How many people have had neurological issues or death from ivermectin
Executive summary
Available pharmacovigilance analyses and reporting show dozens of serious neurological adverse events tied to ivermectin in WHO databases and case reports, including at least 6 deaths among 35 serious cases where ivermectin was the single suspect in one review [1]. Regulators (FDA, AMA) warn that overdose or inappropriate use can cause seizures, coma and death, and during the COVID era hospitals reported poisoning spikes and at least two U.S. deaths linked to veterinary ivermectin [2] [3].
1. What the safety literature actually counts: signal reports, not population totals
Peer‑reviewed analyses of spontaneous adverse‑event databases reported clusters of serious neurological adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after ivermectin use: one review of VigiBase (WHO's pharmacovigilance database) summarized 35 serious cases with ivermectin as the single suspected drug, including 6 deaths, and noted four overdoses largely associated with neurologic disorders [1]. These numbers are signals from voluntary reports and case series, not comprehensive incidence rates in exposed populations [1]. Available sources do not provide a single, definitive global tally of every neurological injury or death caused by ivermectin.
2. How regulators frame the risk: overdoses and interactions can be catastrophic
U.S. and professional bodies warned early and repeatedly that ivermectin is not approved for COVID‑19, can interact with common medicines (e.g., blood thinners), and that overdoses can produce nausea, ataxia, seizures, coma and death (FDA; AMA) [2] [4]. The FDA’s consumer guidance and the AMA statement both list neurologic effects—including seizures and coma—among documented severe outcomes when ivermectin is misused or overdosed [2] [4].
3. Context from clinical and geographic experience: loiasis and mass‑drug campaigns
Ivermectin’s safety profile varies by context. Serious neurological reactions were long associated with use in people with heavy Loa loa infections (a Central/West Africa parasite), and reviews have highlighted serious neurologic ADRs even in areas without loiasis endemicity, prompting pharmacovigilance scrutiny [1]. Large treatment programs report Mazzotti reactions and other inflammatory responses tied to parasite death, again illustrating that some adverse neurologic or systemic reactions relate to underlying infections and program context, not only the drug per se [5] [6].
4. The COVID era distorted exposure and reporting—more misuse, more poisonings
During the pandemic, demand and inappropriate use of veterinary formulations drove spikes in poisonings and hospital presentations; reporting notes hospitals saw increased cases and two deaths in New Mexico linked to veterinary ivermectin, illustrating harm from non‑human formulations and self‑treatment [3]. Pharmacovigilance entries for ivermectin also increased substantially in 2020–2021 versus prior years, reflecting both broader use and intensified reporting [1].
5. Evidence gaps and what the data cannot tell us
Spontaneous reports (WHO VigiBase) and case studies identify serious harms and deaths but cannot yield reliable incidence rates or causal certainty at population level; they are subject to underreporting, reporting biases and confounding [1]. Systematic reviews of ivermectin for COVID‑19 focus on efficacy and list severe adverse events as rare in trials, but those trials are not the same as real‑world misuse that drove many poisonings [7] [1]. Available sources do not provide a consolidated global count of all neurological injuries or deaths directly attributable to ivermectin use across contexts.
6. Competing narratives: safety warnings vs. claims of benefit
Some meta‑analyses and advocates argued ivermectin reduced COVID morbidity and mortality; other outlets and fact‑checks questioned those findings for confounding and study quality [7] [8]. Meanwhile, mainstream regulators emphasized risks from off‑label use. This produced a binary public debate: proponents highlighting observational mortality reductions in some settings [7], and regulators, clinicians and poison centers flagging real harms from overdoses and veterinary product misuse [2] [3] [4].
7. Practical takeaway for clinicians and the public
If prescribed within approved human indications and dosages under clinical supervision, ivermectin has an established safety record for parasitic diseases, but misuse—especially ingestion of veterinary products or high doses—causes neurologic toxicity and has been linked to deaths and hospitalizations [5] [3] [2]. Clinicians should screen for relevant exposures (e.g., travel to Loa loa areas) and drug interactions; public health messaging should focus on preventing self‑medication and veterinary drug use by people [1] [2].
Limitations: these conclusions are drawn from the provided sources, which include pharmacovigilance summaries, regulatory warnings and reporting on misuse; none offers a single, exhaustive global count of every neurological injury or death caused by ivermectin, and available sources do not attempt that comprehensive enumeration [1] [2].