Those aren't examples of the media gaslighting people. Those are about the CDC and FDA saying they aren't effective (or not proven effective). You're conflating the media with scientific advisory boards -- and notably those under Trump's own watch at the time.
Media gas lighting would be if the CDC/FDA/etc said that Ivermectin was effective and the media saying it wasn't or not reporting on it.
The media gaslighting part is continuing to call ivermectin a horse medicine to disparage it, when it is also approved as anti-parasite medication for humans (if not for COVID.)
People were ordering from livestock suppliers in preparations designed to treat horse conditions, to the extent stockists started running out and started demanding people provide evidence they actually owned a horse to buy it. I mean, dog food is just meat from the same animals humans eat, but it's still a news story if people decide they'd rather eat Pedigree Chum than take nutrition advice from doctors.
This is an example of when people say, "I'll do my own research" I often roll my eyes. First, about the site you gave, here's what BMJ has to say about this site:
"Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.36"
The c19ivermectin site misrepresents the results from the study. To quote the actual study: "However, a mortality benefit was not seen with ivermectin treatment before and after PSM (p values = 0.07 and 0.11, respectively). ICU admission, and intubation rate were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.49, and p = 1.0, respectively). No differences were found between groups regarding the length of hospital stay, ICU admission, intubation rate, and in-hospital mortality."
Additionally the study notes:
"The ivermectin group was more likely to have bacterial pneumonia complications compared to the control group (43% vs. 23%, p = 0.02). Eight patients had a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis in the ivermectin group, and the ivermectin group more frequently received therapeutic anticoagulation therapy than the control group. In addition, 13 patients had acute kidney injury in the ivermectin group."
The website you provided has a very biased take on just the one study I looked at. It's hard for me to take it seriously as an unbiased meta-analysis of ivermectin.
This is cherry picking at its worst. I found one bad study from 78! studies. Therefore, I will ignore all studies. Even worse, none of your double blind RCTs are multi-site western studies. So, I will ignore all of them.
Do you know what? After 2 years. 2 years, there has not been even one WESTERN double blind RCT of Ivermectin for Covid that has reported its data. Not one. There are 3 ongoing - Oxford (paused now, because they cannot get supply - what a joke), Covid-OUT (reporting in maybe 2 months), and NIH (reporting in 2023). The Together trial finished in August, but they are still sitting on the data - why?
Besides those trials, there are 87! studies from lots of countries. One really good observational study with ~200k participants (120k in the treatment group) from Itaj Brazil for IVM as prophylaxis. Results for propensity matched data were hospitalizations down by 85%, and for non propensity matched 50%. But nobody has written about it.
The same goes for Fluvoxamine, which has great data. As does Melatonin and Curcumin. Lots of treatment and prophylaxis options out there.
And yes, i am vaxxed. But I despair at this notion that it is vax or treatment. I chose both.
That's a well-written hit piece by Scott Alexander.
This isn't big tobacco of old who transparently lie.
This article gives short biased summaries of all papers, and leaves out all the good results of many papers. Even well run studies, like Chaccour, that shown stat sign reduction in cough and ansomnia in only N=24, he spins as a negative result. And the Italian study that just barely misses stat sig reduction in viral load - well he doesn't tell you that, does he?
Scott also believes the benefit from IVM is because of worm reduction. The Ijatai study with >120k subjects is an area of Brazil with no worms, proving that is transparent nonsense.
Irrespective of whether it's random or cherry picked, you can't discount a mountain of evidence from N=1. That is the playbook Big Pharma have succeeded with so far. Find one trial with evidence of fraud (El-Gazaar DBRCT) and then discount all other clinical trials on IVM for Covid. The media bought it hook, line, and sinker.
I absolutely can discount a mountain of evidence from N=1. If you bring me 10 candidates for a job and say they can all type 100 WPM and I say, "OK, give me that guy in the middle" and give him a typing test and he types 20 WPM, I'm discounting the rest of the candidates because I no longer trust the source.
Furthermore, the issue isn't the study. It's how they misrepresented the results of the study. Another example, it would be like if you give me a paper and I go to the middle of the paper and it says, "Nazi's saved millions of Jews from the rein of terror of the Hawaiians" -- I'm going to discount the paper because I think the editorializing is misleading. I don't need to read the rest of the paper -- unless you tell me that the section I read was meant to be satire.
This is why credibility matters. If that site was Nature and I looked at one study and there was something wrong with it I might be inclined to look at a few more randomly. But given that people have a finite amount of time, when you present something it better be accurate. And when it is accurate, you'll gain credibility. But if the first thing I look at is misleading -- I don't have a lot of patience to wade through data ... especially when other sources also say that you're representations are biased.
The reason why many of the studies are poorly written and have methodological limitations is that many are done by clinicians in 2nd world countries.
Not one large DBRCT from the west has reported on IVM for Covid yet. Let that sink in.
If you don't like ivmmeta.com, have a look at this published meta analysis of ivermectin for covid. It reaches the same conclusions. And yes, there is also a cochrane meta analysis that cuts out all by 9 DBRCTs (ha!), still is positive, but not stat-sig.
