Josh Davis

I concur with Dr. Makis @MakisMedicine The discourse around ivermectin has become polarized to the point of obscuring the actual pharmacology. The literature demonstrates: - Antiproliferative effects across multiple cancer cell lines, mediated through WNT/β-catenin, STAT3, and PAK1 pathways. - Immunomodulation via NF-κB suppression and cytokine balancing. - Broad-spectrum antiviral properties through importin α/β1 inhibition, inhibiting nuclear transport of viral proteins. - A favorable safety profile with a 40-year global pharmacovigilance history. Whether or not clinicians choose to use it is a separate discussion; however, dismissing all existing data as “none” is scientifically inaccurate. Texas’ OTC pathway simply aligns access with the drug’s known therapeutic index and established global utilization. Ivermectin’s safety profile is not theoretical; it’s one of the most extensively documented in the world. Global reality: -Over 4 billion doses administered since the 1980s. - Used in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia for decades across all ages. - Listed as an WHO Essential Medicine. - Serious adverse events: extremely rare, mostly with mass dosing in high-parasite regions. - Toxicity threshold is high; therapeutic index is wide. A drug with this history being OTC in Texas is not radical, it’s consistent with international norms. What is radical is insisting that a medication with a 40-year safety record and hundreds of mechanistic studies has “zero evidence.” In short, Dr. Jake Scott @jakescottMD comment is not only a willful ignorance but an absolute irresponsible rhetoric.