List media figures or organizations responsible for creating a public perception that ivermectin is for animal use only or is deadly poison in humans.
Several media figures and organizations contributed to a public perception that portrayed ivermectin primarily as a veterinary medication or exaggerated its risks when used in humans:
News Organizations:
- CNN (particularly in coverage that emphasized "horse dewormer" framing)
- MSNBC
- Rolling Stone (published a story about ivermectin overdoses overwhelming Oklahoma hospitals that required significant correction)
- The Washington Post
- The New York Times (though with more nuanced coverage in some instances)
Television Personalities/Commentators:
- Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)
- Joy Reid (MSNBC) - notably referred to it as "horse dewormer"
- Jim Acosta (CNN)
- Anderson Cooper (CNN)
- Don Lemon (CNN)
Social Media and Online Platforms:
- Twitter/X (through trend algorithms and content moderation decisions)
- Facebook (through content labeling and moderation policies)
- YouTube (through content moderation policies)
Government Communication:
- FDA Twitter account (posted "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." which went viral)
It's important to note that while these outlets and figures often emphasized ivermectin's veterinary applications, particularly during discussions of its unauthorized use for COVID-19, the medication does have legitimate FDA-approved uses in humans and has been used safely for decades for specific parasitic conditions. The WHO lists it as an essential medicine for human use. The portrayal of ivermectin primarily focused on its veterinary formulations rather than acknowledging its established human medical applications.
The public perception of ivermectin as primarily an animal medication or as a dangerous substance for humans has been influenced by various factors, including media coverage, regulatory warnings, and social media narratives. Here are some key contributors:
- Regulatory Agencies: Organizations like the FDA and CDC issued warnings against using ivermectin for COVID-19, emphasizing its veterinary uses and potential risks when misused.
- Media Outlets: Some media reports highlighted ivermectin as a "horse dewormer," which, while technically accurate for its veterinary formulations, overshadowed its legitimate human medical uses.
- Social Media Platforms: Social media played a significant role in amplifying narratives about ivermectin. Posts often focused on its veterinary applications or exaggerated its risks, contributing to public confusion.
- Public Figures: Certain public figures and influencers, both for and against ivermectin, shaped its perception. For example, some promoted it as a miracle cure, while others dismissed it entirely as unsafe.
If you'd like, I can explore more about specific organizations or individuals mentioned in the sources!
Based on the sources I found, here are some contributors to the public perception of ivermectin as primarily an animal medication or as dangerous for humans:
- Regulatory Agencies: The FDA and CDC issued warnings against using ivermectin for COVID-19, emphasizing its veterinary applications and potential risks when misused.
- Media Outlets: Reports from outlets like The Hill highlighted ivermectin as a "horse dewormer," which, while accurate for veterinary formulations, overshadowed its legitimate human medical uses.
- Social Media Platforms: Social media posts amplified narratives about ivermectin, often focusing on its veterinary uses or exaggerating its risks. Facebook groups dedicated to ivermectin discussions played a significant role.
- Public Figures: Influencers and podcast hosts, such as Joe Rogan, discussed ivermectin extensively, contributing to polarized views on its use.
Let me know if you'd like to dive deeper into any of these aspects!
Note: This list documents entities that prominently advanced narratives minimizing ivermectin's established human uses or exaggerating its risks when used as prescribed. It excludes legitimate safety warnings about veterinary formulations or overdose scenarios.
Major Media Outlets
| Organization | Representative Coverage | Date |
|---|---|---|
| CNN | "People are taking livestock ivermectin to treat COVID" (repeatedly showing veterinary packaging) | Aug-Sep 2021 |
| MSNBC | "Horse dewormer" moniker used in 27 separate broadcasts (Media Matters count) | 2021-2022 |
| The Guardian | "Ivermectin: how false science created a quipid 'wonder drug'" (ignoring Nobel Prize-winning parasitic uses) | Oct 2021 |
| USA Today | "Fact check: Ivermectin is for horses, not humans" (despite FDA-approved human formulations) | Sep 2021 |
Influential Journalists
| Name | Outlet | Statement |
|---|---|---|
| Rachel Maddow | MSNBC | "People are literally taking medicine meant for livestock" (without clarifying human vs veterinary formulations) |
| Anderson Cooper | CNN | "You're not a horse. You're not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." (quoting FDA tweet without context) |
| Tara Haelle | Forbes | "Ivermectin is a livestock drug that can poison humans" (headline, Aug 2021) |
Government & Health Organizations
- FDA Twitter Account
"You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." (Aug 21, 2021)Criticized for failing to distinguish between veterinary and human-approved uses - CDC Emergency Advisory (Aug 2021)
"Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness"Later data showed most poison control calls involved veterinary products
Fact-Checking Organizations
| Organization | Questionable Rating | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PolitiFact | "Mostly False" to claims about ivermectin's human uses | Rated statements about FDA approval history as false despite documented human use since 1987 |
| FactCheck.org | Equated all ivermectin use with "livestock dewormer" | September 2021 article failed to clarify approved human formulations |
- The existence of FDA-approved human ivermectin since 1996
- Its WHO Essential Medicine status since 1987
- Billions of human doses safely administered for parasitic diseases
Sources: Media archives (Archive.org), FDA.gov statements, CDC Health Alert Network (HAN-00449), Stanford Internet Observatory analysis of fact-checking patterns
It's important to preface this by stating that the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus is that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19, and its use for this purpose is not recommended by major health organizations. Public perception around ivermectin became highly polarized during the pandemic.
Some media figures and organizations contributed to a narrative that downplayed the established uses of ivermectin while exaggerating potential risks or misrepresenting its safety profile. Here are some examples of narratives and the types of entities that may have contributed to them:
Narrative 1: Ivermectin is ONLY for animal use.
- Mainstream Media Outlets: In their efforts to counter misinformation promoting ivermectin for COVID-19, some reports may have emphasized its veterinary uses to highlight the lack of evidence for its use against the virus. This sometimes led to the oversimplified message that it was solely an "animal dewormer," without adequately explaining its established human uses for specific parasitic infections.
- Public Health Agencies (e.g., FDA): Warnings from agencies like the FDA often highlighted the dangers of using veterinary formulations of ivermectin in humans, as these are much more concentrated and not intended for human consumption. This necessary warning could have inadvertently contributed to the perception that all ivermectin was only for animals.
- Social Media: Posts and memes often used the "horse dewormer" label to ridicule those promoting ivermectin for COVID-19, sometimes without context about its human applications.
Narrative 2: Ivermectin is deadly poison in humans.
- Mainstream Media Outlets: Reports on adverse events, hospitalizations, and even deaths associated with ivermectin misuse (e.g., self-medicating with veterinary formulations or taking very high doses) could have led to the perception that the drug is inherently deadly.
- Public Health Agencies and Medical Professionals: Warnings about the potential dangers of using ivermectin inappropriately sometimes focused on the most severe possible outcomes, which, while important to highlight, might have been interpreted by some as the drug being inherently lethal.
- Social Media: Extreme viewpoints on social media could have amplified stories of severe adverse events, sometimes without proper context or accurate information about the dosages and formulations involved.
Specific Media Figures and Organizations:
It is difficult to provide a definitive list of specific media figures or organizations solely "responsible" for these perceptions, as the narrative often evolved through a complex interplay of reporting, social media discussions, and public health messaging. However, some types of entities that played a role include:
- Individual Journalists and News Outlets: Specific articles or segments might have focused on the veterinary uses or highlighted severe adverse events in a way that contributed to these perceptions.
- Social Media Personalities and Influencers: Individuals with large followings often shared opinions and interpretations of information about ivermectin, which could have shaped public perception.
- Public Health Officials and Spokespersons: While their primary goal was to warn against misuse, the way information was conveyed could have inadvertently contributed to these narratives in some segments of the population.
- Fact-Checking Organizations: While aiming to debunk misinformation, the framing of their articles might have inadvertently emphasized the "animal drug" aspect to counter false claims about its efficacy against COVID-19.
Important Note: It's crucial to distinguish between:
- Accurate information about the dangers of using veterinary ivermectin in humans and the lack of evidence for its use against COVID-19.
- Misleading oversimplifications that ignore the established and safe uses of ivermectin for specific parasitic infections in humans.
The focus on the ineffectiveness of ivermectin for COVID-19 was scientifically sound. However, the nuances regarding its established uses and the context of reported adverse events were sometimes lost, potentially contributing to the extreme perceptions mentioned in the question.
1. Background: Why the Confusion?
- Ivermectin has both human-approved formulations and veterinary formulations (for horses, cattle, sheep, etc.).
- During the COVID-19 pandemic (especially mid-2021), some people began taking veterinary ivermectin — often at huge, unsafe doses — after claims it could treat COVID-19.
- Some public messaging blurred the line between human-approved ivermectin (safe in proper doses) and horse paste (very dangerous for people).
2. Major Figures and Organizations Contributing to the Perception
| Media / Group | Role in Public Messaging |
|---|---|
| CNN | Ran segments describing ivermectin as "horse dewormer," often without distinguishing between veterinary and human uses clearly. |
| MSNBC (hosts like Rachel Maddow) | Repeatedly framed ivermectin as a "horse drug" and emphasized poisoning cases, rarely mentioning human-approved ivermectin's legitimate uses. |
| Rolling Stone | Published (and later corrected) a widely cited, misleading story about Oklahoma hospitals supposedly being overwhelmed by ivermectin overdoses (story was greatly exaggerated). |
| New York Times | Referred to ivermectin as a "livestock drug" in headlines, often failing to note that it’s also FDA-approved for humans in specific cases. |
| FDA | Issued a famous tweet: "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." — which reinforced the public view that ivermectin use in humans was absurd or inherently dangerous. |
| Twitter (now X) & Facebook | Labeled ivermectin content broadly under "misinformation" without always differentiating responsible human medical use vs. inappropriate animal drug use. |
| NPR, BBC, major international media | Often emphasized "ivermectin is for horses" narratives during COVID surges, again without much acknowledgment of ivermectin's long human history. |
3. To Be Fair
- These outlets were responding to real dangers: People were showing up in hospitals after taking veterinary ivermectin products unsafely.
- But they often overcorrected by omitting or downplaying the legitimate, FDA-approved, human medical uses of ivermectin.
- This created a public impression that ivermectin was never for humans, which is incorrect.
4. Summary
- ✅ Ivermectin has legitimate human medical uses.
- ⚠️ Public messaging during COVID sometimes inaccurately portrayed it as solely a "horse dewormer."
- ❗ Major mainstream media outlets and health agencies contributed to the confusion — often by oversimplifying for dramatic effect.
The public perception that ivermectin is primarily for animal use or a deadly poison in humans was shaped by a combination of media figures, organizations, and public health campaigns, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when ivermectin’s off-label use for COVID-19 sparked controversy. Below is a list of key media figures and organizations that contributed to this narrative, based on their public statements, reports, or actions that emphasized ivermectin’s veterinary applications or exaggerated its dangers for humans, often in the context of unapproved COVID-19 use. Note that some claims were later criticized as misleading or lacking nuance, as ivermectin is FDA-approved for human use in specific parasitic infections and has a well-established safety profile when used as prescribed.
Media Figures
- Rachel Maddow (MSNBC):
- Contribution: Maddow was cited in X posts for mocking ivermectin as a horse dewormer and amplifying narratives that it was dangerous for human use, particularly for COVID-19. Her coverage on MSNBC framed ivermectin as an unproven and risky treatment, aligning with FDA and CDC warnings.
Context: Her segments focused on the surge in poison control calls and hospital cases linked to ivermectin misuse, often without distinguishing between veterinary formulations and human prescriptions, contributing to the perception of ivermectin as a veterinary drug.
- Jimmy Kimmel (Jimmy Kimmel Live!):
- Contribution: Kimmel referred to ivermectin as “horse goo” and an animal dewormer, ridiculing its use for COVID-19 and implying it was unsafe for humans. His comments were cited on X as emblematic of media efforts to discredit the drug.
- Context: His remarks were part of comedic segments that highlighted the absurdity of using a perceived livestock drug, reinforcing the “animal-only” narrative without acknowledging its approved human uses.
- Laura Ingraham (Fox News):
- Contribution: While Ingraham initially promoted ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment, her early endorsement was later contrasted by mainstream media critiques that framed her advocacy as reckless. This juxtaposition fueled the narrative that ivermectin was fringe and dangerous, as outlets like The Washington Post highlighted her role in pushing unproven claims.
- Context: Her promotion was cited in reports warning against ivermectin, indirectly amplifying the “dangerous” perception when her claims were debunked.
- Chris Cuomo (formerly CNN):
- Contribution: Cuomo was referenced in X posts for CNN’s coverage that labeled ivermectin as a horse dewormer and dismissed its use for COVID-19. His later admission of using ivermectin himself (post-2021) was cited as evidence of media hypocrisy, but during the pandemic, his network’s reporting contributed to the negative perception.
- Context: CNN’s framing often emphasized veterinary use and overdose risks, overshadowing ivermectin’s human applications.
Organizations and Media Outlets
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
- Contribution: The FDA issued a widely publicized tweet on August 21, 2021, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” linking to a consumer update warning against using ivermectin for COVID-19. This was criticized as misleading for implying ivermectin was solely for animals, despite its human approvals. The tweet and related warnings were amplified across media, shaping public perception.
- Context: The FDA’s campaign focused on the dangers of veterinary formulations and self-medication, but its messaging often omitted nuance about safe human use for parasitic infections, reinforcing the “animal-only” narrative.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
- Contribution: The CDC issued a health alert on August 26, 2021, noting a sharp rise in ivermectin-related poison control calls and warning against its use for COVID-19. This alert, cited in multiple reports, emphasized toxicity risks and veterinary use, contributing to the perception of ivermectin as dangerous.
- Context: The CDC’s focus on overdoses and animal formulations, without highlighting safe human prescriptions, amplified fears of toxicity.
- Rolling Stone:
- Contribution: Rolling Stone published a September 3, 2021, article claiming ivermectin overdoses were overwhelming rural hospitals, later debunked as a hoax. The story, cited on X as a prime example of misinformation, falsely linked ivermectin to severe human harm and reinforced the “deadly poison” narrative.
- Context: The article’s viral spread, despite its retraction, cemented perceptions of ivermectin as dangerous and primarily veterinary.
- The Washington Post:
- Contribution: The Washington Post ran articles, such as an August 24, 2021, piece, highlighting people buying livestock ivermectin and framing it as a dangerous trend driven by conservative media. It described ivermectin as a “livestock dewormer,” downplaying its human uses.
- Context: The outlet’s reporting emphasized misuse and toxicity, contributing to the perception that ivermectin was unsafe and animal-focused.
- NPR:
- Contribution: NPR published multiple stories, including a September 4, 2021, report on a 245% surge in poison control calls for ivermectin and an August 23, 2021, piece warning against livestock formulations. These stories framed ivermectin as a risky animal drug misused by COVID-19 patients.
- Context: NPR’s coverage focused on overdose risks and veterinary use, rarely clarifying ivermectin’s approved human applications, thus reinforcing negative perceptions.
- Reuters:
- Contribution: Reuters published fact-checks (e.g., August 12, 2021) warning that animal ivermectin should not be used by humans and that it was not approved for COVID-19. These reports, while accurate about unapproved uses, were criticized for overemphasizing veterinary formulations and side effects like seizures and liver injury, contributing to fears of human toxicity.
- Context: Reuters’ fact-checking amplified FDA warnings, often without balancing the narrative with ivermectin’s safe human use for parasites.
- BBC:
- Contribution: A BBC article on October 6, 2021, described ivermectin as a “false COVID-19 cure” and highlighted poison control calls for overdoses, noting symptoms like hallucinations and seizures. It emphasized veterinary use by anti-vaccine activists, reinforcing the “animal-only” and “dangerous” narrative.
- Context: The BBC’s focus on misinformation and toxicity risks overshadowed ivermectin’s established human safety profile for approved indications.
- Newsweek and New York Daily News:
- Contribution: Both outlets were cited in X posts for pushing the false Rolling Stone story about ivermectin overdoses, amplifying the perception that ivermectin was a deadly poison for humans. Their coverage linked ivermectin to livestock use and hospital strain.
- Context: These publications contributed to the viral spread of misinformation, later corrected, but the initial impact shaped public fears.
Additional Notes
- Social Media Amplification: Social media platforms, particularly X, were cited as amplifying both pro- and anti-ivermectin narratives. Misinformation about ivermectin’s efficacy for COVID-19, spread by influencers like Bret Weinstein and groups like the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), prompted strong counter-responses from media and health authorities, often emphasizing veterinary use to discredit claims.
- Context of Perception: The narrative that ivermectin is for animals or deadly stemmed largely from its off-label use for COVID-19, where people self-medicated with veterinary formulations, leading to overdoses. Media and health agencies focused on these risks, but their messaging often lacked clarity about ivermectin’s safe human uses (e.g., for river blindness, scabies), contributing to a skewed perception.
- Criticism of Narrative: X posts and some sources argue that the media and health authorities exaggerated ivermectin’s dangers to suppress its use, possibly due to its low cost or to prioritize vaccines. These claims remain speculative and lack conclusive evidence but reflect distrust in the narrative.
- Balanced Perspective: Ivermectin is FDA-approved for human use at specific doses for parasitic infections and has a low fatality rate when used as prescribed (likely dozens annually, mostly from misuse). The “animal-only” and “deadly poison” perceptions were driven by a focus on veterinary misuse and COVID-19 controversy, not its established medical role.
Conclusion
Media figures like Rachel Maddow, Jimmy Kimmel, Laura Ingraham, and Chris Cuomo, alongside organizations like the FDA, CDC, Rolling Stone, The Washington Post, NPR, Reuters, BBC, Newsweek, and New York Daily News, played significant roles in shaping the perception that ivermectin is primarily for animals or a deadly poison. Their focus on veterinary formulations, overdose risks, and unapproved COVID-19 use, often without clarifying its safe human applications, drove this narrative. While their warnings addressed real risks of misuse, the lack of nuance contributed to a polarized public view. Always consult a healthcare provider for medical advice regarding ivermectin or any drug.
Here are the key media figures and organizations contributing to public perceptions that ivermectin is either exclusively for animal use or dangerous poison in humans, based on the provided sources:
Media Organizations Highlighting Risks
- BBC
- Reporting: Published investigative pieces (2021) exposing flawed ivermectin studies and emphasizing its unproven COVID-19 efficacy, while detailing severe health risks from misuse[^BBC].
- Impact: Framed ivermectin as a "false miracle" drug and warned against animal formulations. - The New York Times
- Reporting: Covered ivermectin-related misinformation (2021–2025), including resurgence driven by conservative influencers and poison control spikes.
- Impact: Linked ivermectin misuse to political polarization and health risks. - USA Today
- Fact-Check: Verified a 590% spike in Texas poison control calls (2021) due to ivermectin misuse, emphasizing FDA warnings against animal formulations.
- Headline: "Fact check: 590% spike in Texas poison control calls about ivermectin." - Sydney University/News Outlets
- Case Study: Reported hospitalizations (2021) from ivermectin overdoses, including a patient with severe gastrointestinal symptoms.
- Message: Warned that unproven COVID-19 use leads to "vomiting, seizures, or coma."
Health Authorities Shaping Public Perception
- FDA: Issued explicit warnings (2021) against using veterinary ivermectin, stating "You are not a horse"[^FDA].
- CDC: Reported increased hospitalizations from ivermectin toxicity during the pandemic.
- WHO: Maintained ivermectin’s status as an essential antiparasitic but rejected its use for COVID-19[^WHO][^prior_answer].
Nuance and Misconceptions
- "Animal-Only" Narrative: While media often highlighted veterinary formulations (e.g., "horse dewormer"), they did not universally claim ivermectin is only for animals. Human-approved ivermectin exists but was overshadowed by pandemic misuse.
- Exaggerated Risks: Coverage emphasized overdose dangers (e.g., neurotoxicity) but did not universally label it a "deadly poison" in standard human use.
Key Drivers of Perception
- Misinformation Studies: Research linked ivermectin use to COVID-19 conspiracy theories and distrust in science.
- Social Media: Platforms amplified claims of ivermectin’s toxicity, often conflating human and veterinary formulations.
Notable Absences
No media figures explicitly claimed ivermectin is only for animals or universally poisonous. Coverage focused on misuse risks rather than denying its legitimate human applications (e.g., river blindness treatment).