UPDATE 19. September 2021: Nurse claims fully vaccinated Covid-19 patients are being treated with Ivermectin whilst the unvaccinated are being put on ventilators
UPDATE 15. September 2021: Directory of Doctors Prescribing Outpatient COVID-19 Therapy
UPDATE 10. September 2021: Australian Regime Tries To Withhold Essential Medicine - New restrictions on prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19
|Countries, entities or doctors,who forbid or withhold proven and safe medical cures will now be held criminally accountable.|
UPDATE 06. September 2021: Alex Jones Takes Ivermectin Horse Paste ON AIR! + Rolling Stone Offers Pathetic 'Update' to Ivermectin Overdose Story They Got Totally Wrong, Bury the 1 Fact That Killed It
UPDATE 05. September 2021: Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts On Ivermectin Suppression: 'They Have Blood On Their Hands'
UPDATE 03. September 2021: Shocking Conclusions from Africa Study Expose Why Big Pharma’s Puppets are Suppressing Ivermectin Data
UPDATE 02. September 2021: The Story Of Ivermectin And COVID-19
UPDATE 27. August 2021: TOKYO'S MEDICAL ASSOCIATE CHAIRMAN RECOMMENDING #IVERMECTIN FOR ALL COVID PATIENTS
UPDATE 26. August 2021: BigPharma Mafia and FakeNews Media are still on Counter-Propaganda - they will be sued.
UPDATE 11. August 2021: Dr. Ryan Cole shows "Ivermectin" is a miracle drug that stops COVID-19 in its tracks.
UPDATE 04. July 2021: Ivermectin History and Timeline 1975 to 2021 - Meta Analysis by Dr. Tess Lawrie "Governments and Authorities, who do not permit or hinder the use of Ivermectin must be held criminally liable."
UDDATE 30. June 2021: Studies on Ivermectin show positive results as Covid-19 treatment
UPDATE 24. June 2021: Massive Coverup of Ivermectin’s Efficacy Demonstrates an Evil Agenda is Driving Everything
UPDATE 20. June 2021: Why Was News of India’s Success With Ivermectin Suppressed?
UPDATE 16. June 2021: COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century + IVERMECTIN PROTOCOL
UPDATE 09. June 2021: Breakthrough: Ivermectin inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from binding to ACE2 receptors in human tissue
UPDATE 03. June 2021: Ivermectin: WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence - ALL GOVERNMENTS MUST DO THE SAME ! W.H.O. LIED - PEOPLE DIED!
UPDATE 29. May 2021: The Story of the Decade — Is This Mass Murder by Media and Government?
UPDATE 21. May 2021: New York Times Best Selling Author Michael Capuzzo Issues a Plea to Fellow Journalists
UPDATE 17. May 2021: Elites Worried: COVID Cases in India Plummet After Government Promotes Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Use
UPDATE 12. May 2021: Don’t mention Ivermectin; it’ll upset the vaccine rollout [YES IT REALLY SHOULD!]
|Recommended dose in oncoming situation is each day 0.2 mg Ivermectin per kg bodyweight for two consecutive days. Beware: in some countries, especially in Africa the corrupt pharmacies sell 3mg tablets at the same price as 12mg tablets. Calculate and choose wisely what you need.|
UPDATE 09. May 2021: LATEST PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH: IMMEDIATE GLOBAL IVERMECTIN USE WILL END COVID-19 PANDEMIC - genetic experiments with injections of mRNA have become obsolete.
UPDATE 07. April 2021: Doctors can now prescribe ivermectin as treatment for Covid-19 in SA - WHO still in criminal neglect.
UPDATE 06. April 2021: South-Africa: Ivermectin settlement frees up more access for Covid-19 patients
UPDATE 05. April 2021: AFP-Faktcheckers Out on Paid Disinformation Campaigns
UPDATE 04. April 2021: Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours
UPDATE 01. April 2021: No April's Fool Joke: WHO data say Ivermectin reduces COVID mortality by 81%. Also WHO: We still don’t recommend it.
UPDATE 31. March 2021: SCANDAL: UN triggers price hike for COVID medicine in Africa. People in all African countries, like in Kenya and South-Africa, suffer under the Medical Mafia
UPDATE 18. February 2021: Virologists Report Poor Man’s Amino Acid Cure for Covid-19 Would Abolish Need for Vaccines
UPDATE 01. February 2021: Zimbabwe government approves Ivermectin
UPDATE 28. January 2021: South Africa approves controlled use of Ivermectin to treat Covid-19
UPDATE 19. January 2021: ‘Miraculous’ ivermectin approved for use in the USA for the treatment of COVID-19
UPDATE: 14. January 2021: Ivermectin is Now a Treatment Option for Health Care Providers!
UPDATE 09. January 2021: South Africa Authorities are wiggling around while people die: Data on Ivermectin 'will soon be available': SAHPRA
UPDATE 07. January 2021: “Stop Covid-19 deaths, give us ivermectin Now!” – BLF
UPDATE 05. January 2020: DR. PIERRE KORY PLEADS IVERMECTIN IS SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 AT U.S. SENATE HEARING
UPDATE 04. January 2020: Ivermectin: Tests show cheap drug may reduce Covid-19 death toll
ICYMI: IMPORTANT: Ivermectin And COVID-19: How Is It Proposed To Work? Review Of All Theorized Mechanisms Of Action + Antiviral Research Volume 178, June 2020: The FDA-approved drug Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro + Irish William Campbell and Japan’s Satoshi Omura, who won in 2015 the Nobel Prize for the discovery and development of IVERMECTIN should be awarded with a second Nobel Prize
PROLOGUE: ECOTERRA Intl. has informed our members and the public since mid February 2020 about the effectiveness, safety and the advantages of Ivermectin and Hydroxichloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 cases. We have not received a single report stating any problem, but we got countless e-mails and letters of appreciation for leading with evidence based information and that we stood strong against the medical Mafia by providing life-saving advise. Your survival in these very dangerous times is our greatest reward.
Cheap hair lice drug may cut risk of COVID-19 death by 80 percent: study
By Hannah Sparks - 04. January 2021
A simple treatment for COVID-19 could be cheaper than 20 bucks — and familiar to most grade school nurses.
Head lice drug ivermectin is being explored as a potential treatment for the coronavirus following a promising new study that showed an 80% reduction in hospitalized COVID-19 patient deaths.
Just 8 out of 573 patients who received ivermectin passed away, compared to the 44 individuals out of 510 who died after being given a placebo.
An earlier study of the antiparasitic prescription drug, which costs between $17 and $43 for a course of treatment, according to GoodRx, revealed promising results in April — by removing all viral RNA within 48 hours of a single dose.
Liverpool University virologist Andrew Hill has called the new study “transformational” in the search for a coronavirus therapy. His findings, based on data from over 1,400 patients, were made public in a video posted to YouTubein which Hill discusses his results in a previously aired livestream. The research currently awaits peer review prior to publishing.
“If we see these same trends observed consistently across more studies, then this really is going to be a transformational treatment,” said Hill.
However, critics have called Hill’s study conclusion premature, urging further research before declaring ivermectin an effective treatment — citing other buzzed-about methods that ultimately failed to deliver, such as hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab.
“All we have are observational studies and clinicians’ opinions,” said University of Sydney professor Andrew McLachlan, the Daily Mail reported.
“Many of the current studies have low numbers of participants, weak study designs, and inconsistent (and relatively low) ivermectin dosing regimes, with ivermectin frequently given in combination with other drugs.
Ivermectin Image AFP via Getty Images
Nurse claims fully vaccinated Covid-19 patients are being treated with Ivermectin whilst the unvaccinated are being put on ventilators
By DAILY EXPOSE - 19. September 2021
A nurse of 40 years has claimed that fully vaccinated Covid-19 patients are being treated in hospital with Ivermectin, whilst unvaccinated Covid-19 patients are being put on ventilators.
The claim was made during a freedom protest in Australia in which the nurse made a speech to those attending (Watch below)…
Ivermectin is a common drug used to treat parasites but evidence suggests it is successful at treating the alleged Covid-19 disease. The drug was widely used across India and seemed to be successful in reducing deaths per million people by a significant amount.
However, when India changed tack and introduced the Covid-19 vaccine, alleged Covid-19 deaths very quickly began to rise again.
Australia’s medicines regulator has banned general practitioners from prescribing Ivermectin tablets to treat the alleged Covid-19 disease, which means the claims made by the nurse of 40 years are highly controversial if true.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) stated in a press release that GP’s are now only able to prescribe Ivermectin for approved conditions including scabies and certain parasitic infections.
“These changes have been introduced because of concerns with the prescribing of oral Ivermectin for the claimed prevention or treatment of Covid-19,” the TGA said in a statement released Friday September 10th.
You may remember the scenes broadcast on BBC News showing an alleged Covid-19 crisis in India. Well since then the country has virtually eradicated Covid-19 in areas that have used Ivermectin.
In Uttar Pradesh, India, 33 districts have been declared “Covid-free.” With a combined population of 241 million there are only 199 active cases and the positive test rate is 0.01% – statistically zero.
It is a poor state and worse, the most-populous in the nation and has extremely high-density cities — the most-fertile environment imaginable for a pandemic virus — yet they defeated Covid-19 with a cheap, widely-available drug… Ivermectin.
Directory of Doctors Prescribing Outpatient COVID-19 Therapy
Updated: 15 September 2021
If you are a medical professional prescribing IVM for COVID-19 and would like to be listed in the Directory below, please click HERE to provide your information.
INFORMATION ONLY - NOT GUARANTEED ACCURATE - NOT MEDICAL ADVICE - CONSULT A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
(See TERMS below)
For COVID-19, no vaccine, treatment or other intervention is 100% available and effective for all existing and future variants. Every practical, effective, and safe means should be used to mitigate COVID-19
Ivermectin (IVM) when combined with other medications and supplements is significantly effective for treatment of COVID-19 ... including "breakthrough" disease for those vaccinated and for those with natural immunity from previous disease.
Due to its particular mechanisms of action, Ivermectin is effective against variants of SAR-CoV-2
Ivermectin is well-tolerated by and very safe for humans: https://www.medincell.com/ivermectin/
Information about monoclonal antibody treatments and locations for patients with active COVID-19 and who meet the criteria:
Ivermectin is a WHO and USA FDA-approved drug. Since 1981, 4 billion doses have been taken by humans worldwide saving millions of lives. Satoshi Ōmura and William C. Campbell were awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering Ivermectin.
“Ivermectin for COVID-19 is effective and has been given to us on a silver platter. It can completely change the history of this disease. Ivermectin is one of the safest medicines you can give a human being. It has been in use for 40 years and is on WHO’s list of essential medications.”
Dr. Paul Marik, MD, Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School
“Ivermectin works. I’ve seen that in my patients. Ivermectin can really be the game-changer against COVID-19. It’s safe, it’s cheap and it works.”
Dr. Alessandro Santin, MD, Yale School of Medicine
“A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by a team of experts. Twenty-one RCTs involving 2741 participants met review inclusion, according to strict criteria. Ivermectin demonstrates a strong therapeutic efficacy. Moreover, ivermectin is the sole therapeutic so far to have demonstrated efficacy at all stages of the very complex clinical course of the covid-19 disease, from prophylaxis through to critical care. ‘Real world’ whole-country case studies show striking reductions of covid-related deaths and infections as soon as ivermectin distribution is implemented on a wide scale. 25 countries are now using ivermectin against COVID-19, 15 of them country-wide with official endorsement. “ British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel - March 25, 2021
“In 11 randomized trials of moderate/severe infection, there was a 56% reduction in mortality”
"There was a 70% improvement in survival in the subgroup of mild/moderate participants"
Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection - July 2021
Dr. Andrew Hill, University of Liverpool, UK (lead author and WHO affiliated researcher)
See treatment protocols for all phases of COVID-19 ... including post-COVID ("Long-haul") syndrome at:
Contact one of the medical professionals listed in the Directory below for help with COVID-19
If you are a medical professional prescribing IVM for COVID-19 and would like to be listed in the Directory below, please click HERE to provide your information.
Additional medical professionals who provide these COVID-19 early treatments are listed at:
For pharmacies that fulfill prescriptions for IVM and related medications, see:
Australian Regime Tries To Withhold Essential Medicine
New restrictions on prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19
10 September 2021
Today, the TGA, acting on the advice of the Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling, has placed new restrictions on the prescribing of oral ivermectin. General practitioners are now only able to prescribe ivermectin for TGA-approved conditions (indications) - scabies and certain parasitic infections. Certain specialists including infectious disease physicians, dermatologists, gastroenterologists and hepatologists (liver disease specialists) will be permitted to prescribe ivermectin for other unapproved indications if they believe it is appropriate for a particular patient.
These changes have been introduced because of concerns with the prescribing of oral ivermectin for the claimed prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in COVID-19 in Australia or in other developed countries, and its use by the general public for COVID-19 is currently strongly discouraged by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, the World Health Organisation and the US Food and Drug Administration.
Firstly, there are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection rather than getting vaccinated. Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of COVID-19 infection throughout the community.
Secondly, the doses of ivermectin that are being advocated for use in unreliable social media posts and other sources for COVID-19 are significantly higher than those approved and found safe for scabies or parasite treatment. These higher doses can be associated with serious adverse effects, including severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures and coma.
Finally, there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months, leading to national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections. It is believed that this is due to recent prescribing and dispensing for unapproved uses, such as COVID-19. Such shortages can disproportionately impact vulnerable people, including those in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
There is only one TGA approved oral ivermectin product, Stromectol ivermectin 3mg tablet blister pack which is indicated for the treatment of river blindness (onchocerciasis), threadworm of the intestines (intestinal strongyloidiasis) and scabies.
All medical practitioners can continue to prescribe oral ivermectin for the approved indications. However, prescribing of oral ivermectin for indications that are not approved is now limited to certain specialists.
Alex Jones Takes Ivermectin Horse Paste ON AIR!
GAB TV - 06. September 2021
Though Anthony Fauchi rowed back, his NIH has obviously instructions to not update their site since February 2021, thereby leaves people in limbo and without the life-saving advise to use Ivermectin, which is based on sound science. To withhold medical advise that has a proven track record to save lives is criminal.
Here’s some REAL INFO on IVERMECTIN — which absolutely debunks the mockingbird media’s “horse-paste” smear campaign as HORSE POOP! A solution costing less that $2.00 (well, except in those countries like South Africa and Kenya, where corrupt pharmacies are cashing in and have inflated prices dramatically.)
Nobel Prize multi use for IVERMECTIN https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/
IVERMECTIN: enigmatic multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations – The Journal of Antibiotics
IVERMECTIN for Cov2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
IVERMECTIN Science.org https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/s-up-ivermectin
IVERMECTIN anti viral action https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32462282/
IVERMECTIN as Ionophore https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835698/
IVERMECTIN stopping viral replication https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200403115115.htm
IVERMECTIN World Use C19 https://Ivermectinstatus.com/
IVERMECTIN Extremely safe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
IVERMECTIN Works when distributed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
IVERMECTIN works when administered https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/07/29/ivermectin-treatment
IVERMECTIN in India WHO white paper
DHS reports IVERMECTIN has ability to reduce viral shedding… BTFO https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mql_
2019 CDC Memo on Ivermectin Resurfaces After Media Blasted The Drug as ‘Horse Treatment’
PubMed Central (PMC) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/)
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19
In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious
COVID-19 & COVID-19 Shot Therapy – They Don’t Want You to Find THIS – Full Article
Murder through Vaccine Mandate is a Luciferian Sacrifice to their idol Moloch
The Protein Spike Protein Shedding is happening!!
The children of the vaccinated are getting sick and the hospitals children’s units are filling up. WHO and CDC have sent letters to all hospitals directors, informing them to label the children’s sickness as Acute Flaccid Myelitis, which effects the spinal cord, nervous system and weakens the muscles the limbs and reflexes (the reasons for this... So children sickness happening now can be faulted on the Delta Variant) >> AND,NOT TO LABEL as GUILLIAN-BARRE which is created through massive load of Spike Proteins and produces a rare autoimmune disorder, and a persons own immune system attacks, damages the nerves (neurological system damage the brain), muscles damage caused by major spike proteins in the brain and organs. (Johnson& Johnson put warnings on their vaccines about GUILLIAN-BARRE side effects and blood clots!)
The most dangerous people right now... Are the vaccinated.
Why didn’t children get sick last year? Why are they finally getting sick after the vaccinations came out?>>>> Spike Proteins, Shedding<<<
Rolling Stone, however, apparently doesn’t feel itself bound by those strictures.
Granted, Rolling Stone is the magazine that was once home to Hunter Thompson, whose account of the 1972 presidential race — originally published in its pages — was called “the most accurate and the least factual” account of the campaign by one of the campaign managers, as the Columbia Journalism Review noted.
The father of gonzo journalism, alas, wasn’t alive or writing in the days of the internet fact-checker, so we don’t know how it would have handled “Fear and Loathing in the Pandemic End-Times.” There’s an irony, however, in that Thompson in particular and Rolling Stone in general have looked upon drug use with a favorable eye.
In 2021, the magazine is starting a moral panic over the use of one particular drug: ivermectin.
In a Friday article that would have been chucked if it had undergone some desultory fact-checking, the publication echoed the statements of an Oklahoma doctor who said emergency rooms were “so backed up” with overdoses of the anti-parasitic drug “that gunshot victims were having hard times getting” care.
The headline: “Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says.”
The statements were originally made by Dr. Jason McElyea, a rural doctor who told Oklahoma City’s KFOR-TV that because country individuals have mostly been “accidentally been exposed to ivermectin at some time,” since it’s mostly used in veterinary applications, they feel comfortable using it.
“Now, the rural patients are going into their local agricultural or tractor supply store, ignoring the warning signs surrounding the products, and figuring out a dosage themselves,” KFOR reported.
“Some people taking inappropriate doses have actually put themselves in worse conditions than if they’d caught COVID,” McElyea said, adding that this was leading to ER backups.
“All of their ambulances are stuck at the hospital waiting for a bed to open so they can take the patient in and they don’t have any, that’s it,” he told KFOR. “If there’s no ambulance to take the call, there’s no ambulance to come to the call.”
While the medication is sometimes used in humans to treat various conditions, Rolling Stone’s Peter Wade noted in his Friday piece, “the doses are much smaller than are given to livestock. Still, people have been going to feed stores and purchasing livestock doses of the drug, leading many stores to post warnings next to the ivermectin supply, cautioning it is not for use in humans.”
Wade also claimed overdoses of ivermectin have “become so frequent that this month the Food and Drug Administration released a statement imploring Americans to stay away from the drug that has not been approved to treat or prevent Covid-19.”
The piece went on to hit the usual battery of ivermectin talking points: Prescriptions for the drug are up 24-fold despite the lack of proof it’s efficacious against COVID, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said reports of adverse effects and emergency room visits have “multiplied” (the CDC report to which Wade linked used the word “increased,” but why let facts get in the way?) and (of course) podcaster Joe Rogan used the drug when he was diagnosed with COVID-19.
Nevertheless, Wade’s piece leaned heavily on McElyea’s statements to KFOR about ivermectin. It closed with this warning from the good doctor: “There’s a reason you have to have a doctor to get a prescription for this stuff because it can be dangerous.”
And that may indeed be the case, but pretty much everything else about the story smacks of fake news.
That’s why Rolling Stone issued an update — not a correction or a retraction, simply an update — on Sunday. The new headline: “One Hospital Denies Oklahoma Doctor’s Story of Ivermectin Overdoses Causing ER Delays for Gunshot Victims.”
“One hospital has denied Dr. Jason McElyea’s claim that ivermectin overdoses are causing emergency room backlogs and delays in medical care in rural Oklahoma, and Rolling Stone has been unable to independently verify any such cases as of the time of this update,” the publication noted.
Should Rolling Stone have corrected or retracted this story?
The hospital in question is Northeastern Health System Sequoyah, which posted a statementon its website noting that while McElyea was “affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room,” he “has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.”
Furthermore, the hospital “has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.”
And while this doesn’t necessarily mean there haven’t been any cases of ivermectin overdose at the hospitals at which McElyea worked, Rolling Stone ran the numbers and found they were unlikely to result in gunshot victims being refused treatment.
“The National Poison Data System states there were 459 reported cases of ivermectin overdose in the United States in August. Oklahoma-specific ivermectin overdose figures are not available, but the count is unlikely to be a significant factor in hospital bed availability in a state that, per the CDC, currently has a 7-day average of 1,528 Covid-19 hospitalizations,” the update noted.
The update buried the key problem in the original headline, however: There was no evidence ivermectin overdoses had “overwhelmed” hospitals in Oklahoma and there never was.
Unlike Hunter Thompson, it seems Peter Wade was neither accurate nor factual. None of the hospitals for which McElyea worked was willing to respond to requests for comment — although it’s worth mentioning, as conservative commentator Jesse Singal did, that McElyea never mentioned any of the hospitals where this was happening, either.
What’s incredible is that Rolling Stone wasn’t alone in parroting McElyea’s claims about ivermectin, and some actually did less to correct them.
In the U.K., The Guardian ran the story on Saturday, then it “amended” on Sunday with NHS Sequoyah’s statement. It’s yet to note the statistics Rolling Stone did that make McElyea’s original story unlikely, or the fact the outlet hadn’t independently verified any cases.
The BBC, meanwhile, did even less than that, running a Sunday story that echoed most of McElyea’s quotes uncritically. It laundered this through speaking to McElyea — who amended his statement slightly, claiming that “a ‘handful’ of people overdosing on the drug were putting further strain on hospital staff already stretched by a surge in Covid cases.”
KFOR, meanwhile, has yet to either update, correct or retract the story that started this as of Monday morning.
Yet, it’s the Rolling Stone article that got the most attention — and, despite the fact the numbers don’t add up and none of it can be independently confirmed, it’s only received an “update” that doesn’t note the headline was changed to hide the most problematic claim the original piece made.
One imagines they were getting around to doing the right thing, on the edge of a correction, when the ivermectin moral panic began to take hold.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Contributor, Commentary @CillianZeal
Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts On Ivermectin Suppression: 'They Have Blood On Their Hands'
KanekoaTheGreat Published September 5, 2021
Rumble — Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts Says Big Pharma, Big Tech, and Big Gov 'Have Blood On Their Hands' For Suppressing Ivermectin
Shocking Conclusions from Africa Study Expose Why Big Pharma’s Puppets are Suppressing Ivermectin Data
The vaccine-nannies are busy saying Ivermectin doesn't work, but they don't look to the science to show this. They simply gaslight us about the "horse dewormer."
By JD Rucker - 03. September 2021
Joe Rogan, Kirstie Alley, and a handful of other celebrities have brought out the anti-Ivermectin wolves in America. Mainstream media is in full attack-mode. Big Tech is censoring posts to the point that people are coming up with creative ways to indicate they’re even talking about Ivermectin so as not to trigger the filters. The CDC claimed the drug was for horses only, neglecting to remove their own recommendations for people to take Ivermectin for other issues.
If the CDC is recommending what they deemed to be a “horse dewormer” to people traveling from Africa, does that mean the CDC is racist?
A graph made its rounds on social media yesterday that raised some eyebrows. It showed the clear difference between countries in Africa that use Ivermectin regularly versus those that do not. The differences were startling as the Ivermectin-nations showed unambiguous advantages against Covid-19. The mortality rates were very low compared to countries that do not use Ivermectin on a wide scale.
This graph prompted me to dig deeper into the study. As it turned out, the graph is the tip of the iceberg. There are other data points supporting the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 scattered throughout the study. I’ll publish the whole thing below, but here are some important takeaways for easy digestion.
First, the countries that use Ivermectin have less-sophisticated medical facilities than the nations that do not use Ivermectin. This means that life expectancy is lower and testing is more sporadic. Universal Ivermectin use seems to be the only factor preventing these nations from a full-blown Covid-19 catastrophe.
Second, Africa seems to be the perfect environment for this type of study because of the stark differences in mortality rates. Nations that push Ivermectin as an antiparasitic agent were not attempting to fight Covid-19. They’ve been using the drug universally for years. Therefore, the data regarding mortality clearly delineates between Ivermectin nations and non-Ivermectin nations. As the study states, “The community-directed onchocerciasis treatment with ivermectin is the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rate in Africa.”
The final and arguably most important “hidden” takeaway from the study is that recovery and fatality rates for Covid-19 cases were not statistically significantly different between Ivermectin countries and non-Ivermectin countries. That means that once a person was tested and officially declared a Covid-19 case, they recovered or died at essentially the same rates across the board.
This tells us that other factors such as medical proficiency, environmental differences, or access to vaccines do not contribute to whether someone lives or dies once they have become sick with the disease. Since overall mortality rates per capita are significantly lower in Ivermectin nations but case fatality rates are the same, Ivermectin is clearly effective as an early treatment and perhaps even as a preventative measure.
Remember, the people in the Ivermectin nations are already taking the drug. They aren’t waiting for a positive Covid test and likely aren’t even very concerned about the disease at all. Many if not most who do end up becoming Covid-19 cases in Ivermectin nations were likely among those who were not taking Ivermectin as an antiparasitic. This is why they’re on equal footing when they go to the hospital as those living in non-Ivermectin nations.
Here is the study. Below it, I will offer some commentary on what this all means for America and the rest of the world.
Hisaya Tanioka, Sayaka Tanioka, Kimitaka Kaga
Background Scientists have so far been unable to determine the reason for the low number of COVID-19 cases in Africa.
Objective To evaluate the impact of ivermectin interventions for onchocerciasis on the morbidity, mortality, recovery, and fatality rates caused by COVID-19.
Method A retrospective statistical analysis study of the impact of ivermectin against COVID-19 between the 31 onchocerciasis-endemic countries using the community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) and the non-endemic 22 countries in Africa. The morbidity, mortality, recovery rate, and fatality rate caused by COVID-19 were calculated from the WHO situation report in Africa. We investigated the onchocerciasis endemic 31 countries and the non-endemic 22 countries. Statistical comparisons used by the Welch test of them in the two groups were made.
Results The morbidity and mortality were statistically significantly less in the 31 countries using CDTI. The recovery and fatality rates were not statistically significant difference. The average life expectancy was statistically significantly higher in the non-endemic countries.
Conclusions The morbidity and mortality in the onchocerciasis endemic countries are lesser than those in the non-endemic ones. The community-directed onchocerciasis treatment with ivermectin is the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rate in Africa. In areas where ivermectin is distributed to and used by the entire population, it leads to a significant reduction in mortality.
At least for now, it seems that Africa will be in completely different situations under the coronavirus infections. Some scientists have cited a higher proportion of young people [1,2], a warmer climate , and widespread BCG vaccination  as possible factors. While these are positive theories, they do not provide scientific evidence to explain why the spread of new coronavirus infections in Africa appears to be at a slower pace than in other parts of the world.
In the meantime, based on a growing data of recently reported data on a large number of published and unpublished trials, it is suggested that ivermectin being a well-known antiparasitic agent with antiviral activity and anti-inflammatory effects, has activity against SARS-CoV-2 . On the other hand, ivermectin has been administered in Africa for onchocerciasis under the WHO strategy. In 2012, WHO’s neglected tropical diseases (NTD) Roadmap set a goal of elimination where feasible by 2020, and the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control advanced the goal to elimination in 80% of countries by 2025 .
The community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) is the basic strategy to eradicate onchocerciasis in Africa. More than 99% of the infections have occurred in the 31 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa listed below: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central Africa, Chad, Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Tanzania. In the rural populations of sub-Saharan Africa where health systems are weak and under-resourced, the community-directed treatment strategy is proving to be one of Africa’s most successful in reducing disease at low cost .
If ivermectin has an antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2, the morbidity, mortality, recovery, and fatality rates caused by COVID-19 would be reduced in the community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI) countries compared to non-endemic untreated ones. Therefore, epidemiological analyzes of the two groups are necessary. These results will validate the effect of ivermectin intervention on COVID-19. This study aims to evaluate the impact of ivermectin interventions for onchocerciasis on morbidity, mortality, recovery rate, and fatality rate caused by COVID-19.
We divided into two group countries. One was 31 onchocerciasis-endemic countries (Ivermectin group) using the community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTI), and the other was 22 non-endemic countries (non-Ivermectin group). Each population and average life expectancy were obtained from the WHO Africa statics in 2019 . The COVID-19 data was obtained from the WHO coronavirus disease Dashboard on January 15, 2021, and the COVID-19 Situation update for the WHO African Region . Each morbidity, mortality, recovery rate, and fatality rate caused by COVID-19 were calculated from the collected data.
Table 1 showed the population (in millions), morbidity (number of cases and per million population), mortality (number of deaths and per million population), recovery rate (number of cases and percentage), and fatality rate (percentage) in the onchocerciasis-endemic 31 countries. Table 2 showed them in the non-endemic 22 countries.
This study aimed to verify the ivermectin intervention statistics in the community-directed treatment with ivermectin. Therefore, we compare the morbidity, mortality, recovery rate, and fatality rate caused by COVID-19 between the two group countries.
Statistical analysis was done by Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation Redmond, Washington). Data were presented as a mean and standard deviation (SD) and compared between the two groups utilizing Welch-test. A two-sided P value < 0.05 was considered significant.
The results of the onchocerciasis-endemic of 31 countries (Ivermectin group) and the non-endemic 22 countries (non-Ivermectin group) were shown in Table 3.
Morbidity and mortality were statistically significantly less in the ivermectin group. The population, recovery rate, and fatality rate were not statistically significant differences between them. The average life expectancy was statistically significantly high in the non-ivermectin group.
It is important to verify the effect of ivermectin interventions on the variations in morbidity and mortality and the associated viral lethality. Ivermectin is an approved antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies. For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and has demonstrated an excellent safety profile .
This epidemiological study in Africa reveals that the morbidity and mortality in the onchocerciasis-endemic countries (Ivermectin group) are statistically lesser than those in the non-endemic ones (non-Ivermectin group). However, the morbidity will depend on the number of COVID-19 tests. Onchocerciasis-endemic countries are mainly in the medically weak areas in Sub-Saharan Africa rather than the non-endemic countries. Therefore, the average life is statistically different between the two groups. And, we suggest that the number of COVID-19 tests in the endemic-countries will be lesser than the non-endemic ones because their health systems are under-resourced.
In other words, the apparent incidence of COVID-19 may be lower in the onchocerciasis-endemic countries, but mortality is unrelated to the number of tests. The mortality is less in the ivermectin group than the non-ivermectin one. The recovery and fatality rates are statistically the same in both groups, although they will depend on the medical circumstances. That is, is the medical situation not that different between the two group countries, or is there another factor at play?
Some researchers say that the short life expectancy and the fact that 3% of the population is over 65 years old may be a reason for COVID-19 not exploding infections in Africa [1, 2]. The mean age of the average life expectancy in epidemic countries is 60.7 years and 66.4 years in non-epidemic countries. However, countries with shorter average life expectancy have worse medical circumstances than countries with longer average life expectancy. As a result, the epidemic countries have higher infant mortality and lower average life expectancy . And more, if this difference is one of the factors in the impact, the statistically no difference in the recovery rate and fatality rate between the two groups shows a discrepancy.
Taking this into account, mortality is lower in ivermectin-treated countries than those in non-treated ones. The recovery rate and fatality rate may be improved according to the number of COVID-19 tests. These results imply that ivermectin will act on SARS-CoV-2, and prevent deterioration in patients. Our results will support those of Mohammad et al.’s study .
On the other hand, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has given the green light for the controlled use of Ivermectin for humans on January 27, 2021 . Since then, the number of new COVID-19 infections in South Africa has been declining.
In conclusion, in the countries where ivermectin is distributed to and used by the entire areas, it suggests to lead a reduction in mortality, to accelerate patient recovery and, to avoid death. And this analytical study will suggest that early treatment with ivermectin may accelerate recovery and prevent worsening of symptoms in patients with mild disease. These findings can be efficiently translated into therapies for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
Ethical approval was not required for this work as public data analysis.
No funding was received.
The authors have no competing or conflicting interests.
H.T., S.T., and K.K. conceived and designed the study. H.T. and S.T. analyzed the data and wrote the first draft. All authors provided critical revisions. All authors contributed equally to this study and approved the submitted manuscript.
- Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths-Worldometer. Available at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ Accessed February. 18, 21.
- Mehta NS, Mytton OT, Mullins EWS, et al. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): What Do We Know About Children? A Systematic Review. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 3;71(9):2469–2479. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa556.
- Iqbal MM, Abid I, Hussain S, et al. The effects of regional climatic condition on the spread of COVID-19 at global scale. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Oct 15; 739: 140101. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140101.
- Malik YS, Ansari MI, Ganesh B, et al. BCG vaccine: a hope to control COVID-19 pandemic amid crisis. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Dec 1;16(12):2954–2962. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1818522. Epub 2020 Sep 29.
- IVERMECTIN —A Potential global solution to the COVID-19 pandemic. FLCCC Alliance · October 31, 2020. Available at ivermectin_1.pdf (kitasato-infection-control.info) Accessed February 27, 2021.
- WHO | Regional Office for Africa. Onchocerciasis. Available at https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/onchocerciasis
- WHO | African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC). Available at https://www.who.int/apoc/cdti/en/
- United Nations: Population and Vital Statistics Report. Population, latest available census, and estimates, latest available data. (Last Updated: 15 January 2021) Available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/vitstats/seratab2.pdf
- Weekly epidemiological update – 19 January 2021. WHO African Region. Available at https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update 19-january-2021
- Canga AG, Prieto AMS, Liébana MJD, et al. The Pharmacokinetics and Interactions of Ivermectin in Humans—A Mini-review. AAPS 10 (1); 42–46 (2008) DOI: 10.1208/s12248-007-9000-9CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
- Ahmed S, Karim MM, Ross AG, et al. A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness. Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb; 103: 214–216. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191. Epub 2020 Dec 2.
- South Africa Government News Agency. SAHPRA approves Ivermectin for controlled human use. Available at https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/sahpra-approves-ivermectin-controlled-human-use
When Anderson Cooper et al take to the airwaves to say Ivermectin is a horse dewormer, they are being disingenuous, though there’s actually a silver lining to their lies. There is a difference between the Ivermectin one can get at a feed store and the Ivermectin prescribed to humans. Though their intention in gaslighting us on the drug was to ridicule those who recommend it, at least they gave us an opportunity to tell people to find a doctor to prescribe it and NOT to go to the local farm supply store to take livestock versions of the drug.
Nevertheless, mainstream media is lying. Big Tech “fact checkers” are lying. The CDC is lying. Those who are taking to social media to “debunk” the efficacy of Ivermectin are either lying or ignorant. This is the point in the story where I’m supposed to ask why so many are denying the clear science supporting Ivermectin in favor of gaslighting, but I won’t ask. You already know the answer.
The push for universal vaccinations is the only priority right now for just about everyone in government, media, Big Tech, academia, and even the leftist trolls on social media. Ivermectin has always been the Achilles Heel for vaccine-pushers which is why they are willing to denigrate their own credibility to keep information about it suppressed. The MATH+ Protocols have shown tremendous success in treating Covid-19, but you’ll never hear Anthony Fauci mention them.
The powers-that-be can gaslight us with tortured numbers and media proclaiming Ivermectin is just a “horse dewormer,” but they cannot get around the Africa study. It’s the silver bullet, proof-positive that Ivermectin works.
The Story Of Ivermectin And COVID-19
KanekoaTheGreat Published September 2, 2021
Rumble — The Story Of Ivermectin And COVID-19
TOKYO'S MEDICAL ASSOCIATE CHAIRMAN RECOMMENDING #IVERMECTIN FOR ALL COVID PATIENTS
Re-published on BITCHUTE August 27th, 2021.
Tokyo's Medical Associate Chairman holds live press conference recommending #ivermectin to all doctors, for all Covid patients.
Data is clear. Japan's government is one of the most conservative and cautious in the world.
BigPharma Mafia and FakeNews Media are still on Counter-Propaganda
WATCH THESE CRIMINALS AND THEIR LIES - Station 41KSHB and their actors - including the U.S. FDA - will be sued fir misleading the public and potentially causing deathwith their false statements. The WHO already has been sued by the main lawyers association of India over similar, unproven warnings against Ivermectin.
Doctors, veterinarian speak of the dangers taking Ivermectin against COVID-19
KSHB Published August 26, 2021
Rumble — Doctors, veterinarian speak of dangers of taking ivermectin for COVID-19
Dr. Ryan Cole #StoptheMandate
Dr. Ryan Cole shows "Ivermectin" is a miracle drug that stops COVID-19 in its tracks.
11 Aug 2021
I am NOT anti-vaccine. I am pro- good science. My body, my choice. Step back and look at the data and forget the politics. A quick analysis of the situation without fear and media hype. We need to have courage and logic and approach this in a manner the preserves liberty and protects people. It is criminal these mandates for our young people. Leave the kids alone, they survived this 100%. We are seeing a 200% increase in heart damage in our young men after this. This damage is scarring the heart, that's long-term! This is unethical, and a violation of morality. This new 'variant is a 'scarient'. This is turning into what all coronaviruses turn into - a common cold. If you want to be a subject in an experiment and think it's going to be a benefit to you. Your body your choice, be fully informed about what your risks are. We shouldn't be coercing people into a shot where one of the potential side effects is DEATH!
Visit us at https://rumble.com/user/HealthFreedom...
Ivermectin History and Timeline 1975 to 2021
Meta Analysis by Dr. Tess LawrieView on YouTube Download Torrent
Published on July 4, 2021
June 23, 2021 Meta Analysis
William C. Campbell - Story of Ivermectin
Satoshi Omura - Nobel Lecture
The use of Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 has been the subject of much debate. The World Health Organisation‘s recommendation against Ivermectin as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 is shrouded in suspicion as the WHO’s second biggest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Bill Gates also founded and funds The Vaccine Alliance (GAVI). The connection and clear conflict of interest is thus astounding. This 3,000 word synopsis, done by Rubin van Niekerk, is on Bryant’s peer reviewed meta analysis published in the American Journal of Therapeutics about 60 studies on the treatment impact of Ivermectin on Covid-19. Van Niekerk notes that ‘Ivermectin studies vary widely, which makes the consistently positive results even more remarkable. It is both insightful and important. – Nadya Swart
Ivermectin Meta Analysis Synopsis
By Rubin van Niekerk* - 30. June 2021
Meta analysis of 60 studies on Ivermectin and Covid 19 by Bryant, published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. (Version 93 Updated 21/6/21)
This is a brief 3000-word synopsis of the analysis of all significant studies concerning the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect extraction criteria (more serious outcomes have priority), all individual study data, PRISMA answers, and statistical methods are detailed. Random effects of meta-analysis results for all studies, for studies within each treatment stage, for mortality results, for COVID-19 case results, for viral clearance results, for peer-reviewed studies, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and after exclusions are presented.
Please read the original 18 000-word comprehensive research analysis should you need more detail and insight into the methodology on https://ivmmeta.com/.
- Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 76% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.24 [0.14-0.41] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials.
- 81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 28 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.
•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000045).
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, population, effect measured, variants, and regimens. The consistency of positive results is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases, for example early treatment mortality.
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
•Administration with food, often not specified, may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration.
•The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.
|Treatment time||Number of studies reporting positive effects||Total number of studies||Percentage of studies reporting positive effects||Probability of an equal or greater percentage of positive results from an ineffective treatment||Random effects meta-analysis results|
1 in 103 thousand
RR 0.24 [0.14‑0.41] p < 0.0001
1 in 9 thousand
RR 0.54 [0.41‑0.71] p < 0.0001
1 in 16 thousand
RR 0.15 [0.09‑0.25] p < 0.0001
1 in 2 trillion
RR 0.29 [0.23‑0.38] p < 0.0001
Prophylaxis refers to regularly taking medication before becoming sick, to prevent or minimize infection. Early Treatment refers to treatment immediately or soon after symptoms appear, while Late Treatment refers to more delayed treatment.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Evaluation of studies relies on an understanding of the study and potential biases. Limitations in an RCT can outweigh the benefits, for example excessive dosages, excessive treatment delays, or Internet survey bias could have a greater effect on results. Ethical issues may also prevent running RCTs for known effective treatments. For more on issues with RCTs see [Deaton, Nichol].
Random effects meta-analysis for Randomized Controlled Trial mortality results only.
|Treatment time||Number of studies reporting positive effects||Total number of studies||Percentage of studies reporting positive effects||Probability of an equal or greater percentage of positive results from an ineffective treatment||Random effects meta-analysis results|
|Randomized Controlled Trials||28||31||90.3%||0.0000023
1 in 430 thousand
RR 0.36 [0.26‑0.51] p < 0.0001
|Randomized Controlled Trials (excluding late treatment)||18||19||94.7%||0.000038
1 in 26 thousand
RR 0.25 [0.17‑0.38] p < 0.0001
Table 2. Summary of RCT results.
All studies are included in the main analysis to avoid bias in the selection of studies. This bias evaluation is based on full analysis of each study and identifying when there is a significant chance that limitations will substantially change the outcome of the study.
Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:
The time between infection or the onset of symptoms and treatment may critically affect how well a treatment works. An antiviral may be very effective when used early but may not be effective in late stage disease and may even be harmful. Other medications might be beneficial for late-stage complications, while early use may not be effective or may even be harmful. Oseltamivir, for example, is generally only considered effective for influenza when used within 0-36 or 0-48 hours [McLean, Treanor].
Effectiveness may depend critically on treatment delay.
Details of the patient population including age and comorbidities may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example, many COVID-19 studies with relatively young low-comorbidity patients show all patients recovering quickly with or without treatment. In such cases, there is little room for an effective treatment to improve results (as in [López-Medina]).
Efficacy may differ significantly depending on the effect measured, for example a treatment may be highly effective at reducing mortality, but less effective at minimizing cases or hospitalization. Or a treatment may have no effect on viral clearance while still being effective at reducing mortality.
There are thousands of different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of variants encountered by the patients in a study.
Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen. Higher dosages have been found to be more successful for ivermectin [Hill]. Method of administration may also be critical. [Guzzo] show that the plasma concentration of ivermectin is much higher when administered with food (Figure 20: geometric mean AUC 2.6 times higher). Many ivermectin studies specify fasting, or they do not specify administration. Fasting administration is expected to reduce effectiveness for COVID-19 due to lower plasma and tissue concentrations. Note that this is different to anthelmintic use in the gastrointestinal tract where fasting is recommended.
The use of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including anything from supplements, other medications, or other kinds of treatment such as prone positioning.
The distribution of studies will alter the outcome of a meta-analysis. Consider a simplified example where everything is equal except for the treatment delay, and effectiveness decreases to zero or below with increasing delay. If there are many studies using extremely late treatment, the outcome may be negative, even though the treatment may be highly effective when used earlier.
Looking at all studies is valuable for providing an overview of all research, and important to avoid cherry-picking, but the resulting estimate does not apply to specific cases such as early treatment in high-risk populations.
Ivermectin studies vary widely in all the factors above, which makes the consistently positive results even more remarkable.
The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000045).
Publishing is often biased towards positive results, which we would need to adjust for when analysing the percentage of positive results. For ivermectin, there is currently not enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence. One method to evaluate bias is to compare prospective vs. retrospective studies. Prospective studies are likely to be published regardless of the result, while retrospective studies are more likely to exhibit bias. News coverage of ivermectin studies is extremely biased. Only one study to date has received significant press coverage in western media [López-Medina], which is neither the largest or the least biased study, and is one of the two studies with the most critical issues as discussed earlier.
4 of the 60 studies compare against other treatments rather than placebo. Currently ivermectin shows better results than these other treatments, however ivermectin may show greater improvement when compared to placebo. 13 of 60 studies combine treatments, for example ivermectin + doxycycline. The results of ivermectin alone may differ. 4 of 31 RCTs use combined treatment, three with doxycycline, and one with iota-carrageenan. 1 of 60 studies currently have minimal published details available.
Typical meta-analyses involve subjective selection criteria, effect extraction rules, and study bias evaluation, which can be used to bias results towards a specific outcome. To avoid bias we include all studies and use a pre-specified method to extract results from all studies (we also present results after exclusions). The results to date are overwhelmingly positive, very consistent, and very insensitive to potential selection criteria, effect extraction rules, and/or bias evaluation.
Additional meta analyses confirming the effectiveness of ivermectin can be found in [Bryant, Hill, Kory, Lawrie]. Figure 22 shows a comparison of mortality results across meta-analyses. [Kory] also review epidemiological data and provide suggested treatment regimens.
The evidence supporting ivermectin for COVID-19 far exceeds the typical amount of evidence used for the approval of treatments. [Lee] shows that only 14% of the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America were based on RCTsTable 3 and Table 4 compare the amount of evidence for ivermectin compared to that used for other COVID-19 approvals, and that used by WHO for the approval of ivermectin for scabies and strongyloidiasis. Table 5 compares US CDC recommendations for ibuprofen and ivermectin.
|Strongyloidiasis [Kory (B)]||5||591||Approved|
|Scabies [Kory (B)]||10||852||Approved|
Table 3. WHO ivermectin approval status.
|Ivermectin evidence||60||18,931||71% [62‑77%]||Pending|
Table 4. Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals compared with the ivermectin evidence base.
|Deaths per year||~450||<1||<1|
|Based on||0 RCTs||10 RCTs
WHO updated their treatment recommendations on 3/30/2021 [WHO]. For ivermectin they reported a mortality odds ratio of 0.19 [0.09-0.36] based on 7 studies with 1,419 patients. They do not specify which trials they included. The report is inconsistent, with a forest plot that only shows 4 studies with mortality results.
Despite this extremely positive result, they recommended only using ivermectin in clinical trials. The analysis contains many flaws [Kory (C)]:
- Of the 60 studies (31 RCTs), they only included 16.
- They excluded all 14 prophylaxis studies (4 RCTs).
- There was no protocol for data exclusion.
- Trials included in the original UNITAID search protocol [Hill]were excluded.
- They excluded all epidemiological evidence, although WHO has considered such evidence in the past.
- They combine early treatment and late treatment studies and do not provide heterogeneity information. As above, early treatment is more successful, so pooling late treatment studies will obscure the effectiveness of early treatment. They chose not to do subgroup analysis by disease severity across trials, although treatment delay is clearly a critical factor in COVID-19 treatment, the analysis is easily done (as above), and it is well known that the studies for ivermectin and many other treatments clearly show greater effectiveness for early treatment.
- WHO downgraded the quality of trials compared to the UNITAID systematic review team [Hill]and a separate international expert guideline group that has long worked with the WHO [Bryant].
- They disregarded their own guidelines that stipulate quality assessments should be upgraded when there is evidence of a large magnitude effect (which there is), and when there is evidence of a dose-response relationship (which there is). They claim there is no dose-response relationship, while the UNITAID systematic review team found a clear relationship [Hill].
- Their risk of bias assessments does not match the actual risk of bias in studies. For example they classify [López-Medina]as low risk of bias, however this study has many issues making the results unreliable [Covid Analysis], even prompting an open letter from over 170 physicians concluding that the study is fatally flawed [Open Letter]. [Gonzalez]is also classified as low risk of bias but is a study with very late-stage severe condition high-comorbidity patients. There is a clear treatment delay-response relationship and very late-stage treatment is not expected to be as effective as early treatment. Conversely, much higher quality studies were classified as high risk of bias.
- Although WHO’s analysis is called a “living guideline”, it is rarely updated and very outdated.
- A single person served as Methods Chair, member of the Guidance Support Collaboration Committee, and member of the Living Systematic Review/NMA team.
- Public statements from people involved in the analysis suggest substantial bias. For example, a co-chair reportedly said that “the data available was sparse and likely based on chance” [Reuters]. As above, the data is comprehensive, and we estimate the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as observed to be 1 in 2 trillion (p= 0.00000000000045). The clinical team lead refers to their analysis of ivermectin as “fighting this overuse of unproven therapies … without evidence of efficacy” [Reuters], despite the extensive evidence of efficacy from the 60 studies by 549 scientists with 18,931 patients. People involved may be more favourable to late stage treatment of COVID-19, for example the co-chair recommended treating severe COVID-19 with remdesivir [Rochwerg].
In summary, although WHO’s analysis predicts that over 2 million fewer people would be dead if ivermectin was used from early in the pandemic, they recommend against use outside trials.
Use early in the pandemic was proposed by Kitasato University including the co-discoverer of ivermectin, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura. They requested Merck conduct clinical trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Japan, because Merck has priority to submit an application for an expansion of ivermectinʼs indications. Merck declined [Yagisawa].
Merck has recommended against ivermectin [Merck]. They stated that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies”. This is contradicted by many papers and studies, including [Arévalo, Bello, Choudhury, de Melo, DiNicolantonio, DiNicolantonio (B), Errecalde, Eweas, Francés-Monerris, Heidary, Jans, Jeffreys, Kalfas, Kory, Lehrer, Li, Mody, Mountain Valley MD, Qureshi, Saha, Surnar, Udofia, Wehbe, Yesilbag, Zaidi, Zatloukal].
They state that there is “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease”. This is contradicted by numerous studies including [Afsar, Alam, Aref, Babalola, Behera, Behera (B), Bernigaud, Budhiraja, Bukhari, Cadegiani, Carvallo (B), Carvallo (C), Chaccour, Chahla, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Elgazzar, Elgazzar (B), Espitia-Hernandez, Faisal, Hashim, Huvemek, Khan, Kirti, Lima-Morales, Loue, Mahmud, Merino, Mohan, Morgenstern, Mourya, Niaee, Okumuş, Samaha, Seet].
They also claim that there is “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies”. Safety analysis is found in [Descotes, Errecalde, Guzzo, Kory, Madrid], and safety data can be found in most studies, including [Abd-Elsalam, Afsar, Ahmed, Aref, Babalola, Behera (B), Bhattacharya, Biber, Bukhari, Camprubí, Carvallo, Chaccour, Chahla (B), Chowdhury, Elalfy, Elgazzar, Espitia-Hernandez, Gorial, Huvemek, Khan, Kishoria, Krolewiecki, Lima-Morales, Loue, López-Medina, Mahmud, Mohan, Morgenstern, Mourya, Niaee, Okumuş, Pott-Junior, Seet, Shahbaznejad, Shouman, Spoorthi, Szente Fonseca].
Merck has several conflicts of interest:
- Merck has committed to give ivermectin away for free “as much as needed, for as long as needed” in the Mectizan® Donation Program [Merck (B)], to help eliminate river blindness.
- Merck has their own new COVID-19 treatments MK-7110 (formerly CD24Fc) [Adams] and Molnupiravir (MK-4482) [Wikipedia]. Merck has a ~$1.2B agreement to supply molnupiravir to the US government, if it receives EUA or approval [Khan (B)].
- Ivermectin is off patent, there are many manufacturers, and Merck is unlikely to be able to compete with low cost manufacturers.
- Promoting the use of low cost off-patent medications compared to new products may be undesirable to some shareholders.
- Japan requested Merck conduct clinical trials early in the pandemic and they declined. Merck may be reluctant to admit this mistake [Yagisawa].
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000045). As expected for an effective treatment, early treatment is more successful, with an estimated reduction of 76% in the effect measured using random effects meta-analysis (RR 0.24 [0.14-0.41]). 81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of heterogeneous studies is remarkable, with 93% of the 60 studies reporting positive effects (28 statistically significant in isolation).
We performed ongoing searches of PubMed, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Collabovid, Research Square, ScienceDirect, Oxford University Press, the reference lists of other studies and meta-analyses, and submissions to the site c19ivermectin.com, which regularly receives submissions of studies upon publication. Search terms were ivermectin and COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2, or simply ivermectin. Automated searches are performed every hour with notifications of new matches. The broad search terms result in a large volume of new studies daily which are reviewed for inclusion. All studies regarding the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 that report a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis is performed, excluding studies with critical issues, epidemiological studies, and studies with minimal available information. This is a living analysis and is updated regularly.
Clinical outcome is considered more important than PCR testing status. When basically all patients recover in both treatment and control groups, preference for viral clearance and recovery is given to results mid-recovery where available (after most or all patients have recovered there is no room for an effective treatment to do better). When results provide an odds ratio, we computed the relative risk when possible, or converted to a relative risk according to [Zhang]. Reported confidence intervals and p-values were used when available, using adjusted values when provided. If multiple types of adjustments are reported including propensity score matching (PSM), the PSM results are used. When needed, conversion between reported p-values and confidence intervals followed [Altman, Altman (B)], and Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate p-values for event data. If continuity correction for zero values is required, we use the reciprocal of the opposite arm with the sum of the correction factors equal to 1 [Sweeting]. Results are all expressed with RR < 1.0 suggesting effectiveness. Most results are the relative risk of something negative. If studies report relative times, results are expressed as the ratio of the time for the ivermectin group versus the time for the control group. Calculations are done in Python (3.9.1) with scipy (1.6.3), pythonmeta (1.23), numpy (1.20.3), statsmodels (0.12.2), and plotly (4.14.3). The forest plots are computed using PythonMeta [Deng] with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (the fixed effect assumption is not plausible in this case). The forest plots show simplified dosages for comparison, these are the total dose in the first four days for treatment, and the monthly dose for prophylaxis, for a 70kg person.
We received no funding, and this research is done in our spare time. We have no affiliations with any pharmaceutical companies or political parties.
We will update the paper as new studies are released or with any corrections. Please submit updates and corrections at the bottom of this page. Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Denying the efficacy of any method increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. Treatment protocols for physicians are available from the FLCCC.
- Rubin van Niekerk. Editor of @gaypagessa Magazine. SAGMJ President. Co-organiser of South African Car of the Year.
Massive Coverup of Ivermectin’s Efficacy Demonstrates an Evil Agenda is Driving Everything
It's The Great Reset. It's the New World Order. It's the End Times. It's likely all of these things and more, and that's not hyperbole. Ivermectin is all the evidence we need that the agenda is against us all.
By JD RUCKER - 24. June 2021
Ivermectin saves lives. It is so effective against Covid-19, particularly in the early stages of the disease, that one could argue an effective and safe vaccine wouldn’t be necessary, let alone these experimental injections being passed off as vaccines. And therein lies the rub. If a cheap and readily available drug is enough to fight Covid-19 and diffuse the multi-billion dollar coronavirus vaccine industry, then the powers that be will use everything in their arsenals to stop it.
And that’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re suppressing, censoring, debunking, discrediting, and ignoring the vast amounts of scientific proof that Ivermectin is more effective in treating Covid-19 than the “vaccines” are at preventing it, all the while gaslighting everyone into thinking that vaccines are the only solution.
But it’s bigger than just a money play by Big Pharma. That’s barely more than a cover story. The real agenda is one we cannot fully see yet because only bits and pieces have been revealed. Sure, we know the World Economic Forum and their allies are promoting The Great Reset as a way to “Build Back Better” and usher in their collectivist utopia in which everyone other than the elite are equally miserable. We know it’s all tied into climate change, “stakeholder capitalism,” Neo-Marxism, permanent lockdowns, ubiquitous dependency on government, and absolute wokeness, but the full agenda is much bigger than that. In fact, it may be Biblical in nature; we may be seeing the foundation of the world described in the Book of Revelation being laid right before our eyes.
Lest we forget, one of the requirements of the Emergency Use Authorization that makes distribution of the vaccines legal without FDA approval is that there cannot be a readily available and sufficiently effective treatment already on the market. This more than anything else is why Ivermectin and other drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine have been so vehemently opposed and utterly suppressed. If they’re proven to be effective, the vaccine train comes to a screeching halt before the Powers and Principalities achieve their goals.
In reality, Ivermectin has been proven to be effective through multiple studies already. There are still many that are ongoing. Thousands of doctors have prescribed it for Covid-19, yet the government is still illegally pushing the vaccines and will continue to do so until one of two things happen. The best case scenario is that word spreads about the need for the people to rise up and demand the government acknowledge the efficacy of Ivermectin. That’s unlikely, but we’re still going to keep trying. The only other way they’ll stop is if nearly every man, woman, and child in America and across the globe is vaccinated.
If Ivermectin suppression were the only piece of evidence, it would be enough for us to question the motives of those who keep it in the dark while shining their bright spotlight on the vaccines. But we have further indications that there is true evil driving all of this. Arguably the best example has been the awkward yet effective push to get everyone vaccinated regardless of their status.
If their motives were purely for the sake of protecting the people, they would not have ignored the millions of adverse reactions to the vaccines being reported worldwide. They would not be quashing discussions about heart inflammationthat should be the biggest story in the world right now. They would not push for children who have a minuscule chance of dying from Covid-19 to get experimental injections, nor would they make the unprecedented decree that those with natural immunity should still get vaccinated.
We’re being played like fiddles and it seems like a majority of Americans are finding the tune catchy enough to shut down their internal klaxons. Wake up, become aware, and make others aware.
Dr. Joseph Mercola put together an excellent case for the efficacy of Ivermectin. We have permission to publish it here in its entirety. It’s important that both messages remain attached. First, Ivermectin works. Second, we must make as many people aware of this fact as possible.
The Tablet That Cracked COVID
- Ivermectin, a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity, has shown remarkable success in preventing and treating COVID-19
- The drug is available over-the-counter in some countries, such as France, and 3.7 billion doses have been administered in the last 40 years, with serious side effects extremely rare
- Expert physicians have called on the NIH, CDC and FDA to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover
- Legal fights have ensued, with family members enlisting lawyers to battle hospital boards in order to give their dying loved ones the lifesaving pills — even when all other treatment options have been exhausted
- Despite the undisputable data showing ivermectin works for COVID-19, it continues to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination
There’s a medication that has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%.1 The icing on the cake? It’s also safe, inexpensive and widely available, with decades of clinical usage suggesting it has a “high margin of safety.”2 The drug is ivermectin — a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity.
There’s a good chance, however, that you probably haven’t heard about it. And, if you or a loved one had COVID-19, there’s also a high probability that you didn’t receive this potentially life-saving treatment, even though doctors have been begging health agencies to make it part of official COVID-19 treatment guidelines since nearly the start of the pandemic.
One professor and doctor, Hector Carvallo, who has found his science documenting ivermectin’s effectiveness for COVID-19 “quickly scrubbed from the internet,” wrote to colleagues, “I am afraid we have affected the most sensitive organ on humans: the wallet.”3
In June 2021, we’re at the point when the data on ivermectin are really undebatable. It’s a safe, existing option to treat COVID-19, and an alternative to vaccination, but if it were to become mainstream, it would make the COVID-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization disappear because, with a readily available treatment, there’s no need for mass, emergency vaccination.
Critical Care Physicians Developed COVID Treatment Early On
Early on in the pandemic, five critical care physicians formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC), which developed a highly effective COVID-19 treatment protocol known as MATH+.
One of those physicians, Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, is renowned for his work in creating the “Marik Cocktail,” which significantly reduces death rates from sepsis using inexpensive, safe, generic medications.4
Not content to offer COVID-19 patients “supportive care,” which he describes as “no care at all,” he recruited some of the most knowledgeable pulmonary critical care specialists to solve the COVID-19 treatment puzzle, homing in on stopping the hyper-immune response — including multiorgan inflammation and clotting — which is what typically drives death in fatal COVID-19 cases.5
Marik told Mountain Home magazine, “As pulmonary critical care doctors we know how to treat inflammation and clotting, with corticosteroids and anticoagulants. It’s first-grade science.”6 The result was the MATH+ protocol for hospitalized COVID-19 patients mentioned earlier, which gets its name from:
- Intravenous Methylprednisolone
- High-dose intravenous Ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
- Plus optional treatments Thiamine, zinc and vitamin D
- Full dose low molecular weight Heparin
The MATH+ protocol led to high survival rates. Out of more than 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with the MATH+ protocol as of mid-April 2020, only two died. Both were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions.7
After several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+8 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,9 due to the addition of ivermectin.
Ivermectin ‘Miracle Drug’ Silenced
In December 2020, FLCCC called for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.10,11 In one trial, 58 volunteers took 12 milligrams of ivermectin once per month for four months.
Only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period. In comparison, 44 of 60 health care workers (73.3%) who had declined the medication were diagnosed with COVID-19.12 Mountain Home reported:13
“‘If you were to say, tell me the characteristics of a perfect drug to treat COVID-19, what would you ask for?’ he [Marik] said. ‘I think you would ask firstly for something that’s safe, that’s cheap, that’s readily available, and has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties.
People would say, ‘That’s ridiculous. There could not possibly be a drug that has all of those characteristics. That’s just unreasonable. But we do have such a drug. The drug is called Ivermectin.’
If it was universally distributed at a dose that costs ten American cents in India and about the cost of a Big Mac in the United States, he said, Ivermectin would save countless lives, crush variants, eliminate the need for endless big pharma booster shots, and end the pandemic all over the world.”
In June 2020, a study also found ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, with a single treatment leading to a 5,000-fold reduction in virus after 48 hours.14 What’s more, the drug is available over-the-counter in some countries, such as France, and 3.7 billion doses have been administered in the last 40 years, with serious side effects extremely rare.15
Dr. Pierre Kory, Marik’s protégé, and a part of the group that formed FLCCC, set out to get the word out to save lives, but his calls for widespread adoption of this “miracle” drug fell on deaf ears.
Senate Committee Ignores Data on Ivermectin
December 8, 2020, Kory testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution.” He called on the NIH, CDC and FDA to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover:16,17
“‘We have a solution to this crisis,’ he said. ‘There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact,’ Kory said. ‘When I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly. And I don’t want to be sensationalized when I say that.
It’s a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months … from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of Ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick.’”
Despite his impassioned pleas and astonishing science to back them up, the treatment was not only ignored by the committee but promptly eviscerated. Mountain Home reported:18
“The hearing was dead before it started … The hearing was boycotted by all seven Democrats (who have received a total of $1.3 million in big pharma bucks from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Gilead, and others), and four of the seven Republicans, including Utah’s Mitt Romney (more than $3 million received from big pharma), Ohio’s Rob Portman ($542,400), and Florida’s Rick Scott (more than $1 million in stock in Gilead Sciences, maker of Remdesivir).”
Meanwhile, media reports claimed ivermectin was unproven and the World Health Organization also refused to endorse it. YouTube removed Kory’s testimony, which had nearly 9 million views, calling it a danger to the community.19 Still, the data surrounding ivermectin speaks for itself.
Ivermectin’s Impressive Data — and Legal Fights Over its Use
A scientific review by Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University, funded by the WHO and UNITAID and published January 18, 2021, found ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. It also increased viral clearance. This finding was based on a review of six randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 1,255 patients.20
Kory, Marik and colleagues also published their review based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19, which found “large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.” They continued:21
“Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”
While an increasing number of doctors and countries have adopted ivermectin’s use for COVID-19, many more refuse it, even going so far as to prohibit its use for patients. Legal fights have ensued, with family members enlisting lawyers to battle hospital boards in order to give their dying loved ones the lifesaving pills — even when all other treatment options have been exhausted.22
‘It’s Really Almost Totalitarian’
In mid-January 2021, the NIH finally revised its guidelines on ivermectin, in large part due to the data presented by Kory and others. However, while the NIH no longer warns against its use, they also do not outright recommend it, and they did not grant ivermectin emergency use authorization. The FDA continues to warn against the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.23
As a result, many patients in the U.S. still struggle to access the drug, as many doctors are unwilling to prescribe it off-label against health officials’ recommendations. The reality remains that inexpensive, generic pills like ivermectin are not the ones that Big Pharma intends to become the COVID-19 savior. As Kory told Mountain Home:24
“‘Only big randomized controlled trials by big pharma/big academic medical centers are accepted by big journals, while others are rejected,’ while only studies in big journals are accepted by big public health agencies for drug recommendations, and only drugs recommended by big public health agencies ‘escape media/social media censorship.’
‘This leaves you with a system where the only thing that’s considered to have sufficient evidence or proven efficacy is essentially a big new pharmaceutical drug … If it doesn’t come from the mountaintop, it doesn’t exist … The people on the ground, we cannot do any more science that’s considered credible.
We’re discredited as controversial and as promoting unproven therapies and our Facebook groups are shut down, Twitter accounts are locked, YouTube videos are removed and demonetized. It’s really almost totalitarian what’s happening when we’re just well-meaning scientists trying to do the right thing by our patients.’”
FLCCC has published its COVID-19 treatment protocols on its website and has answers to many frequently asked questions, including how to get ivermectin.25 FLCCC remains hopeful that ivermectin will be formally adopted into national or international COVID-19 treatment guidelines in the near future.
They also receive many questions from people wondering about COVID-19 vaccines, their safety and whether or not to get vaccinated. While FLCCC does not take a position for or against them, they state, “We can only say that, for those who cannot be vaccinated, ivermectin is an equally effective measure.”26
- 1 Collective Evolution April 13, 2021
- 2 J Drugs Dermatol. 2016 Mar;15(3):325-32
- 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24 Mountain Home May 1, 2021
- 7 Dr. Pierre Kory Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
- 8 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol
- 9 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol
- 10 FLCCC December 8, 2020
- 11 Medpage Today January 6, 2021
- 12 European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2020; 2(6)
- 14 Antiviral Research June 2020, Volume 178, 104787
- 16 FLCCC Alliance, Ivermectin & COVID-19
- 20 Research Square (PDF Full Text) January 18, 2021
- 21 American Journal of Therapeutics May/June 2021, Volume 28, Issue 3
- 23 FDA, Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
- 25 FLCCC, How to Get Ivermectin
- 26 FLCCC, FAQ on Ivermectin
The slow and steady reopening of America is revealing there was a lot more economic hardship brought about from the Covd-19 lockdowns than most realize.
Why Was News of India’s Success With Ivermectin Suppressed?
The April 2021 COVID surge in India is an interesting microcosm of what went wrong in this pandemic—and what went right.
As cases and deaths began to mount exponentially, a new wave of terrifying headlines and images also began to ripple across the West, accompanied by footage reminiscent of those first videos out of Wuhan and Iran in the early days of the pandemic.
A BBC report from outside of a hospital in Delhi was nothing short of gut-wrenching. Sick people on stretchers outside of the hospital, drawing their last labored breaths before a doctor or nurse could even see them. Frantic and traumatized family members begging for someone to come see their mother, their father, their sister, their brother. No one was coming. The people outside on the stretchers slipped quietly away into eternity.
That’s how it is with this virus. In most cases, it’s like a head cold or a bad case of the flu. But in some cases, if not properly treated, what seems like a banal infection rapidly spirals into a nightmare. Given the infectivity of the virus, it can spread faster than we can respond to it. And for India, this became the case at a national level. For much of the pandemic, COVID was so mild there relative to other countries that scientists were trying to figure out why they were doing so well.
Then came the April elections, which in India are carried out in phases rather than all in one go. There were huge rallies with politicians where hundreds of thousands of people gathered, a near perfect storm for the highly infectious Delta variant. India soon became the new global hotspot for COVID. The media maelstrom fed fears that a new wave would soon arrive in the West.
But seemingly overnight, stories about India’s COVID surge disappeared from Western media. Why?
I think it was because India was too good of a case study in how the virus can be defeated without experimental gene therapy vaccines. All it takes is a cheap, safe, widely used drug called Ivermectin.
In the late 1960s, a Japanese microbiologist, Satoshi Ōmura, took a soil sample from a golf course near Tokyo, and the rest is, as they say, history. From this soil sample a new strain of bacteria was cultured, S. avermictilis, which was shown to have a remarkable effect on worms and other parasites. It quickly became a top-selling veterinary drug. In 1987, it was approved for human usage to treat the devastating tropical disease onchocerciasis (river blindness), a disease caused by worms and transmitted by flies which results in blindness if left untreated. Since then, more than 3.7 billion doses have been distributed globally, thanks in no small part to the tireless work of former President Jimmy Carter.
Over time its usage has expanded to treating other parasitic ailments, including head lice and scabies. Its safety profile is remarkable. It is so safe that it can be handed out to illiterate people in remote communities in the developing world with little instruction aside from “swallow this pill.”
In 2015, Ōmura and his partner William Campbell were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their discovery of Ivermectin and its anti-parasitic properties. In 2012, Dr. Kylie Wagstaff discovered that Ivermectin also possessed antiviral properties. Early in the pandemic, Wagstaff and a team of researchers at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia conducted cell culture experiments to see if Ivermectin might be a useful therapy in the war on COVID. Their findings blew away all expectations.
Ivermectin halted the replication of the virus and completely eradicated it from the cell culture in under 48 hours. Their findings were released on April 3, 2020. Since then the findings have been replicated in over 60 trials and natural experiments, including 31 randomized control trials. Most of the suffering could have been avoided, but the bureaucrats who run our public health establishments condemned hundreds of thousands of Americans to death.
India’s surge was over in a matter of weeks. India’s doctors and public health authorities responded much more effectively and intelligently than our own. India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare revised its guidelines on April 28 to include a recommendation that asymptomatic and mild cases be treated with Ivermectin. Along with the government, the Indian Council of Medical Research and AIIMS, Delhi (India’s premier medical college and hospital), and many state government and health authorities also bucked World Health Organization recommendations and urged the use of Ivermectin. Since then, case counts have declined in Delhi by 99 percent, in Uttar Pradesh by 98 percent, in Uttarakhand by 97 percent, and in Goa by 90 percent.
Why would this information be suppressed by our media outlets? Well, under the FDA’s rules, an emergency use authorization (EUA) like the ones given for the three main experimental gene therapy vaccines can only remain in force so long as there is not a superior alternative therapy available. When you consider that the absolute risk reduction from taking Ivermectin as a COVID prophylaxis is far superior to that of the products from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, the justification for administering these experimental treatments disappears.
Billions of dollars are at stake, not just for the mRNA injections, but for efforts to develop new antiviral drugs, ones that can be patented and sold at a significant markup. Who would want to risk a heart attack when you could take a safe and effective pill once a week? Follow the money.
COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola - 16. June 2021
In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein Ph.D., interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin, which has been shown to be very useful against this infection.
It's no small irony then that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering all they do is discuss published research. Not to mention, they're both credentialed medical science experts.
Kory, a lung and ICU specialist and former professor of medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the president and chief medical officer1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Another founding member of FLCCC is Dr. Paul Marik2 who, as noted by Kory, is the most-published intensive care specialist who is still practicing medicine and seeing patients.
Marik, known for having created an effective sepsis treatment protocol, was asked by a group of peers early on in the pandemic to help create a treatment protocol for COVID-19. The resulting collaboration led to the creation of the FLCCC. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illnesses for decades and, as Weinstein says, they are "unimpeachable. You couldn't ask for better credentials. You couldn't ask for a better publication record."
Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as "kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims," Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.
"I was actually invited to give Senate testimony back in May  where I testified that it was critical to use corticosteroids; that lives are being lost [because we weren't using it]," Kory says.
"As you might know, I got killed for that. We got killed for that. We were totally criticized for not having an evidence-base. [Yet] our reading of the evidence was that you had to use it. So that basically that's how we came together, and that was the first components of our protocol."
Ivermectin Suitable for All Treatment Stages
The FLCCC's COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+3 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,4 due to the addition of ivermectin.
The two protocols — I-MASK+5 and I-MATH+6 — are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine7 in mid-December 2020.
Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19.8,9 As noted by the FLCCC:10
"The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy."
Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202011 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.12
A Disease of Phases
As noted by Kory, they rather quickly realized that COVID-19 was a disease with very specific phases, and that successful treatment depended on the phase the patient was currently in. It starts out as a general viral syndrome, much like a cold or flu. Most patients recover without incidence. However, in a subset of patients, things take a turn for the worse after Day 5. Their oxygen level starts dropping and lung inflammation sets in.
"We now know that it's a cell called a macrophage that gets activated and attacks the lungs," Kory explains. "So, you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail … So, it's predominantly a severe lung disease …
We knew relatively early on that by the time they get to the ICU … there's not a lot of viral replication going on. In fact, you can't culture a virus after about Day 7 or 8. So, it's actually a disease of inflammation, not viral invasion …
So, you didn't have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation … What we think triggers [the] inflammation is actually the viral debris. It's the RNA that triggers this massive response. It's not the virus. It's actually the debris of the dead virus that does it."
Kory notes that after having treated the first handful of patients, he realized that anticoagulants, blood thinners, were needed, as there was abnormal blood clotting going on in all of them. Yet for some reason the medical community was, again, told not to do it because there were no clinical trials supporting the use of anticoagulants for a viral illness.
"It was bizarre," Kory says. "They were like, you can't observe, you can't make clinical reasoning, you can't deduce, you need a trial before you do [anything] … Everyone talks about evidence-based. I'm like, what about experience-based medicine? I've been doing this for 30 years. Why can't I do what my experience tells me to do? …
You couldn't actually doctor. I felt like I was being handcuffed. I I've never seen that in my life before … I have the sense that doctors have been forcibly demoted from the position of scientific clinician to technician …
I've never been asked before to get advice from … desk jockeys. I mean, they're not on the front lines … I've never been asked to do that before. I've always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient. That's the oath I took …
Instead we're in this situation where if we open our mouth and say the wrong word, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we've said. It's insane. It's limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches."
Overwhelming Evidence for Ivermectin
Kory spends a significant portion of the 2 1/2-hour interview reviewing the evidence for using ivermectin. This drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic. It's been credited with virtually eradicating onchocerciasis (river blindness), a condition caused by a parasitic worm. The drug was originally made from a soil organism found in Japan. However, as early as 2012, researchers started looking at ivermectin's antiviral properties.
In April 2020, an Australian group showed ivermectin eradicated all viruses studied in as little as 48 hours, at least in the petri dish. Due to the state of emergency the world was in, some countries, including Peru, decided to recommend ivermectin to their population. It was well-known that the medication was safe, so the risk of doing so was very low.
As was the trend, Peruvian officials were roundly criticized for using an "unproven" remedy, and shortly thereafter, they removed it from the national guidelines. Some states continued to give it out, however, and according to Kory, each ivermectin campaign resulted in a precipitous decline in cases and deaths.
Marik was the first in the group to really take notice of the remarkable consistency in the studies using ivermectin. Kory dove into the research right behind him, and came to the conclusion that there indeed was something special about this drug. The population-based evidence was also very strong.
With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you're condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
"When I posted our preprint November 13 , I literally thought the pandemic was over," Kory says. "We showed the basic science level. We showed multiple clinical trials. We showed the epidemiologic effects.
Everything was there to show that this is an intervention on the par of vaccines that could literally extinguish the pandemic, and quickly. I thought at the beginning that it was as simple as putting the evidence out there … and what happened? Crickets! Nothing happened …
I cannot believe that this is occurring. Literally, people are dying because they don't know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I've never studied a medicine which has more evidence than this …
You have dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians from oftentimes low and middle income countries around the world. And there's no conflicts of interest. None of them is going to make a million dollars by finding out that ivermectin works in COVID. None of them have a conflict of interest."
For example, studies have shown ivermectin:13
• Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses — In "COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope," I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.
An observational study14 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication
• Inhibits inflammation through several pathways
• Lowers viral load
• Protects against organ damage
• Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients — The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75%.15 A WHO-sponsored review16 suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%
Ivermectin Has Been Intentionally Suppressed
As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It's simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don't they want to save lives? Isn't that why we shut down the world?
"I would have these data arguments," Kory says. "But it's not about the data. There's something else. There's [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and its egregious."
Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it's not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You're not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.
Mexico's Experience With Ivermectin
Another population-based experiment that demonstrates ivermectin's real-world usefulness occurred in Mexico. Kory explains:
"Mexico did something which I think is the model for the world. I think, on a public health level, it's what every country in the world should adopt, at a minimum. They [had a] clinicians committee.
They actually got expert clinicians [and] they gave them a seat at the table at the public health level. It's called IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. That's the agency which controls a good portion of their healthcare infrastructure, mostly outpatient, I think …
In December, hospitals were filling. It was a crisis almost like in India. They decided to deploy ivermectin using a test and treat strategy. Basically, anyone who appeared at the testing booths, if you tested positive, you were given ivermectin at a reasonably low dose … 12 milligrams … and only two days' worth. They got four pills [at 3 mg each].
And when they did that, you saw across Mexico this precipitous decline in deaths and hospitalizations. And, if you look a few months later, right now — and this is publicly available data — look at the occupancy of beds in hospitals in Mexico, throughout the entire country, we're talking about 25% to 30% occupancy.
There's nobody in the hospitals in Mexico. They've basically decimated COVID in that country by using a test and treat strategy … Those were real public health leaders. They made a risk-benefit decision. They used their clinical judgment and expertise to have the right people at the table."
As noted by Kory, the IMSS was attacked by the federal health minister, but they fought back, and laid out the evidence supporting their decision. This included studies showing a 50% to 75% reduction in hospitalizations using just that four-pill regimen.
As for the FLCCC, they recommend dosages between 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg per kilogram when taken at first signs of mild symptoms. For mild disease, they recommend continuing the drug for five days. For moderate disease, of if you start taking it late, they recommend continuing until you're recovered.
The in-hospital protocol involves higher doses. Keep in mind, however, that the FLCCC protocols include several other remedies, not just ivermectin, so be sure to review the latest guidance.17,18
Some regions in India have also used ivermectin. Kory believes the minister of Goa made some of the boldest moves in the world with regard to ivermectin, recommending all adults over the age of 18 to take ivermectin for five days, as a preventive. Uttar Pradesh also gave it out, while other states, such as Tamil Nadu, outlawed it. Here too, population-based data suggest ivermectin is tightly correlated with a decline in hospitalizations and deaths.
Where You Can Learn More
While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not among my primary recommendations. In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.
What's more, although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it can still have side effects. Vitamin D, on the other hand, is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.
As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment,19,20 which is inexpensive, highly effective and completely harmless when you're using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.
All of that said, ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it's good to know they exist and work well. On the whole, there's really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19. If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:
• April 24 through 25, 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,21 hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online.22
Twelve medical experts23 from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org24
• An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website25
• A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology26
• The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use27
• A listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com28
As noted by Lawrie during her closing address at the 2021 International Ivermectin for COVID Conference:29
"The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.
The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.
Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end …
With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.
At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?
The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID."
Sources and References
- 1, 2 FLCCC Alliance
- 3, 5, 17 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol
- 4, 6, 18 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol
- 7 Journal of Intensive Care Medicine December 15, 2020 DOI: 10.1177/0885066620973585
- 8, 11 FLCCC December 8, 2020
- 9 Medpage Today January 6, 2021
- 10 Newswise December 8, 2020
- 12, 15 FLCCC January 7, 2021 Press Release (PDF)
- 13, 25 FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)
- 14 European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2020; 2(6)
- 16 Swiss Policy Research December 31, 2020
- 19 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law July 2020; 2: 4-22 (PDF)
- 20 A Holistic Approach to Viruses by Dr. Brownstein
- 21 Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.
- 22 Ivermectin for COVID Conference
- 23 Ivermectin for COVID Conference Speakers List
- 24 Bird-group.org Conference videos
- 26 Frontiers of Pharmacology 2020 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643369
- 27 FLCCC FAQ on Ivermectin
- 28 c19Ivermectin.com
- 29 The Desert Review May 6, 2021
COVID-19 PREVENTION PROTOCOL
Prevention for high risk individuals
lvermectin with 0.2 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) — one dose today, repeat after 48 hours, then one dose weekly.
Ivermectin is often sold as 3mg, 6mg and 12mg tablets - so a 75kg adult requires a dose of 15mg = one 3mg and one 12mg tablet (where you can buy them one by one).
Post COVID-19 exposure prevention lvermectin 0.2 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) — one dose today, repeat after 48 hours
Vitamin D3 with 1,000–3,000 IU/day
Vitamin C with 500–1,000 mg twice a day
Quercetin with 250 mg/day
Zinc with 30–40 mg/day
Melatonin with 6 mg before bedtime (causes drowsiness)
EARLY OUTPATIENT PROTOCOL
lvermectin with 0.2–0.4 mg/kg per dose (take with or after meals) — one dose daily, take for 5 days or until recovered*
Use upper dose range if:
1) in regions with more aggressive variants;
2) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or
3) multiple comorbidities/risk factors.
Add Fluvoxamine with 50 mg twice daily for 10–14 days to ivermectin if:
1) minimal response after 2 days of ivermectin;
2) in regions with more aggressive variants;
3) treatment started on or after day 5 of symptoms or in pulmonary phase; or
4) numerous comorbidities/risk factors. Avoid if patient is already on an SSRI.
Nasopharyngeal Sanitation: Steamed essential oil inhalation 3 times a day (i.e. vapo-rub) and/or chlorhexidine/benzydamine mouthwash gargles and Betadine nasal spray 2–3 times a day
Vitamin D3 with 4,000 IU/day Vitamin C with 500–1,000 mg twice a day Quercetin 250 mg twice a day Zinc 100 mg/day Melatonin 10 mg before bedtime (causes drowsiness) Aspirin 25 mg/day (unless contraindicated)
Pulse OximeterMonitoring of oxygen saturation is recommended (for instructions please see page 2 of this file)*
The dosing may be updated as further scientific studies emerge.1
The safety of ivermectin in pregnancy has not been established. A discussion of benefits vs. risks with your provider is required prior to use, particularly in the 1st trimester.2
To use if a household member is COVID-19 positive, or you have prolonged exposure to a COVID-19 positive patient without wearing a mask.
For late phase — hospitalized patients — see the FLCCC’s MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 on www.flccc.net
For optional medicines and an overview of the developments in prevention and treatment of COVID-19, please visit www.flccc.net/optional-medicines.
Current I-MASK+ protocol: version 10, updated on April 26, 2021.
Breakthrough: Ivermectin inhibits the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from binding to ACE2 receptors in human tissue
By: Lance D Johnson - 09. June 2021
Ivermectin, a common anti-parasite drug, has shown great efficacy in the fight against covid-19. For the first time, medical researchers have documented how ivermectin docks to the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain that is attached to the ACE2 receptor. In this way, ivermectin effectively inhibits viral attachment and replication, assisting a precise antiviral response that can target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at its most advantageous cleavage site. The researchers showed how ivermectin interferes with the attachment of the spike protein to the human cell membrane.
Ivermectin is a simple medicine derived from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. It weakens and kills parasites by interfering with their nervous system and muscle function. Ivermectin targets the glutamate-gated chloride channels in the parasite’s nerve and muscle cells, bolstering inhibitory effects in the parasite’s own neurotransmission. As the chloride ions permeate, the parasite’s cells are hyper-polarized and then paralyzed, resulting in their demise.
In this study, ivermectin docked in region of leucine 91 of the spike protein and at the histidine 378 of the ACE2 receptor. The binding energy and constancy of ivermectin was also measured and found to be sufficient at the ACE2 receptor, proving the anti-parasitic molecule a powerful force for blocking viral attachment of SARS-CoV-2.
Ivermectin blocks SARS CoV-2 at the ACE2 receptor in humans
The 17 randomized controlled trials that use ivermectin for early treatment and prophylaxisreport positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73 percent and 83 percent, respectively. Out of 37 early treatment and prophylaxis studies for ivermectin, 97 percent report positive effects. One of the studies documents how ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and displays broad-spectrum anti-viral activity against the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2). This study showed a 5,000-fold reduction in viral RNA after just 48 hours.
The study also proves that effective treatments and prophylactics can mitigate the replication and spread of a virus thousands of times faster than the paranoid, isolationist approach of social distancing and lockdowns. If antivirals were encouraged early and often, then the spread of actual infectious virus would have been mitigated at rates thousands of times faster than the insane method of treating everyone as if they are infectious. By treating actual infections where symptoms are present, the spread is reduced at magnitudes thousands of times greater, while conveying immunity instead of terror.
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is designed to attach to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in humans. To see whether ivermectin could dock at this receptor site and block viral attachment, the researchers used a program called AutoDock Vina Extended. This docking study showed the crystal structure of the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain. The researchers looked specifically at the human ACE2 receptor and calculated the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of its atomic positions. A lower RMSD value indicates a more accurate docking capacity. When the RMSD value is three or greater, no docking has occurred at the receptor site. Ivermectin did not dock at nine of the locations; however, it did dock at the leucine 91 region of the spike and histidine 378 at the intersection of proteins between SARS CoV-2 and the ACE2 receptor complex.
Previous studies proved ivermectin’s efficacy, but had to use high concentrations of the drug because the study relied on African green monkey kidney epithelial cells, which do not express the human ACE2 receptor. SARS-CoV-2 is specifically equipped to infect human ACE2 receptors, so this study could prove ivermectin to be effective in much smaller dosages. Clinical trials are now underway to determine if ivermectin is an effective treatment for covid-19.
The global conspiracy to suppress effective anti-viral medicines
The World Health Organization, the FDA, and the NIH have repeatedly suggested that no antiviral treatments exist for covid-19, even though multiple antiviral herbs and drugs have been studied during previous SARS and MERS epidemics and found to be effective. This time around, many of these antivirals were used with great effectiveness by doctors who were willing to go out on a limb and save lives.
Chinese hospitals used various antiviral herbs to treat covid-19 patients. These hospitals studied the effects of the herbs for impeding virus-cell receptor binding, for stimulation of the host’s immunity, for blocking virus entry into host cells through action on the host’s enzymes, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 RNA synthesis and replication. The research found numerous phytochemicals to be effective, including: quercetin, ursolic acid, kaempferol, isorhamnetin, luteolin, glycerrhizin, and apigenin. The top three most effective plants for treating covid-19 included licorice root, (Glycyrrhiza glabra) chicory root, (Cichorium intybus) and hibiscus flowers (Hibiscus sabdariffa). A number of antiviral plants contain compounds that target all three antiviral targets, including olive leaf (Olea europaea), white horehound (Marrubium vulgare), black cumin seed (Nigella sativa), garden cress (Lepidium sativum), Judean wormwood (Artemisia Judaica), guava (Psidium guajava), chrysanthemum (Glebionis coronaria), and Maryam’s flower (Anastatica).
Medical systems around the world are not properly equipped to strengthen the human immune response or understand what individuals need to overcome an infection. When it comes to fighting infections, the US FDA and European drug regulators parrot the same narrative of ignorance and apathy, withholding viable antivirals from the public. By the way, this is the only legal way to bring experimental vaccines to the global marketplace, by proving that no effective treatments exist. This suppression of science on antiviral treatments has paved the way for emergency use authorization of experimental vaccines and forced countless patients to suffer (and die) on ventilators, without treatment.
Ivermectin: WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence
By Colin Todhunter — 03. June 2021
On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for “her act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”
The Mumbai-based IBA is an association of lawyers who strive to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian justice system. It is actively involved in the dissemination of legal knowledge and provides guidance and support to advocates and ordinary people in their fight for justice.
The legal notice says Dr Swaminathan has been:
“Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists,”
“Issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.”
The IBA states that legal action is being taken against Dr Swaminathan in order to stop her from causing further damage to the lives of citizens of India.
The notice is based on the research and clinical trials carried out by the ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. These organisations have presented an enormous amount of data that strengthen the case for recommending Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
The IBA says that Dr Swaminathan has ignored these studies and reports and has deliberately suppressed the data regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin, with an intent to dissuade the people of India from using it.
However, two key medical bodies, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, have refused to accept her stand and have retained the recommendation for Ivermectin, under a ‘May Do’ category, for patients with mild symptoms and those in home isolation, as stated in ‘The National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.
It is interesting to note that the content of several web links to news articles and reports included in the notice served upon Dr Swaminathan, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted.
It seems that the vaccine manufacturers and many governments are desperate to protect their pro-vaccine agenda and will attempt to censor information and news regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin.
The legal notice can be read in full on the website of the India Bar Association.
Colin Todhunter is an independent writer specialising in Development, food and agriculture
New York best-selling author, Michael Capuzzo, recently wrote a comprehensive article entitled:
“The Drug That Cracked COVID”
It is the story of Capuzzo’s mother’s road to recovery and it says it all. She was on death’s door and the hospitals refused to treat her with Ivermectin. Capuzzo’s family, desperate to save Judy (Capuzzo’s 80-y-o mum) took the fight to the courts and won. But the hospital refused to comply with the court order. However, in her final hours, the family finally managed to get Judy treated with Ivermectin — allowing her to make a miraculous recovery.
Much of Capuzzo’s article focuses on Dr Paul Marik, Meduri, Varon, Iglesias, and Kory —(four brilliant immigrants from South Africa, Italy, Mexico, Cuba, and one brash New Yorker). Marik, the legendary professor, with a South African accent is the second most published critical care doctor in the history of medicine, with more than 500 peer-reviewed papers and books, 43,000 scholarly citations of his work, and a research “H” rating higher than many Nobel Prize winners. I’m sure Youtube has deleted most of his videos for violating their community guidelines. They deleted Dr Kory’s US Senate committee appearance.
As Capuzzo writes,
“Marik is world-famous as the creator of the ‘Marik Cocktail,’ a revolutionary cocktail of cheap, safe, generic, FDA-approved drugs that dramatically reduces death
rates from sepsis by 20 to 50 percent anywhere in the world—
“Kory, Marik, et. al published the first comprehensive COVID-19 prevention and early treatment protocol (which they would eventually call I-MASK). It is centered around the drug Ivermectin, which President Trump used at Walter Reed hospital, unreported by the press, though it may well have saved the president’s life while he was instead touting new big pharma drugs.”
I had suspected Trump might have been given Ivermectin — but for all sorts of reasons, the word Ivermectin is VERBOTTEN. Gumshoe contributors wrote to the health minister in Victoria to no avail — as the government is reluctance to accept anything but a vaccine solution. Health officials favour the experimental jab (that failed in animal trials) over a drug that had been prescribed over 4 billion times — safely.
The Miracle Denied
There have now been 56 trials and statistics across the world that reveal the true effectiveness of the drug. But nothing appears in the mainstream (except on Sky News).
As Nick Corbishley, from Nakedcapitalism, quotes Capuuzzo as saying,
“I Don’t Know of a Bigger Story in the World” Right Now Than Ivermectin…
From here, I quote extracts from the article in Zerohedge (by Tyler Durden):
“The 15-page [Capuzzo’s] article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.
Because of Ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that Ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use.
For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets.
But unfortunately, most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.
That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor.
Total News Blackout
On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin.
A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence.And this is no surprise given how little information is actually seeping out into the public arena.
A news blackout by the world’s leading media came down on Ivermectin like an iron curtain. Reporters who trumpeted the COVID-19 terror in India and Brazil didn’t report that Ivermectin was crushing the P-1 variant in the Brazilian rain forest and killing COVID-19 and all variants in India. That Ivermectin was saving tens of thousands of lives in South America wasn’t news, but mocking the continent’s peasants for taking horse paste was. Journalists denied the world knowledge of the most effective life-saving therapies in the pandemic, Kory said, especially among the elderly, people of color, and the poor, while wringing their hands at the tragedy of their disparate rates of death.
Three days after Kory’s testimony, an Associated Press “fact-check reporter” interviewed Kory “for twenty minutes in which I recounted all of the existing trials evidence (over fifteen randomized and multiple observational trials) all showing dramatic benefits of Ivermectin,” he said. Then she wrote: “AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.” Like many critics, she didn’t explore the Ivermectin data or evidence in any detail, but merely dismissed its “insufficient evidence,” …
Not just in media but in social media, Ivermectin has inspired a strange new form of Western and pharmaceutical imperialism. On January 12, 2021, the Brazilian Ministry of Health tweeted to its 1.2 million followers not to wait with COVID-19 until it’s too late but “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment,” only to have Twitter take down the official public health pronouncement of the sovereign fifth largest nation in the world for “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” (Early treatment is code for Ivermectin.)
On January 31, the Slovak Ministry of Health announced its decision on Facebook to allow use of Ivermectin, causing Facebook to take down that post and removed the entire page it was on, the Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries.
“The Most Powerful Entity on Earth”
…Together social and traditional media have the power to make a medicine that has saved possibly millions of lives during the current pandemic disappear from the conversation. When it is covered, it’s almost always in a negative light. Some media organizations, including the NY Times, have even prefaced mention of the word “ivermectin” — a medicine that has done so much good over its 40-year lifespan that its creators were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 — with the word “controversial.”
Undeterred, many front-line doctors have tried to persuade their respective health regulators of the unparalleled efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a covid treatment. They include Dr. Tess Lawrie, a prominent independent medical researcher who, as Capuzzo reports, evaluates the safety and efficacy of drugs for the WHO and the National Health Service to set international clinical practice guidelines…
“[She] read all twenty-seven of the Ivermectin studies Kory cited. The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal,” she announced, and sent a rapid meta-analysis, an epidemiolocal statistical multi-study review considered the highest form of medical evidence, to the director of the NHS, members of parliament, and a video to Prime Minister Boris Johnson with “the good news… that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19…” and Ivermectin should immediately “be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”
Ivermectin Should Blanket the World
Ignored by British leaders and media, Lawrie convened the day-long streaming BIRD conference—British Ivermectin Recommendation Development—with more than sixty researchers and doctors from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, Belgium, Argentina, South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, Australia, and Japan. They evaluated the drug using the full “evidence-to-decision framework” that is “the gold standard tool for developing clinical practice guidelines” used by the WHO, and reached the conclusion that Ivermectin should blanket the world.
Ivermectin’s benefits were also corroborated by Dr. Andrew Hill, a renowned University of Liverpool pharmacologist and independent medical researcher, and the senior World Health Organization/UNITAID investigator of potential treatments for COVID-19. Hill’s team of twenty-three researchers in twenty-three countries had reported that, after nine months of looking for a COVID-19 treatment and finding nothing but failures like Remdesivir— “we kissed a lot of frogs”— Ivermectin was the only thing that worked against COVID-19, and its safety and efficacy were astonishing—“blindingly positive,” Hill said, and “transformative.” Ivermectin, the WHO researcher concluded, reduced COVID-19 mortality by 81 percent.
Why All the Foot Dragging?
Yet most health regulators and governments continue to drag their feet. More evidence is needed, they say. All the while, doctors in most countries around the world have no early outpatient medicines to draw upon in their struggle against the worst pandemic in century…
There are three possible explanations for health regulators’ refusal to allow the use of a highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine such as ivermectin:
As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma…
Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin. They include ivermectin’s original manufacturer, Merck, which has an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, in Phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19…
If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines. One of the basic conditions for the emergency use authorisation granted to the vaccines currently being used against covid is that there are no alternative treatments available for the disease…
…Ivermectin has already been approved as a covid-19 treatment in more than 20 countries. They include Mexico where the mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Scheinbaum, recently said that the medicine had reduced hospitalisations by as much as 76%. As of last week, 135,000 of the city’s residents had been treated with the medicine. The government of India — the world’s second most populous country and one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of medicines — has also recommended the use of ivermectin as an early outpatient treatment against covid-19, in direct contravention of WHO’s own advice.
Dr Vikas P. Sukhatme, the dean of Emory School of Medicine, recently wrote in a column for the Times of India that deploying drugs such as ivermectin and fluvoxamine in India is likely to “rapidly reduce the number of COVID-19 patients, reduce the number requiring hospitalization, supplemental oxygen and intensive care and improve outcomes in hospitalized patients.”
Four weeks after the government included ivermectin and budesonide among its early treatment guidelines, the country has recorded its lowest case count in 40 days.
In many of India’s regions the case numbers are plunging in almost vertical fashion. In the capital Delhi, as in Mexico City, hospitalisations have plummeted. In the space of 10 days ICU occupancy fell from 99% to 70%. Deaths are also falling. The test positivity ratio slumped from 35% to 5% in just one month.
One of the outliers of this trend is the state of Tamil Nadu, where cases are still rising steeply. This may have something to do with the fact that the state’s newly elected governor, MK Stalin, decided to exclude ivermectin from the region’s treatment protocol in favor of Remdesivir. The result? Soaring cases. Late last week, Stalin reversed course once again and readopted ivermectin.
For the moment deaths in India remain extremely high. And there are concerns that the numbers are being under-reported. Yet they may also begin to fall in the coming days. In all of the countries that have used ivermectin widely, fatalities are the last thing to fall, after case numbers and hospitalizations. Of course, there’s no way of definitively proving that these rapid falloffs are due to the use of ivermectin. Correlation, even as consistent as this, is not causation. Other factors such as strict lockdowns and travel restrictions no doubt also play a part.
But a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in three meta-analyses.
India’s decision to adopt ivermectin, including as a prophylaxis in some states, is already a potential game-changer. As I wrote three weeks ago, if case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities fall in India as precipitously as they have in other countries that have adopted ivermectin, it could even become a watershed moment. But for that to happen, the news must reach enough eyes and ears. And for that to happen, reporters must, as Capuzzo says, begin to do their job and report both sides of this vital story.
[End of Zerohedge article]
Surprisingly, I did find a YouTube video with Dr Marik.
AUSTRALIA FURTHER BEHID THE MOON THAN SOUTH-AFRICA
Ivermectin clinical trials
By Editor, cairnsnews - 27. May 2021
Letter to the Editor
The Ivermectin clinical trials, denied by our Government.
The US medical research group Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, cites 27 controlled trials involving a total of 6612 patients that “have been completed using well-matched control groups”; 16 trials involving over 2500 patients, “that are prospective, randomized, controlled studies”. Eleven of the 27 Ivermectin trials published in peer-reviewed journals involved 3900 patients. See the attached PDF file.
In Australia, leading medical professor Thomas Borody, who developed a globally successful therapy for peptic ulcer, announced a triple therapy off-label ivermectin-based treatment for COVID-19 in August 2020. His work was ignored by state and federal health authorities who simply continued to beat the vaccine drum.
His data shows ivermectin can not only prevent but knock out COVID infections within a few days.
OK, that’s good, but now:-
Read the text below, to find out how our Federal Health Department is “keeping Australians safe”
THE TEXT BELOW IS A TRANSCRIPT FROM THE .GOV WEBSITE AS AT 18th May, 2021
Find out how we are using evidence in our approach to COVID-19 treatments to keep Australians safe.
The Australian Government is closely monitoring worldwide research into COVID-19 treatments.
Ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc
There is currently insufficient evidence to support the safe and effective use of ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc (either separately, or in combination) for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. More robust, well-designed clinical trials are needed before they could be considered an appropriate treatment option.
The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, consisting of a large group of clinical experts, is continuously updating treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence. They have not made any recommendations for the use of ivermectin, doxycycline or zinc outside of properly conducted clinical trials with appropriate ethical approval.”
So our National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is looking for “more robust, well-designed clinical trials.” Well, here they are, in the public domain. Read the attached PDF file.
This information is sufficient evidence for action regarding the statement on their website that “The Australian Government is closely monitoring worldwide research into COVID-19 treatments.”
Well, here they are, https://ecoterra.info/index.php/en/2493-ivermectin-the-covid-19-antidote - all in the public domain.
Of course, the Taskforce do not say whether or not they will actually do anything with any new research!
Monitoring does not mean a change of outlook.
from David Blake
One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.
New York Times Best Selling Author Michael Capuzzo Issues a Plea to Fellow Journalists
May 21, 2021
New York Times best-selling author Michael Capuzzo calls upon his journalist colleagues to “open their minds to legitimate, unreported doctors and therapies and write about all sides of the Ivermectin story, like journalists always have. It is a historic opportunity. For the first time in the long journey from Gutenberg to Google, journalists may be the ones to save the world. Read Capuzzo's article in Mountain Home magazine the riveting, unbelievable story behind the story of why a family whose mother was dying of COVID, had to obtain a court-order to compel the hospital to give her a life-saving medicine. https://covid19criticalcare.com/video...
Coronavirus cases are plummeting in India thanks to new rules that promote Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to its massive population.
Of course, the WHO and pharmaceutical companies are having fits.
This is despite the fact that lives are being saved.
The COVID Blog reported:
India has received the baton for title of COVID Capitol of the World after China, Italy and the United States held it for much of last year.
The world second-most populace country after China had fewer than 138,000 total active COVID cases in early February 2021. That’s the lowest figure since January 2020. India active COVID cases sit around 3.6 million today, according to the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mainstream media are blaming the massive spike on a “scary, mutant variant” called B.1.617…
…The India health ministry updated its guidelines on April 28 for quarantines, treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The agency now says that asymptomatic patients should “consider Tab Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days.” Caregivers of patients in quarantine are instructed to “take Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.” See the full document here.
There are 292 studies (219 are peer-reviewed) proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as both a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Ivermectin has 93 studies (54 peer-reviewed) showing its effectiveness as treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Despite the now-indisputable fact that these drugs essentially kill COVID-19 within hours or days, the Bill Gates-funded World Health Organization (WHO) and big pharma are having fits over India’s new guidelines and the results.
And now the COVID cases are plummeting.
And the active cases in India are also plummeting.
Of course, this will not make any headlines.
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
“Had Ivermectin [been] employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives [would] have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss [would’ve been] brought to a rapid and timely end."
~ Dr. Tess Laurie
By Andrew Bannister* - 12. May 2021
What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts? What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalisation?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, “there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.” The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021.
This would present a major headache for the big public health agencies led by the WHO. The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal. The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021. In a pandemic, and for the next one, we need big pharma to react quickly, and the best way to that, is to reward them financially. Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily. On the 31st of March 2021, the WHO recommended against the use of Ivermectin for COVID treatment, citing safety and lack of large RCT proof.
The question of why the WHO would do this is difficult to answer, only if you ignore the importance of the legality of the EUA, and the time tested advice, of following the money. The WHO, a once noble organisation funded by the worlds countries, now receives less than 20% of its budget from member states. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second biggest sponsor after the USA. The GAVI Alliance, a private/public organisation promoting vaccines, was founded by Gates, and now pushing for vaccine passports, are the 4th biggest sponsor to WHO. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director-General, served on the GAVI board for several years. The WHO, in 2021 changed the definition of “herd immunity”, to occurring only when the global population has been vaccinated.
The WHO has either made serious mistakes in their analysis or deliberately undermined Ivermectin and other early treatment drugs, in favour of vaccinating the world. Obviously this is a huge windfall for vaccine manufacturers, with Pfizer set to receive over a trillion rand from vaccines over the next five years according to Morgan Stanley.
In January this year, the several months long, Ivermectin research, meta-analysis of Randomised Control Trials (RCT), commissioned by WHO was released. The paper showed that Ivermectin reduces death by 74% and is 85% effective as prophylaxis. The trial leader, Dr Andrew Hill, was on Zoom meetings saying that governments should secure their source before demand outstrips supply and that it would be immoral, not to roll it out. The same month, two other independent, unsponsored meta-analysis confirmed a similar range of effectiveness at various stages of the disease. While effective at all stages of the disease, Ivermectin is most effective as a prophylaxis and about 80% in early treatment, depending on dose used.
The WHO currently have no advice or recommendation’s for early treatment apart from recommending against self-medication. If you don’t heal in the first week, when symptoms are generally mild, by the time you have to go to the hospital with breathing problems, your chances of dying have increased significantly. The use of Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs, could prevent that. As its safer than paracetamol, it should be available over the counter. As is happening in Mexico City and some states in India, anyone testing positive or feeling sick should take it, and give it to those they are in close contact with. It may be possible, if you want to attend a large social event or travel in a plane, that you take a pill, four hours before, and you will have significant protection for a few days. Lockdowns could end.
Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder, donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries. 2015 the two individuals who developed Ivermectin were awarded a Nobel Prize for medicine. While known primarily as an anti-parasitic, Ivermectin has powerful anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal. Only 19 deaths are known and side-affects are generally mild and short. As a comparison, approximately 450 US citizens die from paracetamol every year.
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both. In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, “A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” of the a drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries. The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic. The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy. Global vaccine rollout, to everyone, is the policy.
The vaccine rollout is worth about $100bn in 2021, and there may well be annual updates to deal with new variants of COVID. The WHO answers to nobody but its’ funders. Less than 20% of its budget comes member states, the bulk coming from other sources. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest sponsor of the organisation. GAVI, a vaccine alliance, founded by Gates and WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus, served on its board prior to his current position, is the fifth largest contributor.
In March 2021, WHO said that Ivermectin was not recommend for the treatment of COVID outside of trials. They did this by ignoring their own months long, in-depth investigation by Dr Andrew Hill, that found Ivermectin was associated with 74% reduction in fatalities, and replaced it with a hastily done analysis that cherry picked from five, seven or sixteen trials (the report contradicts itself) but only cite 5 trails. The figures ,the WHO report supplies, show a reduction of death by 81%, but with a “very low certainty of evidence”. The WHO report didn’t even mention prophylaxis, where Ivermectin’s most effective, saying that fell outside its mandate. The WHO will not approve Ivermectin’s use, without it first proving itself in a large RCT. These trials cost millions and nobody, except those with a financial interest in vaccines, have offered to fund. The WHO are best placed to run large RCT’s on existing drugs, but haven’t done so with Ivermectin, despite it being over a year, since Ivermectin was proved to kill COVID in a lab. As only big pharma can afford the large RCT, the only drugs that go through the large RCT’s, are the new ones developed by big pharma, and become the only ones approved by WHO.
Almost every media house around the world has contributed to the marginalisation of Ivermectin. No mainstream journalists have investigated the evidence or questioned and debated scientists supporting it. It’s called an “animal drug” and dangerous. Ivermectin is seen as a repeat of hydroxychloroquine and not to be taken seriously. Belief in it, worthy only of derision.
On 10 December 2020, at the World Press Freedom Conference, an extension to the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was announced. Founded to prevent false information around elections, the TNI, whose members are leading media houses: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC, European broadcast Union, Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Twitter and Washington Post, were now extending that to vaccines. In a surprisingly underreported event, many of the world’s biggest media, agreed to promote the global vaccine rollout and focus on combatting the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation. While noble and well-intended, this has unfortunately led to a media silence on promising, early treatments that could significantly drop hospitalisations.
The March this year, New York Times broke a story, repeated around the world, reporting a trial that proved “Ivermectin had no effect”. The Lopez-Medina trial, published in JAMA, a leading medical journal, was held as the gold standard for Ivermectin RCT’s. In the trial, reminiscent of a “big tobacco” hit-job, vaccine manufactures paid the researchers (documented in the papers Conflicts Of Interests section). There are many faults in the trial. Among them, they accidentally gave Ivermectin to both arms of the trial and changed the trials primary outcome, mid-trial, three times. Normally, nobody would pay a trial any attention after these significant problems. As the trial was on a young heathy population, in an area with high Ivermectin use, freely available from the mayor during their first COVID wave, you were allowed on the trial if you hadn’t taken Ivermectin for 5 days, despite it’s effects being noticeable up to a month after a single dose. Surprisingly less than 3% of the participants had disease progression, against an expectation of 18%. The rare but specific Ivermectin side effect, blurred vision, was within 0,3% (11.3/11.6%) of both groups as were other side effects. The results were collected telephonically and no physical examination was done. From their result, with surprisingly few people having disease progression (some suggest that the trial inadvertently proves Ivermectin’s efficiency), it’s not possible to arrive at the conclusion that Ivermectin doesn’t work, which is what they did, and the media bought it.
Unless you know where to look, you will find hardly any positive information on Ivermectin. Social media makes it very difficult to say anything positive about it without the poster getting blocked from the platforms for lengthy periods. YouTube has made the promotion of Ivermectin, a violation of its policies. There is no public conversation in the media about it. It’s just ignored. Respectable medical journals are sitting with piles of Ivermectin papers on their desks that they refuse to publish without providing reason, despite at least one of them having passed peer review by two FDA reviewers. The book “Manufacturing of Consent” comes to mind where Chomsky and Herman look at how mass media serves the rich. It’s a David against Goliath fight, a cheap generic vs Big Pharma.
There are now 27 RCT’s, about 7 meta -analysis and many observational trials, that show Ivermectin works. There is very little evidence that it doesn’t work. The WHO were very sparse in detail and process, in their recommendation against its use. New research from the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), on a group of over 3500 health care workers, using two doses of Ivermectin as prophylactic, reduced cases among health care workers by 83% in the following month. Mexico City has for several months been using a test and treat with Ivermectin strategy. A research paper by Mexico City Health, claims that, depending on dosing, they have reduced hospitalisations by 56-73%. India in its current destructive wave, has just taken the example set by its two most successful states, and authorised the use of Ivermectin in early treatment. Doctors who use it, swear by it. As for more proof, the Gates/Together trial is ongoing, but given Gates’s large investments in vaccines, its results, already mistrusted. In Goa they have just authorised giving Ivermectin to everyone who tests, not waiting for a result. If Ivermectin works, it should soon be clearly seen unless the “Ivermectin is dangerous” group wins. We need more studies, especially on higher dosing, but we know it’s safe, so no need to wait.
Ultimately what this means, is that if Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs (like the promising anti-depressant Fluvoxamine), work for early treatment, you won’t have to use a vaccine, that’s still in trial, with unknown long-term safety or ability to treat future variants, and for which, the manufactures accept no liability.
In case you get sick, keep Ivermectin close by for early, household treatment, and you will prevent viral replication early and almost certainly, avoid hospital. You would have also built an immune response that will provide natural protection against future infections. Its wide-spread use, should dampen waves of disease, while vaccines can use this time to prove themselves, with long term safety and efficiency.
- Andrew Bannister says “I can provide proof for everything I have written” and was last published 30 years ago in the medical journal Lancet.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Peer reviewed by medical experts that included three U.S. government senior scientists and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the research is the most comprehensive review of the available data taken from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies. Led by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of medical and scientific experts reviewed published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts, expert meta-analyses, and epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution efforts all showing that ivermectin is an effective prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.
“We did the work that the medical authorities failed to do, we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on ivermectin,” said Pierre Kory, M.P.A., MD, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic.”
A focus of the manuscript was on the 27 controlled trials available in January 2021, 15 of which were randomized controlled trials (RCT’s), the preferred trial of the World Health Organization, U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the European Medicines Agency. Consistent with numerous meta-analyses of ivermectin RCT’s since published by expert panels from the UK, Italy, Spain, and Japan, they found large, statistically significant reduction in mortality, time to recovery and viral clearance in COVID-19 patients treated with ivermectin.
To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing COVID-19, 3 RCT’s and 5 observational controlled trial’s including almost 2,500 patients all reported that ivermectin significantly reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 when used regularly.
Many regions around the world now recognize that ivermectin is a powerful prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19. South Africa, Zimbabwe, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Mexico, and now, India, have approved the drug for use by medical professionals. The results as seen in this latest study demonstrate that the ivermectin distribution campaigns repeatedly led to “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality.”
“Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”
The published research can be found in the latest edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics: https:/
Doctors can now prescribe ivermectin as treatment for Covid-19 in SA
By Zelda Venter - 07. April 2021
Pretoria - The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, finally issued an order yesterday allowing for medicine that contained ivermectin as an active ingredient to also be used for the treatment of Covid-19 if so prescribed by a doctor.
This followed a settlement reached between civil rights organisation AfriForum and Pretoria East doctor George Coetzee in the fight for access to ivermectin.
Judge Cassim Sardiwalla now formally made the settlement an order of court.
This followed an agreement that was earlier reached between the applicants and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority for the compounding of, and access to, ivermectin.
This court order determines that a medicine containing ivermectin as an active ingredient was registered by the regulator in March. The effect of the registration is that ivermectin may be compounded and made accessible in accordance with the provisions of the Medicines Act.
The order also determines that access to imported ivermectin may be provided in accordance with the provisions of the act.
With a medicine that contains ivermectin as an active ingredient now registered and the drug listed as a schedule 3 substance, it can now be used for other purposes than stated on the label of the registered medicine (off-label use) – which includes the treatment of Covid-19.
“Access in accordance with the act practically means that doctors can prescribe the drug on their own judgement and that no Section 21 application or reporting is required for compounded ivermectin.
“Patients can then use this prescription to buy ivermectin from any pharmacy where it is available,” said Barend Uys, the head of research at AfriForum.
Coetzee meanwhile said he was glad that the settlement had been made an order of court as this provided certainty for doctors and patients.
The order meanwhile further determines that the regulator must report back to the court every three months about the state of affairs relating to ivermectin.
Any party to the application may also approach the court by way of a notice of motion and supplementary affidavits, for relief pertaining to any further aspects relating to the administration and allowance of the use of ivermectin as a treatment against Covid-19.
This part of the order did not form part of the original settlements that were agreed to between the parties.
The parties did reach an agreement last week, but the judge did not make it an order of court at that stage as he wanted more input from the parties on what had been agreed upon, so as not to confuse the public.
Four different groups, apart from Coetzee and AfriForum, brought applications to allow for the use of ivermectin.
The applicants include the Pharma Valu pharmacy group, the ACDP, and a group of KwaZulu-Natal doctors.
The effect of the agreement reached between the parties is that a doctor can ask a pharmacist to compound a medicine containing the registered component of ivermectin, or issue an Article 21 application to the health watchdog, asking on an individual basis that a patient be allowed to use the drug.
The regulator made it clear that it had not authorised ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. It said its position remained that the drug may not be prescribed and dispensed without a Section 21 authorisation.
However, the effect of its registration of a cream containing ivermectin made it in law possible for compounding of this product on the basis of a prescription by a medical doctor.
The regulator and Ministry of Health were ordered to jointly and severally contribute R1.8 million towards the case.
WHO still in criminal neglect:
WHO must be held fully responsible for the many COVID deaths caused by witholding Ivermectin and be prosecuted.
Ivermectin settlement frees up more access for Covid-19 patients
By Estelle Ellis - 06. April 2021
Judge Cassim Sardiwalla also ordered SAHPRA to report every three months on developments around the availability of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. (Photo: shutterstock / Wikipedia) Less
In a far-reaching court order issued by the Gauteng high court, allowing doctors to also legally prescribe small batches of custom-made medicine containing ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, the South African Health Regulatory Authority was also instructed to report on any new developments around the drug to a judge every three months.
Following the settlement in four different cases to gain access to ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 in South Africa, the high court in Pretoria has also ordered that small batches of custom-made medicine containing ivermectin can now be legally prescribed “off-label” for the treatment of specific patients with Covid-19.
This has effectively provided another avenue to access the drug other than applying to use it through the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority’s (SAHPRA) compassionate programme.
Judge Cassim Sardiwalla also ordered SAHPRA to report every three months on developments around the availability of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug. It has been registered in South Africa for the treatment of a skin condition and is used elsewhere to treat river blindness and other diseases caused by parasites in humans. Since the outbreak of the global Covid-19 pandemic, there have been small trials showing both that it is effective against Covid-19 and that it is not.
In December a Rapid Review by the Covid-19 subcommittee of the National Essential Medicines List Committee (NEMLC) recommended that the regulatory authority wait for more large randomised controlled trials to be published before deciding whether ivermectin should be used to treat Covid-19 in South Africa.
SAHPRA also agreed to contribute more than a million rand in total to cover the legal fees in each of the four cases before court.
The cases were brought by a general practitioner George Coetzee, two of his patients and Afriforum, a group of pharmacies, the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and Doctors for Life, and a group of medical practitioners who called themselves “I can make a difference.”
According to the court order, SAHPRA will “contribute” R350,000 to the legal fees of the pharmacies, R500,000 in the case brought by Coetzee and Afriforum, R500,000 to the legal bills of the ACDP and Doctors for Life and R450,000 to “I can make a difference.”
According to the court order, SAHPRA must report to the court every three months to indicate if any adjustments have been made to the programme providing access to ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.
This report must include if there are any newly approved unregistered ivermectin products available, if there are any newly authorised importers, how many products, containing ivermectin, have been made available to patients under the programme and who has been authorised to hold ivermectin stock.
The order also keeps the door open for further litigation if there are problems in accessing the drug for the treatment of Covid-19.
SAHPRA has agreed to continue monitoring the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 and to allow continued access to the drug through its compassionate programme and also to publicly report accurate information on the safety, efficacy and quality of ivermectin and “any other potential treatment or preventative medicine for Covid-19.”
The order states that pharmacists or a doctor or anybody who is registered under the Health Professions Act and holds the necessary license will be allowed to make up small batches of medicine containing ivermectin for patients, with Covid-19 on condition that it had been prescribed by a doctor and that it is not done in large quantities.
Yuven Gouden from SAHPRA said that the CEO, Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela, needed to consult with their legal team before responding to any questions.
“Access in accordance with Section 14(4) of the Act practically means that doctors can prescribe ivermectin on their own judgement and that no Section 21 application (in terms of the compassionate programme) or reporting is required for compounded ivermectin. Patients can then use this prescription to buy ivermectin from any pharmacy where compounded ivermectin is available,” Barend Uys, the Head of Research at AfriForum said.
“We are very glad that the settlement was made an order of court as this provides certainty for doctors and patients,” Coetzee said.
AFP-Faktcheckers Out on Paid Disinformation Campaigns
Paid for faktcheckers do disservice to AFP reputation
By RR - 05. April 2020
While AFP, the originally French Agence France Press - like all big news agancies, be it AP, REUTERS, UPS, DPA etc. - walk the narrow line to not embarrass their main payroll financiers, AFP went a step further by providing a biased "FAKT-CHECKER" service paid by those who want to spread their propaganda.
This is very sad, because AFP so far had been rather moderate in spreading false narratives and somehow were with their proper journalistic work more reliable in their reporting than other news agencies.
Those days seem now to be over.
This becomes, however, obvious, if one looks at the carefully tweaked article released by the AFP-Faktchecker gang on the vaccine issues and on medicines like Ivermectin in the COVID-19 debate. The completely ignore the proven vaccine-dangers and try to discredit alternative treatments, even if they are backed by per-reviewed studies. Big Pharma has a new propagada arm.
The often young scribes, who work for AFP-Faktchecker - many of whom are from developing countries - even go so far as to try and twist the well documented statements of proven eugenicist Bill Gates on depopulation.
AFP-Faktchecker was asked to declare if they receive - like many other media - funding or payments for propganda article placements from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), but haven't responded so far. It, however, appears to be the case, if one looks at their failing attempt to "explain" Bill Gates' infamous TED talk on vaccines and population reduction.
Under the banner of "Fakt-Checkers" also other dubious groups received funding for counter-propaganda, but the AFP set-up is outstanding in that it openly even declares that their services aim at providing propaganda pieces in 20 languages available for #health #environment #science and #politics for those whose deeds - or better misdeeds - have been exposed on social media.
High time that AFP HQ sets some real faktcheckers on the control-board of their young and paid-for "fakt'-checkers - otherwise the reputation of the whole of AFP continues to decline.
Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours
This artistic illustration, created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses, thogh the 'virus' has never been isolated. The similar structure of the lab-created bioweapon gene-sequence SARS-CoV-2, however, does exist and has been patented.
Scientists from the Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) showed that a single dose of the drug, Ivermectin, could stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus growing in cell culture. Read the full story on the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) website.
This Monash University-led collaborative study was published in Antiviral Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by Elsevier. Read the full manuscript here.
Whilst shown to be effective in the lab environment, Ivermectin cannot be used in humans for COVID-19 until further testing and clinical trials have been completed to confirm the effectiveness of the drug at levels safe for human dosing. The potential use of Ivermectin to combat COVID-19 remains unproven, and depends on funding to progress the work into the next stages.
Note issued by the first publisher - especially for the jurisdiction of the USA: Do NOT self-medicate with Ivermectin and do NOT use Ivermectin intended for animals. Read the FDA caution online. For any medical questions you have about your health, please consult your health care provider.
Click here for an update on the Monash University Ivermectin research.
Horowitz: WHO data: Ivermectin reduces COVID mortality by 81%. Also WHO: We still don’t recommend it.
By Daniel Horowitz - 01. April 2021
Imagine if we could have saved 81% of those who ultimately died from the virus by treating them early with a cheap, safe drug, along with other cheap therapeutic cocktails. Well, for one, more people would be alive today. But more important to the powers at be, there would have been no excuse to fear the virus and sow panic and tyranny. Also, there would have been no market for expensive therapeutics and vaccines that are much more experimental and unproven. Which is likely why the WHO is refusing to recommend ivermectin for early COVID treatment, even as its own data prove it should be championed as a cure.
On Wednesday, the WHO updated its guide on therapeutics and COVID-19. Under ivermectin, the meta-analysis shows an 81% drop in mortality among those who used ivermectin as opposed to standard care. It also shows a 64% decrease in hospitalization. Nonetheless, the WHO refuses to endorse it because it claims the confidence level is low.
Image source: WHO screenshot
"The issue with the Ivermectin is that based on initial study and the currently available data, it is not strong enough for us to advocate the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID or prevention of COVID," said WHO representative to the Philippines Rabindra Abeyasinghe on Tuesday. He claimed that using it without "strong" evidence is "harmful" since it would give "false confidence" to the public.
Gee, that sure sounds a lot like telling people if they wear a mask indoors, they won't get COVID. Tragically, when they invariably do get the virus, the global health elites have nothing to treat them with.
In total, there have been 49 studies, 26 of them randomized controlled trials, showing that ivermectin works against the virus. The pooled results show an 80% improvement when used early, 89% when used as prophylaxis, and even a 50% improvement at late stages. It is simply shocking that the global elites would continue to treat this long-used drug as experimental while treating novel vaccines that were only studied by the companies creating them as ironclad. Consider that the vaccines have not been approved by the FDA, on label or off label, there is no liability, and there is no data on long-term safety issues.
Ivermectin, on the other hand, has been dispensed billions of times for decades and has proven itself as one of the safest drugs around. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura were awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology in 2015 for discovering the drug as a cure to river blindness. Here is an excerpt from the press release of the Nobel Assembly:
"Today the Avermectin-derivative Ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. Ivermectin is highly effective against a range of parasites, has limited side effects and is freely available across the globe. The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable. Treatment is so successful that these diseases are on the verge of eradication, which would be a major feat in the medical history of humankind."
That sure sounds like a dangerous drug, doesn't it?
The WHO itself lists ivermectin among its Model List of Essential Medicines for 2019, given its efficacy against parasitic infections and its track record of safety.
Image source: WHO screenshot
But suddenly when it comes to eradicating COVID and pre-empting lockdowns, masks, and vaccines, it's a problem! It's the worst thing known to man.
Consider the fact that even some unicorn idea of mask efficacy can only conceivably reduce transmission by a small amount, yet they treat masks as mandatory to the point that they enforce them against 2-year-olds, rape victims, and people with disabilities. Imagine if they poured that much vigor into promotion of ivermectin.
And as any doctor who has actually studied the early stages of the virus will tell you, this is not just about ivermectin or any single drug. It's about a cocktail of drugs. Aside from ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, imagine if everyone with a positive test were given a cocktail with vitamins, steroids, and other drugs that have proven to work well over the past year, rather than waiting until someone has already experienced the inflammatory response, when it's much harder to treat.
In other words, how come the people who claim to care the most about COVID don't really care about saving people from it?
For example, if the global elites were really about saving lives, why wouldn't they have made vitamin D the new mask? The studies on the correlation between high vitamin D levels and positive outcomes with COVID have been impervious. The Karolinska Institute just published a comprehensive synthesis in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology on how vitamin D offers a great degree of protection against all respiratory viruses. Based on an analysis of three randomized and placebo-controlled studies involving 49,000 people, they found that a daily dose of vitamin D offers extra protection against respiratory diseases. They observed this to be particularly important for people with low vitamin D levels, such as those with dark skin, overweight people, and the elderly.
Why has this information not gotten out to Americans? Why didn't vitamin D become the new toilet paper? Last week, Dr. Ryan Cole, a board-certified pathologist in Idaho who runs the largest independent laboratory in Idaho, where he's overseen 100,000 COVID tests, explained on my podcast exactly how vitamin D works against the inflammatory response to this virus. He showed how vitamin D is the master key of the immune system and prevents any dysregulation of the immune response that leads to the cytokine storm, which is responsible for most COVID deaths.
There are other cheap therapeutics that have been proven effective by respected research, such as low-dose aspirin. A recent study from George Washington University published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia showed that those given aspirin immediately in the hospital were 44% less likely to go on a ventilator, 43% less likely to need to go to the intensive care unit, and 47% less likely to die in the hospital. Imagine if people took it daily from the moment they feel symptoms or test positive.
Again, why are people who test positive, especially the elderly, still being denied information and prescriptions for cheap, life-saving cocktails early in the viral replication process? Last night, I got a panicked email from a listener whose 74-year-old mother with health conditions was vaccinated four weeks ago, but just came down with a fever and tested positive. Her doctor won't prescribe her ivermectin. This is the tragedy of the vaccine being treated as proven and proven therapeutics being treated as experimental and even dangerous.
A full year into this virus, our medical establishment have turned our civilization upside down and inside out under the guise of saving lives, but they have censored the one thing that will actually keep people out of the hospital. The question is why.
SCANDAL: UN triggers price hike for COVID medicine in Africa
People in all African countries, like in Kenya and South-Africa, suffer under the Medical Mafia
After the United Nations got their fingers in the pie, the price of IVERMECTIN in Keya soared from KSh 50 (50 cent) to 800 KSh (8 US$) for one tablet. A basic dose of three tablets is now 24 USD and can no longer be afforded by the average Kenyan.
The Kenyan Government did their part by wiggling around and spreading rumours that the medicine, registered and permitted since long also for human use, would not be allowed to be used in COVID-19 treatment in Kenya.
The same scam as in South Africa.
The UN, governments, Big Pharma and the usual culprit investors are all in to rip off the people.
31 MARCH 2021 | STATEMENTS
Unitaid statement regarding Ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment
Geneva – Ivermectin, as well as other repurposed and new products, has been under evaluation in clinical trials as a potential treatment for COVID-19.
After updating the independent living network meta-analysis, the WHO Guidelines Development Group has updated the WHO Living Guidelines: Therapeutics and COVID-19 (today March 31). In this updated version, WHO recommends not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of clinical trials based on very low certainty of evidence.
Unitaid, in collaboration with the University of Liverpool, has tracked the evidence available for ivermectin from randomised clinical studies from around the world, with various studies still to be completed.
In addition, to support the acquisition of the necessary remaining evidence as soon as possible, the ANTICOV consortium – coordinated by DNDi and partly funded by Unitaid – is preparing to add ivermectin in a combination therapy, as a new treatment arm to the clinical trial. This large platform trial aims to identify treatments that can be used to treat mild and moderate cases of COVID-19, preventing them from progressing to severe COVID-19, and is being conducted in 13 countries in Africa, nine of which are funded by Unitaid.”
Move over hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, two widely extolled prescription medicines used to treat COVID-19 viral infections. A natural cure for COVID-19 that is widely available and affordable for even the poorest of people on the planet has been confirmed by a team of virologists who have spent a lifetime studying the underlying causes of viral infections.
Backed by decades of research and safety data for herpes-family viruses, U.S.-based researchers at Bio-Virus Research Inc, Reno, Nevada, report on the successful treatment of the first 30 frontline doctors and nurses and a thousand-plus patients given the amino acid lysine to prevent and even abolish COVID-19 coronavirus infections at a clinic in the Dominican Republic. Astonishingly, symptoms of COVID-19 are reported to have dissipated within hours of this natural treatment.
The medical staff at a clinic in the Dominican Republic was coming down with two cases of coronavirus per month before lysine therapy was instituted.
The virologists, Drs. Christopher Kagan, Bo Karlicki and Alexander Chaihorsky, strongly suggested the front-line healthcare workers embark on a daily regimen of lysine therapy due to daily exposure to the virus. Their ground-breaking report is published online at ResearchGate.net.
Lysine therapy interrupts the replication of viruses, including COVID-19 coronavirus, by countering arginine, an amino acid that fosters the eruption of dormant viruses. Lysine has been safely used for decades to quell herpes virus outbreaks that cause cold sores on the lips (herpes labialis), a treatment pioneered by one of the Bio-Virus Research team members in 1974.
Lysine is available in foods and in concentrated form in inexpensive dietary supplements (250 500-milligram lysine tablets can be purchased for under $5 US or 2-cents per tablet), making affordable lysine therapy possible.
Lysine/arginine imbalance would explain why patients who have been infected with COVID-19 have recurrent infections, even after vaccination.
Lysine Rx in Dominican Republic
The daily therapeutic supplement regimen for the medical staff in the Dominican Republic consisted of 2000 milligrams of lysine capsules along with restricted dietary consumption of arginine-rich foods such as nuts, chocolate, orange juice, pumpkin, sesame seeds, wheat germ.
The Bio-Virus Research team found doses of supplemental lysine up to 4000 milligrams to be safe and effective.
Foods that have a high ratio of lysine over arginine such as eggs, tofu, fish (not raw), sardines, cheese, meats such as pork, poultry and red meat, and yogurt) provide a high ratio of lysine over arginine, thus blocking replication of all coronaviruses including COVID-19.
According to the virologists who were interviewed by this reporter, over 1000 patients have now been successfully treated with surprisingly rapid dissolution of symptoms and return to health. Even severely infected COVID-19 patients have been able to come off the ventilator with lysine therapy, say doctors.
Third-party validation for lysine therapy
Writing in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases another research team based in New York and Texas reports that arginine depletion is a strategy to quell both coronaviruses and other herpes family viruses.
The Bio-Virus Research team are not loners nor out on a scientific limb. A report, published in the Journal of Antivirals & Antiretrovirals, is what prompted to the current discovery that was put into clinical practice in the Dominican Republic. The science was in place prior to the announcement a mutated coronavirus was sweeping the globe which no one had immunity towards.
The Recommended Daily dietary intake of lysine is 2660 milligrams for a 154-lb (70 kilogram) adult; 3640 milligrams during pregnancy.
Dietary intake of lysine in western populations ranges from 40-180 milligrams per day per kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of body weight, or 2800-12,600 milligrams for a 154 lb. (70 kilogram) adult.
It is the balance of arginine to lysine that controls the eruption of dormant viruses in the body. The average intake of arginine is estimated to be 4000-6000 milligrams per day.
Other health benefits
Supplemental lysine also has other health benefits. Lysine increases absorption of calcium, relieves bouts of anxiety, promotes wound healing, and is helpful for other conditions. Cholesterol is deposited in binding sites within coronary arteries. When lysine (and vitamin C) occupy those binding sites, cholesterol is not deposited in arteries.
Prevalence of herpes viral infections
Worldwide many billions of people harbor dormant herpes viruses that erupt into disease from time to time. In 2016 an estimated 3.7 billion people had herpes simplex virus infection– around 66.6% of the world’s population aged 0 to 49.
Availability of lysine
Lysine is largely produced by the tons for animal feedstuffs. Roughly 2,200,000 tons of lysine are produced annually. There is no shortage.
Billions may benefit
The most frequent medical application of lysine therapy has been the quelling of active herpes infections (on skin, lips, etc.), and eradication of Epstein-Barr infection, Bell’s palsy, etc.
Researchers bemoan the fact that lysine therapy hasn’t become a mainstay in the treatment of herpes infections that affect ~80% of the world’s population over expensive and problematic anti-viral drugs because it doesn’t generate sufficient profit to attract funding for human clinical trials. Lysine is superior to various anti-viral drugs.
If lysine lives up to its promise as a universal COVID-19 antidote for therapeutic and preventive use, unless billionaire Bill Gates buys up and mothballs all the lysine production plants in the world like he has bought off agricultural land, and bought off news media, vaccine makers and politicians, the need for vaccines will become a moot and meaningless practice for COVID-19.
Because of the long-term safety record of this dietary amino acid, the public can take lysine as a non-prescription preventive “medicine.”
Epidemiologists baffled by low rate of coronavirus infections in India
Despite its large population and poor sanitation, disease trackers are baffled by India’s low rate of coronavirus infections. Maybe it is India’s lysine-rich diet of yogurt, lamb, chicken, fish curry that protects its population from viral disease. The striking difference in the country-to-country prevalence of Herpes Simplex-2 infections (only 9.6% in South East Asian countries and 10.7% in Europe vs. 24.0% in the Americas and 43.9% in Africa) could be explained by the lysine/arginine ratio in native diets.
Treat the severely ill; skip the problematic vaccines
Vaccination is not fool proof. Vaccinated patients are testing positive for COVID-19. Doctors can choose to treat the 3 in 10,000 COVID-19 severely infected patients who are at risk for a mortal outcome with lysine rather than needlessly vaccinate billions of people. Mass vaccination would not be needed, nor would lockdowns, quarantines and questionable mass face mask use be required. The pandemic would be rapidly extinguished by a public information campaign regarding lysine-rich foods and dietary supplements. The public can take action on its own today without adverse consequences. Literally, trillions of dollars would be saved worldwide. If not for COVID-19, at least for herpes infections.
The shame is on the World Health Organization with a budget of $8.482 billion or the Centers For Disease Control with a budget of $7.875 billion that overlook safe and economical cures like lysine. This report serves as evidence the world is being gamed to plunder the masses of their health and wealth. The people of the world need to stop heeding advice from public health officials and practice preventive medicine on their own volition.
There is additional evidence that lysine also halts the growth of influenza and coxsackie viruses.
Researchers at Bio-Virus Research Inc. are searching for research funds to further document the benefits of lysine therapy. Contact Bio-Virus Research Inc.
Source: Virologists Report Poor Man’s Amino Acid Cure for Covid-19 Would Abolish Need for Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.
NewDay reported on Friday that the Zimbabwe government has authorised imports of the Covid-19 drug Ivermectin.
GOVERNMENT has approved mass importation of the veterinary anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, as it battles the second wave of COVID-19 infections which have rattled President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration after killing five government ministers.
Robert Mudyiradima, the acting Health secretary wrote to the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) acting director-general Robert Rukwata directing that the drug be approved for use in the treatment of COVID-19 and that it could not “deny them (COVID-19 sufferers) effective treatment
“It is in this regard that authority is granted for you to proceed under section 75 of the Medicines and Allied Substances Control Act to allow importation and use of these medicines under the supervision and guidance you outlined,” Mudyiradima wrote on January 26.
South African authorities approved the use of a drug used to control parasites in humans and livestock to treat coronavirus patients.
The medicine, known as ivermectin, will be allowed for use on compassionate grounds in a controlled-access program, the head of the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority said Wednesday. Medical practitioners who apply to the regulator to use the drug will be considered on a case-by-case basis, Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela said.
Ivermectin has been used for decades to treat livestock infested with parasitic worms, while in humans it’s used as a topical ointment for diseases including skin infections and inflammation. The World Health Organization has suggested the drug has encouraging effects on coronavirus, though like other regulators it’s also said the medication hasn’t been properly evaluated.
The drug won’t be limited to patients with known Covid-19 co-morbidities, Semete-Makokotlela said.
The regulator is already seeing widespread use of ivermectin in an emerging black market, as South Africa grapples with a second wave of coronavirus infections that’s resulted in hospital admissions soaring and a shortage of critical-care beds. Allowing controlled use of the drug will help the regulator monitor its use and enable the body to collect much-needed safety data.
“We absolutely share everyone’s desperation at this point,” said Helen Rees, the regulator’s chairwoman. “So the question about ivermectin and self-medication goes back to what everyone in the scientific community is saying. And that is, we don’t know if it works and we don’t know if it doesn’t work. That’s why we need to get data.”
Authorities in neighbouring Zimbabwe also approved the use of ivermectin to treat coronavirus patients, after doctors appealed to the Health Ministry to reverse an earlier ban on imports and use of the drug. Physicians in Zimbabwe are using ivermectin in a solution with nanosilver — which is used as an algaecide — and found the combination to be “a game changer,” the College of Primary Care Physicians said in a letter to the ministry.
Rees warned South Africans that people self-medicating “need to be very careful because we don’t have any information about the quality of what you’re taking.”
Clear guidelines on the roll-out of the controlled-access program will be given in the next two days, Semete-Makokotlela said. There are also plans to hold large-scale clinical trials, she said.
It’s not the first time authorization has been given for the use of promising Covid-19 treatments and drugs with only initial evidence. Several drugs that were cleared last year for treatment have failed to replicate the initial benefits once examined in large clinical trials.
Semete-Makokotlela also said the regulator granted the health department permission to distribute the coronavirus vaccine made by AstraZeneca Plc and the University of Oxford, its first for Covid-19 inoculations. It’s also reviewing applications by rival manufacturers Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc., but has yet to receive an application from Moderna Inc., she said.
The South African authority has also had pre-submission talks with “many other” vaccine makers, including from China and Russia, Semete-Makokotlela said.
‘Miraculous’ ivermectin approved for use in the USA for the treatment of COVID-19
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has upgraded their recommendation for ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19
By Patrick Delaney - 19. January 2021
Following the diligent efforts of physicians associated with a group called Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has upgraded their recommendation for the “miraculous” drug ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19 within the United States.
The result comes one week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory—founding members of the FLCCC, along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel.
A press release from FLCCC explains the “new designation upgraded the status of ivermectin from ‘against’ [the drug’s use] to ‘neither for nor against,’ which is the same recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation.”
“By no longer recommending against ivermectin use,” the statement said, “doctors should feel more open in prescribing ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19. This may clear its path towards FDA [Food and Drug Administration] emergency use approval.”
“Ivermectin is one of the world’s safest, cheapest and most widely available drugs,” explained Dr. Kory, President of the FLCCC Alliance. “The studies we presented to the NIH revealed high levels of statistical significance showing large magnitude benefit in transmission rates, need for hospitalization, and death. What’s more, the totality of trials data supporting ivermectin is without precedent.”
In its January 14 updated statement regarding the use of ivermectin, NIH indicated they will continue to evaluate additional trials as they are released.
“We are encouraged that the NIH has moved off of its August 27 recommendation against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19,” continued Kory. “That recommendation was made just as the numerous compelling studies for ivermectin were starting to roll in. New studies are still coming in, and as they are received and reviewed, it is our hope that the NIH’s recommendation for the use of ivermectin will be the strongest recommendation for its use as possible.”
Last month Dr. Kory and his team testified before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee in favor of authorizing ivermectin, a Nobel Prize–winning anti-parasitic agent, for early treatment of the novel coronavirus. In his impassioned presentation, Dr. Kory explained that ivermectin “basically obliterates transmission of this virus,” with “miraculous effectiveness.”
“I've been treating COVID pretty much every single day since the onset,” Kory said at the December hearing. “When I say ‘miracle’ I do not use that term lightly[.] ... [T]hat is a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months.”
Such data emanates from places like India, the second most populated nation in the world, which embraced the treatment protocol advanced by FLCCC, and has watched its case and fatalities rate drop in “steep decline.” Though India has four times the population of the U.S., it has less than half of the coronavirus related deaths.
Though FLCCC is encouraged by NIH’s movement to neutrality on this treatment, it asserts that their current stance remains “out of alignment with the known clinical, epidemiological, and observational data” which should compel them “to provide more specific guidance in support of the use of ivermectin in COVID-19,” and they provide a detailed analysis of the agency’s conclusions to that effect.
Patrick Delaney FOLLOW PATRICK
Front Line COVID-19
Critical Care Alliance
NIH (National Institutes of Health) Revises Treatment Guidelines for Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID-19
Ivermectin is Now a Treatment Option for Health Care Providers!
Jan 14, 2021 – One week after Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory – founding members of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – along with Dr. Andrew Hill, researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), presented their data before the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation and now considers Ivermectin an option for use in COVID-19.
Their recommendation has now been upgraded to the same level as those for widely used monoclonal antibodies & convalescent plasma, which is a “neither for nor against” recommendation. The significance of this change is that the NIH has decided to no longer recommend against the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 by the nation’s health care providers. A consequence of this change is that ivermectin has now been made a clear therapeutic option for patients.
Read our Press Release (Jan 15, 2021).
Jan 17, 2021 | PUBLIC STATEMENT
Dr. Pierre Kory testifies to Senate Committee about Ivermectin, Dec. 8, 2020
Appearing as a witness on Dec. 8, 2020, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution”— Dr. Pierre Kory, President of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), called for the government to swiftly review the already expansive and still rapidly emerging medical evidence on Ivermectin. Read More
Jan 7, 2021 – Press Release
FLCCC Alliance Invited to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to Present Latest Data on Ivermectin
On January 6, 2021, our Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, founding members of the FLCCC Alliance, appeared before the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to urge review of current data and an updated NIH guidance.
Dec 15, 2020 – now published:
Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19
FLCCC Alliance peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. The protocol described in this paper potentially offers a life-saving approach to the management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ protocol offers an inexpensive combination of medicines with well-known safety profiles based on strong physiologic rationale and an increasing clinical evidence base.
“The I-MASK+ protocol will revolutionize the treatment of COVID-19”
Dr. Paul Marik (Oct. 30, 2020)
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance has now developed a prophylactic and early outpatient combination treatment protocol for COVID-19 called I-Mask+. This protocol is centered around the use of ivermectin, a well-known anti-parasite drug. Ivermectin has recently discovered anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties and a rapidly growing published medical evidence base demonstrating its unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication.
Please visit these links to get the full picture:
- I-MASK+ Prophylaxis & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19
- Our comprehensive review of the emerging evidence for Ivermectin use in our I-MASK+ protocol
- A one-page summary of the scientific review on ivermectin above
- Dr. Paul Marik’s comprehensive meta-analysis of COVID-19 therapeutics
- An introductory video explaining the review on Ivermectin by Dr. Pierre Kory
- Dr. Paul Marik’s recent lecture on I-MASK+
- Invited Grand Rounds Lecture on ivermectin by Pierre Kory
In March, 2020 we first published our MATH+ Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, intended for hospitalized patients. The recently developed I-MASK+ Prophylaxis & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 is instead directed for use as a prophylaxis and in early outpatient treatment after contracting COVID-19. The protocols thus complement each other, and both are physiologic-based combination treatment regimens developed by leaders in critical care medicine. All component medicines are FDA-approved, inexpensive, readily available and have been used for decades with well-established safety profiles.
- An FLCCC Alliance guide to the management of COVID-19 – An overview of the MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols
PROLOGUE: Obviously the Powers That Be in South Africa and their "authorities" are firmly in the grip of BigPharma, the Vaccine Mafia around Bill Gates, the IMF as well as the WorldBank and their WEF / Rockefeller masterminds. The Hunger Games are already on in large parts of the country and when this time the oppressed will really stand up, the long deserved freedom from colonial and neoliberal oppression will wipe all the present structures from the face of the Earth in South Africa. It would be a very bloody uprising, which only can be averted if president Cyril Ramaphosa makes a 180 degree turn and for the first time really puts the people first.
Data on Ivermectin 'will soon be available': SAHPRA
By SABC Radio - 09 January 2021
SAHPRA Chairperson Professor Helen Rees has pleaded with the public and doctors not to distribute or take Ivermectin until its safety and efficacy are verified
The South African Health Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) says data on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 is expected to be available in a few weeks’ time.
Ivermectin is registered with SAHPRA for use in the treatment of animals.
There’s a growing illegal distribution of the drug following reports that it is effective in combating COVID-19. Some medical experts, along with the National Freedom Party, are lobbying for the drug to be approved for use in humans.
SAHPRA Chairperson Professor Helen Rees has pleaded with the public and doctors not to distribute or take the drug until its safety and efficacy are verified.
“There needs to be more clinical trial data. There are some better-designed large trials that are under way in South America and we are hoping to get some of these results in the next few weeks. Nobody, including the World Health Organisation and other regulatory authorities, nobody is currently recommending its use for treatment or prevention. If people are giving it, nobody would know even what dose to give, so it’s very easy to overdose. What we would plead is in a few more weeks we will have more definitive data if people can be patient with us and we will be able to have a definitive answer,” says Rees.
SAHPRA says more clinical trials must be conducted before Ivermectin can be used to treat COVID-19
SA to get first batch of vaccine in January
On Thursday, Health Minister Zweli Mkhize told Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Health that the country would receive the first batch of vaccine in January and another in February.
He says that priority will be given to the more than one million health workers in both the private and the public sectors.
The country has also recorded 616 new COVID-19 related fatalities on Friday.
In a statement, Health Minister Dr Zweli Mkhize says most of the new deaths were recorded in the Eastern Cape.
DISCUSSION: South Africa’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout strategy
The government of Cyril Ramaphosa is killing South Africans for profits. The government knows that there is a cheap safe and affordable medicine against the deadly Covid-19 virus. The medicine to defeat Covid-19 which originates from Japan and is widely used the world-over, is called ivermectin.
Research shows that ivermectin can kill SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic, within 2 days. The South African government is pushing Covid-19 vaccines because these will enrich the friends of President Ramaphosa who are also his donors. It is clear that the strategy is to get as many people as possible killed by Covid-19 so that the nation is driven into a panic acceptance of the Covid-19 vaccines.
Black First Land First (BLF) suspects that the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) is complicit with the government in creating panic through death to force-feed the nation Covid-19 vaccines. Why is SAHPRA not clearing ivermectin so that our people’s lives are saved. The spokesperson of SAHPRA is openly lying about the clinical clearance of ivermectin, which is described by doctors who prescribe it as a wonder medicine.
BLF calls on the Minister of Health, Dr Mkhize, to stop the expensive and unsafe Covid-19 vaccines and rather immediately make ivermectin available to our people. It is cheap and safe. We also call on SAHPRA to immediately clear ivermectin to be used in SA.
BLF is opposed to the Covid-19 vaccines. There are safer, cheaper and effective ways to fight Covid-19. These are blocked because of profits.
BLF is in consultation with a variety of stakeholders to launch a campaign against the Covid-19 vaccines. We say NO to Covid-19 vaccines, and YES to ivermectin!
Issued by Black First Land First, National Coordinating Committee of (BLF NCC)
07 January 2021
Black First Land First Mail:
(BLF Deputy President)
Cell: +27 79 986 7225
Reposted from the BLF website.
DR. PIERRE KORY PLEADS IVERMECTIN IS SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 AT SENATE HEARING
First published on BITCHUTE January 5th, 2021.
Ivermectin is an approved and inexpensive anti-parasitic drug known to be effective against a variety of viruses like Influenza, Dengue, Zika, and Covid-19.
Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, passionately testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs during a hearing on "Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution."
In his testimony, Kory said data shows the ability of ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, as well as its ability to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and to help critically ill patients
Ivermectin: Tests show cheap drug may reduce Covid-19 death toll
By Tom Whipple - 04
A cheap and widespread drug has shown the potential for “transformative” changes in Covid-19 mortality rates, according to an early analysis.
A leaked presentation from a closed scientific meeting claims that ivermectin, originally an antiparasitic, cut deaths by 80 per cent among patients in hospital. The findings come from the combined results of 11 trials.
Tom Whipple, The Times Science Editor
Ivermectin And COVID-19: How Is It Proposed To Work? Review Of All Theorized Mechanisms Of Action.
•Premiered Nov 1, 2020
In this video we will discuss Ivermectin and it's proposed efficacy for both prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19.
We will focus in this video on reviewing the proposed, theorized, and studied mechanisms of action to date.
The IMP alpha/beta pathway, the direct inhibition of the viral RNA dependent RNA Polymerase, CD147 Receptor inhibition, and STAT3 pathway manipulation. We will discuss how these mechanisms of action relate to the study findings including the potential efficacy for prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, early mild disease, and late severe disease. Check out the video for all the details! We have covered these mechanisms in depth in a number of previous videos, which are linked below if you are interested in more information!
SHAREABLE PLAYLIST WITH ALL OF OUR IVERMECTIN VIDEOS TO DATE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Vitamin D Combination Therapy For Early, Outpatient COVID-19: New Study! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UWnxUrE7I
Ivermectin Videos: Ivermectin, Azithromycin, And Vitamin D Early Outpatient COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UWn...
Ivermectin And The STAT3 Pathway: A New Mechanism Of Action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJHPM...
Randomized, Double Blinded Placebo Controlled Trial IVM+Doxycycline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MNsM...
IDEA Trial (Ivermectin, Dexamethasone, Enoxaparin, Aspirin) Mild, Mod, Sever COVID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX14o...
Ivermectin to Treat Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UvZH... I
VERCAR (Ivermectin and Carrageenan Prophylaxis): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaPhp...
Ivermectin Inhibits RNA Dependent RNA Polymerase https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iRqT...
Ivermectin Post-Exposure Prophylaxis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJyyI...
Ivermectin Prophylaxis For COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmzvD... I
vermectin and Doxycycline To Treat Mild to Moderate COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LjIM...
Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin for Hospitalized COVID-19 patients: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPWJ9...
Ivermectin and new mechanism; halting thrombi through inhibition of CD147: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3yw1...
ICON Trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryWck...
Clinical Trial on Ivermectin (data may be falsified): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z1Oc...
In Vitro on Ivermectin for COVID-19, 99.99% Decrease in Viral Load: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npcuI...
Ivermectin+Doxycyline Compared to Hydroxychloroquine+Azithromycin for COVID-19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2M-x...
CHECK THESE OUT:
Memo from Steve Kirsch -Executive Director at COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund
22. December 2020
- One .2mg/kg dose a week for prevention "100% success rate whereas those doctors taking placebo had a 59%% infection rate… not a typo 237 of 400 docs on placebo got infected vs. 800 docs on Ivermectin none got infected"
-monoclonal antibody treatments approved by the FDA. Bamlanivimab is made by Lilly, casirivimab and imdevimab are made by Regeneron
-Above limited, camostat alternative(not approved in US yet)
- "I dont know a single failure of this drug" Inflammatory Response
-fluvoxamine. It has the highest quality evidence and a 100% success track record in two US-based clinical trials.
-next best is doxazosin
Final remarks "If everyone in the world took just the fluvoxamine for 14 days after they learned they were COVID positive, our hospitals and ICUs would be nearly empty today. If everyone took doxazosin or metformin, we could cut the hospitalization rate in half."
"The bottom line is that the solution to our hospitalization crisis has been hiding in plain sight since October 6"
"Dr. Joseph Ladapo said it eloquently in his Wall St. Journal op-ed, “Too much caution is killing patients.” I couldn’t agree more. The placebo is killing people. This drug is not. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the placebo is superior to fluvoxamine for patients who test positive for COVID-19.
Please help spread the word. Today." 12-22-2020 at 11:30 AM
Read more: https://www.city-data.com/forum/health-wellness/3228515-current-early-covid-treatment-steve-kirsch.html
The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
Antiviral Research Volume 178, June 2020,
Ivermectin is an inhibitor of the COVID-19 causative virus (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro.
A single treatment able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in virus at 48 h in cell culture.
Ivermectin is FDA-approved for parasitic infections, and therefore has a potential for repurposing.
Ivermectin is widely available, due to its inclusion on the WHO model list of essential medicines.”
I have been waiting to hear more about this since running across the above last year. I guess we can’t have the above average flu suddenly thwarted by a track record therapy. No, in the pursuit of Science, we need data on the latest and greatest. Our need is so great, large scale trials with indemnity shall be the public’s duty. Pay no attention to the cure behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful mRNA!
PROLOGUE: Irish William Campbell and Japan’s Satoshi Omura, who won in 2015 the Nobel Prize for the discovery and development of IVERMECTIN should be awarded with a second Nobel Prize
By Maggie Fox - 05.
Three scientists who discovered natural-based remedies against parasites that cause malaria and river blindness won the Nobel Prize of Medicine on Monday.
The compounds – called artemisinin and ivermectin – are used by millions of people around the world and have saved countless lives. Ivermectin –which now is used to fight pests from bed bugs and lice to serious diseases such as lymphatic filariasis – was derived from naturally occurring bacteria in soil.
The winners -- from Japan, China and the United States -- worked separately to find medicines that were synthesized into powerful and effective drugs.
“These two discoveries have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable,” the Nobel committee said.
"The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable."
Arteminisin, used to fight the malaria parasite, comes from a plant. Ivermectin was developed from a soil bacteria.
William Campbell, an Irish-born researcher now living in New Jersey, and Japan’s Satoshi Omura, won for their discovery of avermectin, which was eventually developed into the drug Ivermectin.
Omura was studying a group of soil bacteria called Streptomyces, which also gave the world the antibiotic streptomycin. “Equipped with extraordinary skills in developing unique methods for large-scale culturing and characterization of these bacteria, Ōmura isolated new strains of Streptomyces from soil samples and successfully cultured them in the laboratory,” the committee said.
“From many thousand different cultures, he selected about 50 of the most promising, with the intent that they would be further analyzed for their activity against harmful microorganisms.”
Campbell, an expert in parasites, discovered avermectin in this group. It was made into ivermectin, which works against the parasites that cause river blindness and lymphatic filariasis, also called elephantiasis, which is marked by grossly swelling limbs called by the buildup of lymphatic fluids. It affects 100 million people around the world.
“Treatment is so successful that these diseases are on the verge of eradication, which would be a major feat in the medical history of humankind,” the Nobel committee said.
Youyou Tu of China looked at traditional Chinese medicine to discover arteminisin. “From a large-scale screen of herbal remedies in malaria-infected animals, an extract from the plant Artemisia annua emerged as an interesting candidate,” the Nobel committee says on its website.
“However, the results were inconsistent, so Tu revisited the ancient literature and discovered clues that guided her in her quest to successfully extract the active component from Artemisia annua,” the committee added.
“Tu was the first to show that this component, later called artemisinin, was highly effective against the malaria parasite, both in infected animals and in humans. Artemisinin represents a new class of antimalarial agents that rapidly kill the malaria parasites at an early stage of their development, which explains its unprecedented potency in the treatment of severe malaria.”
The drugs have replaced quinine-based drugs – themselves based on tree bark. But the malaria parasite is already developing resistance to artemisinin-based drugs in some parts of the world. It kills 450,000 people a year, most of them children.
The $960,000 prize in physiology or medicine is the first of the Nobel prizes awarded each year. Prizes for physics, chemistry, economics, literature and peace will come later this week and next. They were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel.
Maggie Fox is a senior writer for NBC News and TODAY, covering health policy, science, medical treatments and disease.