An important question, right?
Given the overwhelming evidence it's highly efficacious (88 studies, 48 peer reviewed, 51 with results comparing treatment and control groups ( links to all at https://c19ivermectin.com, including meta-analyses by meta-analysis specialists working for Cochrane and the WHO )) it's saving many lives. But how many?
If we knew how much ivermectin was being used by humans, we would have a good start. But I can't think of a good way to get that number.
One could extrapolate from the CDC-published data on ivermectin Rx trends in the US, where it is FDA-approved, and off-label prescription and use is legal, and reliable Rx data is collected. They show a large, rapid rise in Rx.
But this data is only for the US and is out of date. Also, a significant fraction of ivermectin use is of product for use on animals, as most physicians are unwilling to #WriteForIvermectin because of the stance of standards bodies. Ivermectin is advocated as best practice in several countries and by several associations and standards bodies. Organizations with the most power (NIH, FDA, WHO, CDC, EMA) have so many censored, ignorant, misled, or corrupt officials that they provide disinformation that reduces use, however. In several nations, use has been prevented by force, so use and sale has been entirely black-market.
Perhaps production data is available from manufacturers, but I'm not aware of any that has been collected.
But even assuming we knew how much ivermectin is being used by humans, it's a hard question. Let's guesstimate a billion people are using ivermectin. Yes, we could be way off, but not by more than an order of magnitude. I expect most of them are in countries where it is given by mass distribution to the entire population, and they don't even know it's preventing CoViD-19 deaths. Officially, around 4 billion human doses have been administered.
The data on CoViD-19 prevalence in these countries could be matched to similar case control countries / populations and the difference in number of deaths could be calculated from public data.
Eight mechanisms of action of ivermectin in the body have been identified. While ivermectin, at the individual patient level, is powerful, its greatest impact on mortality (and societal collapse) is the impact is has on R, the reproduction number, thereby saving the lives (and livelihoods) even of people who didn't take it, due to (temporary) herd immunity effects. At the individual patient level, ivermectin has prophylaxis effectiveness of around 90%, depending on dosage and trial. In those who didn't take it for prevention (PEP or PrEP) and (conservatively) the 10% who who get infected anyway, it reduces mortality around 80%.
Animal doses are probably in the trillions; most animals raised by humans get it routinely - dogs, cats, farmed fish, chickens, cattle, pigs, sheep, etc. And while the proportion of that medicine that has been diverted for human use is probably small, the amount is probably not. This is surely so because even though it is widely discouraged, officially, it is widely advocated unofficially, and many people and even health institutions use it when can find no other way to get the lifesaving drug. Repurposing is relatively error prone because of dosage errors and lack of oversight.
Before trying to answer the question, with the data I know I have access to, I am reaching out here for more ideas and data. On the other hand, if you have and wish to proselytize your faith in the disinformation that reduces use from bodies of censored, ignorant, misled, or corrupt officials, your input is not welcome. Evidence, including conflicting data is welcome, however.
A Fantastic idea. !!!
What might also be considered is how easy it is manufactured and how many additinal dosed could be easily procurred, were it recommended by oficial health bodies. Finally, one could try to vaguely asses how much less hospitals would be overrun and fewer people would die for other reasons, even for standard Corona virus treatment provided too late. In my country, Poland, why officially you are adviced to call an ambulance when your saturation falls below 90%, the reality is that most of the time you are told to wait untill your saturation is below 80%. (Two cases heard from friends + a popular press article stating this is a common situation.)
Unfortunatly, I realize I did not help answer your question, but extended potential research topic. sorry. :)
I bet you know od prof. Juan Chemie's big data research concerning the impact of IVM on wxcess mortality. Perhaps he could be of help. Or AllanaCannall who did similar research on Brasilian data.
good luck
dorota
I hesitate to ask Juan Chamie, at least publicly. If I was Juan, perhaps I would stick to what he's so great at - developing and presenting useful data based on a solid foundation very well. Perhaps answering my question, which inherently requires a lot of speculation and guesswork would make his solid work less immune to criticism. And, I'm exhausted. I'll sleep on it. Allan Cannell - hmm, good...
Dr Korry provides some estimate in Pierre Kory Talks About Human Rights and The Big Science Disinformation https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ygk9c. I do not know how he reached it. You might ask him during his weekly live webinar that you can reach via FLCCC Alliance page.
:)
The “trust WHO” video you linked to was interesting and enlightening. A fortuitous accident that you linked to it?
You meant to link to a video which is at https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/the-whos-denial-of-ivermectin/ (where it's not likely to be censored) - or is it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UTuT9TSRFQ or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkIKCbwBcLU or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzsRdcoW5kE ? The broadcast was broken up so I'm not sure, and I have watched them already... All posted between when I asked and Dorota answered, and all titled Dr Pierre Kory Talks About Human Rights and The Big Science Disinformation. If I mark your last answer as 'best', it seems the other answers disappear.
If applied as an early treatment, two thirds of all deaths could have been prevented.
That is quite a figure, which some may find excesive.
Precisely those who haven´t yet published the success of paracetamol in covid...
I’m honored you took time to answer my question, doctor Carvallo. Typo?
The way I see it :
1. not only is prophylactic use preventing > 80% of cases that would otherwise occur in those taking it, it is also preventing > 80% of the would-be cases caused by spread from those would-be cases, and so on. in other words it is reducing “R”, the reproduction number.
2. It’s preventing > 80% of deaths in those cases where is used for treatment (81% according to the WHO‘s analysis).
3. we just have no good estimates on how much ivermectin is being used prevent Covid.
so I’m stuck and feel there’s no good way to answer the question.
100 % agreed, Elvey.
We will never know the exact figures.
About those who could have survived COVID with IVM or the other early treatments; about those that died in spite of as many jabs as they could possibly receive; about those who died precisely because of those jabs, etc.
People still believe that Lee H. Oswald murdered JFK by acting alone; because they were told so.
It is a complicated world, isn´t it?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books