The right simply can't let go of this deworming medication

Washington Post

2 days ago

In recent months, Republican governors in Idaho, Arkansas and Tennessee have signed bills allowing over-the-counter sales of the antiparasitic medicine ivermectin. Lawmakers from many other states, including West Virginia, South Carolina and Louisiana, are rushing to follow suit.
Proponents hail these moves as a win for the 'medical freedom' movement. In reality, they symbolize the deep distrust of public health that resides at the heart of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda.
It's worth reviewing how ivermectin, a decades-old livestock dewormer, became such a hot-button political issue. Initially developed for veterinary care, the medication prevents and treats heartworms in dogs, cats and farm animals such as horses, cattle and pigs. It can also cure human parasitic infections and is the treatment of choice for onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, which is the second-most common infectious cause of blindness worldwide. In the United States, ivermectin pills are approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat onchocerciasis and another parasitic infection, strongyloidiasis.
Early in the covid-19 pandemic, ivermectin joined the list of possible treatments for the novel coronavirus because laboratory data showed the drug could stop virus replication in cell culture. But these findings were not replicated in human trials.
Two New England Journal of Medicine articles concluded that ivermectin did not reduce emergency department visits, hospitalizations or deaths due to covid. A JAMA report examining higher doses of ivermectin also found no effect on preventing hospitalization or reducing symptom duration. A Cochrane analysis, considered the gold standard of medical reviews, assessed 11 trials and concluded there was no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing covid.
This is how science should be done: A promising hypothesis is subjected to rigorous tests. All findings are considered equally, included the negative ones. If a drug is found to be ineffective against a certain disease, its use for that purpose is not warranted.
But not everyone agreed with these core scientific principles. Despite evidence to the contrary, a group called America's Frontline Doctors continued to promote ivermectin as a 'safe and effective treatment' for covid-19. Another group, now called Independent Medical Alliance, promoted a conspiracy theory that drug companies were suppressing data that ivermectin could be repurposed for covid treatment. Legislators eager to end pandemic precautions invited these providers to speak at hearings. One physician told a Senate committee that ivermectin offered miraculous prophylaxis against the coronavirus, saying, 'If you take it, you will not get sick.'
Many right-wing media influencers talked up ivermectin, including Fox News's Laura Ingraham and podcaster Joe Rogan, who said he took it himself when he had covid. By late 2021, ivermectin sales had increased to more than 10 times their pre-pandemic rates. People unable to acquire prescriptions from their doctor started buying products intended for animals, prompting the FDA to issue warnings that people were becoming seriously ill from consuming formulations meant for horses, cattle and sheep. Families desperate to save loved ones dying from covid sued hospitals to compel them to give the drug against their doctors' recommendation.
In other words, ivermectin had entered the covid-19 culture war. Like masking and vaccines, the drug became a shorthand for one's political allegiance.
Skeptics of vaccines began to see ivermectin as their fail-safe. If they contracted covid, they would just take it as their 'treatment.' Heck, they could even take it to prevent catching the virus, so they didn't even need masks or vaccines. They didn't trust research showing that ivermectin wasn't effective; they believed mainstream medicine was in cahoots with drug companies to 'force' vaccinations. And they could point to plenty of 'experts' who touted ivermectin as much as they did.
It's not surprising that these sentiments have culminated in legislation permitting access to ivermectin without a doctor's prescription or even a pharmacist consultation. Now that advocates have notched this success, they are applying the same playbook to reduce vaccine availability. Many states have attempted to pass legislation to ban or even criminalize administration of mRNA vaccines, referring to the technological advancement that allowed scientists to develop coronavirus shots at record speed.
The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. The same people pushing for unrestricted availability to a medication also want to take away the choice to access others. Apparently, 'medical freedom' only applies to therapies that mainstream medicine advises against.
These advocates are gaining ground. The federal government has announced plans to limit who can receive coronavirus vaccines, and just last week, Kennedy's Department of Health and Human Services pulled hundreds of millions of dollars previously committed to developing bird flu vaccines. We have entered the upside-down world where unproven treatments are celebrated and prevention is sacrificed on the altar of contrarianism.