Talk:Ivermectin

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 13 May 2025 by GreenC (t · c)

Economics

The article states "Sklice, an ivermectin lotion, cost around US$300 for 120 mL (4 US fl oz)." The reference: seems to be unavailable other sources across the internet suggest around £40 for 4oz topical treatment, and $300 seems unlikely. 92.30.162.222 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

References

RFK and Ivermectin

https://publichealthcollaborative.org/alerts/rfk-jr-continues-to-promote-disproven-covid-19-cures/

One, I think the fact that RFK is now the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, some mention of his past and present statements regarding Ivermectin should be made in this Article. This Article should at least attempt to "straighten out" public perceptions of RFK's position on the drug, one way or the other. This idea is predicated on the idea that RFK may have tempered his views now that he is HHS Secretary. Or maybe he has not, IDK. It would sure be nice if this Article addressed this question. Two, there are some states that have allowed OTC sales of the drug, and some mention of that should also be made.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/ivermectin-over-counter-pharmacy-states-rfk-jr-rcna205616

72.180.111.79 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Cancer research

A new ===Cancer=== subsection has been added with a single source:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: "Ivermectin as an Alternative Anticancer Agent: A Review of Its Chemical Properties and Therapeutic Potential" doi:10.3390/ph18101459
• Date of publication: September 28, 2025, 10 months ago.
• Journal name: Pharmaceuticals (journal)
• Publisher's name: MDPI's open-access journals must be evaluated individually. See Q8 in the FAQ. Check for inclusion in MEDLINE or Index Medicus, and its ranking in Scopus. Learn more.
• Journal reputation: 79th percentile at Scopus Not indexed in MEDLINE
• Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
• Pre-clinical vs human: N Research only in animals or tissues is not usually appropriate.
• Independence: No conflicts declared

There are other review articles addressing this subject: The question is probably less "Shall we mention it?" but "How (un)enthusiastic should that mention be?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations WAID. Of the four review articles, the last one is published in the highest impact journal, and is specific to ivermectin and cancer. So I suggest that we cite the last review article:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: "Ivermectin in Cancer Treatment: Should Healthcare Providers Caution or Explore Its Therapeutic Potential?" PMID 40715995
• Date of publication: 26 July 2025, 12 months ago.
• Journal name: Current Oncology Reports
• Publisher's name: Y Springer is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: 84th percentile at Scopus Indexed in MEDLINE
• Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Review
• Pre-clinical vs human: limited accompanied by warning of lack of controlled clinical trials
• Independence: No conflicts declared

The citation doi:10.3390/ph18101459 was replaced in this edit with PMID 40715995, which was published in a higher-quality journal, and the accompanying text was adjusted accordingly. Boghog (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

On the COVID-19 Misinformation Section

I notice that under the COVID-19 Misinformation section for this article (under the Society and Culture section) has been replaced with the excerpt and the link (which is fine with me), but what follows the subheading is simply "It cures cancer" without any references or citation accompanying the statement.

I am quite new in editing wikipedia and not as familiar in the policies in editing medical-based Wikipedia articles and thus I am a bit hesitant in making a rash edit on the main article. But should the section be replaced with an excerpt about the COVID-19 misinformation rather than a three worded sentence about cancer, and then place a section about the role of ivermectin in cancer researches or treatment somewhere else in the article?

Thank you. ~2025-42988-87 (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That was vandalism in the internal link, it's been fixed. Thanks for flagging it. Acroterion (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Human Doctor B?

@~2026-49544-8: and @~2026-49766-9:, could you explain the reasoning / purpose of what the phrase for human Doctor B has? I don't know what Doctor B is, nor why it is necessary to specify that a drug is for humans. Including such specifiers implies that this Ivermectin composes multiple types of the drug, though this article is for the umbrella term if that is the case. MSWS (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)