Understanding ivermectin

When the implications of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic dawned, the race for effective vaccines and/or treatments began. However, as Dinis-Oliveira (2020) notes, the scientific approach ranged ‘from robust studies to dishonest studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate’, and he asks for balance ‘between the benefits of the rapid access to new scientific data and the threat of causing panic or erroneous clinical decisions based on mistakes or misconduct.’

When Johnson et al (2020) debated the question of whether doctors should recommend treatments and vaccines against COVID-19 and its causative agent SARS-CoV-2, one contributor argued that ‘unpublished trial results, even with limited data transparency and peer review, can deliver crucial interventions without sacrificing integrity’, whereas others contended that ‘doctors and professional societies should publicly state that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-19 products as being based on science’ (Johnson et al, 2020). Further, while Doshi (2021) acknowledged that global vaccination against COVID-19 was underway, he cautioned that although it might be seen as nit-picking, the fact remained that ‘none of the COVID-19 vaccines in use are [sic] actually “approved.” Through an emergency access mechanism known as Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), the products being rolled out still technically remain “investigational”’ (Doshi, 2021).