Connect with us

Technologies

Ivermectin and COVID-19: Why poison centers are getting calls about this controversial drug

Is this a miracle pill or a sham?

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, some medical professionals have reviewed already available drugs to see if they could be used as effective treatments. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, was administered to some patients across the globe, with seemingly positive effects. However, more studies show it has little to no effect when it comes to treating COVID-19. There’s also been an increase in calls to poison centers by people who are taking ivermectin intended for animals.

On one side, there are doctors who say ivermectin could help end the pandemic if used globally. On the other are public health officials who have reviewed the data and say the drug’s effectiveness against COVID-19 isn’t conclusive.

Here’s everything you need to know about ivermectin and its use for COVID-19.

What is ivermectin?

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic medicine «that works by altering cellular channels,» said Dr. Soumi Eachempati, CEO of Cleared4 and former professor of surgery and public health at Weill Cornell Medical College. The drug inhibits some viruses from infecting cells, thus preventing the virus from spreading. Ivermectin is usually given to treat parasitic infections like lice and Strongyloides, according to Eachempati.

Scientists at pharmaceuticals giant Merck discovered ivermectin in 1975 and began to use it to treat scabies, river blindness and other parasitic diseases carried by worms and lice starting in 1981. It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines for a basic health care system. More than 250 million people take the drug across the globe each year, and it’s effective for animals as well.

The drug is considered safe when taken in appropriate dosages. Side effects for the ivermectin vary depending on whether it’s taken orally to treat intestinal infections or topically for skin infections. Oral tablets can cause drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and, in very rare cases, an increase in heart rate and seizures. Side effects for the topical ivermectin can include skin rash and irritation, while dry skin and stinging pain are severe and rare.

Can ivermectin be used to cure COVID-19?

This is where things get complicated. Public health agencies, including the Federal Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization, don’t suggest ivermectin’s use to treat COVID-19. They cite the lack of data from large, randomized trials confirming the drug’s effectiveness to treat the disease.

Doctors who cited multiple smaller studies and firsthand experience say otherwise. They claim ivermectin does work to prevent people from developing symptoms from COVID-19 and can shorten recovery time for those already infected.

What do the public health agencies say about ivermectin use for COVID-19 treatment?

The FDA said in March it hasn’t approved the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. It warned that large doses of the drug are «dangerous and can cause serious harm.» The agency also advised against human use of ivermectin produced for animals, such as cows and horses, as the doses aren’t the same and could contain ingredients intended only for animals.

window.CnetFunctions.logWithLabel(‘%c One Trust ‘, «Service loaded: script_twitterwidget with class optanon-category-5»);

A growing number of people have been taking ivermectin for animals as word’s spread on social media about its possible use against COVID-19. This has resulted in some people calling state poison centers after taking the drug, since the medication is intended for animals. On Aug. 20, the Mississippi State Department of Health sent out an alert regarding the number of calls its poison center received, with 70% related to the «ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.»

In April, the FDA reaffirmed in a post on its website that ivermectin isn’t approved to treat COVID-19 nor has it been given emergency use authorization.

The NIH said in February there was insufficient data to «recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.» It did say lab tests found the drug stopped the reproduction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that cause the disease. However, to be effective, the dosages would need to be «100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.»

While some clinical studies showed ivermectin to have no benefit, the NIH said others saw a lower mortality rate among patients. However, those studies were incomplete or had methodological limitations such as small sample sizes or patients receiving additional medicine along with ivermectin, according to the NIH.

The WHO said in March the current evidence on the use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 was «inconclusive.»

A doctor in Arkansas who prescribed the drug to patients is under investigation by the state medical board, according to a report from CNN. He reportedly gave ivermectin prescriptions to prisoners at the county jail where he was contracted to provide medical services.

Who says ivermectin is a treatment, and what information do they have?

Ivermectin’s potential use as a COVID-19 therapeutic made headway last December during a Senate Homeland Security Committee meeting called Focus on Early Treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, testified about the drug’s usage for treatment of the disease.

«Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost,» Kory said in the Senate meeting. «We now have data from over 20 well-designed clinical studies, 10 of them randomized, controlled trials, with every study consistently reporting large magnitude and statistically significant benefits in decreasing transmission rates, shortening recovery times, decreasing hospitalizations, or large reductions in deaths. These data show that ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19.»

During his testimony, Kory referred to a paper he authored — Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 — that was published in the May edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics.

The paper was also included in the Frontiers of Pharmacology journal in January but was then removed in March. Dr. Frederick Fenter, chief executive editor of the journal, said the paper was removed due to «strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.» Fender also said the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment, which goes against editorial policies.

A study listed in Kory’s paper involved giving ivermectin to 234 uninfected health care workers in Argentina and found those who received the drug were far less likely to be diagnosed with COVID. For mildly ill patients, an Iraq study saw a quicker recovery time.

There are also studies that show otherwise. A clinical trial of 476 patients found ivermectin didn’t improve the recovery time in patients who had COVID-19. A review of 10 random clinical trials, with more than 1,000 participants, also didn’t find improvements with ivermectin. One Egyptian study claimed to show positive results, but it’s since been redacted over ethical concerns. Another study, of 1,500 patients, found that ivermectin had «no effect whatsoever.»

Merck, the company that discovered ivermectin, released a statement in February saying there was «no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies» and «no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease.» It also cited a lack of safety data from major studies.

Why is there controversy over ivermectin?

The debate about ivermectin’s usage to treat COVID-19 has gone from the hospital to social media, exacerbating the discourse as well as the vitriol. While those in support of the drug appear to want an end to the pandemic, their arguments in favor of ivermectin have become fodder for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

Groups that have spread misinformation about COVID-19 throughout the pandemic latched onto ivermectin’s usage following Kory’s Senate testimony. Anti-vax groups on Telegram share misinformation about the vaccine while asking where they can buy the drug. Rumble, an alternative video platform to YouTube, has pages of videos falsely saying vaccines are ineffective while advising people to also take ivermectin.

Anti-vax posts and videos can also be found on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, although the companies are attempting to take these posts down or make them harder to find.

Kory was a guest on the Dark Horse Podcast hosted by Bret Weinstein, a former professor at Evergreen State College, on June 1 to talk about ivermectin. That video was eventually demonetized on YouTube and Weinstein’s channel received a strike, which prevented him from posting content for one week and could lead to its removal if he receives two more strikes within 90 days.

YouTube says its actions on Weinstein’s videos were part of its policies.

«While we welcome open discussions of potential treatments and clinical trials related to COVID-19 on YouTube, based on guidance from the CDC, FDA and other local health authorities, we don’t currently allow content that recommends ivermectin as an effective treatment or prevention method for the virus,» said Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson. «We craft our policies to prevent the risk of egregious real-world harm, and update them as official guidance evolves. We do allow exceptions to our policy about ivermectin, including content that also gives viewers the full context of the FDA’s current position.»

Because of YouTube’s decision, the controversy over ivermectin grew and became tied to what some claim to be «big tech censorship.»

What is required for ivermectin to get approved for COVID-19 treatment?

For the public health agencies, it’s going to come down to the results of large clinical studies being conducted around the world.

«In the UK, it was announced that ivermectin will be added to the Principle Trial, a large clinical study designed to assess potential COVID therapies for non-hospitalized therapies for patients at higher risk for severe disease,» said Dr. David Shafran, head of pediatrics at telehealth app K Health. «This should demonstrate more definitively the efficacy of ivermectin in early-stage COVID infections. Fingers crossed because it’s a cheap medication with a good safety profile. It would be great to add this to the armament of medication to fight COVID.»

The Oxford University Principle Trial has more than 5,000 participants and will give a three-day course of oral ivermectin treatment to individuals randomly and compare their results to individuals who will receive standard care.

In the US, the NIH is evaluating therapeutics for COVID-19 with its Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) master protocol. ivermectin was added in phase three of ACTIV-6, which will test the effectiveness of repurposed drugs.

«The ACTIV prioritization group, trial team and trial oversight groups continuously track new data on any agent we are studying in our trials and evaluate that data for how it might influence our testing of that agent and the safety/well being of the participants in the trial,» said Dr. Sarah Dunsmore, a program director at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences that is part of the NIH.

What’s unclear is how long the whole process will take. The studies need time to be completed, and then the agencies will require additional time to come up with decisions based on the data.

Related Topics:

Technologies

Anthropic Reins In Subscribers’ Unlimited AI Use for OpenClaw

It may be the year of the AI agent but Claude’s «all-you-can-eat buffet» is over.

Anthropic over the weekend told subscribers they’d have to pay up for heavy use of its Claude AI models to power third-party agents like OpenClaw. 

Users with monthly subscriptions can still use Claude models, including Opus, Sonnet and Haiku, through these third-party agents. But you’ll have to pay via Anthropic’s API or use a «pay-as-you-go option» that will be billed separately from your Claude subscription payment.

«The $20/month all-you-can-eat buffet just closed,» wrote AI product manager Aakash Gupta on X. 

At the same time, Anthropic recently announced new features that bring some of the things that made OpenClaw so popular into Claude itself. Claude can use your computer, even if you’re not at it, for example. 

Why this policy matters 

There has been growing tension between OpenAI and Anthropic, recently inflamed by the controversies involving contracts with the US Defense Department. But there is also tension between users who want to run autonomous AI agents constantly and the AI labs that are trying to control costs by managing the tasks their models are used for. 

Claude is a chatbot that was created to be prompted by humans, not for millions of AI agents to use it for workflows. These agent tools, like Manis and OpenClaw, require much more power to run and burn through tokens faster than regular human chatting. Anthropic has already taken steps to address the demand that heavy agent users bring, like a five-hour session cap during peak periods for the models.

«We’ve been working to manage demand across the board, but these tools put an outsized strain on our systems,» Anthropic wrote in its email to customers.

OpenAI has been all-in on agentic tools. Early this year, the AI company hired Peter Steinberger, the creator of OpenClaw, with the aim of bringing AI agents to a broad audience. Steinberger was vocal about his critiques of Anthropic’s new policy, taking to X over the weekend. 

«Funny how timings match up, first they copy some popular features into their closed harness, then they lock out open source,» he wrote. 

(Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET’s parent company, in 2025 filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)

The future of agent compute power 

Friction between heavy agent users and AI companies is likely to get worse. These AI agent tools are extremely powerful: they can run for hours, take actions across apps like Gmail, Slack and iMessage, and work autonomously much longer and faster than a human could. Because of this power, they are far more costly and require far more power to run compared to a human prompting a bot. It’s likely that AI companies will increasingly push these compute costs onto heavy users through price increases or steps like those taken by Anthropic.

Continue Reading

Technologies

My Running Tests Left Me Feeling Like the Moto Watch Is Low-Key Catfishing

The Polar partnership and $150 price tag had me sold. Then I actually lived with it.

The Moto Watch feels like a kid trying their hardest to stand out in a sport, only to walk away with a participation trophy. Having spent years reviewing pricey fitness trackers and smartwatches, I know how rare it is for a relatively affordable $150 device to arrive with real fitness credibility, so I was genuinely rooting for this one. When Motorola announced a partnership with Polar, along with dual-band GPS and week-long battery life at this price, it sounded like a breakthrough moment. I thought this could be Motorola’s big return to relevance in wearables.

Then I actually used it for a few weeks and reality set in.

Motorola isn’t a stranger to this space. The Moto 360 helped define early Android wearables back in 2014, and made a strong impression doing so. But the years since have been relatively slow on its wearables front. This new Moto Watch is its most serious attempt at breaking through the space in a while, and the Polar partnership gives it a level of fitness-tracking street cred that’s rare at this price.

But theory and execution don’t quite align here. At $150, the Moto Watch isn’t trying to compete directly with higher-end wearables from Samsung or Google; rather, it’s trying to carve out a league of its own with this big-screen 47mm watch. And it’s no home run — yet.

The Polar partnership, tested

The Polar integration is the headline feature that had me excited to put it through the paces. The brand is synonymous with accuracy among serious endurance athletes, and its H10 chest strap is the gold standard we reach for at CNET for heart rate benchmarking on other devices.

So I took both to a college track — three miles (12 laps) — with the watch unpaired from my phone and the chest strap recording simultaneously for comparison. The watch consistently kept up, but I noticed it struggled to keep pace during my sprints.

The workout summaries showed similar numbers, which is why I prefer exporting the raw, second-by-second heart rate data to get more granular. The Polar app makes it easy to export a spreadsheet of your HR data, but the Moto Watch is running it’s own app, and there was no export option. I had to settle for comparing the snapshot of metrics that I got from the workout summary. 

The graphs looked similar at first glance, with matching peaks and valleys during the laps when I picked up my pace. The average heart rate was only one beat off from the chest strap. But the watch seemed to smooth out the spikes, and the max heart rate was off by seven beats (173 bpm on the watch versus 180 bpm on the chest strap). That kind of gap is pretty standard for wrist-based tracking, which measures blood flow rather than the heart’s electrical signals. Still, you may not be getting full credit for your effort if you plan to use this as a serious training tool.

Distance tracking was another reality check. Dual-band GPS is usually reserved for higher-end sports watches, so I had high hopes that the Moto Watch would be right on track. It took a while to lock onto a satellite and dropped connection more than once during my 30-minute run. By the end, it had given me 0.15 miles of extra credit. That’s about a 5% error rate, which sounds small until you’re training for a half-marathon and your long runs keep coming back inflated. It’s fine for casual activity tracking, but this is no Garmin replacement.

Health features

Away from the track, the Polar integration holds up better. The watch monitors heart rate, blood oxygen and stress levels throughout the day, though it lacks more advanced features such as ECG or temperature tracking. Wear it to bed (if you can) and you’ll get sleep stages plus a Nightly Recharge Status, Polar’s version of a recovery or readiness score that can help guide training intensity.

But it’s just too bulky to wear comfortably while sleeping. I only wore it to bed once during my month-long testing journey because I felt like the larger size got in the way of my sleep quality. Admittedly, I’m averse to sleeping with accessories on; I don’t even wear my wedding ring to bed. Testing wearables always means making a few concessions, but the Moto Watch just didn’t make the cut for what I’m willing to put up with. It’s definitely more Garmin Fēnix 8 Pro level bulk than Pixel Watch, which I’m ok wearing to bed. 

Design: It screams ‘bro’

Motorola positioned this watch as the Clark Kent of smartwatches: a fitness watch cloaked in a polished suit that can go from sweat session to the boardroom. That was the pitch. What landed on my desk, was a different picture with much less polish than I had envisioned. Strapping it on only made matters worse, because it’s 47mm watch looked (and felt) as if it had swallowed my 6.5-inch wrist.

The 1.43-inch OLED touchscreen wasn’t the problem — that was the bright spot. It’s more responsive and more vivid than you’d expect at this price, with slim bezels thanks to a cleverly positioned dial.

You also get a rotating crown for scrolling or clicks, plus a programmable side button. The aluminum case looks polished, too, but it’s easy to miss. The oversized black silicone straps run straight into the frame with no visual break, making the whole thing look like one continuous slab.

Turns out all it needed was a stylist. The desperation of having to wear this thing for weeks put me in problem-solving mode, and I realized the straps were standard width (22mm) and easily swappable with third-party bands you can buy anywhere. Once I switched them, it finally looked like the watch Motorola had sold me. It still screamed «bro,» but it was board room bro.

A battery that just won’t quit  

After a three-mile outdoor run with GPS active and no phone, plus a full day of notifications popping up on its always-on display, most flagships would be down to their last breath, but not the Moto Watch. This smartwatch barely broke a sweat and finished the day at 85% battery. 

With the always-on display (and no sleep tracking), I made it a full week on a full charge. Switch the screen activation from always-on to raise to wake and Motorola promises it will last 13 days, which I didn’t test, but it seems totally feasible. This is impressive even by sports watch standards.

For the right person, battery life alone could be the reason to buy this. 

App, setup and smartwatch functionality

Out of the box, the watch has notifications turned off and set to raise to wake (probably to help get you to the promised 13 days of battery life). And while that might work for some people, I spent most of my first day wondering why nothing was happening on my wrist. If you like to get a heads-up on what’s going on in your phone, I suggest you dig into settings before you start wearing it.

I was skeptical because the watch runs on Motorola’s proprietary software rather than Android’s Wear OS, though it seems like a very bare-bones knockoff. Text previews come through, call notifications work and basic alert handling is fine. But there are a lot of trade-offs that left me wondering why they went rogue in the first place, especially because it still only works with Android phones. It doesn’t support message replies from the wrist, Google Assistant, NFC payments or much of a third-party app ecosystem. For replacing quick glances at your phone notifications, it works. For anyone hoping to actually interact with their phone from their wrist or use their smartwatch to pay for riding a train, it falls short.

The phone app combines health and technical features into one interface, which takes some getting used to, but it ultimately works. It’s a hybrid of Fitbit’s health widget layout and Apple’s activity ring system — almost a blatant borrow, but an effective one for visualizing daily steps, active minutes and calories.

A pricing identity crisis

The Moto Watch is priced to feel like a deal: stellar battery life, dual-band GPS, Polar-backed tracking, blood oxygen, sleep stages and a screen that outperforms its price. On a spec sheet, it punches above its weight.

But $150 is a tricky number. It’s not cheap enough to be an obvious budget pick, and it’s not capable enough to compete at Polar-level performance. The sensor limitations and lack of data export put a ceiling on what that partnership can actually deliver.

Instead, it sits at an awkward intersection, more of a first attempt at carving out something in between. The bones are good. The execution needs work.

Who is this for?

If you’re an Android phone owner who wants sportswatch-level battery life in a sleeker package, this one might be worth a second glance. It’s best suited for casual fitness trackers who want a watch that covers the basics. Serious athletes will want something more precise.

But deal-seekers could be better off with the $160 Fitbit Charge 6 for its additional features or one of the truly budget watches made by Amazfit such as the Bip 6 and Active 2. Style options are limited, and there’s no cycle tracking, so it’s also less appealing for women looking for those features.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Today’s NYT Connections: Sports Edition Hints and Answers for April 6, #560

Here are hints and the answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle for April 6 No. 560.

Looking for the most recent regular Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle and Strands puzzles.

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is a tough one. If you’re struggling with today’s puzzle but still want to solve it, read on for hints and the answers.

Connections: Sports Edition is published by The Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism site owned by The Times. It doesn’t appear in the NYT Games app, but it does in The Athletic’s own app. Or you can play it for free online.

Read more: NYT Connections: Sports Edition Puzzle Comes Out of Beta

Hints for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.

Yellow group hint: City of Angels.

Green group hint: Winter football.

Blue group hint: Like Hemsworth, but in hoops.

Purple group hint: Cinderellas.

Answers for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group: A Los Angeles athlete.

Green group: College football bowl games.

Blue group: Basketball Chrises.

Purple group: Men’s NCAA tournament 16-seeds.

Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words

What are today’s Connections: Sports Edition answers?

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is a Los Angeles athlete. The four answers are Clipper, King, Ram and Spark.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is college football bowl games. The four answers are Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar.

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is basketball Chrises. The four answers are Bosh, Mullin, Paul and Webber.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is men’s NCAA tournament 16-seeds. The four answers are Howard, Long Island, Prairie View A&M and Siena.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media