We Have A COVID Lifeline. The Powers Won’t Allow It.

We Have A COVID Lifeline. The Powers Won’t Allow It.

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

In a widely reported announcement, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

Taking the drug “can be very dangerous,” FDA said, though 33 years of human use, billions of doses and a Nobel Prize for annihilating parasitic illness suggest otherwise.

The FDA statement, which is the lynchpin of COVID policies worldwide, purported to protect the public from taking over-the-counter ivermectin meant for animals. But its real purpose was to instill fear.

Indeed, a war on ivermectin — by public health agencies, corporations that stand to cash in on the pandemic, and social and mass media – is being waged to dismiss a drug that could be a lifeline to normalcy.

Why?

Confused By The Facts

Ivermectin is a case study in official decrees that do not align with reality.

Take a close look the World Health Organization’s contortions before declaring on March 31 that ivermectin should be limited to experimental trials. WHO first ignored its own commissioned analysis that found the drug would cut COVID deaths by 75 percent. Then, WHO handed the job to a different team, which also found far fewer deaths with ivermectin – but ruled its cherry-picked evidence unconvincing. That is the analysis WHO chose.

Or read the lone study — one among 52 ivermectin trials — that did not find significant evidence of improvement in COVID patients. Despite contradictions and flaws, including some patients given the wrong drug, the results were accepted by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Scour the list of positive studies, many from countries where this inexpensive drug is reducing illness. Few medical journals will publish them. Though available online, the media ignores them. Major outlets that have not done a single serious story on ivermectin jumped on the told-you-so JAMA story.

Finally, consider that right now, social media is in the midst of a brutal little-reported campaign of censorship to the point that YouTube policy precludes users from saying ivermectin prevents or helps COVID.

Why so rigorously manage the message if the evidence is so weak?

Data Versus The FDA

A website tracker summarizes those 52 ivermectin trials, involving more than 17,500 patients. Collectively, ivermectin:

–Prevented 85 percent of infections (similar to vaccines);

–Resolved 81 percent of early illness;

–Improved 43 percent of late-treated patients;

–Reduced deaths by 76 percent.  

As authorities dismiss study after study, it has become clear. The drug’s rejection is not based on science, data or the experience of many doctors. Instead, a disinformation campaign is raging to demonize the drug and belittle studies that support it.

Exhibit #1: The FDA announcement. The agency said in March it had received “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized” after taking a form of ivermectin used to treat horse parasites. 

Among many alarming articles, I could not find any that actually told how many people were “poisoning themselves,” as one report put it. I asked the FDA press office what it meant by “multiple.”

The answer: Four. Three people required hospitalization, though, beyond that, the FDA had no details.

“Some of these cases were lost to follow up, so we can’t be sure of the final outcome,” a spokesperson wrote in an email. “Privacy laws” precluded further comment.

For all we know, the patients might have been sick from COVID, not horse paste, which is regrettably used when patients cannot get the real thing. Ivermectin, incidentally, is FDA-approved and permitted for off-label use, with just 19 associated deaths since 1992, compared to 503 for remdesivir since 2020.

The seeds were nonetheless planted: Ivermectin was an “evolving threat” and “fake COVID treatment,” encouraged by “conspiracy sites trying to push this drug in really high doses.” All based on four cases.

So far, there have been more than 2,500 U.S. deaths after vaccination for COVID-19. I see no hysterical reporting on that.

Unsupported Conclusions

Exhibit #2: The WHO recommendation. On March 31, the World Health Organization dealt a gut punch to ivermectin, decreeing it should be limited to clinical trials only. But the WHO’s review was limited, questionable and seemingly hastily done.

First, the WHO working group called the evidence that ivermectin reduced deaths of “very low certainty” based on five studies. Why so few?

An independent analysis, also done in March, analyzed 13 studies and found ivermectin decreased the risk of death by 68 percent, an effect that was “consistent across mild to moderate and severe disease subgroups.” The systematic review was led by Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician and author on 41 Cochrane Reviews, which are routinely used to inform medical guidelines.

In the earlier report that WHO discounted, six mortality studies were examined by the University of Liverpool’s Dr. Andrew Hill — four of which were curiously left out of the second WHO analysis.

Notably, even the studies assessed by the WHO group showed strong reductions in deaths. But the group used unconventional methods to downgrade them, Lawrie said in a YouTube interview. It classified two less-impressive studies as having a low risk of bias, wrongly in Lawrie’s view. That effectively inflated their importance, and helped the review conclude the evidence was lacking.

 “You have a risk of death across these studies — in their data — of 70 per thousand, and if you get ivermectin you have a risk of death of 14 per thousand,” Lawrie said in the interview with Dr. John Campbell, a PhD nursing teacher.

That comes to a 72 percent reduction in deaths in patients treated with ivermectin, Lawrie said. But indicative of what Lawrie called a “slapdash” approach, a table of conclusions in the WHO study refers to seven, not five, mortality studies, and to an 81 percent reduction in deaths. “Very strange,” Lawrie said.

Significantly, the review omitted trials analyzed by both Lawrie and Hill that demonstrated significantly fewer deaths: From Egypt (92 percent), Bangladesh (86 percent), Iraq (67 percent) and Turkey (33 percent).

Moreover, the WHO review failed to even look at the strongest evidence in favor of ivermectin: its potential to prevent infection.

Dr. Pierre Kory, president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, believes that omission was designed to protect the Emergency Use Authorization, which allows administration of unapproved vaccines if no alternative exists. “If ivermectin were to be approved as a standard therapy,” he said in a broadcast to supporters, “…that would kneecap the entire global vaccine policy around the world.”

(Note: I reached out several times to Dr. Bram Rochwerg, co-chair of the WHO analysis. A spokesperson at McMaster University in Canada, where he is an associate professor, said he would have no comment.)

Selection Bias?

Exhibit #3: The JAMA study. Predictably, the WHO report included the only existing negative ivermectin trial in its review, giving the Cali, Colombia study an inexplicable thumbs-up label of  “low risk of bias.”

The flaws, outlined in a critique led by David Scheim and in a letter signed by 120 doctors, call that designation, and JAMA’s publication, into serious question.

–With an average age of 37 and lean body mass, the study population was inclined to do well from the get-go — “nebulous parameters,” Schein said, that made statistical relevance negligible. Testament to the robust nature of the group, just one person died in the untreated group, a rate six times lower than locally. Of note, no treated patient died.

–38 people in the control group were accidentally given ivermectin, a serious error, underscoring the letter’s assertion, “The study’s flaws span subject population, design, execution and controls.”

–Participants reported symptoms by telephone, and without objective examination, 16 days after treatment ended, a highly unusual lag time. “Not credible,” the letter said.

Of crucial importance, both patient groups – one got ivermectin and one did not – had almost identical, though minor, side effects, a “striking anomaly” that suggests something, Scheim said. Perhaps ivermectin, which is widely available in Colombia, did not appear to make a significant difference because both groups were taking it. Ivermectin has a bitter taste and 64 placebo patients were given sugar water, compromising a fundamental of controlled trials — that patients cannot discern what treatment they get.

Why would a premier medical journal accept an article with such glaring flaws?

An Organized Campaign

Exhibit #4: Information Management. Everyday, my inbox grows with messages of people who had items removed from Twitter, LinkIn, Facebook and YouTube. Several people were locked out of Twitter for tweets on the results of a registered trial that found ivermectin prevents COVID. I was also locked out of Twitter for eight days after writing the fateful words: “Ivermectin works.”

Aside from a couple of opinion articles in the Wall Street Journal, the media has barely taken notice. Yet this is a clear assault on free expression by outlets that, though privately owned, are essentially monopolies.

“We must never allow anonymous censors to determine what is medical misinformation,” Associate Professor Seymour M. Cohen of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in a letter to the WSJ, “and cancel scientific inquiry and discussion with which they disagree.”

Held Hostage

Although Kory, Lawrie and others are accused of medical “misinformation,” the real problem, Kory says, is disinformation, akin to historical efforts to cover-up the ills of tobacco and other pharmaceutical and government mistakes.

Among the slew of studies that support ivermectin, you will rarely if ever find listed under authors’ potential conflicts of interest the names of pharmaceutical powerhouses like Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Gilead. Yet, each of those was listed on the JAMA article’s COI disclosures.

Merck itself pioneered ivermectin – its chief scientist sharing the Nobel in the process – and has repeatedly said it is a safe, essential medication. Yet Merck disavowed ivermectin for COVID in February in yet another example of how facts do not align with reality. Reuters and others eagerly reported Merck’s statement, but never mentioned the company’s $356-million deal to supply the U.S. government with an “investigational therapeutic.”

The rejection of ivermectin may not be a grand coordinated conspiracy, says Jay Sanchez, an attorney in New York City. Rather, it grows out of something more mundane and insidious that he studied 35 years ago in a course at Harvard Law School taught by later-Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Bryer: “Regulatory Capture.”

 “Regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating,” says Investipedia. Hence, they act more on behalf of the companies they regulate than on the public they serve. Blame “regulator complacency, cozy relationships,” wrote economist Fred S. Grygiel, “and ultimately, conflicts of interest.”

Those relationships allow PR campaigns to shape messages, news outlets and social media companies to mercilessly reinforce them, and spineless government agencies go along with the shadows of doubt rather than the robust evidence.

That is ivermectin today.

***Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and author of Lyme: The First Epidemic of Climate Change. She was authored 10 articles for Trial Site News.

Responses

  1. Thank you TRUTH PREVAILS !!! I know Ivermecfin has bern saving so many lives in the Philippines & finally now could be legally prescribed both Prophylactic use & Treatment of Covid.PRAISE GOD accountability is @hand to those corrupt politicians , big pharma for their rime against Humanity

  2. Ms. Pfeiffer performs a great service in researching and presenting her articles on Ivermectin and both its usefulness and its detractors. Her summary of the results of trials and of the fraudulent denials of those positive results is admirable and useful in conversations advocating this miracle drug. I would suggest, however that there are four weaknesses in all the trials reported in triaslitsnews that would be well to consider in future investigations. That Ivermectin works is beyond doubt, but fine tuning its application is likely to indicate better methods of using it. Without anything but admiration for the Doctors who undertook the trials in an effort to cure disease and save lives, I must point out further investigations that should help bring Ivermectin to shelves of local stores without any limiting restrictions.
    The first weakness is the lack of a report on the quality of Ivermectin actually administered to trial participants. Ivermectin is to be stored below 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Even at proper storage temperatures, it has an expiration date. In tropical countries especially, it is often difficult to keep it at the proper storage temperature, and out of date Ivermectin could, in some instances, be used in the trials. That would certainly impact trial results.
    The second weakness in most or perhaps all reported trials, is an accounting of how long the trial subjects had felt the illness brought on by Covid-19. Early elimination of the virus from one’s body is a critical factor in curing the disease. Presumably, each had sought treatment only after the disease manifested. Were everyone to have immediate access to Ivermectin to use at the first sign of Covid symptoms, the cure rate might well be higher than those reported. In locations where a Covid sufferer must make an appointment to see a Doctor and receive his doses, an unknown expanse of time would have lapsed before treatment began. Though it is difficult to regulate the timing of Ivermectin treatment in relation to the appearance of symptoms, this is a critical factor in evaluating its effectiveness.
    A third weakness in the reported trials is the lack of information on how the ivermectin was administered. It enters our system more quickly and efficiently if taken after a meal including some fat content. Whether the patient had a full stomach, an empty stomach, or a stomach about to be filled is a factor.
    A fourth weakness in almost all reported trials concerns the physical condition or the trial participant. In addition to body condition, an account of the presence of vitamins including D, and C as well as Zinc in cells, though introducing a time consuming addition to the tests would likely yield more useful results. Given that most of the trials have taken place under difficult conditions in places where financial resources are in short supply, I understand why this dimension of a study is absent, but future trials will hopefully undertake it along with varied doses to determine what the optimum dose actually is.
    As prophylaxis, I take ORALLY and have given friends who asked for it, a preparation formulated to administer as directed 200 mcg/kg as an injection for livestock. I have observed that a single dose of Agrimectin or Noromectin taken ORALLY by someone with symptoms is followed by cessation of symptoms within 24 to 48 hours. None who took it as prophylactic after known exposure to a Covid sufferer has shown signs of the disease. Sold as Agrimectin, Novomectin, Ivomec, and other brand names, its 1% Ivermectin, 40% glycerol, and the balance propylene glycol have all been approved by the FDA for human consumption. Having used this formulation to treat and prevent parasite infestations in cattle for well over 30 years, I understand that the quality of the product is maintained to a high standard. Were it not, cattle raisers would quickly find another brand. The product is designed for injection because it is much easier and faster to inject under the animal’s skin than to get it down a recalcitrant cow’s throat. I want to emphasize that I take it ORALLY! Ivermectin is easily absorbed into our system, especially if taken after a meal that includes some fat.
    The factors in trials that I have called weaknesses, in no way diminishes the great good past trials have accomplished. They have established to any reasonable mind that ivermectin is an effective treatment and preventive of Covid-19. The pioneer Doctors who undertook these trials should be celebrated as heroes in the fight against this disease. I am merely advocating for more refined trials designed to learn more about when, how, how much, and why Ivermectin is to be used and to advocate for its classification as a drug to be sold over the counter without prescription. Potentially dangerous drugs such as Tylenol, aspirin, Naproxen Sodium, and a slew of others are available to the public with an understanding that they will be taken according to label instructions. So that ivermectin can do the best job possible, it also should be available without restriction to the public. Were the above mentioned “weaknesses” to be addressed, perhaps a stronger case could be made for making Ivermectin widely available without the delaying effects of seeking a prescription.

    1. Thank you johnhenryb
      The 200 year-long belief that poisonous tomatoes were to be avoided and the more recent belief that veterinarian ivermectin should be considered poisonous because the officials say so, begs the question
      What happened to reason?

  3. https://trialsitenews.com/forums/discussion/controversies-to-which-the-united-states-shall-be-a-party/

    When careful people assume that ivermectin veterinarian formula is inherently dangerous because a picture of a horse is on the box and a warning label “Not for human use” trigger the amygdala (flight or fight, fear, aggression, self- defense, etc.)…
    …GRANTED.
    That is your automatically responsive right to stay alive and heed warnings.

    Others among us humans have become explorers who risk our lives to discover something.
    Like a really absurd amount of people repeating a tale that is found to be untrue.
    “When tomatoes were poisonous, and other toxic tales…” https://duckduckgo.com/?q=when+tomatoes+were+poisonous+and+other+toxic&t=fpas&ia=web

    Eat a tomato, find out for yourself.
    Ask a person who has recovered from one of the many diseases in the world whether or not it was a risk to go ahead with the drug they took, or the operai they had or to go look for an alternative, because the doctors didn’t have the right answer…
    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/06/21/feminine-afflictions/
    If you get drawn into the debate and are telling others not to make you feel afraid (because of their openness to tasting a “tomato”, as an analogy), when you prevent or warn them about ivermectin, having not tried it,
    what authority do you really have to know such things, and on what experiential ground are you on?
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+virus+no+doctor+could+cure+with+ivermectin&t=fpas&ia=web

  4. The FDA page, published March 5, 2021, at
    https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
    is laughably bad. If it was worth it, you could Fisk nearly every line, as the thing is full of fear mongering, misdirection, innuendo, misstatements, and nonsense. It’s not worth it, unless you can publish your Fisk on the front page of USA Today. Nobody who doesn’t know better will ever see it here.

    I did learn of an actual danger of using Ivermectin from an agricultural site. It should not be given to starving or emaciated animals, as certain level of body fat is needed to support the blood/brain barrier. Ivermectin binds to fat, and if there is no fat the only other fatty area in a body is the brain, so all the ivermectin will go there. This is not good. So perhaps anorexic, starving, or super slender people should avoid it.

    Another thing I’ve picked up from the ag pages is that the liquid version for livestock, usually injected, can also be taken orally. This version most likely contains fewer other ingredients than the paste versions. The amount of ivermectin in the liquid is standard, and dosages can be found online.
    https://www.agriorbit.com/ivermectin-safe-for-animals-and-humans/

  5. I have written to Arnold Ventures to see if Laura and John Arnold will take-up the cause of ivermectin for the benefit of world public health. Your mention of “Regulatory Capture” is exactly what I’ve been telling people, but I didn’t have a tidy word for it. The fox has been guarding the hen house for a long time, and it’s become crystal clear with the pandemic. John Arnold has been going after the insane prices we pay in the US for prescriptions. I thought he’d be a great proponent, but my inquiry has not been acknowledged. I’d urge readers to analyze Arnold Ventures and see if you agree that the fight for citizen directed public health would be a fit there. And if there are other ways citizens can do something, please offer your suggestions here.

  6. I have said this before and I will say it again. This disease is never going away and someday the truth will come out that Ivermectin works. All the disinformation (lies) will be exposed and the cover-ups and information suppression will be exposed. When that happens I hope a world wide class action lawsuit happens and redistributes all these billions if not trillions of dollars to all the people who suffered in any way because of the greed and corruption.

  7. As for why this is happening, I give a score of reasons in my comment “Why Big Med’s Blind Eye?” on TrialSite News’s story about the departure of the head of NCAT, at https://trialsitenews.com/is-the-departure-of-ncats-director-indicative-of-nihs-repurposing-track-record-during-the-pandemic/

    Here’s my 11-point critique of a typical anti-ivermectin story, in WaPo, on reddit as a comment at https://trialsitenews.com/is-the-departure-of-ncats-director-indicative-of-nihs-repurposing-track-record-during-the-pandemic/

  8. The W.H.O. is lying and misrepresenting now about Ivermectin, because people are becoming aware of all the successful studies (preventative, early and hospitalized) and many they know who’ve had tremendous success with their illness. Bill Gates and his foundations previously funded at least 2 studies to discredit Hydroxychloroquine (purposely omitting the required ZINC, giving it late stage in hospitalized–when it needs to be started no later than the 5th day after symptoms first appear; using bogus PCR coronavirus tests (with up to 97% false positives) to “prove” those given only the HCQ tablet didn’t do any better than placebo group. No with PCR cycles at 40, everyone tests positive. Virus magnified too high (19 cycles would make sense)–so dead viruses, fragments, make test way too sensitive. Real world experience shows HCQ protocol keeps patient out of hospitals and has near 100% success (if correct dose, given before 5th day and includes ZINC).

    So Bill Gates and his foundations are now doing their own IVERMECTIN study. So guess what will happen? No, not really a guess–he will make sure study “proves” (by deceit, lying, cherry-picking, using bogus PCR tests as so-called “proof” Ivermectin is dangerous and doesn’t work. Nothing Gates does can be trusted. He wants depopulation and has for over 20 years (plainly states in videos).

    The Gates Foundation put 5 times the dose for Tetanus vaccine to unsuspecting young girls and young women in India or Africa, which resulted in their sterilization. Doctors in India were suspicious because of the 5 times normal dose and asked and received samples of the vaccine from the W.H.O. They sent the samples to several different labs and found they all contained a sterilization drup. The vaccine also killed and caused disability to the iunsuspecting girls/young women. This is Gates depopulation plan (along with current COVID “vaccines” that are not vaccines using the legal description). They are gene modifiers. Gates and his foundation should be investigated and prosecuted.

      1. Mosquirix is also a Gates Vaccine for malaria. Offered very little benefit and caused malaria encephalitis and death in babies and children in Africa. The is a cure for malaria called Artemisia Annua whole herb. Founded by Nobel Prize winner DR. TU YouYou during the Vietnam war. Dr. Pamela Weathers used her whole herb artemisia annua to cure resistant malaria in 2017. Why a vaccine if a cure exists?
        https://www.change.org/p/oms-exigez-le-respect-des-lois-éthiques-de-l-essai-du-vaccin-rts-s-chez-les-enfants-africains-who-demand-compliance-with-the-ethical-laws-of-the-rts-s-vaccine-trial-in-african-children

    1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21783912/#:~:text=The%20results%20revealed%20that%20administration,histological%20structure%20of%20reproductive%20organs.

      I think one way or another, we are fucked. Am pretty sure if they used ivermectine might cause, “infertility” instead of, “horse dewormer” in their smear campaign , they might be able to turn away most people from using it.
      Maybe they understand human nature too well, if you tell them not to do something they will do it.
      Now given that covid is not going anywhere, and let’s assume ivermectine become treatment for covid, and people from time to time start popping ivermectine as desperate measure or from fear of covid death. (btw I have taken 5 ivermectine since Monday due to fever).

      Now we don’t know long term effects of regularly taking ivermectine, so now we have a crack pot theory of becoming infertile over prolonged use of ivermectine, and our depopulation theory comes full circle.