Robert Malone on ivermectin: what the evidence says · JRE #1757
SUBJECT: IVERMECTIN
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
it is bizarre that Merck would come out with these explicit statements about the safety of ivermectin. Both ivermectin and hydroxy are on the WHO list of essential medicines
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
Robert Malone characterized Merck's February 2021 statement on ivermectin as bizarre given that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine appear on the WHO Essential Medicines List. Merck's statement, issued February 4, 2021, said its scientists found "no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19," "no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19," and "a concerning lack of safety data" in most available studies of ivermectin for that specific use. WHO confirms ivermectin is listed as an essential medicine for parasitic diseases such as river blindness, strongyloidiasis, and scabies, not for COVID-19; WHO's own review of randomized controlled trials found the evidence on ivermectin for COVID-19 to be of "very low certainty" and recommended its use only within clinical trials pending more data. Inclusion on the WHO Essential Medicines List reflects an established, unrelated indication and does not constitute evidence of safety or efficacy for a novel use such as COVID-19 treatment; regulatory and manufacturer statements distinguishing approved indications from unproven new ones are standard practice, not an anomaly. The claim that Merck's position was inexplicable or contradicted by the drug's WHO-listed status is misleading, as it conflates two separate questions: general essential-medicine status for known indications versus safety/efficacy evidence for an unstudied use.