The War on Ivermectin

 There is a war on the drug Ivermectin.  The La. Board of Pharmacy under Gov. Edwards has attempted to ban pharmacists from filling prescriptions for Ivermectin.  The La. Department of Health has stopped allowing prescriptions for Ivermectin to be filled for Medicaid recipients.

The Advocate has run many articles critical of Ivermectin, debunking it as a horse de-wormer. Facebook censures posts about Ivermectin, and Sen. Bill Cassidy has urged people not to take it.

You would never know that the inventor of Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize for his work or that it has saved tens of millions of human lives around the world. You would not know that thousands of physicians across the U.S. say Ivermectin is almost 100 percent effective in treating COVID and preventing death.  What’s the truth? The Cen

tral City News has searched for a reliable source of information on Ivermectin. It is called The Story of Ivermectin found in this video. We have verified the scientific references and believe it to be authoritative.  To watch, use a QR Code reader and click here:


In 1970, a Japanese biochemist by the name of Satoshi Omura, discovered a bacterium that had intriguing effects against roundworm. He shared his discovery with his American colleague, William Campbell, who worked for Merck pharmaceuticals. 

Campbell used the bacterium to create a medicine called Ivermectin, which was released by Merck in 1980.  Ivermectin was found to be extremely effective against a disease called Onchocerciasis, which is better known as River Blindness. 

An Essential Medicine

River Blindness is caused by a parasitic worm, and it has caused untold suffering and even death in parts of Central and South America and much of Africa. With the use of Ivermectin, River Blindness has been largely eliminated in the Americas and greatly reduced in Africa. Billions of doses of the drug have been administered, and it’s listed as one of the World Health Organization’s essential medicines. 

Inexpensive, No Side Effects

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996. The drug is extremely cheap to produce, and it’s available all over the world in a variety of formulations. Best of all, it’s extremely safe. At normal dosages, it has no important side effects. 

Nobel Prize

In 2015, in recognition of his contributions, Dr. Omura was given the Nobel Prize for Medicine, which he shared with Dr. Campbell. 

Always Look at Existing Drugs

Fast forward to early 2020 when the COVID pandemic was spreading around the world, scientists and doctors were searching frantically for drugs that could treat the disease. The obvious place to start was with existing drugs that had shown antiviral activity. 

Earlier Studies Showed Promise

Earlier in the year, a team of scientists working at Australia’s Monash University did a literature search and discovered that Ivermectin had shown activity against such viruses as Zika, West Nile and influenza. They performed a series of experiments, in which they found that Ivermectin displayed remarkable activity against SARS COVID2 in vitro, which is to say, in test tubes. 

5,000-Fold Reduction in Virus

They published their results in a paper that appeared in April 2020. They found that a single treatment with Ivermectin produces a 5,000-fold reduction in viral levels without any cytotoxicity, meaning it didn’t harm the cells! 

Along with their results, they proposed a mechanism whereby Ivermectin achieves this miraculous effect. 

Around the same time, a pair of scientists working in the United States realized that Ivermectin was being widely used as a prophylaxis against River Blindness in Africa. They wondered if the use of Ivermectin would have any effect on rates of COVID-19. 

Countries Where It Was Used

They looked at countries where Ivermectin was administered to entire populations, and compared their rates of COVID-19 to countries where they had no such program. They found that countries that had widespread Ivermectin prophylaxis had significantly lower rates of COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, doctors in hospitals around the world were dealing with an onslaught of patients with COVID-19 and they had no good medicines to treat the disease. 

A Front-line Doctor

One such doctor was Jean-Jacques Rejter, a critical care and pulmonary specialist working at Broward Health Medical Center, the largest hospital in Miami Dade County. Being a lung specialist working in the ICU, Dr. Rejter was truly on the frontlines of the war against COVID. 

One day, he found himself talking to the son of an elderly woman who was doing very poorly in her fight against COVID in the ICU. Keep in mind that this was at a time in the pandemic, when those who were dying of COVID were not even allowed to visit with their loved ones before they passed. They often had to say their final words via telephone. 

How It Happened

Let’s let Dr. Rejter tell the story from here: “I called the patient’s son and said, Listen, you may want to call your mom.  Mom is deteriorating rapidly. She’s likely going to end up on a ventilator. Talk to her now. So we went back and forth. He said, Doctor there is something else there must be something else. I’m like, No, sir. I have nothing. Nobody has anything.”

But luckily for this patient, her son was not going to give up so easily. He pushed Dr. Rejter to think of a treatment. The doctor said, “Listen, there’s this one study that I reviewed two days ago about the use of Ivermectin in test tubes in vitro. It was like Okay, so let’s do it. Okay, so she got Ivermectin within 48 hours. Within a week or so she was discharged to home!”

Remarkable Treatment Results

Dr. Rejter went on to treat a series of COVID patients with Ivermectin, and he published the results in a preprint paper, which appeared in June of 2020. Later in 2020, he testified before a Senate committee about his experiences, treating COVID patients with Ivermectin.  He said, “Of the hundreds of outpatients treated by my team, only two, I repeat, two were admitted to the hospital. Neither one of them died. Neither one of them needed intubation.”

Controlled Studies

At the same time, all around the world, a number of controlled studies on the use of Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19 were being carried out. 

One such study took place at the Valley View Care Home in North York, Ontario, Canada. A daughter of one of the residents of the care home reported her experience on the YouTube channel of Dr. Jennifer Hibbert. Her mother lived on the fourth floor of the care home, which experienced a scabies outbreak in March of 2020. The residents of that floor were treated with Ivermectin, which eliminates scabies. Residents of other floors were given smaller doses of Ivermectin to prevent scabies. The staff of the care home were not given Ivermectin, and many of them tested positive for COVID-19 when the pandemic swept Ontario in the spring. 

Residents Didn’t Get It

Despite the staff coming into constant contact with the residents, here’s what happened. “The fourth floor, where residents had the scabies outbreak and received the highest dose of Ivermectin, had the most infected staff but not a single resident was infected with COVID.”

As anecdotal reports and studies like these started to pile up, they caught the attention of doctors 

working on the frontlines against COVID. One such doctor was Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and ICU specialist working at New York’s prestigious Mount Sinai, Beth Israel Hospital. New York suffered one of the worst outbreaks of COVID in the entire world. So a pulmonologist working in the ICU of a hospital in that city probably had a closer view of COVID-19 than almost any other doctor on Earth. 

Frontline Critical Care Alliance

In the spring of 2020, Dr. Kory teamed up with Dr. Rejter and Dr. Paul Merrick to form the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance or FLCCC. In October 2020, the FLCCC released the IMASK plus protocol, a protocol which centers on the use of Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19. 

In early November 2020, the FLCCC released a paper reviewing the studies on the use of Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19. This paper was a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a study which looks at many other studies and analyzes their results. They found that Ivermectin was extremely effective in both preventing and treating COVID-19. 

Peru and Mexico

The introduction of Ivermectin in various states in the country of Peru resulted in an immediate and sustained decrease in COVID-19 mortality. Likewise, the southern state of Chiapas was the only Mexican state to widely distribute Ivermectin. This resulted in a huge reduction in COVID-19 cases compared to neighboring states.

Study in Argentina

In a study conducted in Argentina, a group of 788 healthcare workers was given Ivermectin and zero contracted COVID. At the same time, over 50 percent of the control group, who were not given Ivermectin, did contract COVID. The FLCCC paper also looked at 12 studies on the use of Ivermectin to treat people who had been infected with SARS COVID2. In all 12, including seven randomized control studies, Ivermectin was shown to be superior to the control group. 

On December 8, 2020, members of the FLCCC appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the early treatment of COVID-19, which was chaired by Senator Ron Johnson. Here are some of Dr. Kory’s testimony to the committee:

Data Shows Effectiveness

“Mountains of data have emerged from many countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of Ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick. I cannot keep caring for patients when I know that they could have been saved with earlier treatment, and the drug that will treat them and prevent the hospitalization is Ivermectin. All I ask is for the NIH to review the data that we’ve compiled of all of the emerging data. We have almost 30 studies, every one is reliably and reproducibly positive showing the dramatic impacts of Ivermectin.”

Suppression of Information

Now, given all the deaths and economic destruction caused by COVID-19, you would think that the government, the health agencies, and the media of the United States would have welcomed this news with open arms. But that’s not what happened. Instead, a coalition of powerful forces acted together to completely suppress any information on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating and preventing COVID-19. 

The Role of Big Media

So let’s take a close look at who suppressed Ivermectin.  

The first big player to suppress Ivermectin was the mainstream media. The New York Times led the way by declaring that the Senate hearing had promoted unproven drugs and dubious claims. 

AP followed with an astonishing claim that there’s no evidence that Ivermectin works against COVID-19, conveniently ignoring every one of the studies that was listed in the FLCCC paper. 

The Role of Big Tech

The next group to suppress Ivermectin was big tech. YouTube, which is owned by Google, Chris Martenson on Ivermectin. They did the same to Dr. Christie Rising.  She said, “To my shock and dismay, the previous video I published on December 22, about Ivermectin was taken down by YouTube!”

Twitter went as far as blacklisting a European medical journal that published an article on treating COVID-19 with Ivermectin. Facebook went even further and removed posts by the FLCCC about their paper. 

National Institutes of Health

The next major group to suppress Ivermectin was the NIH, America’s National Institutes of Health. In April 2020, the NIH formed the COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel. This panel was incredibly influential because essentially, they decided what treatment doctors in the United States could use to treat patients with COVID-19. 

The panel’s treatment recommendations for most of 2020 provided that people who are COVID positive but not yet in the hospital or in the hospital but not yet requiring oxygen supplementation. They say that a doctor can apply for an EUA or emergency use authorization for a monoclonal antibody. This is a very troublesome process, but they recommend no other treatments. 

Absence of Early Treatment

This approach to treating early COVID has been described as therapeutic nihilism by Dr. Paul Merrick. Leaving aside Ivermectin for the moment, this is truly shocking, especially given what we know about the efficacy of things like Vitamin D in preventing COVID from progressing to more severe stages. Preventing that progression is paramount, because there’s a point of no return for many patients with COVID. Once they cross it and require intubation, they often cannot be saved. 

So just think about this policy for a second. The NIH COVID-19 treatment panel is saying, do not treat your patients until they are so sick that they need to be put on supplemental oxygen. They only make a definitive drug recommendation for patients who have deteriorated to the point where they will not survive without supplemental oxygen. And once they are that sick, what treatment do they recommend? A drug called Remdesivir. 

The Clamor for Remdesivir

It’s almost as if the treatment guidelines are designed to get the patients to the point where they must be treated with Remdesivir. 

Let’s take a closer look at Remdesivir. Most people first heard of Remdesivir when Dr. Anthony Fauci made the unusual move of announcing it at a White House press conference in April 2020. Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is a department of the NIH. 

Here’s Dr. Fauci speaking about Remdesivir at the White House.  Consider carefully what he says about the endpoint of the study he’s referring to: “The data shows that Remdesivir has a clearcut significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recover.”

No Claim It Saves Lives

Note that he doesn’t say anything about mortality. He talks about diminishing the time to recovery. It’s essential to note that Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases actually paid for this study he’s referring to. 

So basically, Dr. Fauci can hardly be called an impartial judge of that study. And just as importantly, Dr. Fauci would have been well aware of the developments with the study as it was performed.  He would have been well aware of the fact that midway through the trial, the primary endpoint was changed from mortality to time to recovery. And this was obviously because the researchers were seeing that Remdesivir had no significant impact on mortality. Changing endpoints midway through a study is highly unusual. 

Many scientific commentators raised concerns about this. Yet, knowing that Remdesivir did nothing to reduce mortality from COVID-19, Dr. Fauci pressed on, touting the drug as a remarkable advance in the treatment of COVID.

Dr. Fauci said, “We think it’s really opening the door to the fact that we now have the capability of treating and I can guarantee you as more people, more companies, more investigators getting involved, it’s going to get better and better.”

WHO Blackballed Remdesivir

Not very long after Anthony Fauci made that statement, the World Health Organization recommended against the use of Remdesivir. Based on much larger studies, they said there is no evidence that Remdesivir improves survival or any other metric in COVID-19. Despite that, the NIH treatment panel continued to recommend Remdesivir and continues to do so today. 

Now all of this begs the question. Why would the NIH and Dr. Fauci continue to recommend a drug that has repeatedly been shown to have no effect on improving COVID-19 survival and which costs over $3,100 per course, unlike Ivermectin, which is nearly free? 

Who Makes Remdesivir

In order to answer that question, we have to look at who makes Remdesivir and how they’re related to the people who decide what drugs can be used to treat COVID-19. 

Remdesivir is made by Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, located in Foster City, California. In order to understand why the NIH treatment panel is so pro-Remdesivir, it’s essential to understand the financial ties between Gilead Sciences and members of that treatment panel. If you look at the treatment panels, financial disclosures, you will see that no fewer than seven members disclose financial support from Gilead Sciences.

Financial Conflict

Given these financial ties, is there any way we could reasonably expect them to impartially judge the best treatments for COVID-19? And there’s no way that the members of the panel were unaware of the research concerning Ivermectin. And yet, no one chose to bring that to the fore in their meetings. Rather than recommend Ivermectin, or at least recommend more studies into Ivermectin, they chose to continue to push the drug Remdesivir, which they knew had no discernible effect on COVID-19 survival. 

This is professional negligence of the worst sort. And given the disproportionate influence that America’s medical agencies have on many other countries’ medical agencies, it’s very likely that their negligence resulted in hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths around the world. 

Let us be completely clear about why they chose to suppress Ivermectin and push a drug that they knew didn’t work. They did it so that one pharmaceutical company with deep political connections, huge media support, and big tech backing could make obscene profits for themselves and their shareholders. 

Delay Cost Lives

What if the NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci had been doing their jobs? What if sometime in the summer of 2020, they had authorized doctors across the country to use Ivermectin at their discretion? 

It’s not that hard to figure out what would have happened because there is a place with a population almost the size of the United States, where that’s exactly what the health authorities did. The state of Uttar Pradesh in India has a population about 70 percent the size of the United States. 

Ivermectin in India

In August 2020, the Uttar Pradesh state government authorized the use of Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19. It was given to those who tested positive for COVID as well as their primary contacts and health care workers. Let’s look at the stats for COVID-19 mortality in Uttar Pradesh. 

There was a peak of mortality in the summer, but deaths dropped very quickly after that. As we get into January 2021, we see that deaths are averaging fewer than 10 a day and on January 19, in a state with 230 million people, no one died from COVID-19! But in the United States, a country with a much more extensive medical system, we’re averaging over 3,000 deaths per day. 

We Lost Loved Ones

We know who the villains are in this story. But who are the victims? If you’ve lost a friend or a family member to COVID-19, you are a victim. If your children’s education or socialization has been disrupted by COVID-19, you are a victim.

If you’ve lost your job or your business because of COVID-19, you are a victim. If you are suffering from long COVID and you don’t know when or if you will get better, you are a victim. If you’re elderly, and you are aware that time is limited, and yet you cannot meet with your children or grandchildren, you are a victim. 

It is now clear that big tech and the mainstream media worked with the NIH to suppress knowledge of a drug that could have ended the pandemic last summer. 

This is not mere professional negligence. This is a crime.

Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.