on a broad scale yet.

While those studies are underway, some people’s belief in ivermectin over other proven options, like masks and vaccines, is giving them a false sense of security and control.

In some cases, the misinformation is actually killing them, says Kolina Koltai, a researcher who studies vaccine dissent at the University of Washington. Koltai likens vaccine refusal to not wearing a seatbelt in a car because you heard of someone who survived an accident without a seatbelt.

«If someone thinks they’re safe [because they’re taking ivermectin], they’re making a judgment that impacts not only their health but their community’s health, she says, «by either use of resources at the hospital, or [by getting and] spreading COVID. That is the real risk and danger of misinformation.

The toll of COVID-19 on people who are unvaccinated has been harsh. By mid September, as the delta variant continued to surge, hospitalizations were at their highest since early February; more than 1,800 people were dying of COVID-19 each day. The vast majority of people who have been hospitalized for or killed by the disease in recent months were not vaccinated.

Julie Smith and her husband were among those who chose to forgo vaccination. Smith said she considered the vaccine to be «experimental, according to a recording of a court hearing in the case shared with NPR by Ohio Capital Journal reporter Jake Zuckerman. «We didn’t feel confident that it had been out long enough, Smith testified, «and weren’t sure of the damage that would ensue.

Smith’s husband spent weeks on a ventilator in the ICU of a hospital near Cincinnati. On August 23, a judge issued an emergency order to the hospital to begin administering 30mg of ivermectin a day to the patient, as prescribed by a Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance doctor. On September 6, a different judge reversed the ruling.

«Everyone involved wants Jeff Smith to get better, Judge Michael Oster wrote in his decision. Still, after reviewing the evidence presented, the judge found «there can be no doubt that the medical and scientific communities do not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Doctors told the court that Jeffrey Smith’s condition had not improved since receiving ivermectin. But Julie Smith believed it had.

As of September 18, Jeffrey was still in the hospital on a ventilator, according to the couple’s lawyer Ralph Lorigo.

The case mirrors the splintered conversations that are continuing to take place across the internet.

«It’s the perfect storm right now of something that is going to become a lot more complex and a lot more challenging, Zignal’s Granston says, «There’s no clear side really winning out in this from what we can see.