Aletho News


Definitive Ivermectin Toxicity Review

One of the safest drugs ever

By Chris Martenson | Peak Prosperity | September 8, 2021

Video Description

There’s been an absolutely brutal campaign against Ivermectin in the public press. I thought it was time to deploy my background as a Toxicologist to review the known toxicity of Ivermectin. Fortunately, a world-class review paper on Ivermectin came out in 2021 by Jacques Descotes, a prominent toxicologist working at the behest of Medincell.

That comprehensive review of Ivermectin reveals that it is among the safest and most well-tolerated drugs ever introduced to the market.

In this episode I walk through the expert review of Ivermectin by Jacques Descotes MD, PharmD, PhD which was conducted in early 2021. We discuss the safety, toxicity, and known side effects and drug interactions, few and mild as they are. The conclusion is that “Ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.”


Link to Toxicology report (requires email for free PDF download):

Part 2

Insiders have access to Part 2 of this video here.

September 14, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

CDC Gives Incoming Refugees Nobel Prize-Winning Ivermectin

By Kelen McBreen | InfoWars | September 3, 2021

All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees entering the U.S. since 2019 have been prescribed ivermectin.

The CDC recommendation advises doctors working for the International Organization for Migration (IOM), who screen refugees in their home countries, and American doctors who treat them when they arrive to prescribe both ivermectin and albendazole.

Since the CDC guidance was released pre-Covid, naysayers will point out the ivermectin was prescribed for parasites and not for Covid-19, and presume the drug probably doesn’t work against viral infections.

Ivermectin’s creators won a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 for the drug’s ability to battle infections caused by roundworm parasites.

As Tokyo, Japan’s top health official Dr. Haruo Ozaki recently explained, “In Africa, if we compare countries distributing ivermectin once a year with countries which do not give ivermectin… I mean, they don’t give ivermectin to prevent Covid, but to prevent parasitic diseases… but anyway, if we look at Covid numbers in countries that give ivermectin, the number of cases is 134.4 per 100,000, and the number of death is 2.2 in 100,000.”

He continued, “Now, African countries which do not distribute ivermectin: 950.6 cases per 100,000 and 29.3 deaths per 100,000. I believe the difference is clear.”

Several studies show ivermectin actually is effective at treating Covid-19, but what this information truly exposes is the current media and government demonization campaign against it.

Despite media cries of “people eating horse paste” and several stories about an increase in poison control calls from people misusing the drug, the CDC has been giving it to refugees for at least two years.

By the way, a Fox 9 Minnesota story lists possible symptoms of an ivermectin “overdose” as “nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, decreased consciousness, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death.”

However, not a single person in the United States has died from a Covid-related ivermectin overdose.

Plus, the majority of people resorting to the horse version of ivermectin are doing so because the attacks on the drug have convinced many doctors and pharmacies not to prescribe or carry it.

The establishment is even upset that celebrities like top podcast host Joe Rogan and “Cheers” star Kirstie Alley have touted the drug as helping them defeat Covid.

The CDC is obviously aware that the drug is safe for people to use as its physicians prescribe it to refugees just as tens of thousands of doctors across the U.S. are now giving it to patients for Covid.

So, why is mainstream media and a government agency like the FDA scaring Americans out of a treatment that could help them with the virus?

The FDA’s website explains, “Certain animal formulations of ivermectin such as pour-on, injectable, paste, and ‘drench,’ are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. For humans, ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses to treat some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.”

Well, no doctors are prescribing ivermectin animal formulations to their patients, and the government and media both know this.

Perhaps it’s because the FDA, which is “virtually controlled by Pfizer” according to President Trump, is currently developing their own Covid drug to be taken twice a day alongside their vaccine.

Merck, the company that produces ivermectin, is also developing a drug to treat Covid which will make them much more money than the cheap antiviral ivermectin.

On June 9, Merck revealed that the U.S. government is paying the company $1.2 billion to supply 1.7 million courses of the new drug to federal government agencies.

Or, it could be that the Covid vaccines still being used under Emergency Use Authorization would no longer have that emergency approval if a legitimate low-risk treatment were available.

Follow the money and stop paying attention to establishment media.

September 5, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | 1 Comment

Why all the fuss about Ivermectin?

By Brian C. Joondeph | American Thinker | September 3, 2021

First hydroxychloroquine, now ivermectin, is the hated deadly drug de jour, castigated by the medical establishment and regulatory authorities. Both drugs have been around for a long time as FDA-approved prescription medications. Yet now we are told they are as deadly as arsenic.

As a physician, I am certainly aware of ivermectin but don’t recall ever writing a prescription for it in my 30+ years’ medical career. Ivermectin is an anthelmintic, meaning it cures parasitic infections. In my world of ophthalmology, it is used on occasion for rare parasitic or worm infections in the eye.

Ivermectin was FDA approved in 1998 under the brand name Stromectol, produced by pharmaceutical giant Merck, approved for several parasitic infections. The product label described it as having a “unique mode of action,” which “leads to an increase in the permeability of the cell membrane to chloride ions.” This suggests that ivermectin acts as an ionophore, making cell membranes permeable to ions that enter the cell for therapeutic effect.

Ivermectin is one of several ionophores, others including hydroxychloroquine, quercetin, and resveratrol, the latter two available over the counter. These ionophores simply open a cellular door, allowing zinc to enter the cell, where it then interferes with viral replication, providing potential therapeutic benefit in viral and other infections.

This scientific paper reviews and references other studies demonstrating antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer properties of ivermectin. This explains the interest in this drug as having potential use in treating COVID.

Does ivermectin work in COVID? I am not attempting to answer that question, instead looking at readily available information because this drug has been the focus of much recent media attention. For the benefit of any reader eager to report this article and author to the medical licensing boards for pushing misleading information, I am not offering medical advice or prescribing anything. Rather, I am only offering commentary on this newsworthy and controversial drug.

What’s newsworthy about ivermectin? A simple Google search of most medications describes uses and side effects. A similar search of ivermectin provides headlines of why it shouldn’t be taken and how dangerous it is.

YouTube screen grab

The Guardian describes ivermectin as horse medicine reminding readers considering taking the drug, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow”, saying it’s a medicine meant for farm animals. The FDA echoed that sentiment in a recent tweet, adding “Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” their word choice making it obvious who the tweet was directed to.

Perhaps the FDA didn’t realize that Barack and Michelle Obama often used the term “y’all” and that some might construe the FDA tweet as racist.

The FDA says ivermectin “can be dangerous and even lethal,” yet they approved it in 1998 and have not pulled it from the market despite it being “dangerous and lethal.” Any medication can be “dangerous and lethal” if misused. People have even overdosed on water.

It is true that ivermectin is also used in animals, as are many drugs approved for human use. This is a list of veterinary drugs with many familiar names of antibiotics, antihypertensives, and anesthetics commonly used by humans. Since these drugs are used in farm animals, should humans stop taking them? That seems a rather unscientific argument against ivermectin, especially coming from the FDA.

And healthcare professionals are not recommending or prescribing animal versions of ivermectin as there is an FDA-approved human formulation.

Does ivermectin work against COVID? That is the bigger question and worthy of investigation, rather than reminding people that they are not cows.

A study published several months ago in the American Journal of Therapeutics concluded,

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

To my knowledge, these 18 studies have not been retracted, unlike previous studies critical of hydroxychloroquine which were ignominiously retracted by prestigious medical journals like The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yet the medical establishment refuses to even entertain the possibility of some benefit from ivermectin, castigating physicians who want to try it in their patients. 18 studies found benefit. Are they all wrong?

Podcaster Joe Rogan recently contracted COVID and recovered within days of taking a drug cocktail including ivermectin. Was it his drug cocktail, his fitness, or just good luck? Impossible to know but his experience will keep ivermectin in the news.

Highly unvaccinated India had a surge in COVID cases earlier this year which abruptly ended following the widespread use of ivermectin, over the objections and criticism of the WHO. In the one state, Tamil Nadu, that did not use ivermectin, cases tripled instead of dropping by 97 percent as in the rest of the country.

This is anecdotal and could have other explanations but the discovery of penicillin was also anecdotal and observational. Good science should investigate rather than ignore such observations.

The Japanese Medical Association recently endorsed ivermectin for COVID. The US CDC cautioned against it.

There is legal pushback as an Ohio judge ordered a hospital to treat a ventilated COVID patient with ivermectin. After a month on the ventilator, this patient is likely COVID free and ivermectin now will have no benefit, allowing the medical establishment to say “see I told you so” that it wouldn’t help.

By this point, active COVID infection is not the issue; instead, it is weaning off and recovery from long-term life support. The early hydroxychloroquine studies had the same flaw, treating patients too late in the disease course to provide or demonstrate benefit.

These drugs have been proposed for early outpatient treatment, not when patients are seriously ill and near death. Looking for treatment benefits in the wrong patient population will yield expected negative results.

Given how devastating COVID can be and how, despite high levels of vaccination in countries like the US, UK, and Israel, we are seeing surging cases and hospitalizations among the vaccinated, we should be pulling out all the stops in treating this virus.

Medical treatment involves balancing risks and benefits. When FDA-approved medications are used in appropriate doses for appropriate patients, prescribed by competent physicians, the risks tend to be low, and any benefit should be celebrated. Instead, the medical establishment, media, and regulatory authorities are taking the opposite approach. One has to wonder why.

September 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments

Ivermectin Metaanalysis

By Meryl Nass, MD | September 3, 2021

Tess Lawrie’s group’s metaanalysis of ivermectin research papers, published in June, has received a great deal of positive attention. It was, as expected, carefully done. The authors graded the quality of the papers they reviewed.

The abstract noted:

“Therapeutic Advances: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n 5 2438; I2 5 49%; moderate-certainty evidence)…” This means that using only evidence of moderately good quality (high quality is often hard to come by, especially using observational data), if 100 people sick enough with Covid to die are given ivermectin, only 38 will die, and 62% will be saved.

“Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%).” 

More doctors are using the drug. More patients are hearing about it. I have been getting more calls from patients who want to know about it. The NY Times said pharmacists are filling 88,000 scripts a week now.

Covid death rates, compared to the number of cases diagnosed, are way down compared to 2020 and last winter. While the NYT says there are 100,000 Covid patients in hospital now, only 1,500 are dying daily, or 1.5%, a much lower percentage than previous waves.

This is probably due to lower virulence of current variants, some benefit from vaccination, less use of ventilators and more use fo effective therapeutics.

And so now the CDC is coming down hard and many pharmacist have decided to stop filling the scripts in the past week. More on this in my next post.

September 3, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Covid Medical insanity, as described by an MD

By Matt Bettag, MD | August 6, 2021

When did the world become insane? What is the reason for it? Big Brother? Depopulation? Or people in love with control?

I don’t know and it’s driving me nuts. But I’ve decided I’m tired of complaining about it to my friends and family and I’m willing to put my name on the line. If the woke culture wants to ruin me for speaking the truth, I guess I might as well just get it over with now.

I have been a physician for 24 years, a practicing ENT for 19 years. I have never before seen the medical establishment just stop thinking. Insanity is the new rule, and common sense cannot even be discussed.

From the beginning, 15 days to “flatten the curve,” I was shocked. We had never done this before, but perhaps this virus was really bad, so I gave the government the benefit of the doubt.

Then came Fauci.

He initially said social distancing didn’t work, and masks were largely ineffective.

But by late March, he pronounced both masking and social distancing necessary. Weird… red flag.

What? So now I am alarmed.

I started researching the utility of masks. There were very good articles I found — one out of a respiratory center in Chicago, and another a good dental review. I bookmarked both of them. Less than a month later, the dental website was down, replaced by a text saying basically that their information is now irrelevant because of COVID. The Chicago article also had a disclaimer that previously wasn’t there saying people shouldn’t use their article politically. What? Don’t use a scientifically derived article to make a scientifically based decision on the utility of masks? What the hell is going on?

Next comes PCR testing. Let’s conveniently jack up the PCR Magnification cycles to 40+, resulting in a 90–97% false positive rate.

Then, let’s start testing all elective surgery, asymptomatic exposures, and hospitalized patients with this fake test to artificially increase the Covid numbers.

In addition we will reimburse hospitals greatly for any diagnosed COVID admissions and ICU visits.

Oxygen doesn’t work; go home until you get worse. Oh, and bring your family and friends with you; they’ll need testing.

Steroids were advised against early on, which made no sense, because they do decrease inflammation and in ENT have been used widely for viral illness.

Next we find a few weeks later the secret drug to treat COVID: steroids. What?

Hydroxychloroquine HCQ—suddenly not safe, even though it has been used for decades worldwide with a great safety profile, but not anymore. Mention it, and you are a lunatic.

The same went for all other proven therapeutics, such as ivermectin and vitamin D.

Vaccines? “I wouldn’t trust anything president Trump made.” That was Kamala Harris back in the fall.

Now if you don’t get vaccinated, you don’t care about other people, and you wanna watch people die.

Oh, and by the way, we should vaccinate everyone, including those who previously had COVID, pregnant women, and small children.

What about VAERS? That’s the open record report system that the CDC has made almost unnavigable. It’s slowly crept up and showed up to 12,000 deaths coincident with the vaccine. Then dropped to 6,000, only to come back up to 10,000 and now back to 12,000–Just a little glitch from our trustworthy government.

There are reports that the numbers could be ten times or more as high, and perhaps the CDC is misclassifying deaths to hide them. But let’s trust the government; they’ve been so good thus far.

Now the latest lie: “the delta variant, is surging because of the unvaccinated.”

Ignore the data from other countries that have very high vaccine rates but high spiking cases, and ignore the data from other countries that have low vaccine rates and almost no COVID.

As a matter fact, let’s not even look at Sweden, who essentially didn’t do lockdowns or masking, has a low vaccination rate, and has almost zero COVID.

I have never lived in the world like this, where open medical dialogue is completely suppressed and there is only one party line.

I thought the left was always talking about how we shouldn’t bully people, and we need to have “dialogue.” Well… let’s start.

The media and the government need to do their job and start opening dialogue to the other side. If we are crazy, it will come out.

If we are right, and the data show that to be the fact, then a large apology is warranted.

August 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments


Whocomcampaigner |  June 22, 2021

Here is Craig Kelly presenting his evidence of Ivermectin suppression to an empty Australian parliament. This picture illustrates the type of ‘democracy’ that we have in Australia today. The people’s voice is not being heard by our government.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 4 Comments

2017 article in a Nature journal discusses ivermectin effects (even against cancer) and mechanisms of action

By Meryl Nass, MD | July 14, 2021

Someone wrote this in 2017. Some people thus knew ivermectin had antiviral properties. In fact, the drug has all kinds of possibly miraculous effects. It is just missing the important one: patentability. (It was patented but the patent expired in 1997.)

Recent research has confounded the belief, held for most of the past 40 years, that ivermectin was devoid of any antiviral characteristics. Ivermectin has been found to potently inhibit replication of the yellow fever virus, with EC50 values in the sub-nanomolar range. It also inhibits replication in several other flaviviruses, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis, probably by targeting non-structural 3 helicase activity.97 Ivermectin inhibits dengue viruses and interrupts virus replication, bestowing protection against infection with all distinct virus serotypes, and has unexplored potential as a dengue antiviral.98 Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broadspectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. It has been shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes. Ivermectin may be of import in disrupting HIV-1 integrase in HIV-1 as well as NS-5 (non-structural protein 5) polymerase in dengue viruses.99,100…


There is a continuously accumulating body of evidence that ivermectin may have substantial value in the treatment of a variety of cancers. The avermectins are known to possess pronounced antitumor activity,107 as well as the ability to potentiate the antitumor action of vincristine on Ehrlich carcinoma, melanoma B16 and P388 lymphoid leukemia, including the vincristine-resistant strain P388.108 Over the past few years, there have been steadily increasing reports that ivermectin may have varying uses as an anti-cancer agent, as it has been shown to exhibit both anti-cancer and anti-cancer stem cell properties. An in silico chemical genomics approach designed to predict whether any existing drugs might be useful in tackling glioblastoma, lung and breast cancer, indicated that ivermectin may be a useful compound in this respect.109 In human ovarian cancer and NF2 tumor cell lines, high-dose ivermectin inactivates protein kinase PAK1 and blocks PAK1- dependent growth. PAK proteins are essential for cytoskeletal reorganization and nuclear signaling, PAK1 being implicated in tumor genesis while inhibiting PAK1 signals induces tumor cell apoptosis (cell death). PAK1 is essential for the growth of more than 70% of all human cancers, including breast, prostate, pancreatic, colon, gastric, lung, cervical and thyroid cancers, as well as hepatoma, glioma, melanoma, multiple myeloma and for neurofibromatosis tumors.110 Globally, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women but treatment options are few. Ivermectin suppresses breast cancer by activating cytostatic autophagy, disrupting cellular signaling in the process, probably by reducing PAK1 expression…

July 17, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Cheer-Up World: There ARE Effective Treatments for COVID-19

By Chris Lonsdale | 21st Century Wire | July 14, 2021

Since COVID-19 hit the scene at the beginning of 2020, one of the key elements driving the fear around this disease is that there appeared to be no cure. And, for people who got infected with COVID-19, the guidance coming from major global institutions such as the NIH (US National Institutes of Health) and the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control) was basically “do nothing, stay home, and when you turn blue go to the hospital.” This public health policy prescription was usually followed by the qualifying caveat, “this is our only approach until a vaccine arrives.”

This, clearly, has terrified people all around the world. For the majority of the world’s population the belief has been that catching COVID-19 is a veritable death sentence. Which leads us to an important question. How would things change if there were, in fact, effective treatments for COVID-19?

I have just come out of a fascinating 90-minute press conference and Zoom call, delivered by the Malaysian Alliance for Effective COVID Control (MAECC). This was very much a “good news” presentation. The main message? There are very effective treatments for COVID-19.

The essence of the discussion in the MAECC session focused on the drug Ivermectin. The Doctors found it necessary to do a press conference and public presentation because the widespread use of Ivermectin in Malaysia is currently illegal. A doctor prescribing Ivermectin for his COVID-19 patients was recently raided by police!

Malaysian doctors are not doing leading edge research here, but simply trying to care for their patients by working to get a proven treatment officially accepted for use in Malaysia. Ivermectin has already been used very successfully in many places around the world where media hysteria did not get it banned from the shelves. Mexico has used it to great effect, as did Peru. Over the last few weeks, reports coming out of India are demonstrating massive benefits from Ivermectin.

There is already a 97% decline in cases in New Delhi, India. Indeed, four other Indian states that are using Ivermectin now report decreases in cases by 60% to 95%. However, other states that have blocked the use of Ivermectin have increases in cases by several hundred percent – the exponential explosion that everyone is terrified of!

As The Desert Review says in their report, “It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC’s policies of ‘wait at home until you turn blue’ before you get treatment.”

Before you buy into the criticism that these are only “observational studies” and haven’t been tested by large scale, randomized control trials approved by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA etc. it’s important to realize that the only type of studies that are apparently good enough for such institutions these days are those which are so large and complex that only multi-national pharmaceutical companies are able to run and fund them.

That said, you should know that 56 studies on Ivermectin, 17 of them being Randomized Control Trials, have clearly demonstrated very positive effects from Ivermectin. A site doing real-time meta-analysis of all the Ivermectin studies as they get published summarizes the results as follows: “100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively”.

They also make the point that “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).”   You can check this information yourself directly on their site (Source:

Another effective protocol for prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19 is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc. As of this writing, 248 trials of HCQ used for treating COVID-19 have been completed, by 3,972 scientists, with 378,812 patients. We can see 66% improvement in 26 early treatment trials, 75% improvement in 11 early treatment mortality results, and 24% improvement in 35 randomized controlled trials. These results are publicly available on a database that is tracking all HCQ studies to date. You can see those studies here at

There are also a number of other effective treatments for COVID-19 that we don’t have space for here.

What’s important to understand is that these effective treatments have been used since mid-2020. Which raises a very important point. If these treatments are so effective, why haven’t we heard about them?  Why aren’t they being used everywhere? It appears that, for some reason, information about the effectiveness of these treatments is being suppressed.

For instance, “Fact checkers” will tell you that HCQ or Ivermectin aren’t authorized by major institutions like the FDA, CDC, or WHO (as if such organizations are supposed to set and police policy rather than simply providing guidance). They will also try to discount any positive results using ad hominem attacks and smears, such as pointing out that a person using one of these treatments may have at some time in the past, voiced “anti-vaccine sentiments” (whatever that may be). You can see an example here:

The censorship extends to Social Media. A whole list of front-line doctors who have successfully used some of these treatments have had their accounts removed from Social Media platforms, simply because information they provided about their successes was deemed “contrary to guidelines from the WHO” by the various Big Tech platforms. I have personally witnessed the de-platforming of literally dozens of highly respected, professional, front line doctors and researchers.

De-platforming is not the only concern. It appears that in the attempts to discredit effective treatments for COVID-19, anything goes. A study which came out in The Lancet mid-2020 supposedly showing that HCQ was dangerous was subsequently withdrawn due to the study being fraudulent.

Sadly, this withdrawal happened only after the damage was done, and HCQ had been successfully kicked to the curb in many places around the world – even up to the point that in some jurisdictions doctors could be jailed for prescribing it!

You may ask: “How did these studies that were apparently designed to falsify the effects of a widely used drug, pass peer review in the world’s premier medical science journals – The Lancet as well as The New England Journal of Medicine ?” The details of this sordid tale can be found here:

If one digs, it appears that the main reason that we have not heard of these effective treatments is that the WHO and the CDC and other major institutions do not approve of the use of any alternative treatments, unless these are being tested in a clinical trial (which it seems only they can approve of). For instance, the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) guidelines state: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of any drugs for SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).” See the PDF document here:

This is indeed strange, especially in the middle of a pandemic. One would expect that, in order to save patient lives, doctors would look for and try medicines that might possibly work, as long as there were no safety issues.  When clearly there is evidence of no-harm, and increasingly powerful evidence that certain treatments can save lives, it would be highly unethical for Doctors NOT to start using such treatments. Doctors use medicines for purposes other than those listed on the label all the time!

Since Ivermectin and HCQ are both on the WHO list of essential medicines and have been so for a long time – decades in the case of HCQ – the world knows about the safety and dosage of these medicines. As an example, since 1992, Ivermectin has only been linked to 16 deaths, whereas deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines are now in the thousands (information from the Uppsala Drug Monitoring Centre run by the WHO ( via Prof Paul Marik, Chief of Critical Care & Pulmonary Medicine, EVM, USA).

Clearly, something appears very much out of balance here. There ARE effective treatments for COVID-19, yet the institutions that we rely on for medical guidance appear to be ignoring, or even suppressing these treatments – even though they are known to be safe after many decades of use. Despite their known safety, neither Ivermectin nor HCQ have been able to obtain even an EAU (Emergency Use Authorization)!

At the same time, new creations that have only had very limited testing, and for which the safety cannot be known in such a short period of time, are approved for emergency use.

The world economy is now in dire straits, with entire populations having been essentially under house arrest for the better part of 18 months. People continue to die from (or with) COVID-19 without treatments being available. And we are now seeing important examples of breakout infections in people who have already been vaccinated against COVID-19.  As Reuters reported just a few days ago, “Hundreds of vaccinated Indonesian health workers get COVID-19, dozens in hospital”. This is just one many similar news stories reporting the very same phenomenon.

According to the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, the current range of emergency use vaccines do not actually provide immunity and only “reduce severe symptoms” of COVID-19. While this issue has yet to be fully resolved, many in the mainstream are still claiming that these vaccines will “inoculate” the recipient against the novel coronavirus. Therefore, these jabs should rightly be categorised as a type of treatment against the disease of COVID-19, and not a vaccine against the said pathogen, the SARSCoV2 coronavirus.

It goes without saying that the wide availability of cheap and effective drug treatments for COVID would severely undermine the widely touted mainstream claim that mass-vaccinations are the only solution to slowing down or ‘defeating’ a supposed global pandemic.

Clearly, effective treatments are absolutely required at this point. The good news is that there are such treatments available.

With effective treatments in hand, the global COVID-19 situation could end in as little as a few weeks. The world CAN return to normal. Sadly, there seem to be forces at work blocking such an outcome.

We need to ask: why are these effective treatments not being allowed in so many places? Why is information about these treatments being suppressed? Perhaps the fact that treatments like Ivermectin and HCQ are off patent and extremely cheap might give us a clue.


Author Chris Lonsdale is a psychologist, linguist, educator, entrepreneur, dialogue facilitator and corporate advisor with over thirty years experience doing business in Asia.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 1 Comment

YouTube censors video of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Ōmura discussing ivermectin

By Tom Parker | Reclaim the Net | July 2, 2021

Before the coronavirus pandemic, ivermectin was described as a “wonder” drug by the medical community. And in 2015, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura and Dr. William C. Campbell were awarded half the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that led to the development of ivermectin.

“The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable,” the Nobel Assembly stated in its press release for the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

But after the pandemic began, the tech giants have gone all out to purge content that recommends ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

And today, these Big Tech policies against ivermectin resulted in one of Ōmura’s speeches where he discussed ivermectin being struck down for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.”

“When the fascists at YouTube censor the Noble Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, a man whose discoveries have saved a hundred million + from blindness, the world has entered a very, very dark place,” Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly tweeted. “I cannot express in words how angry & sad this makes me & fearful for the future.”

Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care, an alliance of physicians and scholars that has committed to “research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness,” also spoke out against the censorship and warned that “brilliant scientists and lifesaving science are systematically being gagged.”

Ōmura joins the ranks of many other senatorslawmakersmedical journalsbiologists, and YouTubers who have been censored by Big Tech for discussing ivermectin.

July 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Scandal of the suppressed case for ivermectin

By Edmund Fordham | The Conservative Woman | June 29, 2021

‘We don’t doubt this is an important paper,’ wrote the senior editor of Lancet Respiratory Medicine on March 9 in response to our paper ‘Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, the brainchild of Dr Tess Lawrie and the world’s first Cochrane-standards ‘meta-analysis’ of clinical trials of the long-established anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, for treating, and preventing, Covid-19.

Four expert reviewers were satisfied by revisions already made. ‘The effort of the authors is praiseworthy in this pandemic situation,’ one said. Their critiques had been technical: some of the statistical methods break down when there are no ‘events’ (in this case, deaths) in both ‘arms’ of a clinical trial. Our lead statistician ran more checks; we fixed the criticisms. This is what ‘peer review’ is supposed to do. It’s normal.

One might take such a comment from the senior editor as the preamble to acceptance for publication. But no, this was the editors’ reason for not publishing the paper. This isn’t normal. What was the problem?

‘We don’t doubt this is an important paper, and would likely be widely taken up.’ Hang on, Lancet Respiratory Medicine wants to avoid printing something it recognises as an important paper, that four of their own experts have passed, because it might be ‘widely taken up’? This is what they usually want.

Of course, the Lancet has a lot to live down, having moved into the business of publishing fake news, as with the notorious hydroxychloroquine fraud which I reported on for TCW last year. Not only did the Lancet publish an obvious fake, it did so with hostile editorial commentary and briefing to BBC Radio 4 Today for maximum impact. So media briefing for planted fake news, but a Lancet specialist title won’t touch an ‘important paper’.

I was told in January, by a senior clinical researcher who knows him personally, that Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet, was ‘very ashamed’ at having let through the fake news. Horton, whose Twitter bio reads ‘welcome to a permanent attack on the present’, wrote in 2015:

‘Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness . . . Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours . . . Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations . . . And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.’

Horton was right. The only aspect that the fake news had going for it was the huge sample size: 96,000 patients. Except that the true number was actually zero, since the paper was fake. The Lancet was certainly seduced by a ‘fashionable trend of dubious importance’, namely ‘Big Data’, a flavour-of-the-month set fair to corrupt many other sciences as well as medicine. The Lancet ‘aided and abetted the worst behaviours’, not just those ‘veering close to misconduct’, but those clearly crossing the line.

Has anything changed? In 2015 Horton bemoaned journals that ‘reject important confirmations’, but in March 2021, ‘after lengthy discussions with the editorial team’, Lancet Respiratory Medicine did it again, rejecting our ‘important confirmation’ (passed by four of their own experts, remember) that yes, ivermectin works for Covid-19.

So there we have it. Horton’s 2015 editorial remains true, but he doesn’t seem to have done anything about it. He’s only the man in charge, after all.

I had feared as much, but we were all keen to give our findings maximum visibility. But Lancet Respiratory Medicine did what its friends wanted, which was ‘kill the story’ for as long as possible, which in the event has been over three months, whilst we searched for a journal with enough integrity to publish an article which had already passed four-fold peer-review at the Lancet, and would get yet further examination elsewhere. As of last Friday the paper is now published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, and you can read it here. More importantly your doctor, or your family’s doctors, can read it too. Take it to them, as many as possible.

So what does this dry-as-dust research paper actually show?

The starting point was another review article on ivermectin for Covid-19, also in the American Journal of Therapeutics, published on May 1. Take that paper to your doctor too. Dr Pierre Kory and his Front-Line Covid Critical Care alliance (FLCCC) of US-based intensive care doctors had their four-times peer-reviewed paper accepted for a special issue on repurposed drugs for Covid-19, but then revoked, by the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology. This unprecedented volte face was charted recently in TCW by Dr Michael Yeadon. The same ‘kill the story’ orders delayed publication by over five months.

The FLCCC know what they are doing with Covid-19. Their ‘MATH+’ treatment delivers the world’s best survivals from serious, late-stage, hospitalised  Covid-19. It remains almost unknown in the UK and unused in the NHS. (All Brits should be very angry about this). FLCCC luminary Dr Joseph Varon, mentioned en passant in my coverage of the Oxford RECOVERY trial, has the best track record of them all. The FLCCC have used several anti-virals in their continuing evolution of the best treatments, but by late autumn realised that one drug, ivermectin, stood out because it worked at all stages of the Covid-19 disease, from prophylaxis through to the intensive care that the FLCCC specialise in. They wrote up the evidence, posting a preprint in mid-November.

They explain the back-story to ivermectin, little-known in Western countries but worldwide one of the most widely-used drugs at 3.8 billion doses and counting. Earning the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discoverers, it has crushed the hideously disabling infestation of onchocerciasis or ‘river-blindness’ across the tropics. A potent anti-parasitic, it is used for threadworms, scabies and head-lice. It costs pence per pill. It is a known anti-viral, working across a range of RNA viruses, (and some DNA ones). It may even be an anti-cancer drug, and has prolonged lives in leukaemia. Specifically against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, a team at Monash University in Australia showed that ivermectin killed off the virus in vitro in April 2020. The usual suspects declared that this meant nothing (which on its own is true), that that you couldn’t get it strong enough in vivo; nevertheless the Monash paper set off a series of clinical trials of ivermectin for Covid-19, usually in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), or in plain English poor countries. There is a good reason for this: if you are dirt poor, you need your medicines to be dirt cheap. Nothing else will be any use. What did they find? Ivermectin works for Covid-19, at entirely tolerable doses.

Kory’s paper showed how cases and deaths in Peru came crashing down where ivermectin was freely distributed, and not where it wasn’t. The same phenomenon has been repeated in India more recently; states such as Goa that adopt mass distribution of ivermectin crush their cases; those that refuse it such as Tamil Nadu (Chief Minister M K Stalin) don’t.

Dr Kory’s paper identifies and charts the evidence, but doesn’t do a formal meta-analysis, which is where Dr Tess Lawrie came in. Her Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy does nothing but rigorous systematic reviews, and only for public clients such as the NHS and the WHO. Their objectives are clinical practice guidelines, providing the evidence for decisions on licensing and implementation.

A ‘meta-analysis’ is a synthesis of data from multiple sources – typically clinical trials of a new drug – using recognised statistical methods. A meta-analysis of clinical trials that are themselves ‘randomised’ clinical trials (where patients are allocated at random to receive, or not, the treatment) lies at the summit of the ‘evidence quality’ pyramid, in the doctrines of Evidence-Based Medicine, ruthlessly insisted upon by regulatory authorities. To rehearse a cliché, the Randomised Controlled Trial or RCT is the ‘gold standard’ of medical evidence. If so, a meta-analysis of RCTs is platinum.

What makes the paper a first is being carried out according to the standards of the Cochrane organisation, requiring a protocol to be observed (i.e. no favouritism), data extraction from primary sources by two researchers independently, and the ‘grading’ of those sources for the quality of the evidence. Indeed the paper began life as a Cochrane Review, and was finished by the end of January. But to cut short a long story (parts of which are covered elsewhere by the ever-vigilant France Soir ) the Cochrane organisation did not want a systematic review on a topic already approved by a specialised researcher and colleagues whose consultancy does nothing else, and who have contributed nearly 80 such reviews between them. Sounds familiar? It should do by now: the ‘capture’ of learned journals by powerful interests who will suppress, by fair means or increasingly by foul ones, any knowledge that threatens those interests.

The reason for doing a systematic review is that that is what is required by regulatory authorities such as the FDA (in the US) the European Medicines Agency (for the EU), our own Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). It’s what they require to decide on licensing new drugs (though ivermectin isn’t new at all).

Dr Lawrie didn’t stop at the meta-analysis, but pressed on to a ‘Evidence to Decision’ process, the formal procedure which those regulators are supposed to use in coming to decisions. On February 20, the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel voted  that ‘ivermectin should be adopted to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with Covid-19 infection and to prevent Covid-19 infection among those at higher risk.’

That was February. The essentials were already clear from Dr Kory’s paper in preprint in November, his testimony to the US Senate in December, Dr Lawrie’s first meta-analysis issued on January 3, and our submission to the Lancet on 5 February (preprint posted March 11). BMC Systematic Reviews were kind enough to post a preprint on March 18 but though they still say it’s ‘under review’ we haven’t heard from them in three months, so it looks like ‘kill the story’ orders apply there too. Our published paper has since been revised and updated.

The paper makes clear that there’s no real doubt that ivermectin is an effective medicine for Covid-19. Multiple clinical trials show it. The Randomised Controlled Trials that our paper analyses are just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty of other trials show it too, but if they were not randomised, according to regulators they don’t count, so our meta-analysis did not include them. Although Risks of Bias are carefully evaluated, disregarding the mountain of evidence from elsewhere, not least the experience and testimony of doctors actually using it, is itself a potent source of bias. You are throwing away all the data that might force you to think. A critic of our paper wrote: ‘a technical tour-de-force based on ritualised ideas’. He’s right, but let’s not argue: our meta-analysis was upon the Regulators’ terms. We played by their rules. That was the point. You want a strict meta-analysis of RCTs only? Take two dozen.

How many do they need? When governments, or regulatory agencies, want to approve medicines, one will do. Dexamethasone, to huge fanfare, was approved last summer on the evidence of just one RCT, though it helps only ventilated patients in the inflammatory stages of the illness, and on its own, by not very much. The FLCCC doctors had been using a different corticosteroid, methylprednisolone, and at higher equivalent doses, long before. In our analysis, ivermectin reduces deaths overall by around 62 per cent, and works at all disease stages. As a prophylactic, it prevents 6 out of every 7 infections that would otherwise occur, and stops household transmission in its tracks. Corticosteroids are vital in the inflammatory phase of the illness, but are useless in the purely viral stage or for prophylaxis.

So where does all this leave ivermectin, for those affected by Covid-19, those worried about it, and vulnerable people at risk?

Ivermectin isn’t new. Its safety record, from those billions of doses, is second to none. Its cost is negligible. The WHO, in its BC (Before Covid) era, listed it as an ‘Essential Medicine’ in their catalogue of the ‘minimum medicine needs for a basic health-care system’ (though our ‘envy of the world’ NHS doesn’t have it).

In the USA, ivermectin is licensed by the FDA, albeit not for Covid, so is available to any American doctor to prescribe ‘off-label’ (i.e. not according to the originally licensed ‘advertising label’). However the fact that it isn’t ‘labelled’ for Covid makes it easy to refuse. Patients’ families have had to go to court for injunctions ordering hospitals to give ivermectin. The FLCCC still swims against the tide, though legal barriers are lower than elsewhere, for open-minded doctors.

In the UK, ivermectin has never been licensed by the MHRA. This makes it easy for doctors to refuse, and for those who want to help to be obstructed. My GP refused me ivermectin for prophylaxis, even after I showed him the evidence. Hospital doctors can’t get it except to special order at pharmacies. The bureaucracy won’t allow them to prescribe it. Listen to Dr Nyjon Eccles  having to bring his own ivermectin for his 84-year-old mother in hospital with Covid-19, dependent on oxygen, and failing every time she came off. She was discharged five days after her first dose.

As for the WHO itself, on March 31, 2021, its ‘Living Guideline’ for Covid treatments was updated, declaring: ‘We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with Covid-19 except in the context of a clinical trial.’ The cherry-picking of studies that helped give the Right Answer, and rejection of those that didn’t, the cavalier appraisal of risks of bias and evidence certainty, make their analysis a complete travesty, but nevertheless potently influential.

In India, seeing the damage that the WHO had done to their Covid-19 policy, and finding the pile of evidence compiled by the FLCCC and BIRD, the Indian Bar Association served two legal notices upon the chief scientist of the WHO, Dr Soumya Swaminathan (an Indian national). The first (May 25) accuses her of a ‘disinformation campaign against ivermectin’ and the second June 13) ups the ante by joining Dr Tedros (director general of the WHO), and accusing them of ‘contempt of court and aggravated offences against humanity by spreading disinformation’. If these move to actual litigation, watch this space.

Meanwhile, patients and their families, and even Bar Associations, should not have to go through the courts or to smuggle medicines into hospital to get treatment for sick patients. At some point, officials who obstruct access to safe medicines are going to have to explain the moral difference between their actions and corporate manslaughter.

Will our own MHRA see sense and ‘license’ this WHO Essential Medicine of unparalleled safety record and negligible cost for use in the UK for treatment and prophylaxis of Covid-19? There’s none so deaf as those that will not listen. We have a Government that has lied to us throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and continues to do so. The oxymoronic Sage, fronted by the Gruesome Twosome, receive no challenges from equally or better qualified scientists, except through volunteer groups like HART or BIRD. The Prime Minister, having ‘landed from another planet and having absolutely no clue of what he is talking about’ appoints a Task Force to have ‘antiviral treatments ready for deployment by autumn 2021’.

This article has been about an anti-viral treatment that is already known, already exists, with an unparalleled safety record, is on the Essential Medicines list of the WHO, costs virtually nothing, and has anti-inflammatory properties to boot. It requires only formal endorsement. Johnson’s Task Force is redundant.

Preparing a formal application to the MHRA, we take comfort from the editors of Lancet Respiratory Medicine: ‘We don’t doubt this is an important paper’.

July 1, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Conflict of Interest in WHO Recommendation Against Ivermectin

By Andrew Bannister | Trial Site News | June 27, 2021

All dangerous diseases are best treated early. A major failure of the global COVID-19 strategy has been to wait a week for the disease to become dangerous, when breathing becomes a problem. Early treatment of COVID, even for those with mild symptoms, prevents later hospitalization. There are several early treatment drugs showing promise but ivermectin leads the pack regarding safety, effectiveness and price. Unfortunately, the biggest players in Western mainstream media are members of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). The TNI is a story for another day but it’s remarkable that big media companies barely report that they have agreed to promote global vaccination and to make sure any “disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks”[i]. Unfortunately, as a result early treatment seems to be seen as a disinformation myth and is not mentioned. Early treatment is vital in treating serious diseases and COVID-19 is no exception.

Considering the human and economic cost, the avoidance of early treatment with a very safe, effective and off-patent drug is a criminal tragedy of immense proportions and a winning lottery ticket for some pharmaceutical companies that are designing and selling novel patented drugs that could not compete with ivermectin in a free market. Mercks’ molnupiravir, for instance, is seeking an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA and “Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government.”[ii]

Ivermectin doesn’t need an EUA because it passed trials in 1986. It just needs to be recommended to treat COVID-19. However, if ivermectin was officially recognized as an effective treatment, it would legally prevent molnupiravir’s EUA until it passes trials and thus delay or endanger the $1.2 billion deal. An aggravating factor is the fact that molnupiravir (EIDD-2801) could cause harmful genetic mutations. [iii]

In the face of a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, government authorities and international organizations have traditionally looked to the World Health Organization (WHO) for guidance – trusting that the WHO is free of commercial interests. Originally funded entirely by member states, the organization now receives less than 20% of its budget from these states and the rest from donors[iv] with their own financial and strategic agendas. Margret Chan, the previous Director General of the WHO, said in 2015: “I have to take my hat and go around the world to beg for money and when they give us the money [it is] highly linked to their preferences, what they like. It may not be the priority of the WHO, so if we do not solve this, we are not going to be as great as we were”. [v]

Veteran journalist Robert Parsons explains that “the Smallpox eradication program was funded entirely by donors. That may have led to the problem that for special projects it [the WHO] has to raise the funding. But the private sector is unlikely to get involved unless it shows profit … Consequently, there is little independent public health research”.[vi]  Since then, the undue financial influence of private stakeholders has further grown at the WHO. Donations come with caveats so that the organization is compromised on a number of issues that involve the interests of its donors.

In 2010, for instance, after the H1N1 flu pandemic, an investigative inquiry by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that “key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as ‘conspiracy theories’.” [vii] These advisors managed to convince the UK government to spend more than $7 billion on a vaccine that was never needed.[viii]

As of 2021, conflicts of interest such as these continue to be a problem – the undue influence of private stakeholders being a prime example. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is the second largest funder of the WHO after the USA. Gates, however, also founded and funds The Vaccine Alliance (GAVI). In the period 2018–19, their combined voluntary contribution to the WHO was 27%[ix] greater than the US voluntary contribution, making Gates’ influence pervasive. As funds by the Gates conglomerate are earmarked for specific projects, the WHO doesn’t decide how the respective money is spent, Gates does.

In addition to the undue financial influence exerted by the BMGF, there is also an overlap of personnel between the WHO and Gates’ endeavors. Tedros Adhanom, the current WHO Director General, has previously served on the board of GAVI and as the chair of the Gates funded Global Fund.[x] Arguably, he is still influenced by his previous employer’s ideology and financial power.

Gates’ priorities have become the WHO’s. The main priority of Gates is global COVID-19 vaccination, not public health systems providing early treatment. He has been pushing vaccination onto the global agenda since 2012. The power of Gates Foundation funding has dictated a drive towards vaccinations and away from other essential public health measures, a move which has been criticized for years by international NGOs involved in the health and development field.

Generally, Gates also believes that capitalism is more efficient than public health agencies when it comes to reaching his goals in the area of global health.[xi] Capitalism is usually more efficient than government but it values profits above people. Accordingly, Gates as well as the pharmaceutical companies his foundation is invested in and whose products he is pushing globally are making billions from their endeavors. Morgan Stanley believes that Pfizer, for example, could earn $100 billion from vaccines developed with public tax money from the US, Germany and other places in the next five years.[xii] Pfizer is partnered with BioNTech. The Gates Foundation has investments in both companies, putting $55 million into BioNTech alone in September 2019. The Gates Foundation also owns shares in Merck which is positioning the drug molnupiravir on the market hoping to make billions from it.

When it comes to ivermectin – in its off-patent form, Gates is funding work on a patentable, injectable form.[xiii] Organizations tied to Gates have taken an antagonistic stance thus far. Notably, GAVI has been going all out by running paid google ads against the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.[xiv]

Given the significant financial and ideological conflict of interest of its main donor, the WHO recommendation on early treatment with an off-patent, highly efficient, safe and cheap drug such as ivermectin needs to be critically examined. In the WHO ivermectin guideline, despite showing a reduction of deaths by 80%,[xv] the organization puzzlingly recommends against ivermectin’s use.

The WHO’s guideline document is “based on a living systematic review and network meta-analysis from investigators at McMaster University”.[xvi] McMaster University (including any of its direct affiliates) should have excused itself from conducting the guideline, given it has several objective conflicts of interest when it comes to ivermectin. For one, McMaster itself is designing and producing second generation COVID-19 vaccines.[xvii] It intends to produce hundreds of thousands of doses. It is likely that these experimental products would receive greater scrutiny if there is a viable safe prophylactic and treatment option for COVID-19. Secondly, McMaster University, like the WHO itself, receives millions in funding from the Gates Foundation. Additionally, McMaster, again like the WHO, shares personnel with the Gates Foundation.

Edward Mills, for example, is both a McMaster associate professor and the clinical trial advisor for the Gates Foundation. In addition he has recently been appointed as the principal investigator of the Gates-funded Together Trial that is currently evaluating repurposed drugs such as ivermectin for their use in COVID-19[xviii]. Asked for comment, Mills denied that the Gates Foundation was having any “say on the conduct of the trial” even though he himself is it’s principal investigator and employed by the Gates Foundation. As past experiences show, no product should ever be tested in a trial funded by those gaining or losing financially or ideologically from it. Thus, ivermectin trials are best not done by anyone with a financial and ideological investment in competing drugs and vaccines. No reputable organization or government agency should be basing their opinion of ivermectin on trials conducted by the Gates Foundation or any other party with a conflict of interest.

The recently announced Oxford University trial of Ivermectin shares a similar conflict as Oxford is profiting from the sales of the AstraZeneca vaccine and questions have been raised about the proposed trial possibly sabotaging the result by admitting elderly people already sick for 14 days but limiting the Ivermectin dose to three treatments.

Unsurprisingly, in a recent interview, Edward Mills seemed to be downplaying the effect of ivermectin. “The evidence on prophylaxis use of ivermectin is not very convincing”, Mills doubts, even though ivermectin is not being evaluated as a prophylactic in his own trial. Data from different clinical trials clearly shows that ivermectin is exceptionally effective, specifically as a prophylactic. Bryant et al. (2021) who analyzed the existing data from clinical trials according to conservative Cochrane meta-analysis standards – a gold-standard in science – found that “ivermectin prophylaxis reduced covid-19 infection by an average 86%” with the best-dosed study reaching an effectiveness of 91%.[xviv] There have been several studies that show that the regularity of the prophylactic dose is important with a weekly dose being more effective than bimonthly. Edward Mills curiously doesn’t find the prophylactic data interesting. The big money is not in running generic repurposed drug trials but in pharmaceutical company trials fighting for market share.

Mills also suggests ivermectin might be efficient as a treatment but emphasizes the need for other drug interventions. “I am very optimistic that it will – it will just be one component of the interventions that we need.“[xix] While other components can be useful additions, downplaying the effect of ivermectin is not warranted. An expert meta-analysis by Karale et al. (2021) including researchers from the renowned Mayo Clinic comes to the conclusion that when given early in mild or moderate COVID-19, ivermectin reduces mortality by 90%.[xx] The findings further corroborate the results of the scientific review conducted by Kory et al. (2021) that has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics and shows ivermectin to be significantly effective in the treatment of COVID-19.[xxi]

Given the conflicts of interest of McMaster University as well as the dubious interrelations between McMaster personnel and private stakeholders such as the Gates Foundation and other industry-related companies, the WHO should not have accepted McMaster’s involvement in the guidelines on ivermectin. Further, the WHO should ensure that no undue influence is exerted by its own donors – a task it has not yet been able to achieve.

Questions sent to the WHO Ethics Office, asking for clarity about its recommendation against the use of ivermectin, were answered. However the organization refused to supply minutes of the meeting on ivermectin. It further declares that no interview will be granted. It does “not consider an assessment of ivermectin for prophylactic use in COVID-19 to be warranted”. It also does not consider trials by drug companies to be “biased per se” even though major pharmaceutical corporations have been repeatedly convicted of substantial fraud, manipulation and concealment of evidence and paying billions of dollars in fines. There was also an intimidatory confidentially clause in the WHO correspondence despite the author stating that they are writing about ivermectin.

The WHO needs to prove that it followed a scientific and ethical process in its recommendation against the use of ivermectin. Public trust is crucial to beat the pandemic. We cannot continue to have the Gates foundation determining the WHO decisions on Ivermectin given the large conflict of interest. The minutes of the meeting in which the recommendation against ivermectin was taken need to be made public. The public needs to be told and shown invoices with regards to who paid for the steps that informed the WHO ivermectin guideline. The conflicts of interest of major WHO donors and the employer (McMaster University) of the scientists that are responsible for the guideline need to be made transparent. Without this, the recommendation against the use of ivermectin, remains mired in suspicion of corporate overreach.

Few incidences make the general problem more apparent than the following: The WHO’s Chief Scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, was on Twitter recently warning Indian nationals in the midst of a deadly COVID-19 wave not to take ivermectin citing Merck marketing material.[xxii] As a reminder, the pharmaceutical giant Merck is hoping to make billions with its potentially mutagenic molnupiravir which won’t happen if off-patent ivermectin is a standard of care. Swaminathan’s statement went against the official Indian recommendation in favor of ivermectin issued by the most highly regarded health association in India after the country had been confronted with a new COVID-19 variant and regions were seeing improvement with early Ivermectin treatment. In the aftermath, the Indian Bar Association served Swaminathan a legal notice for spreading dangerous disinformation and causing a significant number of deaths by discouraging the use of a life-saving drug.[xxiii] Swaminathan’s tweet has since been deleted. The legal notice for aggravated offences against humanity concerning ivermectin has by now been extended to the WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom.[xxiv]

The once noble idea of a global public health system working for mankind’s best interests has been replaced by an organization largely driven by the financial and ideological interests of private stakeholders. This is not a new phenomenon. International groups have long called for a reform of the WHO. In a global pandemic, the disastrous consequences of these pervasive organizational issues become even more apparent.

Distinguished scientists and frontline physicians from all over the world without conflicts of interest have called for the immediate use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and expert meta-analyses performed according to the highest standards of science have proven ivermectin’s effectiveness and reaffirmed its safety. Yet, a front of organizations including a significantly compromised WHO as well as wealthy private stakeholders with financial and ideological conflicts of interest have blocked the usage of this life-saving medication. Some observers have called this a crime against humanity which should be subjected to public scrutiny and an official criminal investigation. Ivermectin, meanwhile, should be used immediately to save lives as it has already been done successfully in a number of places worldwide.







[vii] ]









[xvi] WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19 Living Guideline. 31.3.2021.



[xviv] (peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the American Journal of Therapeutics)







June 27, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The anti-Covid pill Big Pharma doesn’t want you to have

By John Hollaway | The Conservative Woman | June 22, 2021

From Wikipedia: ‘During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19. Such claims are not backed by good evidence.’

WHEN encountering an inexplicable anomaly in human behaviour, common rules of thumb can often give an insight. Oddly, though, these differ from country to country. For Americans it is ‘follow the money’. For Italians it is ‘cui bono?’ – who benefits? The nearest French rule is perhaps ‘cherchez la femme’.

Sometimes none of these help. Sometimes a perverse piece of human nature cannot be explained in terms of money, perquisites or feminine influence. The ivermectin mystery is one such.

Ivermectin is a generic prescription drug, discovered in 1975, developed by Merck and released in 1981. It is used to treat many types of parasite infestations in humans and animals. The researchers who created it were awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2015. It is on the World Health Organisation’s List of Essential Medicines and is approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) as an antiparasitic agent.

It can have very rare serious side effects. By 2020 four billion doses had been administered and 16 deaths are believed to have occurred as a consequence, or one in 250million doses. Although the figures are not directly comparable, the annual increased risk of death for a middle-aged man taking a standard (325 mg) aspirin every day to prevent heart disease and stroke is about one in ten thousand. This is about as risky as driving a car. 

Ivermectin is therefore a very safe drug. However, the drug oversight establishment does not think so.

On March 22 this year the European Medicines Agency issued this statement: 

‘EMA has reviewed the latest evidence on the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and concluded that the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside well-designed clinical trials.

‘In the EU, ivermectin tablets are approved for treating some parasitic worm infestations while ivermectin skin preparations are approved for treating skin conditions such as rosacea. Ivermectin is also authorised for veterinary use for a wide range of animal species for internal and external parasites.

‘Ivermectin medicines are not authorised for use in COVID-19 in the EU, and EMA has not received any application for such use.’

On May 3 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued this warning under the heading ‘Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19’:

‘There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin to treat humans with COVID-19. Ivermectin is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and beenhospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.

‘FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).

‘The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.’

The lack of official support for trials of the efficacy of ivermectin has meant that the typical number of subjects being tested (the ‘cohort’) is fairly small, usually about a hundred. To overcome this a meta-analysis can be undertaken, when the results of many trials are combined and assessed to determine if a trend can be seen. This has been done, most notably by @CovidAnalysis. A paper most recently updated yesterday surveyed 60 properly conducted studies, most with double-blind testing against placebos, with neither the participants nor the researcher knowing who had been given the drug until the trial was over. This report is a preprint, so it has not been peer-reviewed, but the results are conclusive: 93 per cent of the studies show a positive outcome from the administration of ivermectin, with deaths reduced by over 80 per cent.

So why have what might be called ‘Drug Central’ refused to acknowledge this mammoth body of evidence arising from without their bailiwicks? Perhaps because of human nature again. Here they are obeying another rule of thumb commonly seen when institutions encounter new external factors – ‘not invented here’. Perhaps this business school aphorism is also appropriate: ‘Hell hath no fury like a head-office scorned’.

In any event the virucidal properties of ivermectin and its safety have now been established beyond doubt, and we can expect it to be valuable in this role from henceforth. But unfortunately not, perhaps, against Covid-19.

June 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment