LETTER: Published peer-reviewed literature still weighs in favour of ivermectin

Your editorial on ivermectin refers ("Ivermectin call a blow against flawed science”, June 3). I found the disparaging tone alarming, since this is a ploy often used in mis- and disinformation campaigns, particularly when the argument relies on the diminishment of the opposing view.

The editorial has perpetuated the myth that ivermectin is primarily a veterinary drug. This is false. It won a Nobel award in medicine for its discoverers for improving the quality of life for millions of people as an antiparasitic. Research into its antiviral and cancer therapy potentials is also to be found in the published academic literature.

Peer-reviewed literature that can be found freely shows several advantages for ivermectin. On June 1, I ran a scoping search in PubMed, the most widely used database for clinical research in the English-speaking world, for free literature on ivermectin and Covid-19 or severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars). The published peer-reviewed literature still weighs in favour of ivermectin. This is not flawed science. I found only three retracted articles out of over 200. The implication in the editorial gives a different picture.

Ironically, while those dismissing ivermectin criticise the literature available from the beginning as being weak, they have adopted randomised control trials that have been shown to be questionable in design, execution and reporting. Your editorial refers to Canada’s McMaster University trial, also known as the TOGETHER Trial, as being the study to put the ivermectin debate “to rest”. Indeed, there was a publicity campaign launched weeks before publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, with the Wall Street Journal proclaiming its futility, before any scientists had access to the paper.

However, since its publication on March 30 scholars from across the globe have gone as far as insisting the paper should be retracted. Of particular question is the mortality data from the placebo arm which, if the data were released, could show that lives were saved by ivermectin. Earlier this year the I-Tech trial from Malaysia showed that ivermectin had a reduced mortality with a p = 0.09, which means we can be 91% certain that the results were not a fluke.

Responsible journalism requires intellectual debate, not condescending derogatory comment. Those of us with a humanitarian bent will not dismiss ivermectin — based on published peer-reviewed science, not that which is preselected for public consumption as being the only science to follow.

Dr Colleen Aldous

Professor and healthcare researcher, School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal Medical School