Everybody wants to protect our planet, but environmentalism long ago morphed into a radical progressive movement. Where did it go wrong? As the COVID pandemic gradually recedes, what do we know about ivermectin?
The controversy surrounding ivermectin as a therapy for COVID has been longstanding and fierce. A recent paper in NEJM may or may not settle the ongoing debate. But the paper is full of data. Here is a condensed look at the key numbers.
Kansas, like several other states, is shielding healthcare providers from sanctions for the off-label prescription of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. That said, its State Senate – and one senator, in particular – is living in “crazy town.” Time for us to take a deeper dive into so-called fly-over country.
Of course, the cure is for hookworms and lice, and the patients are sea lions. But, with apologies for clickbait, wouldn’t you like a feel-good storm about ivermectin?
There have now been scores of cases seeking to compel a hospital to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients. Most have been decided in favor of the ill patient. To be sure, these cases are usually heard on an emergency, ex parte basis, meaning without an opportunity for the hospital or doctor to sound in. Generally, the judicial opinion reeks of bald sentiment and judicial activism– the benevolent wish to give the dying patient a “last chance.” Reliance on good old-fashioned “law” is absent.
A new rumor claims that Paxlovid, Pfizer's Covid drug, is merely a "dressed up" ivermectin molecule with little difference other than price. The term "Pfizermectin" is even being used to emphasize this. But biochemical and pharmacokinetic data say otherwise. Here are the numbers.
Storytelling in science, finding the narrative. The simultaneous rise of literacy and misogyny, heavy metal harp, the mushroom mind, and a Twitter Ivermectin thread and media bias
Last week we took down an article about ivermectin, because of threatening phone calls and emails. Those responses are another sign of the destructive, divisive politicization of scientific discourse. It is another skirmish in the tearing of our national fabric of trust or at least the assumption of goodwill. I have to say something, as a physician and citizen, it is definitely in my lane.
Can two well-intentioned clinically trained individuals look at the same data and reach differing conclusions? Yes. When it comes to ivermectin, I have more doubts and concerns than others. Here’s my take. 
In a pandemic, will physicians, who determine that the potential benefit of Ivermectin outweighs its well-documented risks for their patients, finally once again be given free rein to practice medicine?