I did a quick google search for articles about ivermectin overdose but all I found was there's been an uptick but it seems overexaggerated. This[0] one shows there were 21 people who called in about ivermectin, it's only one state but still doesn't seem like a big deal. There was another story about a Mississippi hospital[1] where 70% calls were about ivermectin but then it turned out they meant 70% of calls about ivermectin (not total calls) were about the animal version. This article [2] includes Minnesota which saw <100 calls and people having overdose symptoms but no one dying.

Treating covid with ivermectin does seem like a bad idea, but it also doesn't really seem that dangerous overall. I'm sure there are deaths out there from people overdosing on it but they seem like a really rare event.

[0] - https://forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/10/20/calls-about-ive...

[1] - https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf

[2] - https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

> People did look into this with an unbiased lens

Not really.

> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).

You're falling for sensationalized propaganda. If you read the CDC advisory, there was only a five fold increase over the pre-pandemic baseline [1]. The pre-pandemic baseline for ivermectin poisoning is absurdly low.

> Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest

You mean like the financial interests of pharma companies who would prefer a treatment that wasn't off patent? If we're going to use financial incentives to infer credibility, pharma loses on this question hands down every time.

The truth is that the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin closely match Pfizer's new anti-COVID drug [2] (3CL protease inhibition).

[1] https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

[2] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp0296...

That study is publishing risk ratios like 0.60 for mortality [0] vs standard care, with very low confidence. If my mother caught COVID, in the absence of anything better, that study adds to my opinion that I'd quite like her to take some Ivermectin. It might help, it doesn't seem to harm. It'll make her feel better for having done something.

It certainly could turn out to be nothing. But on the other hand, why not get a doctors prescription until a couple of high quality studies have decided the issue? As you point out, the only real problem seems to be people taking it in unsafe dosages or through unreliable channels like a vet.

[0] Which is broadly consistent with the studies I've seen over at https://ivmmeta.com/ - not sure by how much, but it does seem to assist.

It could harm though. Drugs have side effects, and you are talking about giving someone who is already very ill drugs where you have no idea if they work or not, that could weaken them even more. You could use that logic to justify taking any drug you want as a treatment.

There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.

I have cystic fibrosis, and I have tried to do things like this before by looking at studies on unverified treatments. It doesn't work. You just end up with snake oil. I have a masters in biomedical engineering, and I couldn't do it.

Interpreting studies is hard. Interpreting meta analysis accurately is super hard. Tons of studies are fake, or have bias, or have poor methodology. That website is total bullshit and is just throwing all the studies in to their statistical soup and mixing them together to come up with nonsensical results.

"There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion."

Lol, wtf?

> There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.

I'm no medical anything but I do have extensive academic and statistical training. There is enough in these studies for someone to take Ivermectin as an "eh, why not?" gambit. There is evidence it is helpful, although the evidence isn't conclusive (or even especially strong). Some doctors are already prescribing it, quite reasonably.

If that is true then why are you sourcing a website that is making wildly ludicrous statistical claims?

> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption

Maybe the solution to this is to allow OTC sales of human grade Ivermectin. The drug is one of the safest in the world. No reasonable reason to deny the drug if someone wants it.

> The drug is one of the safest in the world.

This is not true at all. Ivermectin has some nasty neurological effects (vertigo, seizures, blindness) at high doses.

Water can also cause death at high doses (hyponatremia). Literally everything can. The difference between medicine and poison is in the dosage, so saying ivermectin is not safe because it causes health issues at high doses isn't really saying anything.

The dose makes the poison. At the usual dosages that Ivermectin is given at, it is considered to have no toxic effects (with the exception of those that have a severe Loa Loa infection).