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.