Is social media turning conspiracy theories from a fringe obsession into mainstream opinion?

That would appear to be the conclusion of research published this week by the US-based Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which polled 1000 teenagers and 1000 adults to find out their views on everything from climate denial and the Great Replacement theory to anti-vaccine myths and claims that the Covid-19 pandemic was a hoax.

Half (49%) of the adults surveyed agreed with at least four out of the eight statements put to them, which included ideas that Jewish people have "a disproportionate amount of control over the media, politics and the economy" and that mass migration into the western world is "part of a scheme to replace white people".

READ MORE: Covid vaccines, the GMC, and the row over Aseem Malhotra

Among Americans aged 13 to 17 - the first generation to grow up in the internet age - this rose to 60%, and rising to 69% among teenagers who spent four or more hours a day on any single social media platform.

Imran Ahmed, chief of the CCDH, said it was unsurprising that online environments where "disinformation and hate are algorithmically amplified" should have "produced a generation of kids who are so susceptible to falsehoods".

To be fair to the teenagers, the adults were hardly faring much better.

The Herald: Teenagers who spent the most time on social media were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, including misinformation about Covid and vaccinesTeenagers who spent the most time on social media were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, including misinformation about Covid and vaccines (Image: Getty)

It also must be said that conspiracy theories were spreading long before the internet came along.

The boom of the printing press in Europe during the 1500s has been blamed for an explosion in belief in witchcraft because it enabled the widespread dissemination of the Malleus Maleficarum - a handbook first published in 1486 which set out the supposedly depraved practices of witches and how to spot them, while also railing against witch-sceptics.

Nothing much has changed in human psychology over the past 500 years or, indeed, ever.

In the 4th Century BC, the Ancient Greek orator Demosthenes is quoted as saying that "nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what every man wishes, that he also believes to be true".

READ MORE: What's really behind the Scotland-England waiting list divide? 

That could apply to many scenarios besides conspiracy theories, but it is evident that individuals are highly motivated by what they want to believe.

During the pandemic one of the most stubborn convictions has been that governments and vaccine manufacturers colluded to cover up the effectiveness of ivermectin - a decades-old drug for parasitic worm infections - as a Covid cure.

The row was reignited last week by reports on Fox News that the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was "now saying that it's okay to take ivermectin if you have Covid".

As the segment went viral on social media, it was presented as an apparent U-turn which had denied millions of patients access to a life-saving (and cheap) treatment while prioritising profits for pharmaceutical giants.

In truth, there was no such U-turn.

The FDA continues to advise against the use of ivermectin as a Covid treatment because there is no evidence that it works, and in large doses it could be dangerous.

There have also been cases of people being hospitalised after self-administering forms of ivermectin meant for livestock.

However, there is nothing to stop doctors prescribing the human-approved ivermectin tablets "off-label", and there never has been. It is a licensed medication.

The latest claims have sprung from an appeals court hearing in a lawsuit brought by three doctors who accuse the FDA of overstepping its authority by telling people not to take the drug for Covid.

FDA attorneys argued that they had never prohibited medics from prescribing it for Covid - only issued recommendations against its use.

READ MORE: The truth about claims that Covid jabs are 'draving massive infections' among vaccinated Scots 

Yet in the top-turvy world of social media this was swiftly repackaged by ivermectin advocates as an all-out endorsement and admission by the FDA that "we got it wrong".

As one X user tweeted: "The FDA now says the Nobel Prize winning drug is approved to treat Covid. How many lives could have been saved?

"It was all about tyrannical control. It was not about 'health' or 'science'."

A double-blind randomised control trial involving nearly 3,515 people with Covid infection, published in May 2022 in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, found no difference in hospitalisation rates between those given ivermectin compared to a placebo.

The Herald: Ivermectin was first discovered in the 1970s by Japanese scientists, and was originally used as a veterinary drug to combat parasitic worms in animals. It was later used in humans to treat River BlindnessIvermectin was first discovered in the 1970s by Japanese scientists, and was originally used as a veterinary drug to combat parasitic worms in animals. It was later used in humans to treat River Blindness (Image: Getty)

Nonetheless, an August 8 paper in the more obscure Cureus journal has been seized as evidence that it did work - apparently cutting all-cause excess death rates in 2020 by an average of 74% in the regions of Peru where ivermectin was most heavily distributed compared to 25% in the areas with the lowest distribution.

But, as critics have pointed out, distribution is an imprecise gauge for how many people were actually taking the pills.

Lima, for example, is rated as a no-ivermectin area despite a huge black market for the drug.

As epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz put it: "Basically, the authors have largely failed to demonstrate that any of these states used ivermectin more [or] less. The exposure is completely meaningless."

It has also been noted that daily deaths from Covid were around 454 in Peru as of May 8 2020 - around the time ivermectin was approved - and remained above 500 per day until September.

"If ivermectin is so amazing, why did it take nearly four months to have any significant impact?," asked Jef Rouner, a US journalist who has tracked the situation in Peru. 

The Herald: Peru has been seized on as an example where ivermectin 'worked' for CovidPeru has been seized on as an example where ivermectin 'worked' for Covid (Image: Getty)

READ MORE: Devi Sridhar - 'Yes, Sweden has lockdown lessons for us - but not the ones you think'

Rather than running out of steam, the ivermectin conspiracy theory looks set for a second wind - helped in no small part by social media's algorithms.

Brookings Institute fellow Jonathan Rauch summed up the dilemma in a 2021 episode of the Think with Pinker podcast, presented by the Harvard cognitive scientist and expert in rationality, Professor Steven Pinker. 

Rauch said: "What is new is the introduction of online technologies which turbo-charge the weaponisation and the commercialisation of the dark side, because social media is designed to monetise attention - capture as much attention as you can and then sell that to advertisers.

"Well, it turns out that the way to capture attention is...to be as outrageous as possible, to promulgate emotionally-attractive conspiracy theories and falsehoods."