Introducing the Physicians for Civil Defense: Prominent Doctors Know Ivermectin can Help Treat COVID-19: Will Anyone Listen?

Introducing the Physicians for Civil Defense Prominent Doctors Know Ivermectin can Help Treat COVID-19 Will Anyone Listen

A group calling itself Physicians for Civil Defense as it turns out is a group of physicians TrialSite Knows very well. In fact, they include Dr. Jacques Rajter of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, co-principal investigator and author of the ICON study evidencing the efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. The group recently presented at the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee discussing possible safe and economical treatment for both prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19: namely ivermectin. 

The Physicians for Civil Defense has tracked TrialSite for months as this unbiased, objective media platform chronicled ivermectin case series, observational studies and randomized controlled studies from Bangladesh to Peru; from France to India and from Colombia to Dominican Republic. For those interested, use the search function: all of the articles, reports, summaries and even a documentary about ivermectin use in Peru are available.   

Ivermectin is Widely Used

This physician-based group now shares with the world that there is most certainly sufficient data now to at least publicly fund a ivermectin-based trial to test for both prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Nearly 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been used worldwide, reported Dr. Rajter, author of the peer reviewed Chest study. Rajter and his physician spouse have worked tirelessly to save the lives of those in South Florida who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Their work led to the publishing of the ICON study in peer-reviewed Chest

This group has also undertaken a meta-analysis of 21 studies that demonstrate that ivermectin has considerable benefits in treatment for those in the early stages of the disease.

Why no Large randomized Ivermectin Trial?

Dr. Rajter reports that the reason is fairly simple and straightforward; it is extremely difficult to obtain any funding.  This is despite the fact that over $12 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars have gone to vaccines and a few highly investigational monoclonal antibody candidates. Rajter and Dr. Pierre Kory (who is not a member of the Physicians for Civil Defense) of St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center argue that when it comes to ivermectin its safe, well known as a drug and the data is now overwhelmingly positive that the FDA approved antiparasitic drug inhibits COVID-19. Of course, more research needs to be done and that’s all the good doctors were calling for.

Referring to this extremely biased situation on the part of the public National Institutes of Health (NIH) which oversees the ACTIV program—again this NIH-based initiative directs all federal research dollars involved with COVID-19 studies and to date over $12 billion has gone to a handful of companies developing vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.

Argument: Don’t Believe the Vaccine is the Answer

ACTIV is spending billions on monoclonal antibodies right now despite the fact that promising vaccines are in development, including the recent emergency use approval of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine. We must remember the latter opted to not take government subsidy via Operation Warp Speed for clinical research. 

In NIH’s Therapeutic Management of Patients with COVID-19 & Some Unanswered questions about Disturbing Chasm,” TrialSite shared that the NIH has led over $12.2 billion of research including over $2 billion into novel monoclonal antibodies which are expensive, difficult to access, and very costly to administer. Just in October, AstraZeneca picked up $486 million from NIH/ACTIV to develop a combination monoclonal antibody product—deep into the pandemic while vaccines are nearing emergency use approval. Why the large subsidy? Because NIH understands the importance of finding a safe and effective treatment for early onset COVID-19 cases. 

Unfortunately, Physicians for Civil Defense are now truly discovering what TrialSite has known for some time: that the government research agency has no interest in subsidizing a study for ivermectin. Why not? After all, there is plenty of data now that demonstrates real potential. Well, the answer appears to be that they cannot deviate from an industry-dominated template.  

And during the recent Senate hearing, most Republicans and Democrats showed their true nature and allegiances. An incredibly unfortunate look for the Democrats who have spent many decades building the brand as the champion for the underdog, the poor and underserved. That party boycotted the event except for the house ranking member from Michigan who accused the witnesses of “attacking science” before any of the guests had even said a word, and then bolted. Most Republicans weren’t there either except for a few to support his event led by Ron Johnson.

The whole affair unfortunately demonstrated the true intention of most of those chosen to serve the American people via the U.S. Senate. Truly a tragedy.

Responses

  1. I’ve been following the FLCCC and their astonishing success treating covid patients. I’m convinced their common-sense protocol including ivermectin works for covid. So can anyone recommend a safe out-of-the-US pharmacy to buy ivermectin without an RX? (non-vet product) My doctor is too conservative and is not one to think outside the box. Too bad! Suggestions appreciated!

  2. You are doctors of great honor.

    I too am sharing the information on benefits of ivermectin for SARS-COV-2 prevention and severity reduction.

    I know how you feel having also seen that the U.S.A. medical healthcare system is the least justified to have a know-it-all attitude. Peru has only one peak of coronavirus infections that came after an article by Time magazine about how the response to COVID-19 is not working in Lima where most of the cases were occurring. The health ministry found an answer and that was ivermectin. Now the U.S.A.’s third wave embarrasses the domestic health authorities, but they haven’t grown humble enough to accept immediate action, that a poor person in desperation that ingested a $0.60 a dose 12 mg ivermectin along with 8¢ for two 50 mg zinc tablets for three times, is superior to the over rated solutions the FDA, NIH and CDC are showing to DHS.

    This is a natural world of nations of people, with a purpose to pursue health. We live in rural areas, villages, towns and cities, not a cyber-technocratic hardened fortress that prisoners as test subjects are locked in. The billions of humans outside of the labs, clinics, and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities cannot accept giving their health decisions up by, in effect, waiving their own rights to pursue protective measures by having “doctors” who tell them to do primitive things, but haven’t produced the medicine. I am one that is crying out for a natural-origin anthelmintic and boticide to be re-purposed for a virus…

    … IVERMECTINA, Peru! Your compassion is honorable.

    Thanks TrialSiteNews and the I-MASK project, and others who are in on this movement to prevent deaths and invigorate lives.

    – Dennis Smits
    Restore!, Inc.

  3. We expect 3,000 deaths per day for at least the next 90 days (270K). Significant herd immunity isn’t expected till fall 2021. So the total beyond 90 days and that time is frightening. 
                                                                                          MOST OF THOSE DEATHS ARE PREVENTABLE IF WE ACT. 
    We know that the drug ivermectin has dramatic effect in prophylaxis, through early and mid stages after onset, in critical care and even in treatment of “long hauler” symptoms. It’s an FDA approved drug. Called a wonder drug by the Nobel Committee (2015). It’s safe. With 4 decades of experience and 3.7 billion people treated, there’s no mystery. We know from that RWE and clinical/observational studies there are no significant side effects. 
    Most victims of this virus die as a result of heart failure struggling to breathe in their last minutes. So if we know that and still don’t act to promote ivermectin distribution and use, are we not complicit in those horrific deaths? Certainly we are. Doing nothing is not an option.

                                       Saving huge numbers of lives is very much within our grasp.
    I refuse to stand by. I work everyday to contact big voices, movers and shakers (legislators, celebrities, news agencies, etc.) who can move the FDA and western medicine to get off dead center and act. And I work to promote my petition. The link is provided.

    If you’re not convinced, just watch the foremost experts (not wackos) make their case (to ignore the advice the highly reputable, credible experts in the field and to discount their data is IGNORANCE):https://trialsitenews.com/media-alert-covid-19-new-findings-flccc-alliance-news-conference-live-coverage/

    A few days later Dr Kory’s testimony before Senator Johnson’s Senate Committee:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be

    If you think they’re wrong, just show me the science that disputes their findings. Foolishness. It doesn’t exist.Rise up today to change the inevitable. The effect will be clear within days (not weeks) of approval and implementation. 3,000 deaths per day go to <200 because of your actions. Rise up.
                                                                                    WE MUST
                    HAVE THE MORAL COURAGE AND THE SPINE TO                                                                                     ACT                          https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/give-us-ivermectin                        Please sign it, promote it, forward it.

  4. Physicians are highly compensated for their expertise in treating the sick and infirm. So, when I read from a physician that, “it is extremely difficult to obtain any funding,” for any randomized controlled trial, (RCT) it seems to me just a bit hypocritical.

    I am a strong supporter of any repurposed pharmaceutical and vitamin or supplement that can be proved to provide protection from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. But, if the physicians who are screaming that they can’t get anyone to listen to their conclusions are unwilling to submit their own patient statistics for publication and/or pay for their own RCTs, then they need to consider whether or not they are as much a part of the problem as the pharma industry who they decry.

  5. Yes, the VERY unfortunate mixing of the highly reputable 2 critical care doctors reporting on the new evidence for the immense benefit of Ivermectin was drowned out by association w others who appeared. Drs Kory &Rajter emphatically support masks, vaccines, distancing, etc. & are apolitical. They support ivermectin as immediate “bridge” to herd immunity from vaccines, state it is “miraculous “ for prevention & treatment. From here in Canada it is appalling & tragic to see political biases poisoning awareness of the one non-vaccine therapy showing true promise to curb pandemic right now.

    1. There were mistakes made in the effort to gain support for Ivermectin in combatting COVID-19 which will continue to give Ivermectin a fair shake.

      1) Unfortunately, the good doctors (Rajter and Kory who gave willingly of their time and effort to share what their field experience and analysis,) fell a the political trap. When they agreed to go before the Senate committee, they probabaly thought it was an option to gain recognition for an important research issue and hopefully chart a path to funding. Instead they walked right into a staged political theatre.

      2) The ivermectin proponents also found themselves in the same “witness group” with others who were trying to gain support for their work (or perhaps just notoriety). These other drugs such as favipiravir and HCQ, were not enjoying the kind of success that Ivermectin has shown. As a result, their testimony was “watered down” by the proponents of the other treatments. So if ther Senate subcommittee was trying to listen to whether more effort should be put into “off the shelf drugs”, the “group” of physicians might have been better off collaborating a bit more on that message rather than advocating for this or that drug.

      The demonization of the Democrats over their reaction to this testimony goes to the devisiveness of US politics. Nothing will be gained by attacking one side or the other, but unfortunately, the effort to gain recognition for Ivermectin by declaring it as a victim of Democrat intransigence is not a path that will help.We all know that big Pharma donates to political campaigns, and it is important to know that, but I prefer to put that in the category of “Campaign Finance Reform”. As Upton Sinclair said “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

      Personally, I would be pleased to have Dr. Kory or Rajter treat me with Ivermectin if needed. The other 2 drugs…not so much. We all know that big Pharma donates to political campaigns, and it is important to know that, but I prefer to put that in the category of “Campaign Finance Reform”. The Dr. should stay focused on getting money for a proper study to prove efficacy (and safety if that is somehow an issue wih COVID).

      I am an avid TrialSIte Reader. but I truly hope the politics to be kept to a minimum. There are other outlets for that, but I prefer to here about science and rational thought.

    2. Well put Jo Leduc could not agree more how many lives will be lost due to this shocking handling of this issue Thanks to the doctors who are working in a very hostile political and money grabing enviroment