Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ivermectin Cuts Covid Mortality by 92%, Major Study Finds – Why is it Still Not Approved?

BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | SEPTEMBER 3, 2022

Regular use of ivermectin led to a 100% reduction in hospitalisation rate, a 92% reduction in mortality rate and an 86% reduction in the risk of dying from a COVID-19 infection when compared to non-users, a major new study has found.

The study, published in the medical journal Cureus, analysed data from 223,128 people from the city of Itajaí in Brazil, making it the largest study of its kind and giving its findings a high degree of certainty. Senior author Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani wrote on Twitter: “An observational study with the size and level of analysis as ours is hardly achieved and infeasible to be conducted as a randomised clinical trial. Conclusions are hard to be refuted. Data is data, regardless of your beliefs.”

The study compared those who took ivermectin regularly, irregularly and not at all prior to being infected with COVID-19 (i.e., as prophylaxis), and found a dose-dependent relationship, confirming that the difference in outcomes is very likely to be due to the drug and not other factors, such as differences between the groups.

The authors used a technique called ‘propensity score matching’ to control for confounding factors that may otherwise have biased the study in one direction or another. For example, those taking ivermectin tended to be older than those not taking it (average age 47 years vs 40 years), but by matching people of similar age in each group and comparing outcomes this confounding factor was controlled for.

Here is the abstract of the study, which summarises the methods and results.

Background

We have previously demonstrated that ivermectin used as prophylaxis for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), irrespective of the regularity, in a strictly controlled citywide program in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, Brazil), was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality rates. In this study, our objective was to determine if the regular use of ivermectin impacted the level of protection from COVID-19 and related outcomes, reinforcing the efficacy of ivermectin through the demonstration of a dose-response effect.

Methods

This exploratory analysis of a prospective observational study involved a program that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days, for 150 days. Regularity definitions were as follows: regular users had 180 mg or more of ivermectin and irregular users had up to 60 mg, in total, throughout the program. Comparisons were made between non-users (subjects who did not use ivermectin), and regular and irregular users after multivariate adjustments. The full city database was used to calculate and compare COVID-19 infection and the risk of dying from COVID-19. The COVID-19 database was used and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed for hospitalisation and mortality rates.

Results

Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7th 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg). The remaining 71,548 participants were not included in the analysis. COVID-19 infection rate was 49% lower for regular users (3.40%) than non-users (6.64%) (risk rate (RR): 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45-0.58; p < 0.0001), and 25% lower than irregular users (4.54%) (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; p < 0.0001). The infection rate was 32% lower for irregular users than non-users (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.64-0.73; p < 0.0001).

Among COVID-19 [infected] participants, regular users were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users. After PSM, the matched analysis contained 283 subjects in each group of non-users and regular users, [283] between regular users and irregular users, and 1,542 subjects between non-users and irregular users. The hospitalisation rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 [once infected] was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.

The authors draw particular attention to the dose-dependent relationship as confirming the efficacy of the treatment:

The response pattern of ivermectin use and level of protection from COVID-19-related outcomes was identified and consistent across dose-related levels. The reduction in COVID-19 infection rate occurred in a consistent and significant dose-dependent manner, with reductions of 49% and 32% in regular and irregular users, when compared to non-users. The most striking evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness was the 100% reduction in mortality for female regular users.

The data in the study come from official government databases and, according to the authors, “conclusively show that the risk of dying from COVID-19 was lower for all regular and irregular users of ivermectin, compared to non-users, considering the whole population”.

The study, while not a randomised controlled trial (RCT), used a “strictly controlled population with a great level of control for confounding factors” and was larger than would be feasible in an RCT.

The authors highlight a “notable reduction in risk of death in the over 50-year-old population and those with comorbidities”.

They conclude that the evidence provided by the study is “among the strongest and most conclusive data regarding ivermectin efficacy”.

Many governments have suppressed the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, claiming there is a lack of evidence of efficacy. However, this purported lack of evidence often relies on poorly designed trials and biased conclusions. For example, a recent widely-reported RCT concluded the study “did not show adequate support for the effectiveness of this drug” – yet its own results showed statistically significant benefits for speed of recovery as well as large (though not, in that study, statistically significant) benefits for mechanical ventilation and death. Participants also were not given the treatment until over a week into having symptoms and the study may have been confounded by people in the placebo arm also taking the drug.

One of the new study’s authors and a seasoned proponent of repurposed treatments like ivermectin, Dr. Pierre Kory, made clear his thoughts on Twitter in April as he responded to an FDA tweet reminding the public that ivermectin is not approved: “Messaging BS with one corrupt study while ignoring 82 trials (33 RCTs) from 27 countries, 129K patients – sum showing massive benefits. Stop lying man, people are dying. #earlytreatmentworks.”

Social media companies have censored information about ivermectin, often considering any suggestion that it is an effective treatment for COVID-19 to be misinformation. Yet ivermectin is a cheap, safe drug that many studies have shown brings considerable benefit in treating and preventing COVID-19. The latest study impressively confirms this efficacy as a prophylactic, with a reduction in mortality of up to 92%.

Shockingly, most governments still do not have a protocol for early treatment or prevention of COVID-19. The NHS says treatment is only available for those at high risk of serious disease who have a positive test and symptoms that are not getting better. Its guidance on self-care for people ill at home only recommends paracetamol and ibuprofen. Yet here is a highly controlled study of over 200,000 people that shows huge benefit – 92% reduction in mortality, 100% reduction in hospitalisation – for the prophylactic use of a cheap, widely available drug, and which confirms the results of multiple earlier studies. What are our governments waiting for? What more do they need to approve drugs that have been shown to save lives?

September 5, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 5 Comments

Stop the War on Doctors

My Rather Public Reply To The Threat Made Against Me By The American Board Of Internal Medicine

By Pierre Kory | July 2, 2022

Anyone in America who deviates from the group-think enforced by public health bureaucrats runs the risk of cancellation. Politicians, parents, comedians, teachers – now they’re even coming for the doctors.

As a lung and ICU specialist, I have practiced medicine for 14 years and successfully treated more than 450 patients during the pandemic. Long before anyone had heard of Covid-19, I was studying and implementing cutting-edge methods to treat critically ill patients. I’m the Senior Editor of a best-selling textbook in my field, now in its second edition, which has been translated into seven languages.

For my efforts, I now find myself on the receiving end of “disciplinary sanctions” from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), who sent me a letter threatening “suspension or revocation of board certification.”

The “sin” threatening to end my medical career was my unwillingness to go along with Fauci’s monolithic vaccines-above-all-else strategy. The failure of this approach is plain to see, and anyone with an ounce of curiosity knows there are many methods of treating the virus.

Ivermectin is one of them. This cheap, readily available generic medicine is approved by the FDA for certain uses in humans – but not for Covid-19, despite 85 controlled trials from around the world demonstrating its effectiveness. In Brazil, the largest study to date found a reduction in Covid mortality rate of 70%. In India, the second most populated country in the world, the drug has been credited with near eradication of the disease. Studies attempting to discredit ivermectin have been debunked again and again.

Other trials, such as the recent TOGETHER trial, are designed to fail from the start to drive a desired narrative. In the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6, despite starting the majority of patients on treatment after five days of Covid-19 symptoms at a lower than recommended dose, they found a statistically significant reduction in the time to recovery, particularly among the most severely ill. Unsurprisingly, major newspapers reported that the study showed ivermectin was ineffective.

Despite ivermectin’s proven effectiveness, in the opinion of the ABIM, advocating for its usage is a form of “disinformation” and carries the penalty of losing one’s medical license and livelihood.

Throughout the pandemic, I’ve maintained an open mind, analyzed what works for patients, discussed strategies with fellow doctors, and conducted my own extensive research. When new data arose that changed my understanding, I admitted as much and changed course—like with the vaccines. If only the powers that be at the ABIM and our government could say the same.

Consider the evolution of accepted facts about Covid-19 safety measures from Fauci and his ilk. Despite government mandates, neither lockdowns nor cloth masks prevent transmission. They never have. It turns out former Surgeon General Jerome Adams had it right when he tweeted in March 2020 that masks are, “NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus” – a comment for which he was pilloried. We are only beginning to learn the impact of the societal costs of these early preventative measures, a price our children who were kept home from school will be paying for years.

Second, there is no evidence the vaccines stop Covid-19, despite the constant lecturing from the Biden Administration and the mainstream media. In the United States and globally, cases continue to rise and fall without any correlation to the pace or percentage of population vaccinated. This is not what we were promised. In 2021, Fauci said vaccinated people were “dead ends” for the virus, and  President Biden declared, “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” Today, approximately 110,000 cases are announced daily in America, where more than two thirds of the population is fully vaccinated.

There is a backlash brewing in America right now, and it goes beyond inflation rates and gas prices. People are tired of arrogant public officials and compromised institutions who believe they have all the answers but constantly get it wrong and make no apologies as they steamroll those who don’t support the current narrative. The ABIM’s sudden (and suspiciously well-funded) persecution of doctors who stray from the party line is only the latest example.

Doctors on the ABIM’s board and across the country need to stand up against this witch hunt. It’s demeaning to honest doctors and dangerous to the patients we’ve dedicated our careers to serving.

Pierre Kory, M.D., is president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

July 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment

Ivermectin Study’s Negative Conclusion is at Odds With Its Findings of Significant Clinical Benefit

BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JUNE 21, 2022

A new study on cheap, repurposed Covid treatment ivermectin has concluded that its findings “do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19”. However, this conclusion is at odds with its findings.

The study, “Non-effectiveness of Ivermectin on Inpatients and Outpatients With COVID-19; Results of Two Randomised, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials”, is published in Frontiers in Medicine. It includes among its authors Dr. Andrew Hill, who last year appeared to suggest to Dr. Tess Lawrie that pressure had been applied to him not to find in support of ivermectin in an earlier paper. He told her, “I’m in a very sensitive position here”, and “I don’t really want to get into” revealing who from Gates-funded charity Unitaid, which funded the study, really wrote the conclusion of the paper downplaying the benefits of the treatment.

The new study gives a helpful introduction to the drug.

Ivermectin is a low-cost established drug with clinical benefits and minimal safety concerns, which has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro in studies. Ivermectin has rapid oral absorption, with high lipid solubility is widely circulated in the body, metabolised in the liver, and excreted in faeces. The adequate concentration of ivermectin inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in the in vitro experiment is higher than the approved dose of ivermectin concentration in plasma and the lungs of humans. However, a meta-analysis demonstrated that the administration of a standard FDA-approved dose shows a positive clinical response in COVID-19 patients.

The study is a follow-up to an earlier, smaller study which showed promise. However, the promise has not, the authors say, been borne out.

Despite our previous more favourable results from a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 69 COVID-19 patients at the beginning of the pandemic which noted the effectiveness of ivermectin in recovery and decreasing duration of hospital stay, the current results of this extensive study on 609 admitted patients with moderate to severe form of COVID-19 and 549 outpatients with a mild form of COVID-19, did not show adequate support for the effectiveness of this drug.

Despite this downbeat assessment, the new study did actually find a significant 32% improvement in ivermectin hospital patients achieving complete recovery, with 37% of ivermectin patients vs 28% of placebo patients achieving the outcome [95% CI, 1.04–1.66].

A number of the other key outcomes, including ICU admission and death, were also better in the ivermectin group, though the study was underpowered (not large enough) for these results to be statistically significant (i.e., we can’t be sure they weren’t coincidence). These were:

  • ICU admission: 28 ivermectin vs 32 placebo patients; 9% vs 11%; 16% improvement [95% CI, 0.52–1.36].
  • Invasive mechanical ventilation: 3% ivermectin vs 6% placebo; 50% improvement [95% CI, 0.24 –1.07].
  • Supplemental oxygen by non-invasive ventilation: 244 ivermectin vs 252 placebo; 78% vs 85%; 7% improvement [95% CI, 0.86–1.00].
  • Death: 13 ivermectin vs 18 placebo; 4% vs 6%; 33% improvement [95% CI, 0.35–1.39].

The fact that all these outcomes showed an improvement, and mechanical ventilation and death considerably so, is a signal that the benefit is unlikely to be solely due to chance. Thus the conclusion should really have been that a larger study is needed to see if the promising results can achieve statistical significance.

For outpatients, there were also some significant clinical benefits:

  • Fever duration: 2.02 (± 0.11) days ivermectin vs 2.41 (± 0.13) days placebo; 16% improvement.
  • On the day seventh of treatment, fever, cough and weakness were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group.

A few results went the other way, though none of these were statistically significant. For inpatients:

  • Length of hospital stay: 7.98 (± 4.4) days ivermectin vs 7.16 (± 3.2) days placebo; 20% worse [95% CI, 0.15–1.45]. The study claims this finding is “significant”, but the wide confidence interval going through 1.0 indicates not. The authors write that “delays in discharging patients to other facilities such as rehabilitation centres… might be the reason for more extended hospital stay other than treatment for COVID-19”.
  • Mean oxygen saturation at day seven: 92.01 (Range: 72–99) ivermectin vs 93 (Range: 48–99) placebo; 1% worse [95% CI, –2.89 to 0.91].
  • Relative recovery (where some symptoms persist on discharge): 53% ivermectin vs 60% placebo; 13% worse [95% CI, 0.76–1.00].
  • Persistent dry cough (until seventh day): 5 ivermectin vs 10 placebo; 3% vs 9%; 36% worse [95% CI, 0.13–1.03].

For outpatients:

  • Hospitalisation: 7% ivermectin vs 5% placebo; 36% worse [95% CI, 0.65–2.84].
  • PCR negative on day five after treatment: 26% ivermectin vs 32% placebo; 19% worse [95% CI, 0.60–1.09].

The authors write that “no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalisation and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 five days after treatment in outpatients”. However, it’s important to note that this was for ivermectin given more than a week after symptoms began. Proponents of ivermectin often argue that treatment should be given within five days of exposure, i.e., as soon as possible.

The paper does mention this issue, though in a strange sentence with typographical errors perhaps indicative of a late addition: “Ivermectin may be going to be effective if it is given at the earliest possible time that clinical symptoms appear whiles [sic] the mean duration of symptoms before randomisation was 7.36 ± 3.43 days in the ivermectin group and 6.98 ± 3.63 days in the placebo group.” Typographical errors aside, the point is correct; an outpatient study really needs to start the treatment sooner.

There may also be a dosage issue. While the trial gave a dose of 0.4 mg per kg per day over a duration of three days, some have suggested a higher dose is required. The paper nods at this where it says: “Krolewiecki et al. assessed antiviral activity and safety of a five-day regimen of high dose ivermectin, comparing the control group in 45 patients with COVID-19. The findings support the hypothesis that ivermectin has a concentration-dependent antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.”

A further potential problem with the study, which was conducted in Iran where ivermectin has been popular as a Covid treatment, is the question of how many of the placebo group were also secretly taking ivermectin anyway. In the limitations the authors note that “after the allocation of ivermectin or placebo, a significant number of patients declined to be participants”, which may be because they realised they wanted to be sure they were taking the drug. Taking an antiviral medication was an exclusion criterion for outpatients – 18 admitted to it, but how many continued with the trial (for which they were presumably paid) but took such drugs anyway? Furthermore, previously taking an antiviral does not appear to have been an exclusion criterion for inpatients, so it is unknown how many placebo-arm inpatients had taken ivermectin or another medication prior to hospitalisation. Once in hospital, I imagine they would not have been able to continue taking any medication secretly, and perhaps that explains why nearly a third of the inpatient participants were lost to follow up, most due to voluntary withdrawal or “incomplete intervention” (31.6%, 282 of 891; 136 ivermectin and 146 placebo).

Overall, I find the conclusion baffling given the findings. There were statistically significant benefits of ivermectin for complete recovery, shorter duration of fever and quicker clearing up of cough and weakness. There were also large but not-statistically-significant benefits for mechanical ventilation and death. The negative findings were mostly small and none were statistically significant. This is for a study which didn’t start the treatment until over a week into symptoms, and may have been confounded by people in the placebo arm also taking the drug.

Perhaps we will never get to the bottom of exactly how effective ivermectin is against COVID-19. But since it’s a safe drug (to quote U.K. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, “Ivermectin has proven to be safe. Doses up to 10 times the approved limit are well tolerated by healthy volunteers”) and this study shows once again that it gives some benefit – other studies show much greater benefit – why not be honest about that, allow medics to include it in their treatment protocol, and stop making such a fuss about stopping them?

June 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Doctors Sue FDA, Allege Crusade Against Ivermectin ‘Unlawfully Interfered’ With Their Ability to Treat Patients

The Defender | June 6, 2022

Three physicians are suing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for launching what they allege is a “crusade” against ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that “unlawfully interfered” with the doctors’ ability to practice medicine.

In a lawsuit filed June 2, Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden and Paul E. Marik argued the FDA acted outside of its authority by directing the public, including health professionals and patients, to not use ivermectin — even though the drug is fully approved by the FDA for human use.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, also names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Robert Califf, acting FDA commissioner.

According to the complaint:

“The FDA generally cannot ban particular uses of human drugs once they are otherwise approved and admitted to the market, even if such use differs from the labeling — commonly referred to as ‘off-label’ use.

“The FDA also can not advise whether a patient should take an approved drug for a particular purpose. Those decisions fall within the scope of the doctor-patient relationship.

“Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is — and always has been — reserved to states.”

The plaintiffs said their lawsuit isn’t about whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. It’s about who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process.

In their complaint, they site an FDA publication, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” and tweets from the FDA — including one implying that ivermectin is intended only for animals — among examples of the FDA discouraging the use of ivermectin.

The plaintiffs also argued if the FDA is allowed to interfere with the practice of medicine now, using the pandemic as a cover, “this interference will metastasize to other circumstances, destroying the carefully constructed statutory wall between federal and state regulatory powers, and between the FDA and the professional judgment of health professionals.”

“This lawsuit, brought by three eminently qualified physicians, is a welcome development,” said Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel.

Holland told The Defender :

“These doctors rightfully assert that the FDA, assisted by corporate media, have unlawfully interfered in the doctor-patient relationship and the appropriate treatment for individual patients. Regulating the doctor-patient relationship is an area of well-established state, not federal, law.

“I hope these plaintiffs will enjoin the FDA from continuing to restrict access to ivermectin and from penalizing healthcare practitioners who use this licensed drug for their patients.”

The plaintiffs: well-respected in their field, high success rate treating COVID patients

Apter, who is licensed to practice medicine in Arizona and Washington and has a COVID-19 patient survival rate of more than 99.98%, was referred to the Washington Medical Commission and Arizona Medical Board for disciplinary proceedings for prescribing ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

In a press release, Apter said, “If doctors are freed to treat patients according to their best judgment and unprejudiced evaluation of the medical literature, many thousands more deaths and serious disabilities will be averted.”

Apter said the FDA’s pronouncements against the use of ivermectin “have been the basis for disciplinary actions against doctors, interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and have had a severe chilling effect on the use of life-saving medication for a deadly disease.”

In the lawsuit, Apter argued that government pressure, “largely through the FDA,” also led pharmacies — especially in large corporate chains — to refuse to fill ivermectin prescriptions for COVID-19, because that position is supported by the FDA.

Bowden, who according to the lawsuit has 40 years of experience in emergency medicine, began recommending ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in early 2020. She treated more than 3,900 patients for COVID-19, with a success rate of over 99.97%.

She said the FDA’s actions regarding ivermectin, specifically its directives to stop using the drug to treat COVID-19, harmed Bowden’s ability to practice medicine and treat patients.

Bowden’s employer, Houston Methodist Hospital, last year forced her to resign by suspending her privileges for spreading “COVID misinformation.”

Bowden said she is “fighting back — the public needs to understand what the FDA has done is illegal, and I hope this suit will prevent them from continuing to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.”

In an interview earlier this year with The Defender, Bowden said she was all for the COVID vaccines when they first came out — it was only when she started seeing what was happening with all the breakthrough cases that she wondered, “Why am I seeing so many COVID cases among the fully vaccinated?”

Then her patients began having adverse reactions. “If I hadn’t seen that firsthand, I would still think the vaccine was the way to go,” she said.

As the pandemic evolved, Bowden developed protocols for preventing and treating COVID patients. She said she’s seen excellent results.

“The basis of it is ivermectin,” she said. “And also vitamins C and D, quercetin and zinc, and black seed oil. It’s nothing complicated — and it’s just like with anything in medicine — not one size fits all — protocols are guidelines.”

The controversy over prescribing ivermectin was initially “intimidating and isolating,” she said. “I thought I was a little bitty island in a huge ocean, and now I realize that I’m part of at least half a continent.”

Marik, author of more than 750 publications, was professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia, from 2009 through 2021. He also served as a director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.

He developed a protocol for EVMS for treating COVID-19, called the EVMS COVID-19 Management Protocol, which included the MATH+ Protocol.

However, according to the lawsuit, Marik was forced to resign from his positions at EVMS and Sentara Norfolk General Hospital for promoting the use of ivermectin — “as well as other safe, cheap, and effective off-label FDA-approved drugs” — to treat COVID-19 following the FDA’s attempts to stop use of those drugs for that purpose.

Marik alleged in the lawsuit that refusing to allow patients to receive effective early treatment for COVID-19 “led to innumerable hospitalizations and deaths, and caused extreme distress for patients, their families, and health professionals.”

Boyden, Gray & Associates, a Washington, DC-based law firm, is representing the plaintiffs.

Ivermectin was developed in the 1970s as a veterinary medicine to treat parasitic diseases in livestock, but a decade or so later was hailed as a “wonder drug” and received approval for human use as a therapeutic against diseases such as river blindness — or onchocerciasis — and lymphatic filariasis, according to Newsmax.

Since 1987, it has been used safely in 3.7 billion doses worldwide. William Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research on the drug.

Studies show ivermectin is associated with lower COVID-19 death rates, but the FDA — with help from mainstream media — continues to state the drug is ineffective for treating COVID.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

June 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 3 Comments

The FDA loves horse medicine if it’s really expensive, still under patent, and toxic 

By Toby Rogers | Thinking Points | April 4, 2022

Ivermectin is safer than aspirin and effective against Covid if used at the right dose prophylactically or in early treatment. It’s such an enormous breakthrough that the guy who discovered it (it’s a microbe in the soil) won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015.

The FDA does not like ivermectin because it works and this costs the pharmaceutical industry hundreds of billions of dollars in lost vaccine profits. Almost everyone who works at FDA is auditioning for a job with a big pharmaceutical company. So the FDA ran and continues to run hit pieces against this Nobel Prize winning treatment, calling it “horse medicine.”

Of course many (most?) medicines have dual use in human and other animals — including antibiotics, pain relievers, chemotherapy drugs etc. So the FDA staff debased and degraded themselves in service of the cartel and now no one trusts them.

Well, to add insult to mass murder, it turns out that the whole time that the FDA was incorrectly calling ivermectin “horse medicine” it was developing with Merck, an actual horse medicine to treat Covid:

Molnupiravir began as a possible therapy for Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus at Emory University’s non-profit company DRIVE (Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory) in Atlanta. But in 2015, DRIVE’s chief executive George Painter offered it to a collaborator, virologist Mark Denison at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, to test against coronaviruses. “I was pretty blown away by it,” Denison remembers. He found that it worked against multiple coronaviruses: MERS and mouse hepatitis virus.

But here’s the kicker — molnupiravir is a mutagen — it changes DNA which will accelerate the creation of new variants and thus prolong the pandemic. It costs $700 per full course of treatment. Of course the FDA granted an emergency use authorization.

So to recap:

Safe and effective treatment for Covid, costs pennies, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine = ridiculed by FDA.

Actual horse medicine (TO TREAT AN ACTUAL HORSE VIRUS) that costs a fortune, changes your DNA, and prolongs the pandemic = praised by the FDA.

Arrest all of the FDA leadership and dismantle that building brick by brick.

April 4, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study

The NEJM study chose a much lower dose, 400mcg per day for only three days, less than half the total dose that has been shown to be effective

By Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | March 31, 2022

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email blast to subscribers with the subject line: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment, a large clinical trial found.”

The Times was referring to a study I wrote about, that same day, for The Defender.

My article called out the Wall Street Journal for its March 18 reporting on the same study — before the study was even published — for its failure to provide an accurate, critical assessment of the study.

The study in question — “Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19” — was officially published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In it the authors concluded:

“Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19”

The Times did not critique the study itself, but quoted the opinion of Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota:

“There’s really no sign of any benefit. Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies.”

Yes. Let us dive into the details and the data and see where it “steers” us, shall we?

A closer look at the details

The NEJM study took place in Brazil between March 23 and Aug. 6, 2021.

The study examined 1,358 people who expressed symptoms of COVID-19 at an outpatient care facility (within seven days of symptom onset), had a positive rapid test for the disease and had at least one of these risk factors for severe disease:

  • Age over 50
  • Hypertension requiring medical therapy
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Lung disease
  • Smoking
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplantation
  • Chronic kidney disease (stage IV) or receipt of dialysis
  •  Immunosuppressive therapy (receipt of ≥10 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily)
  • Diagnosis of cancer within the previous 6 months
  • Receipt of chemotherapy for cancer.

Young and healthy individuals were not part of this study.

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were included in the study. The percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified. Note that by choosing not to identify vaccination status as a confounding variable the authors are implying that vaccines are playing no role in preventing hospitalization.

The 1,358 subjects were divided into two equally sized groups that were relatively well-matched and randomized to receive either a three-day dose of placebo or a three-day course of ivermectin at 400 mcg/kg.

The primary outcome was hospitalization due to COVID-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of COVID-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

How researchers were able to conclude ‘no benefit’ despite signs to the contrary

The study’s authors wrote:

“100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event (composite of hospitalization due to the progression of COVID-19 or an emergency department visit of >6 hours that was due to clinical worsening of COVID-19), as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16).”

In other words, a greater percentage of placebo recipients required hospitalization or observation in an emergency department than those who received Ivermectin.

The authors of the study broke it down by subgroups here:

As is demonstrated in nearly every subgroup, the Ivermectin recipients fared better than those who received the placebo.

However, these data were not statistically significant given the size of the study.

This is how the authors were able to conclude there was no benefit to ivermectin use in preventing hospitalization in high-risk patients in their study.

Patients were under-dosed, some didn’t follow instructions

As it stands, the study The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal declared as proof of the uselessness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is actually quite promising —  contrary to what their headlines told readers.

The dosing protocol advised by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) includes a five-day course of ivermectin at 600 micrograms per kilogram of body weight for people with risk factors such as those possessed by participants in the study.

Instead, the investigators behind the NEJM study chose a much lower dose, 400mcg per day for only three days. This represents less than half of the total dose that has been shown to be effective in practice.

Furthermore, despite acknowledging that studies have shown some indication that the bioavailability of ivermectin increases when taken with food, especially a fatty meal, participants in the trial were instructed to take the medicine on an empty stomach.

In other words, the patients were significantly under-dosed — and yet a positive effect of the drug was emerging, though not statistically significant given the size of the study.

Also of note, the investigators chose to include emergency room visits with hospitalizations for COVID. Clearly, six hours of observation in an ER is a significantly different outcome than a hospitalization that may last a night or much longer.

When excluding the ER visits from the primary outcome and examining only hospitalizations, the ivermectin cohort had even less risk of an outcome, i.e. the relative risk was 0.84 vs 0.9 when ER visits and hospitalization were grouped together.

Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the study is the low number of placebo recipients who actually followed the study’s protocol:

Only 288 of 679 participants randomized to receiving the placebo reported 100% adherence to the study protocol. Nearly 400 didn’t.

Why not? We asked Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee.

Nass told The Defender :

“Presumably they knew the difference between ivermectin and placebo, and the placebo subjects went out and bought ivermectin or something else … but whatever they did, they didn’t bother with the pills they were given.

“So, it was not actually a double-blinded trial. Yet the 391 people who didn’t take the placebo but did something else were included in two of the three calculations of ivermectin efficacy anyway.”

So, was this the definitive answer proclaimed by mainstream sources? Nass thinks otherwise:

“I would say that instead, it was a failed trial due to the 391 placebo recipients who admitted they did not follow protocol versus the 55 in the ivermectin arm.”

More questions than answers

Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

  • What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
  • What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
  • How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
  • Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
  • Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
  • With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
  • What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
  • Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported here.

Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.

Here’s a bigger question: Are they incompetent, or complicit, too?

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

April 1, 2022 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

FORMER W.H.O. CONSULTANT EXPOSES TAKEDOWN OF IVERMECTIN

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 3, 2022

Del sits down for a one-on-one with the former W.H.O. consultant & research scientist, Tess Lawrie MD, PhD, who was a critical part of the Ivermectin trials over a year ago with overwhelmingly positive conclusions. See data and recorded personal zoom calls that reveal how a key review was attacked from within, keeping the safe, life-saving drug out of the hands of millions of dying Covid patients for more than a year.

March 9, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , , , | 1 Comment

A LETTER TO ANDREW HILL | DR TESS LAWRIE

OracleFilms | March 4, 2022

In October 2020 Dr Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organisation on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

But on January 18th 2021, Dr Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigour, the review was low quality and the extremely positive findings on ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr Hill advised that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”

The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. A media onslaught against the medicine ensued. What were Dr Hill’s reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?

One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it first hand; Dr Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr Hill during the same time frame.

⁣If you like what Oracle Films does, you can support us here: buymeacoffee.com/oraclefilms ⁣

Follow us on Telegram: t.me/OracleFilms

Dr. Tess Lawrie interview with Del Bigtree of The Highwire (Mar 3, 2022)

March 5, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

You can’t claim vaccine is the only Covid life saver when treatments are banned!

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | February 23, 2022

EACH week, members of the UK’s watchdog Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency publish their Yellow Card update on adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine.

Every time they do so, they repeat this claim: ‘Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19.’

But how do they know?

The fact is as long as treatments such hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin continue to be banned in the UK, we are prevented from knowing whether treatment could be more effective than vaccines in preventing deaths and reducing severe illness. Published research indicates it could be.

Furthermore without a proper investigation into the thousands of hospital Covid fatalities, how can we know whether the chosen treatment protocols have not been as responsible a cause of death as the disease itself?

In the US, the National Institutes of Health treatment protocol guidance for Covid is based on two drugs, dexamethasone and remdesivir. 

Yet at least one major study has called remdesivir into question. Published almost exactly a year ago, it found kidney disorders to be a serious adverse reaction of the drug in coronavirus disease.

It reported that compared with the use of chloroquine, dexamethasone, sarilumab, or tocilizumab, the use of remdesivir was associated with an increased reporting of kidney disorders.

The research states that ‘in the vast majority of cases (316 – 96.6 per cent), no other drug was suspected in the onset of kidney disorders. Reactions were serious in 301 cases (92 per cent) cases, with a fatal outcome for 15 patients (4.6 per cent).

The NHS  ‘guidance pathways’ for severe Covid cases – which cover respiratory support to end of life support – are set out here. Other guidance states that ‘treatment with remdesivir may be considered in certain hospitalised patients with Covid‑19 pneumonia’.

Clinicians can also ‘offer dexamethasone to patients with Covid‑19 who need supplemental oxygen, or who have a level of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) that requires supplemental oxygen but are unable to have or tolerate it. If dexamethasone is unsuitable or unavailable, either hydrocortisone or prednisolone can be used.’

An Oxford Recovery Trial for hospitalised Covid patients found ‘the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomisation but not among those receiving no respiratory support.’

The perceived limitations of the data are set out here. But for all the glowing testimonials, the survival of the patients in the trial groups – a 22.9 per cent death rate – was not a huge improvement on that in the usual care group, 25.7 per cent

‘Overall, 482 patients (22.9 per cent) in the dexamethasone group and 1,110 patients (25.7 per cent) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomisation (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95 per cent confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001).’

What this drug treatment was not compared with was the efficacy of either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, two successful early intervention treatments that perversely remain banned here.

Sadly we will never know how many lives would have been saved had these drugs been introduced into community and hospital protocols a year ago? I rest my case.

Isn’t it high time the MHRA revised its claim to say: ‘Vaccine is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19 in the absence of potentially effective treatments which are banned in the UK.’

Below is the latest full Yellow Card adverse reaction breakdown. It follows a week marked by another seven deaths and a further 82 adverse reactions reported for children, all of which continue to go unremarked by the mainstream media.

MHRA Yellow Card reporting summary up to February 9, 2022 (Data published  February 17, 2022)

Adult – primary and booster/third dose, child administration. 

* Pfizer: 25.9million people, 49million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 157 people impacted.

* Astrazeneca: 24.9million people, 49.1million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 102 people impacted.

* Moderna: 1.6million people, three million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 45 people impacted.

Overall, one in 118 people injected experienced a Yellow Card adverse event, which may be less than ten per cent of actual figures, according to the MHRA.

The MHRA states that:

* Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19.

* The expected benefits of the vaccines in preventing Covid-19 and serious complications associated with Covid-19 far outweigh any currently known side-effects in the majority of patients.

Adult booster or third doses given = 37,650,239.

Booster Yellow Card reports: 28,941 (Pfizer) + 466 (AZ) + 15,870 (Moderna) + 151 (Unknown) = 45,428.

Reactions: 472,956 (Pfizer) + 862,394 (AZ) + 118,425 (Moderna) + 4653 (Unknown) = 1,458,428.

Reports: 164,679 (Pfizer) + 243,491 (AZ) + 35,566 (Moderna) + 1520 (Unknown) = 445,256 people impacted.

Fatal718 (Pfizer) + 1,221 (AZ) + 38 (Moderna) + 40 (Unknown) = 2,017.

Blood disorders: 16,759 (Pfizer) + 7793 (AZ) + 2428 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 27,042.

Anaphylaxis: 649 (Pfizer) + 871 (AZ) + 87 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 1,609.

Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: 875 (Pfizer) + 3,029 (AZ) + 106 (Moderna) + 25 (Unknown) = 4,035.

Acute cardiac: 12,273 (Pfizer) + 11,147 (AZ) + 3,009 (Moderna) + 90 (Unknown) = 26,519.

Eye disorders: 7,772 (Pfizer) + 14,797 (AZ) + 1,460 (Moderna) + 83 (Unknown) = 24,112

Blindness: 155 (Pfizer) + 317 (AZ) + 31 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 507.

Deafness: 288 (Pfizer) + 424 (AZ) + 50 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 767.

Spontaneous abortions: 471 + 1 premature baby death / 15 stillbirth/foetal deaths (11 recorded as fatal) (Pfizer) + 229 + 5 stillbirth (AZ) + 60 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 765 miscarriages

Nervous system disorders: 78,872 (Pfizer) + 182,030 (AZ) + 19,215 (Moderna) + 839 (Unknown) = 280,956.

Seizures: 1,068 (Pfizer) + 2,050 (AZ) + 250 (Moderna) + 17 (Unknown) = 3,385.

Paralysis: 495 (Pfizer) + 871 (AZ) + 98 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 1,472.

Tremor: 2,117 (Pfizer) + 9,925 (AZ) + 637 (Moderna) + 50 (Unknown) = 12,729.

Vertigo and tinnitus: 4,078 (Pfizer) + 6,897 (AZ) + 684 (Moderna) + 39 (Unknown) = 11,698

Transverse myelitis: 34 (Pfizer) + 116 (AZ) + 2 (Moderna) = 152

BCG scar reactivation: 67 (Pfizer) + 38 (AZ) + 51 (Moderna) = 156

Headaches and migraines: 35,041 (Pfizer) + 93,844 (AZ) + 9,112 (Moderna) + 331 (Unknown) = 138,328

Vomiting: 5,134 (Pfizer) + 11,631 (AZ) + 1,727 (Moderna) + 59 (Unknown) = 18,551

Infections: 11,611 (Pfizer) + 20,089 (AZ) + 2,160 (Moderna) + 150 (Unknown) = 34,010.

Herpes: 2,149 (Pfizer) + 2,676 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 5,088.

Immune system disorders: 2,369 (Pfizer) + 3,274 (AZ) + 593 (Moderna) + 21 (Unknown) = 6,257.

Skin disorders: 33,094 (Pfizer) + 53,154 (AZ) + 12,637 (Moderna) + 330 (Unknown) = 99,215.

Respiratory disorders: 20,950 (Pfizer) + 29,585 (AZ) + 4,015 (Moderna) + 196 (Unknown) = 54,746.

Epistaxis (nosebleeds): 1,063 (Pfizer) + 2302 (AZ) + 188 (Moderna) + 11 (Unknown) = 3,564.

Psychiatric disorders: 9,876 (Pfizer) + 18,289 (AZ) + 2,339 (Moderna) + 108 (Unknown) = 30,612.

Reproductive/breast disorders: 30,236 (Pfizer) + 20,649 (AZ) + 4,905 (Moderna) + 199 (Unknown) = 55,989

Children and young people special report – suspected side-effects reported in under-18s:

* Pfizer: 3,200,000 children (first doses) plus 1,500,000 second doses, resulting in 3,044 Yellow Cards.

* AZ: 12,400 children (first doses) resulting in 254 Yellow Cards. Reporting rate one in 49.

* Moderna: 2,000 children (first doses) resulting in 18 Yellow Cards.

* Brand unspecified: 18 Yellow Cards.

Total = 3,214,400 children injected

Total Yellow Cards for under-18s = 3,334

The MHRA states that all children aged five to 11 will be eligible for vaccination in the coming weeks.

For full reports, including 347 pages of specific reaction listings, see here. 

February 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Oklahoma AG declares medical boards can’t punish doctor for prescribing ivermectin

LifeSiteNews | February 16, 2022

OKLAHOMA CITY – Doctors in Oklahoma are well within their professional rights to prescribe ivermectin (IVM) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to COVID-19 patients, state ​​Attorney General John O’Connor affirmed, despite the drugs’ disfavored status within the federal health bureaucracy.

“The Attorney General’s office finds no legal basis for a state medical licensure board to discipline a licensed physician for exercising sound judgment and safely prescribing an FDA-approved drug – like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine – for the off-label purpose of treating a patient with COVID-19,” O’Connor’s office concluded in a February 8 statement, declaring that “healthcare professionals should have every tool available to combat COVID-19.”

“The Attorney General’s office neither condones nor condemns a specific course of treatment for COVID-19,” the release added. “Our office maintains that proper healthcare decisions are to be made between a patient and his or her physician, and the government should not interfere with their relationship.”

Despite being misrepresented in the mainstream media as aquarium cleaner and horse dewormer, respectively, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are both FDA-approved medications with a range of human applications, such that both are listed on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines. Like many medications, ivermectin is also used for horses, but human dosages of the drug for human ailments were not controversial until IVM started gaining notice in the context of COVID-19.

While experts continue to debate the drugs’ effectiveness at treating COVID-19, promising studies as well as reports of positive results have generated significant interest in them, as has the fact that they have been used and studied for far longer than the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed and released in record time by the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. Many believe the long-established drugs are safer than relatively new vaccines they believe have been rushed and politicized.

Despite the established safety of IVM and HCQ, and the evolving nature of COVID knowledge, families across the country have had to go to court to force hospitals to let them try the drugs for their loved ones, while doctors have seen their medical licenses threatened for prescribing them – a scenario the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office indicates will not be tolerated in the Sooner State.

The University of Minnesota, Emory University School of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, and other medical institutions are currently conducting a major at-home clinical trial to assess ivermectin’s effectiveness at treating COVID-19, as well as that of the drugs metformin and fluvoxamine or any combination of the three.

February 18, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | 2 Comments

The extraordinary story of how patient access to COVID treatments were denied

Eventually involving witch hunts of physicians who dared to treat patients

By Meryl Nass, MD | February 11, 2022

In 2020, I compiled a list of over 50 ways authorities and pharma companies in multiple countries stopped the use of the chloroquine drugs for COVID. This was (and is) a stunning collection,which has been widely read and reproduced on many websites. When you read it, you are astounded to learn that all the US (and many international) public health agencies took many different actions to increase deaths and destruction from COVID and prolong the pandemic. “Avoiding the Trump drug” served as a great cover story. Taking hydroxychloroquine for COVID was equated to drinking bleach.

But here’s the kicker: the authorities knew all about chloroquine and other treatments for COVID before there was a COVID… because they had figured it out for the 2002 SARS epidemic and the 2012 MERS epidemic, both caused by related coronaviruses.  But they hushed it up.

Five CDC (US government) scientists published a paper, along with three Canadian government scientists, showing that chloroquine was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses, in 2005. European scientists had shown the same thing in 2004.

Here is the CDC paper:

and here is its conclusion:

It looked very promising for both prevention and treatment of the first SARS.  After all, it has been used for many decades both to prevent and to treat malaria. (I took it for prevention, and later for treatment, 50 years ago.)

Nine years later, In 2014, scientists in Tony Fauci’s NIAID showed the same thing. Not only did chloroquine work in vitro against the MERS coronavirus, but dozens of existing drugs, which could have been tested in patients as soon as the pandemic started, were also effective against SARS and MERS coronaviruses.

Here is the paper from Fauci’s NIAID:

And this is what the NIAID authors said:

Here we found that 66 of the screened drugs were effective at inhibiting either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection in vitro and that 27 of these compounds were effective against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These data demonstrate the efficiency of screening approved or clinically developed drugs for identification of potential therapeutic options for emerging viral diseases and also provide an expedited approach for supporting off-label use of approved therapeutics.

Just in case you think these papers were flukes, two unrelated  groups of European scientists found essentially the same thing. The 2014 European paper was published back to back with the NIAID paper above. I have cited the 2004 European paper elsewhere, and these citations can also be found in Bobby Kennedy’s book The Real Tony Fauci, which according to Amazon has now sold over 800,000 copies. Please read it. OTOH, If you are seeking misinformation on COVID, I’d recommend Fauci’s own book, Expect the Unexpected.

I have to repeat myself, because the information is so shocking and I don’t want you to miss it: our governments already knew of options for treating COVID before it appeared, but instead of immediately trying these already identified, safe, cheap, and available repurposed drugs, and offering early treatments, they did everything they could to stop people obtaining the chloroquine drugs. Look up the articles I linked to above. Read my long article on this suppression. Or the two articles I wrote here and here about how patients were administered borderline lethal doses of hydroxyhcloroquine to give the drug a black eye. Check the links. Verify that what I have just written is correct. Human beings planned and carried out these medical crimes against humanity. Who are those humans? What are they doing now?

This has to be be investigated and justice attained, to prevent such crimes from happening to patients ever again.

The “Why?” and “How could this be?!!” requires people to take a huge leap in order to understand the world we live in. Many don’t have the fortitude to dissect their world view and rebuild it in accord with the facts that have spilled out over the last two years.

But I am about to present some more facts that I hope you can assimilate into your understanding of the world. It might require a stiff drink, or perhaps some chocolate. Whatever it takes, read on, as it might save your life or someone else’s.

Ivermectin

Ivermectin had not been identified in the studies I mentioned above as a potentially useful coronavirus drug.

But some people knew it was likely to work in early 2020, because the French MedInCell company, supported by Bill Gates, was working on an injectable (which would make it patentable) version of ivermectin for COVID, issuing a press release about this on April 6, 2020 and an informational paper on April 23, 2020. There was a brief run on the veterinary drug at this time in the US, according to an FDA warning issued on April 10, 2020, indicating some people knew it might be an effective COVID treatment and were acquiring it. But there was not a lot of buzz and sales did not take off at that time.

Here is what FDA said on April 10, 2020:

FDA is concerned about the health of consumers who may self-medicate by taking ivermectin products intended for animals, thinking they can be a substitute for ivermectin intended for humans… Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products

In December 2020, a full eight months later, Ron Johnson held a Senate hearing that was focused on ivermectin’s benefits for COVID. Intensive care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory, originally a New Yorker, gave a particularly compelling speech. People began paying attention to the drug. YouTube then removed Kory’s speech–censoring a Senate hearing!

I think the authorities were initially scared to repeat the same tricks with ivermectin they had used to beat down the chloroquine drugs. And because ivermectin has efficacy late in the disease as well as at the start, and is not toxic at several times the normal dose, some of the tricks used against chloroquine (giving it too late in the disease course or overdosing patients) simply would not work with ivermectin. The authorities kept quiet.

But then ivermectin’s popularity started exploding. CDC published a report in late August showing that ivermectin prescriptions had quadrupled in a month, and the drug was now selling at 25 times the pre-COVID rate.

IVERMECTIN PRESCRIPTIONS SOLD by WEEK, 2019-21

More than 88,000 prescriptions for the drug were filled by pharmacies in the week ending August 13, the CDC said in a report published August 26.” 

Apparently this terrified the powers-that-be. What if the pandemic got wiped out with ivermectin? It worked too well! Would that be the end of vaccine mandates, boosters, vaccine passports and digital IDs? The end of the Great Reset? Something had to be done, and fast. It had to be big. It had to be effective. They couldn’t simply take the drug off the market; that would require a long process and a paper trail.

What to do? There was probably only one option: Scare the pants off the doctors. Loss of license is the very worst thing you can do to a doctor. Threaten their licenses and they will immediately fall into line. You can’t get a prescription if there is no doctor to write it.

The method had been tested in the Philippines.

The powers-that-be could also scare the pharmacies. This required stealth. No paper trails. Intimidation was required, backed by a one-two punch: actually suspending doctors’  (annd maybe pharmacists’) licenses. You couple that with a huge media offensive, and threats from an industry of medical “non-profits.” You suddenly invent “misinformation” as a medical crime, studiously failing to define it. You make people think the legal prescribing of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is a crime, even though off-label prescribing is entirely legal under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Did Fauci give the order? Walensky? Acting FDA Commissioner Woodcock? It was probably some combination, plus the public relations professionals managing the messaging and the media.

Here’s what happened.

1. Senator Ben Ray Lujan (D, NM) and several other Senators introduced the “Health Misinformation Act” in July 2021 because “misinformation was putting lives at risk,” he said. A huge supporter of COVID vaccinations, the 49 year old Senator suffered a stroke on February 1, 2022.

2. The pharmacies suddenly could not get ivermectin from their wholesalers. No reason was given except ‘supply and demand.’ But it seemed the supply was cut off everywhere.  Ivermectin was dribbled out by the wholesalers, a few pills a week per pharmacy, not enough to supply even one prescription weekly. Some powerful entity presumably ordered the wholesalers to make the drug (practically) unavailable. With no shortages announced. I called the main manufacturer in the US, Edenbridge, and was told they were producing plenty.

Hydroxychloroquine had been restricted in a variety of ways, determined by each state, since early 2020. It had also been restricted by certain manufacturers in 2020. Suddenly, in September 2021, it too became considerably harder than it already was to obtain.

3. In late August, CDC sent out a major warning about ivermectin, but only gave 2 examples of anyone having a problem with the drug: one person overdosed on an animal version and one overdosed on ivermectin bought on the internet. This should not have been news. However, pharmacists and doctors read between the lines and knew this was code for “verboten.” Almost all stopped dispensing ivermectin at that time. It should be of interest to everyone that our health agencies now speak in coded messages to doctors and pharmacies, presumably to avoid putting their threats on paper and being accountable for them. What a way for government to do business.

4. Also last August, various “nonprofit” medical organizations started issuing warnings, in concert, regarding doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, and spreading misinformation, especially about COVID vaccines. These organizations included the Federation of State Medical Boards, the American Medical Association, the American Pharmacy Association, and several specialty Boards. Here is an example of the AMA’s language:

“A handful of doctors spreading disinformation have fostered belief in scientifically unvalidated and potentially dangerous “cures” for COVID-19 while increasing vaccine hesitancy…”

These organizations told doctors they could lose their licenses or board certifications for such “crimes.” Mind you, none of these so-called nonprofit organizations has any regulatory authority. Nor do I believe they have any authority to claw back a Board Certification. They were blowing smoke. And they were probably paid to do so. Who paid?

5. Over the course of 3 days at the end of August, national media reported on 4 doctors in 3 states whose Boards were investigating them for the use of ivermectin.

Hawaii’s Medical Board went after Hawaii’s chief medical officer:

The Hawaii Medical Board has filed complaints against Maui’s top health official and a Valley Isle physician following reports that they backed COVID-19 treatments that state and federal health agencies advise against.

They really wanted to make an example by going after the state’s chief medical officer, who had had the guts to treat COVID patients. Clearly the orders are coming from high up on the food chain.

Here were some of the other August headlines about doctors who legally prescribed a fully approved drug off-label:

6. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) is an organization that assists 71 state and territorial medical boards with policies, training, etc. Members pay dues and the organization accepts donations. It has its own foundation, too. Its President earns close to $1,000,000/year, not bad for a backwater administrative job at an organization headquartered in Euless, Texas. After the FSMB instructed its members that misinformation was a crime, somewhere between 8 and 15 of its member boards began to take action.  (Media have reported that 8, 12 or 15 boards of its 71 member Boards did so, according to the FSMB, which is closely monitoring this.)

7. On February 7, 2022 the Department of Homeland Security issued its own dire warning about the spread of misinformation, disinformation and a neologism, malinformation.

“The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation.

Thus it appears that Misinformation and Disinformation have been selected to play an important role in a newly developing narrative, as the Pandemic restrictions and narrative come to an end.

8. I presume the majority of the 71 Medical Boards’ attorneys knew something about the Constitution, knew that every American has an inalienable right to freedom of speech, and simply ignored the FSMB’s exhortation to go after misinformatin spreaders. The Maine Board, however, went along. Three doctors in Maine have recently had their licenses suspended or threatened for writing waivers for COVID vaccines, spreading misinformation, and/or prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. (All three of which are legal activities for doctors.). But Boards have broad powers to intervene, and are shielded from liability as agents of the state. So they went after a chronic Lyme doctor several years ago, who found, as expected, that it would be too onerous to fight back, and he gave up his license.

9. Here is what the Board claims about me:

“The board noted that Ivermectin isn’t Food and Drug Administration “authorized or approved” as a treatment for COVID-19 in the suspension order.”

“The board said that her continuing to practice as a physician “constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services, and that it is necessary to immediately suspend her ability to practice medicine in order to adequately respond to this risk.”’

I am 70 years old, and my medical practice was set up as a service, so that everyone could access COVID drugs who wanted them. My fee was $60 per patient for all the COVID care they needed.

I am sure the Board had calculated that given all the above, I would not challenge the Board’s suspension and would simply surrender my license, since it would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the Board’s actions in court.

On the day my license was suspended, there was massive national publicity about my case. The story was on the AP wire, covered from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Miami Herald. And for some reason, it was not behind the usual paywall. The Hill, Newsweek, the Daily Beast and many other publications all ran hit pieces about me.

I realized that my situation was bigger than just a Maine issue: it had been selected to serve as an example to physicians nationwide who might be thinking for themselves and prescribing early treatment for COVID. Once I realized I was to be made an example of, as part of a national purge of doctors who think independently, I decided to fight back. Fortunately, Children’s Health Defense is helping with my legal expenses, which is what allows me to mount a strong attack against the bulldozing of free speech, patient autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship. Please join me in the fight!

February 11, 2022 Posted by | Book Review | , , | 1 Comment

More Important Ivermectin Study Results

Click here for more details on the map above
By Robert W Malone MD, MS | February 6, 2022

Strictly regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 leads to a 90% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate, in a dose-response manner: definitive results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled 223,128 population from a city-wide program in Southern Brazil

Research Gate, February 2022 DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.20069.68320

This important preprint needs to hit alternative and mainstream media now.

The Study:

Background: Previously, we demonstrated that ivermectin use as prophylaxis for COVID-19 was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates, and in the risk of dying from COVID-19, irrespective of regularity and accumulated use of ivermectin, in an observational, prospectively obtained data from a strictly controlled city-wide program in a city in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, SC, Brazil) of of medically-based, optional use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

In this study, our objective was to explore the data obtained from the program to evaluate whether the level of regularity of ivermectin use impacted in the reductions in these outcomes, aiming to determine if ivermectin showed a progressive dose-, regularity-response in terms of protection from COVID-19 and COVID-19 related outcomes.

Materials and methods: This is a prospective observational study of the program mention above, that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days. We obtained and analyzed the data regarding the accumulated dose of ivermectin use, in addition to age and co-morbidities, to analyze the patterns of reduction of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates, and risk of dying from COVID-19, according to the regularity and amount of ivermectin used in a 5-month period.

Following definitions of regularity, we considered as strictly regular subjects that used at least 180mg of ivermectin (180mg = 30 tablets), and as sporadic users subjects that used 60mg (= 10 tablets) or less during the 5-month period.

Comparisons between subjects that did not use ivermectin and these two levels of regularity of ivermectin use were performed. Analysis of the intermediate levels of ivermectin use are present in the supplement appendix of this study. To analyze hospitalization and mortality rates, we utilized the database of COVID-19 infections of all participants, from Itajaí and outside. To analyze COVID-19 infection rate and risk of dying from COVID-19 we utilized the Itajaí city database.

Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, followed by multivariate adjusted analysis for residual differences (doubly adjusted analysis).

Results:

  • Of the 7,345 cases of COVID-19, 3,034 occurred in non-users, 1,627 in sporadic users, and 289 in strict users, while the remaining cases occurred in the intermediate levels of ivermectin use. Strict users were older (p < 0.0001) and non-significant higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
  • COVID-19 infection rate was 39% lower among strict users [4.03% infection rate; ( p < 0.0001] than in non-users (6.64% infection rate), and non-significant 11% reduction compared to sporadic users (4.54% infection rate) (n = 1,627 in each group; RR, 0.89; 95%CI 0.76 – 1.03; p = 0.11).
  • Hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in strict users, compared to non-users and to sporadic users, both before and after Propensity score matching ( p < 0.0001).
  • After Propensity score matching, hospitalization rate was 35% lower among sporadic users than non-users (RR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.44 – 0.70; p = 0.03).
  • In propensity score matched groups, multivariate-adjusted mortality rate was 90% lower in strict users compared to non-users (p = 0.003) and 79% lower than in sporadic users (p = 0.05), while sporadic users had a 37% reduction in mortality rate compared to non-users (p = 0.043).
  • Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among strict users than non-users (p = 0.006) and marginally significant, 72% lower than sporadic users (p = 0.083), while sporadic users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 10-times increase in mortality risk and 7-times increased risk of dying from COVID-19, compared to strictly regular use of ivermectin in a prospectively collected, strictly controlled population.

A progressive dose-response pattern was observed between level of ivermectin use and level of protection from COVID-19 related outcomes and consistent across different levels of ivermectin use.

The results of this study clearly demonstrate that prophylactic use of ivermectin must be initiated immediately for people in high risk categories in the United States and worldwide. This includes individuals with one or more co-morbidities and the middle aged/elderly. Our “design-to-fail” government funded clinical trials for early treatment and governmental obstructionism regarding life saving treatments to patients must end now.

The CDC chart below for all deaths since the start of the outbreak clearly shows a jump in deaths after 50 years old.

However, as the data for deaths per million per age group is not disclosed, so the age for start of prophylaxis has yet to be determined.

As Omicron has less pathogenicity and slightly different disease profile this too could influence what age prophylaxis treatment should begin. But the data are in, prophylactic use of ivermectin saves lives.

In regards to the table above, the age stratification of disease shows why a universal vaccination program for a vaccine with a high adverse event profile is not advised. It is time to stop all mandates at the Federal and State level. It is time to stop pushing this vaccine on children.

Research and clinical practice show that using re-purposed drugs for Covid-19 have huge benefits. These include multi-drug, multi-staged treatments for Covid-19 disease that prevent severe disease, decreases hospitalization rates and decreases death. It is time our government and state licensing board recognize this and let physicians practice medicine.

‘Off-label’ drug use: an FDA regulatory term, not a negative implication of its medical use. Int J Impot Res. 2008 Mar-Apr;20(2):135-44. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901619. Epub 2007 Nov 15. PMID: 18004389.

Highlights:

  • A doctor’s decision to inform the patient of the ‘off-label’ status of the prescription is not relevant to the physician’s standard of care for an informed consent case.
  • The FDA has specifically stated that its procedures and requirements have no effect on the practice of medicine and that the FDA does not prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs in an ‘off-label’ manner.
  • The FDA’s approval of a drug is immaterial to the effectiveness in the drug’s ‘off-label’ use. In fact, prescribing medication in an ‘off-label’ manner can constitute the standard of care in many cases.
  • A doctor’s duty is to practice medicine and treat his patient, not inform the patient of the FDA’s non-medically related labeling. Therefore, doctors should not be branded with the additional duty of disclosing non-pertinent information, such as the FDA’s medically irrelevant distinction, to their patients

*It is estimated that 21% of all prescription drugs are prescribed “off-label.”

For fun, I took the countries that reportedly use Ivermectin country-wide and compared them to the USA, Israel and Sweden. I chose a three month cut-off, although the results were extended further. I did this because I don’t know when some of the countries began ivermectin use.

Can you guess who now has the highest death rates per million? Yeh –

  1. USA
  2. Israel
  3. Sweden

Notes: I included – India, because although not all regions use Ivermectin – although the most populated due. Likewise Africa – which many nations treat with ivermectin prophylactically and these world maps do not break down Africa by Nations (weirdly imperialistic). I did not include Bulgaria, as although they use ivermectin – their death rate numbers are skewed for other reasons not worth delving into.

There are a lot of confounding variables here. Such as natural immunity, vaccination rates of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, as well as seasonality of the virus, vitamin D3/zinc levels and age of population.

But it is still an interesting snap shot as to where much of the world is right now.

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment