Home Unbiased and uncensored debate Covid-19 Is the mainstream media deliberately censoring Ivermectin for Covid?

  • Is the mainstream media deliberately censoring Ivermectin for Covid?

    Avatar IveyTech updated 1 week, 3 days ago 7 Members · 14 Posts
  • Avatar


    April 9, 2021 at 6:40 pm

    Posts have been removed from Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other platforms. Doctors have had their accounts banned. Entire groups with thousands of members have been removed. What’s going on here? Can it be that mainstream tech is in cahoots with big pharma to push a single agenda? Why would they do that? What are your thoughts.

  • Avatar


    April 10, 2021 at 2:58 pm

    It is obvious that they are, given the overwhelming evidence by now of its effectiveness. I think there is no other reason to explain this other than the influence of the billions and possibly trillions of dollars at stake by big pharma and their investors. To hell with the lost lives. Its ALL about the money. Never let a good pandemic go to waste.

  • Avatar


    April 10, 2021 at 3:38 pm

    Purely factual referenced additions to the Wikipedia ivermectin page are being censored.

  • Avatar


    April 10, 2021 at 7:45 pm

    I’ve been on Twitter for a decade, during which time I’ve participated in many edgy debates on a wide range of political and cultural issues. Until two days ago I’ve never had my account suspended. That’s when I addressed a tweet to the leader of the Australian Greens asking him to give consideration to Ivermectin, especially in the context of Papua New Guinea’s current surge in COVID-19 cases.

    Here’s the tweet that put me in Twitter Purgatory (it was a reply to a tweet by Adam Bandt urging a faster rollout of the Australian Government’s COVID-10 vaccination program):

    ” @AdamBandt Vaccination is just one medical technology. It shouldn’t be the exclusive focus of public health policy. For instance, in PNG, RIGHT NOW, there’s a compelling case for rapidly distributing safe non-patent medications, notably Ivermectin. #ivermectinworks https://t.co/KGlWiGMrLA

    I’ve appealed Twitter’s decision, and now face a wait of indeterminate length while my case is investigated. In Twitter’s online appeal process, I was permitted only 160 characters maximum to state my case. This is the text of my appeal:

    ” My tweet was in no way disinformation. It was factually-based and linked to a video discussion between reputable doctors. It was pro-medication – NOT “anti-Vax” “

    According to Twitter’s explanatory documentation, I could forgo the appeal and regain access to my account straight away.. But to do so is to tacitly accept that there WAS something unacceptable about the tweet.

    In one sense, this is a small problem concerning one short tweet that the world won’t greatly miss. On the other hand, the principle is important. Right now, I’m not sure about the best way forward on this and I’m open to suggestions.

    Incidentally, this is my first comment posted on the TrialSiteNews website, and I good time to say how much I appreciate your work.

  • Avatar


    April 12, 2021 at 4:23 am

    I worry that the scientists who are supporting Ivermectin are too naive. They scratch their heads, puzzled and frustrated about why people are being overly cautious about Ivermectin. They might even excuse it as an overreaction to hydroxychloroquine, which was unfortunately hyped prematurely. But this is not just a battle over caution versus speed, cost-benefit analysis for patients with lethal prognoses. This is not a repeat of the HIV medication battle where gay activists successfully shamed the FDA into loosening their strict standards on experimental drug approval and use. Those activists didn’t have a strong interest group that was threatened by the approval of cheap readily available treatments. But you do.

    1) Everyone seems to focus on the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has an incentive to eliminate cheap generic competition to their expensive new patentable therapeutics. That is correct but it is the least of your worries. Journalists do NOT usually get in bed with pharmaceutical companies; the media usually attacks these companies for charging too much, making too much profit. There are much more powerful forces arrayed against you.

    2) The government and medical establishment has a strong incentive to deny or at least delay any acknowledgment of a practical therapeutic because that might threaten the vaccination program in two ways: (i) it might increase the resistance to vaccination; (ii) it would remove the justification for accelerated approval of the vaccines. Unfortunately, this is a misplaced worry. People forget that the primary goal is to reduce hospitalization and mortality associated with COVID-19 while eventually allowing herd immunity. If a combination of therapeutics and vaccination can reduce hospitalization and death most efficiently and quickly, then we shouldn’t be concerned if vaccination rates are slowed. After all, a COVID-19 infection contained by therapeutics, like Ivermectin, is essentially a live and cheap vaccination. But for those who believe in the religion of only vaccination, Ivermectin is heresy. That’s why we have scientists supporting Ivermectin, like the FLCCC, who are all PRO-vaxxers, being smeared as anti-vaxxers.

    3) There are powerful political forces that want to keep the country in lockdown and preserve the concentration of emergency powers at the federal, state, and municipal level. If you have vaccines and a good drug to cover both unvaccinated people and virus variants, how can you be the CDC director and tell everyone that you have a sense of “impending doom”. Thus, good cheap therapeutics pose a threat to their ability to use the pandemic emergency to pursue their political agenda. These forces will try to muzzle or cancel you, if your pursuit of therapeutics threatens this agenda. Look at how BigTech has been censoring videos on alternative therapeutics because it is “disinformation” (including Senate testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC). Look at how the only Ivermectin paper the media has publicized is the JAMA article. Don’t underestimate the determination and reach of these forces!

  • pierrecloche

    April 12, 2021 at 5:47 am

    Believe it or not, I got a reply from an email I sent to our local (Australian) TGA or Therapeutic Goods Administration which is the equivalent outfit to US’s FDA. I complained to them that their website was wrong in that it stated that “there was no effective treatment currently known to help people with COVID-19”.

    Amongst all they responded with was this eye-opening bit: “The TGA would welcome an application to register ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 at any time; however, the TGA cannot compel a company to make such an application”

    For the full context see way below:

    My complaint was as here:

    <b style=”font-family: inherit;”>Report of a perceived breach of the Therapeutic Goods Act or questionable practices relating to therapeutic products

    Submitted on Thursday, March 25, 2021 – 10:15pm

    Contact details

    Reporter’s name: MR PETER F BELL
    Reporter’s email: [email protected]
    Reporter’s telephone number: 0408623598
    Reporter’s mobile phone number: 0408623598
    Reporter’s fax number:

    Details of problem

    Date problem was encountered: Thu, 12/03/2020
    Name of product of concern: ivermectin information
    AUST R or AUST L number on product label, if known: N/A
    Name of company/person supplying the product: TGA
    Address of company/person, if known: Their place
    Contact details of company/person, if known (telephone, fax website, etc.): You KNOW this
    Details of problem – please be as specific as possible:

    TGA consistently advertise on their website that there is no medicine that controls COVID-19.
    This is wrong.
    Ivermectin has proved to be very effective prophylactically, early treatment and excellent at controlling or suppressing cytoplasm storm.

    Dear Mr Bell

    Thank you for contacting the Australian Government Department of Health.

    In order to provide you with an appropriate response I need to provide you some background information as to therapeutic goods regulation in Australia.

    Australia has a robust regulatory process for prescription medicines administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), part of the Department of Health. For ivermectin to be registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) by the TGA to treat COVID-19, a sponsor (usually a pharmaceutical company) is required to submit a comprehensive developmental dossier application for the medicine. This dossier usually consists of clinical studies, non-clinical/toxicology studies, and other information. Once accepted by the TGA, a formal evaluation of the application is undertaken in multiple stages by technical experts.

    The process involves obtaining further information and clarification from the sponsor, and may also include seeking advice from an independent committee of external experts prior to finalisation and decision under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Decisions are based on whether the overall benefit of the medicine is considered to outweigh the potential risks of its use. If a decision is made to approve the medicine, it is included on the ARTG and can be lawfully supplied in Australia for the intended use.

    The TGA would welcome an application to register ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 at any time; however, the TGA cannot compel a company to make such an application. Priority and provisional evaluation pathways are available depending on the nature of the application and the supporting data.

    Ivermectin has not received regulatory approval in Australia or anywhere overseas for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. More robust evidence is required before it could be considered a safe and effective treatment option.

    The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, consisting of a large group of independent Australian clinical experts, is continuously updating treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence. They are currently not recommending the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment outside of properly conducted clinical trials with appropriate ethical approval. The living guidelines are available online at: http://www.covid19evidence.net.au.

    Yours sincerely

    Regulatory Assistance Service
    Regulatory Guidance, Assistance and SME Section

    Regulatory Engagement, Education and Planning Branch

    Phone: 1800 020 653 Fax: 02 6203 1605
    Email: [email protected]

    Therapeutic Goods Administration
    Department of Health
    PO Box 100
    Woden ACT 2606 Australia

  • Avatar


    April 13, 2021 at 9:00 am

    We very well informed person told me recently, that this is just big tech’s reaction to not wanting to be regulated. IE: They are self regulating, in order to not be accused of spreading miss-information. The result is a heavy handed, algorithmic approach to censor anything that could be considered problematic, and the actual humans doing the processing of this data are low paid, uninformed workers.

    This explanation, while problematic given what is at stake, makes more sense to me than all of big tech are in some type of coordinated conspiracy.

  • Avatar


    April 14, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    Grow a virus, find an antibody, evolve antibody. manufacture and deliver a solution.”


    Hello Trial Site News

    Background references have been found linking the military to Operation Warp Speed. This relationship has stifled distribution of Ivermectin, because it interferes with the planned research and tracking… https://duckduckgo.com/?q=operation+warp+speed+is+DARPA&t=brave&ia=web

    Some questions about ”why” ivermectin and other medications(see this link)


    to slow or stop COVID-19 have been ignored, were presented on your website by others.

    Also the questions about whether viruses are grown in labs…

     The clues to the answer are here:



    “…What is required now are breakthroughs in three other technology areas to bridge those past DARPA achievements and overcome the remaining bottlenecks that hinder rapid response to pandemic threats. The P3 program will pursue innovations in those three areas:

    Growing virus needed to support evaluation of therapies in laboratory tests;

    Subjecting antibodies to rapid rounds of evolution outside of the body to increase their potency beyond that of even the most effective antibodies obtained from infected patients; and

    Developing means of efficiently delivering nucleic-acid-based protective treatments, since the technologies used to administer conventional vaccines do not readily translate.

    Achieving and integrating breakthroughs in all of these areas will require choreographed cooperation among researchers and engineers specializing in such areas as immunology, microbiology, virology, medical infectious diseases, molecular biology, and medical countermeasure product development and manufacturing.

    DARPA-funded teams will be required to demonstrate their integrated platforms in five simulations during the planned four-year program; they will initially test their platforms using pathogens of their choice, but ultimately they will test using DARPA-selected pathogens[…]”

  • Avatar


    April 27, 2021 at 9:33 am
  • Avatar


    April 27, 2021 at 1:27 pm

    Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Marik have experienced a censorship on YouTube, yet have testified before the Department of Homeland Security, and their open cry for help for suffering people has gained the attention of outspoken Craig Kelly of Australia. Why does the Guardian call Kelly a “conspiracy theorist”.

    That phrase had become lame a long time ago. It is always used by an ignorant well educated person (OXYMORON INTENDED).


    The doctors are allowed to discuss, but where are they allowed to change the claims of Facebook and The Guardian, who “protect” all of their readers from “unproven treatments”?

    Here’s Dr. Kory:

  • Avatar


    April 27, 2021 at 1:33 pm

    A little more of Kelly:


    Australian federal MP Craig Kelly

    has been raising the examples of South Africa and Panama on social media and has recently had close to a million views.

    “The results are now in, they show that Panama’s Covid Kits have crushed the nation’s death rate, saving thousands of lives in that country,” said Kelly in a social media post. “Panama’s decline in death rates have been one of the most successful in the world. And Panama did this when health bureaucrats in Australia were using their powers to threaten jail to anyone in Australia who did similar.”

    Kelly went on to blast Australian Labor politicians and media: “And while Panama was saving lives with these kits, Albanese and Bowen where mocking and ridiculing these treatments – and they were being supported by the ABC and other left wing media. “Nasty little hate groups got their kicks from attacking me for posting the evidence and the peer-reviewed science on FB (Facebook)…”

  • Avatar


    April 27, 2021 at 2:03 pm

    If we were using Real-World Evidence to agree with Facebook’s “protective” policy of deplatforming

    Here is the graph of the Pamama cases/deaths from COVID-19 on the Worldometers website that exonerates Facebook, who gave ivermectin an “unproven treatment” reputation, that Australian Craig Kelly is calling a real treatment…


    Did I get it wrong? Retract that “Like” for Facebook…

    The data on Worldometers shows that the

    “conspiracy theory” that Panama’s use of ivermectin to allegedly reduce deaths…is probably true. Panamanians conspired to use ivermectin, with government approval, THEORETICALLY resulting in a BENEFIT.

    Real-world experience will get you in trouble IF you won’t move forward from calling it a THEORY, to calling it…

    REAL-WORLD DATA (RWD). Period.

    Did we need a double-blind, placebo controlled, six-week period, adequate age through race representation, Gates Foundation sponsored CLINICAL TRIAL?

    No. Period.

  • Avatar


    April 28, 2021 at 11:49 am

    Instagram’s Terms of Service on vaccine misinformation. The terms state that content cannot promote “that others not get the COVID-19 vaccine,” that content cannot include “claims that prevention is guaranteed” through specific products, and that the rules protect against “exploitation of this crisis for financial gain.”

    Facebook’s Terms of Service clearly state that “guaranteed cures or prevention methods for COVID-19” that have not been approved by public health authorities are not allowed on the platform.


    Media Matters is deliberately ignorant of coronavirus destroyers…

    When a supplemental support to your own immune system may not technically “cure you as well as or better than a gene therapy platform” – an mRNA trigger – can the supplemental group of Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Alpha Lipoic Acid and Zinc as well as CoQ10, melatonin and aspirin be unconstitutionally BARRED from sales and use as a COVID-19 prophylactic?


    The Bill of Rights did not give the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Google any authority to outright stop the sales and distribution of these substances.

    What is THE BIG ISSUE with “false claims” by a citizen (or his company) about health improvement, when those same claims, if spoken by Harvard, NIH or FDA make allusions to health improvement from the use of certain products?

    The Federal Trade Commission is itself in violation…It is a CLEAR line between the Federal government, and the people and States:

    <header></header> “[…] in Griswold v. Connecticut.381 U.S. 479 (1965). “>5 The Court in that case voided a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”381 U.S. at 484. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Warren and by Justices Clark, Goldberg, and Brennan. “>6 Thus, although privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment:

    “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”381 U.S. at 488, 491, 492. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan joined this opinion. Justices Harlan and White concurred, id. at 499, 502, without alluding to the Ninth Amendment, but instead basing their conclusions on substantive due process, finding that the state statute “violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)). Id. at 500. It appears that the source of the fundamental rights to which Justices Douglas and Goldberg referred must be found in a concept of substantive due process, despite the former’s express rejection of this ground. Id. at 481–82. Justices Black and Stewart dissented. Justice Black viewed the Ninth Amendment ground as essentially a variation of the due process argument under which Justices claimed the right to void legislation as irrational, unreasonable, or offensive, without finding any violation of an express constitutional provision. “>7

    Stop the attempted destruction of our rights to share, distribute and e-trade compassionate therapeutic care products among ourselves. We can screen out the offenders with private companies that can do medical product testing. Ivermectin can be processed and distributed without our Ninth Amendment being usurped.

    How did the CANNABIS industry take foothold in Colorado without the Federal Government being able to stop it? This foothold was seen as a precedent for cannabis businesses in other States.

    We cannot be so weak as to bow to unconstitutional medical policies of suppression by the Federal government that extends to communications media.


    I’ll address Google and YouTube next.

  • Avatar


    April 28, 2021 at 11:59 am


    Google is really full of itself as it purports to “protect the public” from Ivermectin.

    It is acting as a quasi-governmental and breaking the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

    It stops your freedom of speech.

    It offends your security of person and personal effects.

    It regulates your other rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

    And don’t get me started on the Second Amendment and the lack of following Due Process for the Criminally Accused.

    Here is what Google says about Ivermectin:

    (You didn’t know they’d be specific, right?)

    If you’re posting content

    Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:

    Treatment misinformation:

    Content that encourages the use of home remedies, prayer, or rituals in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospitalContent that claims that there’s a guaranteed cure for COVID-19Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice

    Prevention misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.

    Claims that there is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19Claims that any medication or vaccination is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19


Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018