Spread the love

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 15, 2021) — “Ivermectin” was trending in second place on Twitter early Friday afternoon just below an announcement of the murder of British parliament member David Amess.

When clicking the “Ivermectin” trend, the reader was brought to a column with an October 1, 2021 headline from Reuters stating, “Ivermectin is not authorized for treatment of COVID-19, according to the FDA.”

Below that, whether or not from the article, were three points under the caption, “What you need to know,” stated as:

— Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that is used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

— A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found a 24-fold increase in the amount of ivermectin distributed from retail pharmacies as compared to the the pre-pandemic baseline

— The FDA warns that taking medication intended for animals can cause toxic reactions in humans because doses are highly concentrated

Just below that is a tweet from the FDA which arguably gives the impression that no “human” form of ivermectin exists. “Some people are taking ivermectin, a drug often prescribed for animals, to try to prevent or treat #COVID19,” the tweet reads. “FDA has not approved or authorized ivermectin for this use, and it can be dangerous for people.”

The tweet (above) links to an undated FDA-issued page titled, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

“The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance,” the article states, in part, in its conclusion.

On August 26, 2021, the CDC issued an orange-letter “Health Advisory” titled, “Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19.”

However, according to the documentary, “The Story of Ivermectin and COVID-19,” ivermectin was found to be highly effective in treating COVID-19 last year. In early December, New York-based Dr. Pierre Kory testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, then chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), about positive outcomes he and his colleagues witnessed with use of the drug in those infected with COVID-19.

Kory told the committee:

…Although we, like many, are extremely encouraged by the apparent successes in developing effective vaccines, we also are dismayed at the near complete absence of guidance and research on effective early, at-home, or preventative treatment options apart from vaccines, a reality we find unconscionable. Our hospitals are overflowing with over 100,000 COVID-19 patients admitted, and new record deaths are reported each passing day. It will take months for the vaccine to be distributed to the general public and further time to have sufficient impact in this crisis, so we are here to stress the need for effective early treatment. My organization of critical care specialists have spent the almost nine months tirelessly reviewing the scientific literature to gain insight into this virus and the disease process and to develop effective treatment protocols. All the while, we were working long hours in Intensive Care Units full of COVID patients. I was proud to testify in front of the committee about our MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol in May which I would like to mention has had nearly every single component of its combination therapies validated in clinical studies and our paper detailing and reporting on the impacts of the treatment protocol will be published within days in the Journal of Critical Care Medicine.

And so, it is with great pride as well as significant optimism, that I am here to report that our group, led by Professor Paul E. Marik, has developed a highly effective protocol for preventing and early treatment of COVID-19. In the last 3-4 months, emerging publications provide conclusive data on the profound efficacy of the anti-parasite, anti-viral drug, anti-inflammatory agent called ivermectin in all stages of the disease. Our protocol was created only recently, after we identified these data. Nearly all studies are demonstrating the therapeutic potency and safety of ivermectin in preventing transmission and progression of illness in nearly all who take the drug.

Before proceeding, I want to bring attention to two critical deficits in our national treatment response that has made this hearing necessary in the first place. Besides the early interest and research into hydroxychloroquine, we can find no other significant efforts to research the use of any other already existing, safe, low-cost therapeutic agents. Seemingly the only research and treatment focus that we have observed on a national scale is with novel or high-cost pharmaceutically engineered products such as remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies, tocilizumab, with all such therapies costing thousands of dollars. This is consistent with conclusions drawn by a physician consulting to Congress about Covid-19 when she concluded, “There is a pervasive problem on the Hill with how we prove the value of a low cost treatment.” Another barrier has been the censorship of all of our attempts at disseminating critical scientific information on facebook and other social media with our pages repeatedly being blocked.

Finally, we believe the lack of clinical experts on the existing task forces is further hindering progress on identifying effective therapeutics. We can identify almost no members with any similarities to the skill set, clinical knowledge base, and patient care experience to our group of expert clinicians. Existing members all seem to be either physician leaders of large health care organizations or have research backgrounds. Although many must have had some bedside experience in the care of patients in their careers, there seem to be almost none that have been at the bedside of COVID-19 patients in any appreciable fashion during this pandemic. Expert clinician panels such as ours have large amounts of valuable insights and wisdom and we are extremely pleased to share our recent discovery of the immense potency of Ivermectin in COVID-19.

Kory’s organization, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), contains testimonies from citizens of their experiences with ivermectin against COVID-19; pointers on how to “overcome the pharmacy barrier” in obtaining prescriptions for the drug; and articles focusing on issues arising from the growing usage of ivermectin against the virus.

Ivermectin was approved for use by the FDA in 1996 as an anti-parasitic and is currently recommended by the CDC for treating scabies, river blindness and “intestinal strongyloidiasis.”

The NIH contains a number of medical papers relating initial positive findings from ivermectin’s use against COVID-19.

The video indicates that the drug Remdesivir, which the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease Director Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted last year for use in COVID-19, is manufactured by Gilead and costs more than $3,100 per treatment course.  In contrast, ivermectin, which is no longer patented, costs very little.

As of April 2021, the (NIH) stated:

Remdesivir is an intravenous nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog. Remdesivir binds to the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and inhibits viral replication through premature termination of RNA transcription. It has demonstrated in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2.1 In a rhesus macaque model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, remdesivir treatment was initiated soon after inoculation; the remdesivir-treated animals had lower virus levels in the lungs and less lung damage than the control animals.2

Remdesivir is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized adult and pediatric patients (aged ≥12 years and weighing ≥40 kg). It is also available through an FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized pediatric patients weighing 3.5 kg to <40 kg or aged <12 years and weighing ≥3.5 kg. Remdesivir should be administered in a hospital or a health care setting that can provide a similar level of care to an inpatient hospital.

Remdesivir has been studied in several clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19. The recommendations from the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) are based on the results of these studies. See Table 2a for more information.

“The Story of Ivermectin and COVID-19” illustrates Gilead’s contributions to the NIH and that several NIH doctors took part in approving Remdesivir for the virus.

Anecdotal evidence from hospital healthcare workers suggests Remdesivir given during the late stages of COVID-19 can be harmful or even fatal.

As for ivermectin and COVID-19, the NIH reports, in part:

Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the host’s antiviral response.4,5 In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever.4,7-9 Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.10-12

Some observational cohorts and clinical trials have evaluated the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Data from some of these studies can be found in Table 2c.

The FLCCC cites a number of papers written by medical cohorts on the benefits of ivermectin against the coronavirus.

The NIH’s National Library of Medicine contains a number of papers and citations with reference to ivermectin and its use against COVID-19.  One such paper published at clinicaltrials.gov written by researchers at the Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University in Turkey relates a trial involving “Patients who were hospitalised with a pre-diagnosis of severe COVID-19 pneumonia and thereafter diagnosis of COVID-19 was also confirmed microbiologically with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity in respiratory tract samples were included into the study. They were randomized to the study and control group, respectively. Single numbered patients were accepted as study group and double numbered patients as control group.” 

According to the authors, “Hydroxychloroquine, favipiravir and azithromycin (HFA) standard treatment protocol were given to the control group as recommended in the ‘COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 Infection) Guide’ prepared by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health.”

Former President Donald J. Trump and physicians in the U.S. have been marginalized, censored and deplatformed by “Big Tech” and the mainstream media for promoting such therapeutics as hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus.  However, Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” was intended to produce not only vaccines in a shortened time frame, but also “diagnostics and therapeutics.”  In August last year, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on FNC’s “Fox & Friends” that approximately 600 therapeutics for the disease were under development.

Today, some physicians are condemning what they see as a “therapeutic nihilism,” or the absence of outpatient treatment for coronavirus patients.  Those doctors are now “hunted” and punished by the medical establishment, Dr. Peter A. McCullough has said on numerous occasions.

In an August 25 opinion column at The Deseret News by Dr. Justus R. Hope, the author describes the 1990s “gaslighting” by tobacco companies as to the addictive qualities of nicotine. “Today, we know they lied to us because it was in their financial interests. They conducted a classic gaslight. Gaslighting is a form of deceit used by habitual or pathological liars. They will often lie to your face and never back down even when confronted with proof of their deception…Americans know that cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and COPD. In addition, they cause seven out of every ten cases of lung cancer. And cigarette smoking is highly addictive.”

Further, Hope states:

But currently, we are witnessing an even greater gaslight than from the cigarette executives. We see in 2021 gaslighting about vaccines, Ivermectin, and public health. We are lied to daily by corporate interests who seek to protect a much greater industry than tobacco.

Unlike tobacco, which was plastered all over the television with Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man, today we are bombarded with video clips of overflowing hospitals and dying patients. Rather than tobacco’s message of glamor, we relentlessly hear Big Pharma’s marketing message of doom. First, this was rehearsed with Ebola, later with Zika, and now Big Pharma has perfected it with COVID-19.

The public may be aware that the Pharmaceutical companies profit handsomely from new drugs and that there is a very cozy and cooperative relationship between FDA, NIH, and Big Pharma. Still, almost no one realizes they are gaslit daily with a coordinated marketing campaign.

At 2:02 p.m. EDT, “Ivermectin” was no longer trending on Twitter; however, as of 2:58 p.m., the topic briefly returned in third place.

Update, 9:49 p.m. EDT: Approximately eight minutes ago, Kory tweeted, “PLEASE realize there is literally a global war on Ivermectin. If it didn’t work, you wouldn’t see this level of heinous ferocity trying to kill it. I worry so few realize what has happened to US society. They are literally trying to kill us for $”.

Update, 3:08 p.m., October 16, 2021: A compilation of the results of 63 studies of ivermectin is here.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

        1. Yes; since 63 world-wide studies indicate ivermectin provides substantial benefit and is relatively unharmful, then trying something is indeed better than doing nothing except watching people die.

        2. “Relatively unharmful” still violates “First, do no harm.”

          Regardless, an anonymous website making claims about studies isn’t proof of effectiveness.

      1. There are only 20 comments. Some take issue (the author response to several of them) and some don’t.

        Not particularly overwhelming.

  1. Golden Rule of the medical establishment:
    Thou shall not prescribe any effective medical treatment for any medical condition that does not result in a substantial financial gain at the U.S. and foreign stock markets.

  2. “The powers that be…” have declared war against anyone… or anything… that does not parrot their agenda. Truth is not a narrative… and the positive results of Ivermectin and other economical drugs speak for themselves. Keep speaking the TRUTH.

  3. The propaganda is manipulated daily to fit the agenda of those who profit and those who want to destroy. How does one say the next virus will be far worse than this one unless of course, they are producing it? Or let’s keep the fear and chaos alive and well and it will get more people to be given vaccines. And to think taxpayer dollars help fund some of this.