Mainstream media censorship of COVID-19 treatments

Analysis of media coverage for the 227 treatments we cover using Altmetric1 and PlumX2 shows strong bias towards favorable results for high-profit treatments, and negative results for low-cost treatments.
c19early.org
October 2026

Media coverage of low-cost COVID‑19 treatments

Media covered only 0.8% of studies showing significantly lower COVID-19 risk

Only 5 positive studies were covered

0.8%

one each: budesonide, cannabidiol, fluvoxamine, HCQ, vitamin D

34 negative studies were covered

4%

HCQ 12, ivermectin 6, lopinavir/ritonavir 4, azithromycin 3, vitamin D 3, fluvoxamine 2, one each: ibuprofen, metformin, vitamin C, zinc

5.4×
Negative bias for low-cost treatments
negative studies were 5.4 times more likely to be covered

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 6,000+ studies for 227 treatments, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively. Media coverage was significantly higher for negative studies, p < 0.001 (Fisher's exact test). Studies during the pandemic (until May 5, 2023).

c19early.org
October 2026

Media coverage of high-profit COVID‑19 treatments

Media was 3.8× more likely to cover positive studies

19 positive studies were covered

11%

paxlovid 5, remdesivir 3, casirivimab/imdevimab 2, convalescent plasma 2, molnupiravir 2, one each: antiandrogens, peginterferon lambda, sargramostim, tixagevimab/cilgavimab, tocilizumab

Only 6 negative studies were covered

3%

remdesivir 3, one each: bamlanivimab/etesevimab, bebtelovimab, sotrovimab

3.8×
Positive bias for high-profit treatments
positive studies were 3.8 times more likely to be covered

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 6,000+ studies for 227 treatments, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively. Media coverage was significantly higher for positive studies, p = 0.002 (Fisher's exact test). Studies during the pandemic (until May 5, 2023).

c19early.org
October 2026

Media coverage of HCQ for COVID‑19

Media covered only 0.7% of studies showing significantly lower COVID-19 risk

Only 1 positive HCQ study was covered

0.7%

12 negative or inconclusive studies were covered

4%
6.1×
Negative bias
negative studies were 6.1 times more likely to be covered

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 425 studies for HCQ treatment, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively.

c19early.org
October 2026

Media coverage of ivermectin for COVID‑19

Media covered none of the 54 studies showing significantly lower risk

No positive ivermectin studies were covered

0%

6 negative or inconclusive studies were covered

15%

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 106 studies for ivermectin treatment, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively. Media coverage was significantly higher for negative studies, p = 0.005 (Fisher's exact test).

c19early.org
October 2026

Media coverage of vitamin D for COVID‑19

Media covered only 1% of studies showing significantly lower COVID-19 risk

Only 1 positive vitamin D study was covered

1%

3 negative or inconclusive studies were covered

5%
3.7×
Negative bias
negative studies were 3.7 times more likely to be covered

Data from Altmetric and PlumX: studies receiving significant mainstream media coverage from 138 studies for vitamin D treatment, defined as ≥100 news outlets in either Altmetric or PlumX, which cover ~14,000 and ~55,000 outlets respectively.

Analysis of media coverage for the 227 treatments we cover using Altmetric1 and PlumX Metrics2. Altmetric covers ~14,000 news outlets3 and PlumX covers ~55,000 news sources4. The two services are complementary with coverage of different news sources and different methods for identifying articles not containing a DOI. We consider studies to have received significant media coverage if they were covered by at least 100 articles in either Altmetric of PlumX4,5. The most widespread study was covered by 1,047 outlets. Studies covered by major syndicated sources shows hundreds of news articles, while studies covered by few outlets typically appear in niche medical news sources or press releases. The media favored negative results for low-cost treatments, and positive results for high-profit treatments.
Why were most positive low-cost treatment results not covered by the media?
A combination of factors may have led to the very low media coverage of low-cost treatments:
•
Politicization
led to a media environment where coverage was often framed to support a political narrative rather than to provide objective scientific information. As Scott Alexander said:
"if you say anything in favor of ivermectin you will be cast out of civilization and thrown into the circle of social hell reserved for Klan members and 1/6 insurrectionists. All the health officials in the world will shout 'horse dewormer!' at you and compare you to Josef Mengele."
There was strong social pressure to discredit low-cost treatments.
•
Censorship
of information conflicting with selected authorities. For example, individuals and organizations presenting conflicting science were often shadowbanned or completely banned on Twitter and YouTube if the science they were reporting conflicted with the opinions of specific authorities selected by those companies, including when the authorities had not even reviewed the scientific results in question.
•
FDA requires "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives"
in order to grant an EUA for novel high-profit interventions, creating an incentive for authorities to ignore or downplay existing low-cost treatments.
•
Regulatory capture
biases authorities towards high-profit interventions.
•
Authorities ignored most evidence for low-cost treatments
, for example the NIH references only 2% of studies in delayed, rarely-updated, biased commentaries with no quantitive analysis.
•
Media coverage of science is often not very accurate
, e.g., misunderstanding confounding issues. For example the media widely considered the RECOVERY HCQ RCT to be conclusive on efficacy, but very late treatment of late-stage patients (mostly on oxygen already) with an excessive toxic dose (shown dangerous in a dose comparison RCT) provides no information on the recommended early/prophylactic treatment. With difficulting in understanding basic confounders like treatment delay and dose, the media may favor deferring to authorities. Many studies for low-cost treatments require greater expertise to analyze.
•
Substantial funding from pharmaceutical advertising
biases editorial decisions towards high-profit interventions.
•
PR power
- companies/teams with strong PR presence are favored in the media, which correlates with high-profit and high conflict of interest studies.
•
The media was very negative in general
, inflating risk, and elevating fear and anxiety. A negative bias may improve ratings and revenue, increasing motivation to continue watching coverage.
c19early.org

Low-cost existing treatments

Can reduce risk
Known safety profile
More widely available
Available immediately
Can be distributed in advance for immediate treatment

High-profit novel treatments

Can reduce risk
Inherently risky—long-term and rare side effects unknown
High cost limits use
Limited production
High profit incentivizes unethical behavior
Substantial delay for development and testing
Delayed treatment due to access barriers
References