The use of ivermectin to treat human parasites is famous and has been a great success story. My evaluation of the WP article is that the content is neutral, ex

The use of ivermectin to treat human parasites is famous and has been a great success story. My evaluation of the WP article is that the content is neutral, except for the section on its use as a palliative for COVID. The difference in tone and emotion in that section is obvious. I have no reason to disbelieve the dose level cited in WP for treatment of parasites in humans, because the topic became politicized only after COVID arrived. OTOH, I have not verified it. The 0.2 mg / kg is the same as the dose recommended in the I-Mask protocol I linked above. My belief is that "fact checkers" for the media, including the AP, are, in general, unqualified either by training or experience to perform that function. It also appears to me that a high proportion of "fact checks" are eventually shown to be false and politically motivated. I usually discount them, unless they provide solid references that I can trace. While WP is often biased on topics which have become politicized, as a long-time WP editor I am used to examining the edit history and the talk pages in order to dig out what factual information may be present. At least, one can observe the differences of opinion between WP editors. With "fact checkers", one usually just receives an opinion from on high, often with the word "debunked" attached. That word is a tell, in itself - it's an appeal to authority. I'm posting a link in response to @rolph, which you might find useful. It's an example of an article in which the author is trying hard to stay neutral. Well, I'll post it here, too: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19/ https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/05/09/update-on-ivermect...