Carlson gave Weinstein a more extensive interview on the July 9 edition of his Fox Nation streaming show, Tucker Carlson Today. Weinstein explained during that appearance that he and his wife had decided to take ivermectin rather than getting vaccinated, calling the drug “a very effective treatment for COVID and also an effective prophylactic” and saying that it is “safer to run the risk of taking ivermectin” than to take the vaccines. He went on to suggest that the vaccines might be causing the proliferation of variants and that “a reasonable society would be stockpiling ivermectin” as a “contingency plan.”
Ingraham similarly argued on her program in March that “our FDA has in many ways failed us by not allowing for the use of ivermectin,” which she claimed has been “used around the world to reduce COVID hospitalizations and deaths.” She repeatedly hosted guests who highlighted the drug as an effective treatment for those stricken by the coronavirus.
The takeaway for Fox’s viewers is that it is foolish to take the COVID-19 vaccines because they are ineffective and unsafe, and if something goes wrong, they can take ivermectin and be fine.
The case for the drug took a hit on Thursday when the Research Square website removed a major preprint study on the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in treating COVID-19, citing “ethical concerns,” as The Guardian reported. The study, led by Dr. Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt and published in November, claimed to be based on a randomized control trial and found “a substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in ivermectin treated groups” by 90%.
While Research Square did not identify its concerns, The Guardian noted that critics had found that “the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised,” that “at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” and that “the raw data apparently contradict[ed] the study protocol on several occasions,” among other data errors and discrepancies.
The paper’s removal has grave implications for the case for ivermectin, as The Guardian reported: