The drug made no difference to the course of the illness
Em meio à busca humana por respostas diante de uma pandemia que desafiou certezas, um estudo malaio com quinhentos pacientes veio reafirmar o que a ciência vinha sinalizando: a ivermectina não protege contra a progressão da COVID-19. Mais do que confirmar sua ineficácia, a pesquisa revelou que o medicamento pode causar danos reais — especialmente para os mais vulneráveis. É um lembrete de que a esperança, quando desvinculada da evidência, pode se tornar um risco em si mesma.
- A ivermectina, amplamente promovida em redes informais como tratamento para a COVID-19, foi testada em 500 pacientes com 50 anos ou mais e pelo menos uma comorbidade — e não mostrou nenhum benefício sobre o tratamento padrão.
- O grupo que recebeu o medicamento não teve melhora na progressão da doença, mas concentrou 33 dos 44 eventos adversos registrados no estudo, incluindo diarreia severa com perda aguda de fluidos e casos de infarto do miocárdio.
- Treze mortes ocorreram durante o período do estudo, embora os pesquisadores não tenham atribuído nenhuma delas diretamente à ivermectina — a sombra da incerteza, porém, permanece sobre o uso não supervisionado.
- Os pesquisadores alertam com urgência: o uso da ivermectina fora de ambientes clínicos controlados representa um risco real, sobretudo para populações idosas com condições de saúde preexistentes que buscam alternativas por conta própria.
Uma equipe de pesquisadores da Malásia acompanhou quinhentas pessoas com diagnóstico positivo para o coronavírus — todas com cinquenta anos ou mais e ao menos uma condição de saúde preexistente — e chegou a uma conclusão que contraria meses de esperança depositada na ivermectina: o medicamento não funciona contra a COVID-19.
Metade dos participantes recebeu ivermectina junto ao tratamento padrão; a outra metade recebeu apenas o cuidado convencional. Em todos os indicadores analisados, os dois grupos evoluíram de forma semelhante. A doença progrediu no mesmo ritmo, com a mesma gravidade. A ivermectina, simplesmente, não fez diferença.
O que o estudo revelou, no entanto, foi um padrão preocupante de danos. Dos 44 eventos adversos registrados, 33 ocorreram entre os pacientes que tomaram ivermectina. O problema mais frequente foi diarreia severa com perda intensa de líquidos, mas houve também casos de infarto do miocárdio. Treze mortes aconteceram durante o período do estudo, sem que os pesquisadores estabelecessem relação causal com o medicamento.
O desequilíbrio nos efeitos colaterais acendeu um alerta direto: o uso da ivermectina fora de ambientes médicos supervisionados representa um risco concreto — especialmente para adultos mais velhos com vulnerabilidades de saúde, que são justamente os mais propensos a buscar tratamentos alternativos por conta própria, muitas vezes obtidos sem prescrição em redes informais e comunidades online. O estudo não apenas reforça a ineficácia do medicamento, mas acrescenta uma dimensão mais grave ao debate: para alguns pacientes, ele pode ser ativamente perigoso.
A Malaysian research team tracking five hundred people who tested positive for the coronavirus has delivered another blow to claims that ivermectin can treat COVID-19. The study, which followed patients aged fifty and older—all carrying at least one underlying health condition—found the drug not only failed to prevent disease from worsening, but also triggered serious side effects in a significant portion of those who took it.
Half the participants received ivermectin alongside standard COVID treatment. The other half received standard care alone. When researchers compared outcomes across every measure they tracked, the ivermectin group showed no advantage. The virus progressed at the same rate. Severity followed the same trajectory. The drug, in short, made no difference to the course of the illness.
What did emerge, however, was a troubling pattern of harm. Forty-four patients in the study experienced adverse events—unwanted medical consequences from their treatment. Of those forty-four, thirty-three belonged to the group that had taken ivermectin. The most common problem was severe diarrhea, the kind that causes sudden, dramatic fluid loss from the body. But the adverse events extended beyond gastrointestinal distress. Some patients suffered heart attacks. The researchers noted that while thirteen deaths occurred during the study period, they found no causal link to the medication itself.
The imbalance in side effects raised a red flag for the research team. They emphasized that the notably higher rate of adverse events in the ivermectin group should concern anyone considering the drug outside of controlled medical settings. This warning carries particular weight given that the study population consisted of older adults with existing health vulnerabilities—precisely the people most likely to seek alternative treatments when facing serious illness.
The Malaysian findings align with earlier research that reached similar conclusions: ivermectin does not work against COVID-19. Yet this study adds a crucial dimension to that verdict. It is not simply ineffective. For some patients, it appears actively dangerous. The researchers were explicit in their conclusion: the evidence does not support using ivermectin for people with COVID-19, and the risk of unsupervised use—outside hospitals and clinics, without a doctor monitoring the patient—deserves serious consideration. As the drug has circulated widely in informal networks and online communities, often obtained without medical oversight, this distinction between clinical settings and real-world use has become increasingly important.
Citações Notáveis
The treatment with ivermectin during early disease did not prevent progression to severe illness, and the study results do not support using ivermectin for COVID-19 patients— Malaysian research team
The notably higher rate of adverse events in the ivermectin group raises concerns about use of this medication outside clinical settings and without medical supervision— Malaysian research team
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does a study from Malaysia matter for people everywhere else?
Because ivermectin became a global phenomenon. People in dozens of countries were taking it based on claims that it worked. This study is one more piece of evidence that those claims were wrong.
But if it doesn't work, why would it cause harm? Shouldn't a useless drug just be useless?
That's the unsettling part. Ivermectin is a real drug with real effects on the body. It was developed to treat parasites. Just because it doesn't fight a virus doesn't mean it's inert. It can still damage organs, disrupt digestion, trigger reactions.
The study mentions people taking it without a doctor watching. How common is that?
Very common. Once the drug became famous online, people ordered it from veterinary suppliers, from other countries, from anywhere they could find it. No prescription, no monitoring, no one checking if they had conditions that made it dangerous.
These were older people with existing health problems. Were they more vulnerable to the side effects?
Almost certainly. The study deliberately chose that population because they're the ones most likely to get severely ill from COVID. But that same vulnerability—the heart conditions, the fragility—probably made them more susceptible to harm from an unproven drug.
So the real danger isn't that ivermectin is toxic in general. It's that sick, desperate people took it without medical supervision.
Exactly. In a hospital, a doctor would stop the medication the moment severe diarrhea started. They'd monitor heart function. They'd adjust or discontinue. But people taking it at home? They might not realize what was happening until it was serious.