The @CovidAnalysis Ivermectin Meta-Analysis—Probability Ivermectin Not Effective Against COVID-19 One in One Trillion!

The @CovidAnalysis Ivermectin Meta-Analysis—Probability Ivermectin Not Effective Against COVID-19 One in One Trillion!

TrialSite follows a group of brilliant researchers and scientists known as @CovidAnalysis that don’t like the limelight but do like to contribute back to society during this pandemic. Originating a website that tracks Ivermectin and other clinical trials associated with COVID-19 investigational therapies, the scholars and scientists employ their skills and experience to maintain a running tally of Ivermectin-based studies targeting COVID-19. Their takeaway after a real-time meta-analysis of 40 studies now: “Ivermectin is effective for COVID-19.”  

The anonymous group behind this website reports that 100% of the 40 studies included in their meta-analysis to date report positive effects. Overall, their data points to strong efficacy (reduction of 81% and prophylactic impact totaling a reduction of 89%). While the drug appears to impact mortality in a substantial manner, revealing 78% less mortality in the Ivermectin cohorts in these studies from around the world. Note that among the 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 100% of them report positive effect with an estimated reduction of COVID-19 by 72%–see the link for the statistics as their team does a masterful job presenting all of this in a convenient, easy to ready format. One statement puts all of this in some sort of perspective as based on the study data thus far, the probability that the economical widely used drug is ineffective as a treatment targeting COVID is essentially 1 in 1 trillion.

In summary, to date there are now 40 Ivermectin studies involving 288 scientists and 14,717 patients. For more on @CovidAnalysis, see their FAQ

Call to Action: Check out the website and support this impressive group’s work. World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—check it out.


  1. Far from avoiding the limelight, this website appears to be a slightly better formatted version of . They are almost identical in content. C19Study has been a data accumulation site for just about all the treatment studies out there, other than the vaccines, for many months now. They are linked to Ivmmeta. It’s the same place. They run the numbers and publish the numerical analysis. This is not making negligent or harmful statements at all, unless you consider math to be some kind of dishonest evil force.
    In a very similar way, the RtLive site, which used to publish daily graphs of the infection rate for all the US states, has now branched off into several other sites which generate what they consider to be superior metrics. Web sites evolve. That doesn’t make them bad.

  2. An organization that does not support its findings and conclusions by positively identifying itself publicly should be accorded no credit or forum for its work.
    The risk of liability for negligent or intentionally harmful statements is one of the most potent forces ensuring accuracy.

      1. I agree. However, I do not support the modern internet, socio-political tendency to use "whataboutisms" to justify conduct. If my neighbor commits a murder and is acquitted at trial, this does not grant me any authority to commit murder and then complain, "Whatabout my neighbor who was exonerated."
        The fact that the NIH may be "hiding the ball," does not relieve anyone else of liability for their actions taken anonymously. In my view, NO ONE should be allowed to claim anything anonymously/pseudonymously — at least not without a court order granting them protection from some overarching threat of harm.
        My 2 cents — your mileage may vary.