The Results Are in on Ivermectin

We may come across as a bit cautious in our reporting from time to time, because we don't want to get ahead of ourselves -- even when the evidence points in one direction.

That was the case with ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that some have baselessly touted as a treatment for COVID-19.

We first wrote about ivermectin in April 2021, when Dr. Ryan Cole, who owns a medical lab in Idaho, claimed that federal agencies “have suppressed this life-saving medication.”

At the time, there was a lack of data, so we could only say what we knew: Ivermectin does have antiviral properties, but it wasn't approved for use to treat any viral infections, including COVID-19. As we noted, even the maker of the drug said there was "[n]o meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease."  

Dr. Roger Shapiro, associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told us at the time: “Treating COVID-19 with Ivermectin is still being evaluated in clinical trials, but at present there is not enough evidence to support its use.”

With each article we have written since then, the evidence increasingly showed ivermectin doesn't work as a treatment against COVID-19. By now, randomized clinical trials -- the gold standard of clinical research -- have repeatedly found that ivermectin does not benefit COVID-19 patients.

Yet, ivermectin enthusiasts continue to falsely claim the drug works against COVID-19, citing most recently a flawed observational study conducted by ivermectin activists.

In an article this week, staff writer Catalina Jaramillo presents the latest results of large clinical trials we’ve been following: the Together trial in Brazil, which was published in May; the ACTIV-6 trial, funded by the NIH, which was published in June; and the Covid-Out trial, which was published in August. They all point to the same result: Ivermectin does not benefit COVID-19 patients. 

Reader: I just ran into an old article [“Republicans Spin NIH Letter About Coronavirus Gain-of-Function Research,” Oct. 26, 2021] on your fact check website that claims the NIH never did GOF research, yet the Republicans "spun a letter" claiming that the NIH admitted that they did. I have never read that letter, but I did run into an article on the NIH's website dated Dec. 19, 2017, that is entitled "NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research". This article was from the director. 

Just wondering, since the director is no Republican spinning a letter, and the title clearly states the phrase "gain of function research" in the title, why would you say it is false? Am I missing something?  

FactCheck.org Science Editor Jessica McDonald: Our article is about a 2021 letter that is different from the 2017 statement you found from the then-director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins.

“Republicans Spin NIH Letter About Coronavirus Gain-of-Function Research” is about an October 2021 letter from NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence A. Tabak to the House Oversight and Reform Committee about a grant awarded to the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.

As we explain in our article, some Republicans argued the letter was an admission that the agency had funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in its grant to EcoHealth Alliance. 

But the letter itself does not say that NIH agreed that it had funded gain-of-function research. Rather, the letter describes experiments that some experts consider risky gain-of-function research, but that NIH has said does not qualify as such under its criteria.

Some Republicans also cited Tabak’s letter to incorrectly claim that this was “proof” that NIH funds led to the creation of the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2, in a lab. That’s despite the fact that Tabak’s letter specifically explains that none of the NIH-funded experiments involved viruses similar enough to the coronavirus to have led to its creation.

The statement you found is related to how the NIH has approached handling controversial gain-of-function research. Given debate about whether some research should not be allowed because it is too risky, the U.S. government temporarily stopped funding research that “may be reasonably anticipated” to enhance the transmissibility or virulence of influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses in 2014. 

As we mentioned in our article, the pause was lifted in 2017 when the NIH unveiled a new framework for making funding decisions for these types of projects on a case-by-case basis. This is the statement you found.

Importantly, we did not say that NIH denied ever funding any gain-of-function research. In the story, we note that NIH says it has funded three projects that it deemed gain-of-function, or what it calls “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens,” or ePPPs. But NIH does not consider the EcoHealth Alliance project to be one of them.  

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "Herschel Walker Cites Outdated Crime Figures in False Attack on Raphael Warnock": Since Democrat Raphael Warnock of Georgia has been in the U.S. Senate, homicides and rapes in Atlanta have not increased by nearly as much as Republican Herschel Walker said in a Fox News interview.
• "Misleading Attack on Murkowski’s Gun Vote": After a spate of mass shootings, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was one of 15 Republicans who voted in June for a gun bill that provides money for states that have or want to enact red-flag laws to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. States that do not have red-flag laws can use their funding for other programs, such as mental health and drug courts.
• "Florida GOP Attacks Crist with Misleading Claims About the IRS and Police": President Biden and Democrat Charlie Crist have said that they don’t support calls to defund the police. And a law that both men supported provides funding for the IRS to potentially hire tens of thousands of new employees — mostly in customer service, not tax auditing, bureau officials have said. But a Florida GOP ad makes distorted claims about both issues.
• "Crist Ads Misrepresent DeSantis Statements on Abortion and Background Checks on Guns": Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate state permit requirements for carrying concealed firearms, and he supports banning abortion, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks of pregnancy. But political ads from former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s campaign misleadingly claim that DeSantis opposes “any background checks” on gun buyers and “wants to ban abortion” in all cases.