How Effective is Ivermectin Versus the Pfizer and Moderna Corona Vaccines?

Last Updated on January 5, 2022 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • There has been a gigantic effort by Western media to cover up the effectiveness of Ivermectin versus the coronavirus vaccines.

Introduction

Western health authorities and media have been nearly entirely focused on funding and promoting historically quickly created coronavirus vaccines as the approved public policy response to the coronavirus. What has been not only little addressed but also aggressively suppressed has been the effectiveness of Ivermectin?

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

The History of Ivermectin

  • Ivermectin was initially developed in 1975 and was introduced in 1981 to treat parasite infestations.
  • Ivermectin eventually won the Nobel Prize for its inventors.
  • Recently Ivermectin began to be used to treat the coronavirus.
  • At first, glance, repurposing an anti-parasite drug to treat a virus seems strange, but it turns out there is a long history of anti-parasite medications being used for this purpose.
  • Ivermectin not only has been proven (as you will see below) of being effective against coronavirus, but it has a history of being used against other types of viruses.

Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. Ivermectin has been used for several years to treat many infectious diseases in mammals. It has a good safety profile with low adverse effects when orally prescribed. – Nature

And this study, published in June of 2020, so before the media and pharmaceutical company backlash against the use of Ivermectin for coronavirus, discusses the following benefits of the use of the drug.

In a recent in vitro study, the Vero/hSLAM cells infected with the SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 virus were exposed to 5 µM ivermectin in 48 h, and a 5000-fold reduction in viral RNA compared with control was found [15]. The results showed that treatment with ivermectin effectively kills almost all viral particles within 48 h.

If safe formulations or analogs can be derived that can be administered to achieve therapeutic concentrations, ivermectin could be useful as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent.


This video shows, at the 8:30 mark, how effective Ivermectin was in the one state of Mexico, Chiapas, where it was used. This information has been suppressed. 

Ivermectin in Less Developed Countries

The following video describes the effectiveness of Ivermectin in less developed countries.

The following expresses the effectiveness of Ivermectin used in non-Western countries. 

Ivermectin in Japan


Ivermectin in Indonesia

The vital thing to take away from this graphic is how these countries are doing with respect to coronavirus reflects their policy.

  • Israel, the US, and the UK are all using predominantly the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
  • Indonesia is not primarily using vaccines. Instead, it is using Ivermectin.

Yet, when I performed a Google search on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in Indonesia versus the coronavirus, most of the articles declaring how foolish the Indonesians were for using it.

Let us observe a quote from an article on July 15th about how bad the situation in Indonesia was set to become.

Indonesia is now fighting a “worst-case scenario” epidemic, a senior minister said on Thursday, adding the government was preparing for a further spike in coronavirus cases as the more virulent Delta variant spreads.

The world’s fourth most populous country is struggling to slow COVID-19 transmission even after imposing its toughest mobility curbs yet, while its immunisation rate is low, with just 5.8% of its 270 million people fully vaccinated.

Indonesia’s food and drug agency (BPOM) has authorised the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin for emergency use against COVID-19, a health ministry official told Reuters. BPOM did not immediately respond to requests for comment. – Reuters

Take a look at the previous graph. You will see the coronavirus spiking in July, so when this article was written.

  • Only a small percentage of Indonesians were vaccinated.
  • Yet, after reaching a high point in August, the cases dramatically dropped with a small percentage of the population vaccinated, and with the primary treatment being Ivermectin.
  • However, the mainstream outlets were proposing that the situation looked terrible and wagged their finger at Indonesian health officials for being anti-science.

Let us observe what major media entities said about Indonesia’s use of Ivermectin.

One of the cures endorsed by several government figures is ivermectin, the antiparasitic drug whose usefulness for treating COVID-19 lacks credible scientific evidence. In June, some cabinet members even claimed that BPOM had authorized the use of ivermectin to treat the virus. The Indonesian government must cease its anti-expertise sentiment – especially during the current serious outbreaks of COVID-19 – and listen more closely to the advice of experts in shaping its pandemic response. – The Diplomat

And this quote is highly critical of Indonesia’s coronavirus policy.

Indonesians have ignored health warnings to stock up on a “miracle cure” for Covid-19 backed by leading politicians and social media influencers, as an out-of-control virus surge sweeps the country. He said the shortage had pushed the price of the drug up from around 175,000 to 300,000 rupiah ($12-$21) a bottle. Fuelled by anti-vaccine and pandemic conspiracy theories online, there has been a surge in demand for the drug from Brazil to South Africa to Lebanon. But manufacturer Merck has said there was “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19” and warned of possible safety issues if the drug is administered inappropriately. Efforts to tackle the virus worldwide have been marred by conspiracy theories, often propagated by political leaders and other public figures. – France24

Article Problem #1: France24 Considers Merck and Unbiased Source?

Observe at the end of this quotation, France24 presents advice from Merck, as if they are an unbiased source on either science or the effectiveness of drugs.

Why does France24 consider Merck to be an unbiased source?

Merck has the following financial conflicts as explained in the following quotation.

Merck has committed to give ivermectin away for free “as much as needed, for as long as needed” in the Mectizan Donation Program [Merck (B)], to help eliminate river blindness.

Merck has their own new COVID-19 treatments MK-7110 (formerly CD24Fc) [Adams] and Molnupiravir (MK-4482) [Wikipedia]. Merck has a ~$1.2B agreement to supply molnupiravir to the US government, if it receives EUA or approval [Khan (B)].

Ivermectin is off-patent, there are many manufacturers, and Merck is unlikely to be able to compete with low cost manufacturers. – C19 Early Treatment

Article Problem #2: Merck is Concerned About the Safety of Ivermectin?

On the topic of safety, Ivermectin has proven to be one of the safer drugs, as is explained in the following quotation.

It has also proved to be astonishingly safe for humans. This is because the drug acts by binding to special channels on the cell membrane (called glutamate-gated ion channels) that play a fundamental role in nematodes and insects. In mammals, however, the drug has no effect since the neurons expressing these channels are protected by the blood brain barrier. – IS Global

This “safety concern” appears to be a scare tactic by Merck.

This scare tactic is repeated on the FDA’s website and in the following quote at the Cleveland Clinic website.

Before the vaccines arrived, many risky or unproven methods were utilized in desperate attempts to fight off COVID-19. Drinking disinfectants, taking fish tank cleaning tablets and upping amounts of vitamin D, elderberry and garlic were just a few things on an ongoing list of questionable “cures.”

And just when we thought it couldn’t get worse, another contender has entered the ring: ivermectin.

Why are crazy or completely unproven and illogical treatments being compared to Ivermectin? It was Trump who recommended drinking disinfectants, but I don’t recall people taking that seriously.

This seems a deliberate attempt to undermine the valid use of Ivermectin and is copied in the following quotation.

By now, you’ve probably heard about people taking large doses of ivermectin that’s been formulated for horses and cows.

As videos later in this article will illustrate, these were fake stories latched onto by mainstream media entities that did not check if these stories were true.

The following quote exposes how false these stories were.

The FDA notes that they “received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses”. The number of reports was 4 [Pfeiffer]. For comparison, acetaminophen overdose results in ~33,000 yearly hospitalizations in the USA (~12,000 unintentional) [Charilaou]. The FDA’s recommendation may increase cases of self-medication with animal ivermectin, because it reduces the percentage of prescribing physicians. – C19 Early Treatment

The US has a population of 330 million people. Four people are not worthy of reporting.

Furthermore, an enormous number of drugs have adverse reactions in the US. However, the FDA would never discuss these because it is the pharmaceutical industry.

The quote from the Cleveland Clinic should read…

“you’ve probably heard false stories of people taking large doses of ivermectin for horses and cows.”

What is true is that people have been using animal ivermectin because they have not been able to find human Ivermectin. However, there have not been a significant number of adverse side effects or overdoses of Ivermectin.

This is a tweet from the FDA. If we bypass the curious use of the colloquial “y’all” from the tweet, this shows the FDA making the clear correlation that Ivermectin is only for animals. If Ivermectin is only for horses and cows, why has it been approved for humans?

Establishment media produced a fake story on Ivermectin. 

Let us again refer to the history of Ivermectin and how it has been used.

Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose).

Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training.

Above all, ivermectin has proved to be a medicine of choice for the world’s rural poor. In many underprivileged communities throughout the tropics, intestinal worms and parasitic skin diseases are extremely common and associated with significant morbidity. – NCIB

But not according to the FDA.

According to the FDA’s presentation, Ivermectin is just a drug for horses and cows. And even though illiterate individuals in rural African areas benefited from using Ivermectin, it is a threat to literate users in the developed world? It is striking how the scientific literature on Ivermectin neatly contradicts much of the FDA’s warnings on the drug.

The information provided in the FDA tweet and on their website is contradicted by the many studies chronicled on the C19 Early Treatment website. Given the degree of false information provided by the FDA, is it a “conspiracy theory” that the pharmaceutical industry controls the FDA?

Article Problem #3: Conspiracy Theories?

How is the fact that pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to direct people towards using their vaccines a conspiracy theory?

How is the control that pharmaceutical companies have over the health policy in developed countries a conspiracy theory?

The money donated by US pharmaceutical companies can be found by reviewing opensecrets.org. As the following quote explains.

As the pharmaceutical company’s income and reputation have skyrocketed from bringing the first COVID-19 vaccine to market, the company’s lobbying efforts have increased as well. In 2020, Pfizer spent $13.2 million on its lobbying efforts — that’s up from $11 million in 2019 and the most the company has spent on lobbying since 2009 during the debate over the Affordable Care Act. The company was the second highest spender in the pharmaceutical and health products industry, with Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America spending more than $25.9 million on lobbying efforts in 2020 Pfizer’s latest SEC disclosure, the company reported $7.8 billion in total revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine in the second quarter. Pfizer disclosed a total of $11.3 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenue in the first half of 2021. The company reported $14.1 billion total revenue from its vaccine programs in the first half of 2021. – OpenSecrets

Are the assertions that pharmaceutical companies are not powerful lobbyists in Washington DC and all of the developed countries? These are not conspiracies — these are provable facts.

The quote from France24 continues.

In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has pressured regulators to approve the the drug as a Covid treatment.

“There are a lot of credible people… who swear by their fathers’ grave that ivermectin is doing good to their bodies while they are suffering from Covid,” Duterte recently told the chief of the country’s drug regulator. – France 24

  • Then, after Indonesia had success with Ivermectin, there are no mainstream articles that chronicle this success.
  • Instead, the topic is not discussed and mysteriously disappeared from the radars of the mainstream outlets.

It almost appears as if the mainstream media is selectively deciding what to cover based upon a preconceived conclusion that only the coronavirus vaccines can be used to combat or mitigate the coronavirus.

Ivermectin in India

This experience with Ivermectin was repeated in India, and again, it is not discussed in the mainstream Western media, as a comment on a non-mainstream news source indicated.

So the 220 MILLION volunteers, of the observational trial in India, still aren’t enough to provide sufficient evidence for ivermectin to be given an EUA? How is that possible? I feel like we’re living in the twilight zone. Even the government in India has gone on record to reveal the truth about ivermectin’s involvement with the sharp decline in Covid cases. The WHO praised India for their handling of Covid yet refused to mention the inclusion of ivermectin. We have our free and fair media to thank for this. They have given up their role as investigators to keep eyes on the powers that be. Shame on all of them. We’re cancelling all our subscriptions to all newspapers. – Trial Site News

And this quote.

In India, the use of Ivermectin has been awe-inspiring. Within weeks of ICMR and AIIMS instituting Ivermectin on April 20, 2021, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh cases were down 99%. Goa famously chose Ivermectin in all adults over 18, and their cases are down 95% [4195 to 215].

As of June 26, 2021, there were 1258 deaths in India with a population of 1.36 billion. Tamil Nadu, with a population of 1/20 of India, saw 148 of these deaths, about 1/9 of India’s. This amounts to 80 excess deaths on June 26, 2021 [Predicted 1/20 of 1248 = 68. Actual = 148].

Uttar Pradesh, a state with 200 million inhabitants, an area that uses Ivermectin, saw only 62 deaths. Uttar Pradesh, with 1/7 the population of India, did not experience 1/7 of the 1248 death toll, which would have been 178 lives [1/7 x 1248 = 178].  Instead, the Ivermectin saved at least 116 lives [Predicted deaths of 178 less actual deaths of 62 = 116 lives saved] just on June 26, 2021.

Ivermectin reduces death in COVID-19 by a substantial percentage and with virtually no risk and minimal cost. But, do we truly need more studies on Ivermectin while the Delta Variant rages on and vaccine resistance grows greater by the day? Do we need more studies on a drug that the world’s very best evidence – the meta-analysis – has proven reduces death by 62 to 91% and is safer than most vitamins? The Desert Review

The Use of Ivermectin on Coronavirus in Developing Countries

In this video, Dr. John Campbell reviews the studies of the effectiveness of Ivermectin in countries like Mexico and India. His conclusion is he cannot figure out why the mainstream media are not covering these studies.  

This comment was under this video on YouTube.

I’d like to make a comment here as a fellow Physician. Way back when I first entered medical school, it was repeatedly explained to me that Medicine is a practical, not a theoretical Science. We have extremely robust THEORIES about how disease works and what should effect them as treatment. And it is somewhere in the 99% range where these theories do not pan out with effective treatments. Furthermore. Most treatments that do work, no one has any real idea why. The most important treatments have been around hundreds of years if not thousands of years with no understanding whatsoever.

The governments of the world want hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to be dismissed because “theoretically” they do not make sense. It does not work that way. Only outcome research matters.

Most glaring example I can think of…..AIDS. This disease breaks all the rules and its treatment amounts to a bunch of desperate men trying anything they can think of in a lab. Yet I lived though the days where the hostels were full of people waiting to die and remember well, the very short period of time when those compassionate care centers emptied out as the sick went home.

These two drugs are proven safe and effective. There is no excuse for not doing outcome research on them, especially since the vaccine has….well, its not my worst nightmare scenario. But I would not recommend it. Covid kills the old, the frail, the immune compromised. Those in nursing homes etc. The VACCINE kills the young and healthy. If the rule of law was present, the breaks would be applied on that and the entire treatment reconsidered.

I found this quote interesting, but I’m afraid I disagree that there is no understanding of the mechanism by which Ivermectin helps mitigate against viruses. The mechanism is described in this quotation.

There appear to be two key ways in which the drug could prevent coronavirus replication. First, it could prevent the virus from suppressing our cells’ natural antiviral responses. Second, it’s possible the drug prevents the “spike” protein on the surface of the virus from binding to the receptors that allow it to enter our cells.

Along with the anti-inflammatory actions apparent from ivermectin’s efficacy in rosacea, these may point towards useful effects in a viral disease that causes significant inflammation. – The Conversation

And this other comment one the above video was also of interest.

It won’t be too long and one of the drug companies will introduce a new anti-covid drug onto the market. It will be “methyl-ivermectin” or “ivermectin sodium” or “bi-vermectin” or something like that. The ivermectin molecule will be changed very slightly from the original form, and the “new” drug can be patented and sold for $15 a pill. That’s the way the system works. I have seen it happen many times. I am a retired pharmacist.

And this is already in the works.

Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) said on Monday it has started a large study testing its investigational oral antiviral drug for the prevention of COVID-19 infection among those who have been exposed to the virus. The drugmaker and its rivals, including U.S.-based Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N) and Swiss pharmaceutical Roche Holding AG (ROG.S), have been racing to develop an easy-to-administer antiviral pill for COVID-19. – Reuters

 

And it came out months after this article was originally published,d and it is explained in the following video.

According to the pharma companies and health authorities, Ivermectin is not effective against covid — unless it is made under a new patent. 

And..

The fact that Ivermectin is so much SAFER than over-the-counter Tylenol should make you wonder exactly why these articles made the news.

The reason is simple.

Pfizer and Merck are getting ready to launch expensive new anti-viral pills that can provide early outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and perhaps even be used preventatively. Yet Ivermectin remains effective, cheap, and safe and thus poses a HUGE threat to their profits. Let’s say that if Ivermectin costs a few dollars a pill, these new medicines will be one hundred to one thousand times pricier. Merck’s Molnupiravir has already been funded to the tune of 1.2 billion by the US government – translated, it means we – our tax dollars – have paid Merck for it already. – The Desert Report

Pfizer, Roche, etc., won’t have to do much work. They can just alter the molecule of Ivermectin (this is the exact trick pharma uses to extend a drug’s patent, such as in the case of Prilosec or how they create copycat drugs). They can submit a patent, which they will promptly receive, and then test it (but not against Ivermectin because it won’t be more effective than Ivermectin). They can then call it “Pfizermectin.” And then have the FDA declare its rigged study as effective, mark it up by a factor of 25x (you know, to cover their research expenses).

Then Pfizer and the company can take credit for a scientific breakthrough.

Ivermectin in India

The following quote reinforces the observations from India on Ivermectin.

The gaslighting today on Ivermectin is brighter than the sun. If you stood to make billions and could get the media to do your bidding, and you needed to demonize a safe and effective solution that would put an end to the Pandemic – and your profits, what would you do?

You would call the drug unsafe OR ineffective. And keep people in a constant state of fear, like an abusive sociopath would do to control his victim.

The problem with calling Ivermectin ineffective is that it is not true, and the recent publications showing India’s defeat of COVID-19 using Ivermectin are hard to dismiss. The fact that COVID-19 cases in Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 240 million, are about 30 per day, or one in eight million, is tough to explain away. They use Ivermectin widely and preventatively. Thanks to Ivermectin, you would be more likely to win the one million dollar lottery than come down with COVID in Uttar Pradesh. – The Desert Review 

Wikipedia on Ivermectin for Coronavirus

I found the following quote from Wikipedia on Ivermectin curious.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[20][21] Such claims are not backed by credible scientific evidence. Ivermectin has been pushed by right-wing politicians and activists promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment.[76][77][78] Misinformation about ivermectin’s efficacy spread widely on social media, fueled by publications that have since been retracted,[79][80] misleading “meta-analysis” websites with substandard methods,[81][82] and conspiracy theories about efforts by governments and scientists to “suppress the evidence.”[83][84]In February 2021, Merck, the developer of the drug, issued a statement saying that there is no good evidence ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, and that attempting such use may be unsafe.[107][108] The U.S. National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines state that there is insufficient evidence for ivermectin to allow for a recommendation for or against its use.[110]”

We will see how this information on Wikipedia is false.

The Studies on Ivermectin for Coronavirus

A constant claim on mainstream Western media is that there is no scientific evidence that Ivermectin has any effectiveness against coronavirus. That claim, as with the assertion at Wikipedia is false and the continual assertion of this is extremely concerning.

The studies on Ivermectin for coronavirus treatment are chronicled at the website C19early.com.

Here are some graphics from the website.

Each bar is a coronavirus ivermectin study. There are 65, and the vast majority of them show positive results from the use of Ivermectin.

This is a table that shows the degree of benefit from Ivermectin. The following bullet points describe the significant observations from this table.

  • The highest benefit is coming from preventative treatment (prophylaxis means taken before being infected) and the lowest effectiveness being late treatment. This means that Ivermectin is recommended as both a prevention and reduces the symptoms of coronavirus.
  • There are a large number of patients and authors in these studies. Much is made of studies being peer-reviewed. However, non-peer-reviewed studies can also be very valuable. In total, nearly 50,000 patients – particularly combined with the tests in countries are compelling evidence for the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Secondly, Ivermectin is a safe drug as it has been used for decades.

How Likely Is It That The Benefits in the Studies are a False Positive?

This shows that in each category of use, the studies were all positive. This would be exceedingly unlikely that such studies would all be false positives. The fifth column provides the probability that each category of study is a false positive. 

How Many Studies Are Required to Obtain FDA Approval for a New Drug?

The claims of the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin for treating coronavirus are made preposterous when one considers how the FDA approves drugs were far less evidence, and with the studies, or clinical trials, is entirely run by financially biased parties, which are the pharmaceutical companies. The following quotation explains the number of studies required.

Generally, the agency expects that the drug maker will submit results from two well-designed clinical trials, to be sure that the findings from the first trial are not the result of chance or bias. In certain cases, especially if the disease is rare and multiple trials may not be feasible, convincing evidence from one clinical trial may be enough. – FDA

The FDA leaves out that first, the pharmaceutical company runs the clinical trials without any oversight from the FDA.

Testing and Improvement of Ivermectin Versus Already Approved Drugs

The site C19 Early Treatment covers this exact topic when it provides the following table that compares how many studies have proven the effectiveness of Ivermectin for coronavirus.

Yes, Casir/imdevimab was approved with just 799/47,717 = 1.6% of the test subjects than Ivermectin (and a single study), but with a similar improvement level. Budesonide had 3.7% as many test subjects (and another single study) but only a 17% improvement. However, it also had no problem receiving approval in the UK. 

Second, pharmaceutical companies do not, and are under no obligation, to report negative studies to the FDA but rather keep them secret. Pharmaceutical companies can run ten studies and report just the two positive studies to the FDA.

This, of course, entirely contradicts the FDA’s claim that its system controls for…

“the first trial are not the result of chance or bias.”

Therefore the type of analysis you see in the table above is not possible on pharmaceuticals when sent to the FDA.

This study at ClinicalTrials Ivermectin for Severe COVID-19 Management showed a 10 percentage point improvement in mortality. The Study Group took Ivermectin, and the Control Group did not. 

This is explained in the C19 Early Treatment website as follows.

Pharmaceutical drug trials often have conflicts of interest whereby sponsors or trial staff have a financial interest in the outcome being positive. Ivermectin for COVID-19 lacks this because it is off-patent, has many manufacturers, and is very low cost. In contrast, most COVID-19 ivermectin trials have been run by physicians on the front lines with the primary interest of finding the best methods to save human lives and minimize the collateral damage caused by COVID-19. While pharmaceutical companies are careful to run trials under optimal conditions (for example, restricting patients to those most likely to benefit, only including patients that can be treated soon after onset when necessary, ensuring accurate dosing), many ivermectin trials do not represent the optimal conditions for efficacy.

And next, the website explains the pharmaceutical company’s incentive to produce studies that undermine Ivermectin.

Two ivermectin trials to date involve very large financial conflicts of interest [López-Medina, Together Trial] — companies closely involved with the trial or organizers stand to lose billions of dollars if ivermectin efficacy becomes more widely known. The design of these trials favors producing a null outcome as detailed in [López-Medina, Together Trial]. Note that biasing an RCT to produce a false positive result is difficult (suppressing adverse events is relatively easy [Evans]), but biasing a trial to produce a false negative result is very easy — for example, in a trial of an antiviral that works within the first 24 hours of symptom onset, trial organizers only need to avoid treating people within the first 24 hours; or with a disease like COVID-19, organizers only need to select a low-risk population where most people recover quickly without treatment.

We note that, even under the very suboptimal designs, these trials produced positive results, although without statistical significance.

It is also humorous that the FDA would state that they make sure there is “no chance for bias” when they allow the pharmaceutical company itself, which has an enormous bias, to run 100% of the studies.

How More Studies on Ivermectin (and Other Treatments) Were Blocked

The US medical establishment was careful to block further research into Ivermectin and covid. This is explained in the following quotation.

Dr. Stéphane Arminjon, a doctor in southeastern France with an advanced degree in systemic diseases from France’s Université Grenoble, ran afoul of the country’s National Council of Doctors for reporting that antihistamines like Benadryl, Zyrtec, Allegra and Claritin could be effective against COVID’s extreme inflammation. He based his claim on his own hypothesis (subsequently echoed at Oxford and elsewhere) and on his team’s small study of 26 patients who showed 100 percent improvement within 72 hours.

Dr. Arminjon told RCI that the long-established safety of antihistamines makes them “a perfectly applicable mass treatment.” A larger study in Spain also supports his hypothesis, though the researchers conclude: “Clinical trials are necessary to determine its efficacy. As there are no commercial interests, they should be promoted by national health systems as a social responsibility.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Arminjon was attacked after advocating that officials test his hypothesis in larger studies. A national medical columnist called him “a little doctor, since antihistamines are only for treating allergies.” The Conseil National de l‘Ordre des Médecins (National Council of the Order of Physicians) lodged a challenge that, Arminjon said, accused him of “quackery” in a case that is still pending. The council did not respond to a request for comment.

When COVID first emerged, Dr. Eli Schwartz, Israel’s preeminent specialist in tropical diseases, suspected that IVM might help. So he conducted a double-blind randomized controlled study to test his hypothesis. It showed conclusively that a three-day course of IVM both reduced viral load within COVID patients and the viability of the remaining virus, suggesting an ability to severely limit transmissibility. This finding appears significant because it suggests the medicine might fill a gap left by vaccines, which provide protection but do not prevent transmission.

Despite the possible significance of the study, Dr. Schwartz said major journals have not only declined to publish it, but some have even declined to review it. After publishing some 300 peer-reviewed papers in his career, he said he finds this strange: “Look, I thought that to have a double-blind randomized study, especially with our findings on culture viability … I submitted it to the New England Journal of Medicine … and they turned it down. Then the Lancet. They turned it down in a matter of hours. Sent to the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases … and again in a few hours they said it’s not for us. … It’s strange, let’s say. To be sent back within a few hours, it means they don’t want to look at it.” – The Epoch Times

The Necessity to Eliminate Bias

A way to eliminate bias is to have a completely independent entity kept secret from the pharmaceutical companies (so they can’t corrupt them) perform the clinical trials. However, pharmaceutical companies control the FDA, so the FDA will never admit the bias of the submitted studies and will never do anything to reduce the corruption of their drug approval process.

When reviewing the FDA’s standards, combined with the 100% control over the process by the pharmaceutical companies and their ability to control precisely which studies the FDAs see, it is made clear that the FDA holds no standards and is nearly a rubber stamp for pharmaceutical companies.

Yet with applying no standards to drugs that the pharmaceutical companies want to be approved that control the FDA, the FDA has the following to say on using Ivermectin for coronavirus.

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

The first question I would have is why not? This is the FDA’s explanation.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

The many studies chronicled on the C19 Early Treatment website contradict this claim.

Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous. For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do—a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans.

Who is proposing using animal ivermectin or animal doses on humans?

What has occurred is people have been using animal ivermectin, but only because there have been insufficient quantities of human Ivermectin.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta stated that when one looks at the data, there is no support for Ivermectin’s effectiveness against coronavirus. Why is such a statement not pilloried given the evidence presented in this article and out at C19Early? Well, one reason is that the FDA does not cover any of the Ivermectin studies. This is a problem with the FDA’s website, which does not cover these studies.

The Compared Benefit of Ivermectin Versus Already Approved Drugs

The C19 Early Treatment site then compares the net benefit of Ivermectin for covid-19.

*RCT stands for Randomized Control Trials.

So the question is, why is Ivermectin not approved for coronavirus treatment. And secondly, what does the term “FDA approved” or “scientific evidence” or “scientifically proven” actually mean? Because it does not mean that the drug is proven to be effective. At least, that is not the FDA’s definition or standard. 

The number of test subjects for other items, such as the booster shots has been far lower than the numbers presented here.

In its briefing book, the FDA revealed that Pfizer never even bothered to test its booster on anyone considered to be “at risk.” Instead, the money-grubbing pharmaceutical behemoth conducted a single “Phase 1” trial with just a dozen folks over the age of 65.

In its Phase 2/3 booster trial, Pfizer did not include anyone over the age of 65, which was strategically done on purpose to make the jab appear safe and effective when it is absolutely not.

“Which makes total sense,” joked independent journalist Alex Berenson, adding, “why test the booster in people who actually need it because they’re at high risk from the [R0]? Nothing good can come of that. So that’s our trial design.”

Keep in mind that Comirnaty is not even the same injection as the other Pfizer shots that were granted emergency use authorization (EUA) under Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” scheme, at least not as far as the FDA is concerned.

It has also been revealed that Pfizer lied about its covid jab trials from last year, in which it administered real injections to the so-called “placebo” group in order to skew the data. – News Target

What Does the Term “FDA Approved” Actually Mean?

The most accurate translation of the term FDA-approved means it will deliver high profitability to pharmaceutical companies. Ivermectin undermines the ability of pharmaceutical companies to charge high margins on vaccines. So Ivermectin is not “FDA approved,” but not because it has not that it does not have overwhelmingly more studies that support its effectiveness (and more reliable and less financially biased studies to boot), but because Ivermectin is not protective of the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

Something else to remember, the vaccines are not approved by the FDA either. They are used under an Emergency Use Authorization. That is not approval. However, the MSM has communicated to the public that they have been approved.

This gets into the topic of the article How Low Are the FDA’s Standards for New Drug Approval?

How the FDA Shut Down Ivermectin and Other Treatments for their Pharmaceutical Connections

The vaccines are so bad against covid, and already existing treatments are so good, that the FDA has done the pharmaceutical industry’s bidding and shut down alternatives to vaccines. This is explained in the following quotation.

The FBI raided Allure Medical in Shelby Township north of Detroit for billing insurance for “fraudulent COVID-19 cures”. The treatment they were using? Intravenous Vitamin C. An antioxidant. Which, as described above, is an entirely valid treatment for COVID-19-induced sepsis, and indeed, is now part of the MATH+ protocol advanced by Dr. Paul E. Marik.

The FDA banned ranitidine (Zantac) due to supposed NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) contamination. Ranitidine is not only an H2 blocker used as antacid, but also has a powerful antioxidant effect, scavenging hydroxyl radicals. This gives it utility in treating COVID-19.

The FDA also attempted to take N-acetylcysteine, a harmless amino acid supplement and antioxidant, off the shelves, compelling Amazon to remove it from their online store.

Yes, all of the treatments must be approved of by pharmaceutical companies. It is curious that Big Pharma not only controls the FDA, but the FBI can also be used to do their bidding. As soon as the FDA declares some treatments fraudulent, they can involve the FBI. – The Automatic Earth

The Professionalism and Expertise Evident at the C19 Early Treatment Website

The level of detail at the C19 Early Treatment is comprehensive and utterly contradicts the media narrative that there is “no evidence” for the effectiveness of Ivermectin versus coronavirus. It would have to rate as one of the best websites I have ever read on coronavirus, and it demonstrates deep subject matter expertise.

It took me hours to read and digest the information available at this site. And the website has compiled studies on the benefits of many different items versus coronavirus, including.

  • Vitamin C
  • Vitamin D
  • Fluvoxamine
  • Colchicine
  • and many others.

It is not just Ivermectin that shows improvements in mitigating the coronavirus, but many other items as well. And in fact, Ivermectin is not even in the top few items chronicled at the site.

The top-performing item, according to this site, is proxalutamide, which works in the following way.

Androgen signaling plays a central role in SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry is mediated by priming of viral spike proteins by the androgen-promoted enzyme, transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2). – Frontiers

This indicates that many items could be used to help combat the coronavirus. However, unlike Ivermectin, most of the other items only have a handful of studies — which could be significantly expanded with funding. These options are unlikely to receive funding, as the primary medical funding entities (like the NIH, headed by Dr. Fauci) have incentives to not fund research into non-vaccine approaches to combatting coronavirus.

For some reason, the bulk of attention is focused on Ivermectin when many options could be further tested and rolled out.

This website was sent to me by Markian Jaworski, and I did not find it searching Google. I learned a tremendous amount from this website and should be required reading for anyone claiming that Ivermectin has no scientific evidence to support its use for coronavirus.

Quotes from the C19 Early Treatment website I found insightful are the following.

There are thousands of different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of variants encountered by the patients in a study.

This I was not aware of, and it brings up the question of how effective vaccines can be against so many variants.

Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 30 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 54 of 65 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.

While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 26% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, and other treatments could be more effective, including monoclonal antibodies which may be available in countries not recommending ivermectin (sotrovimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and bamlanivimab/etesevimab).

Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

Over 20 countries have adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.

There is a strong argument for Ivermectin.

I disagree with Ivermectin not being able to replace vaccines because…

  • a.) the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines have major health issues, and
  • b.) countries with low levels of vaccination and high usage appear to outperform those that rely on vaccines and not Ivermectin.
  • c.) The vaccines decline in effectiveness over time and require ceaseless booster shots.

The coronavirus vaccines do not function as vaccines of the past. They require continual boosters. They are not actually vaccines. 

The logic for treating covid rather than using vaccines is explained in the following quotation.

COVID-19 can be treated. Numerous experienced physicians have collaborated on establishing effective treatment guidelines for clinically manifest COVID-19 [10]. Treatment options are available both for the early stage of the disease, when the emphasis is
on inhibiting viral replication, and for the later stage, at which anti-inflammatory treatment is paramount. Two drugs that have been used successfully at the early stage are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both drugs have been, and continue to be, in use
against a variety of other diseases. The availability of effective treatment voids the rationale for the emergency use of vaccines on any and all age groups, including also adolescents. – Doctors 4 Covid Ethics

This video explains how effective treatments have been suppressed by governments and media while they have promoted ineffective and dangerous vaccines. 

Articles on Ivermectin Prior to Coronavirus

What is curious is to read the literature on Ivermectin before it being proposed as a cure or prevention or moderator for coronavirus.

There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. – NCBI

These types of quotes won’t be found in mainstream media outlets. No no, Ivermectin is for horses and cows.

Censorship of Ivermectin’s Effectiveness Against Coronavirus by Media and Big Tech

Joe Rogan used Ivermectin to treat his coronavirus infection, and as this video explains, the mainstream media and Big Tech both made a significant effort to undermine Joe Rogan.

This is further covered in the following video. As with Indonesia and countless countries, the pharma-controlled media entities found it necessary to discredit Joe Rogan’s success in using Ivermectin, giving their viewers and readers the impression that the only use of Ivermectin is as a “horse de-wormer.”

As these journalists discuss, just discussing Ivermectin can get your channel or website restricted by Big Tech. One professor or biology, Brett Weinstein had his YouTube channel demonetized for doing just that. 

Remdesivir

Fauci and the health establishment’s error was not only downplaying ivermectin but promoting ineffective drugs like Remdesivir, for the only reason being that Remdesivir was on patent. This is explained in the following quotation.

Although, many doctors around the world were finding success with HCQ, in February 2020 NIH started enrolling patients for a remdesivir COVID-19 trial, with Dr. Fauci overseeing its progress. He had the final say on all the press releases, and presumably was working closely with Gilead. On April 16 something funny happened with the trial — the endpoints of it were quietly changed and updated on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Instead of evaluating remdesivir’s ability to prevent death from COVID-19, the study was redesigned to evaluate how fast a patient recovered from remdesivir. It was an interesting change because a leaked World Health Organization study of remdesivir showed there was no statistically significant clinical benefits in using the drug on COVID-19 patients and that it had severe side effects. However, it did show some promise in reducing recovery time. When the news broke of this study to the public, on April 23, Gilead shares fell.

On May 1, the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel members granted emergency use of remdesivir and stated HCQ could only be used in hospitals or in studies. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson found 11 members of that panel had financial ties to Gilead. Two were on Gilead’s advisory board, others were paid consultants or received research support and honoraria. None of the members, however, had ties to HCQ, which is made by numerous generic manufacturers, and “is so cheap, analysts say even a spike in sales would not be a financial driver for the companies,” Ms. Attkisson reported.

Ms. Attkisson also found one of the authors of a small Veterans Administration trial that claimed HCQ caused increased deaths received a $247,000 grant from Gilead in 2018.

On May 22, a fraudulent paper published by Lancet put the nail in HCQ’s coffin, claiming to show HCQ was not effective and was dangerous. The lead author of the now-debunked and retracted study was Dr. Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard professor, who attended a conference co-sponsored by Gilead a month before to discuss COVID-19.

The $2.45 million Gilead spent in the first quarter of 2020 lobbying the federal government was well spent. Meanwhile, a new, not yet peer-reviewed study of HCQ released this month found it, taken with azithromycin, improved COVID-19 survival by nearly 200% in ventilated patients. – Washington Times

The NIH is supposed to have a public service function. They are funded by the US government — however, they behave primarily to maximize the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusion

Ivermectin’s effectiveness against coronavirus is has been and continues to be suppressed by pharmaceutical companies and media entities. This demonstrates the control over media by pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies are opposed to using Ivermectin or any other method to improve the response to coronavirus for the specific reason that it is profit-maximizing for them to steer the public to use their vaccines.

  • There are many items that have been shown (in a small number of studies, but more than used to approve a new drug) to be effective against the coronavirus.
  • These other items are not being pilloried by Big Pharma and captured regulatory entities and media, but only because the population is not aware of them.
  • Anyone talking up these options online can expect to be targeted by media entities and to be censored by Big Tech for spreading “misinformation.”

Big Pharma not only lampoons Ivermectin but also natural immunity which is obtained from having coronavirus and recovering. Even though natural or acquired immunity is far more effective and durable than the vaccines because acquired immunity cannot be sold and profited from by pharmaceutical companies, they demand that acquired immunity be critiqued, and those with acquired immunity be given the vaccine. 

Here Dr. Campbell reviews the studies and concludes that the FDA’s statements regarding the decline of natural immunity is not supported by these studies. 

A review of a study on natural immunity.

How the Pharma Censorship Controls Both Health Policy and Discussion on Health

Pharmaceutical companies control the public health policy in developed countries. The benefit of being in undeveloped countries is that Big Pharma does not have the same level of control.

Big Pharma Has Invaded Every Prominent Health Entity

Dr. Fauci, the NIH, the WHO, and the FDA (45% funded by pharmaceutical companies and all the top officials “on loan” from pharmaceutical companies) are marionettes of Big Pharma. When called upon, they provide pharmaceutical company-approved information to the public, with the objective to ensuring that the public follows directives that are profit-maximizing to the pharmaceutical industry. The information they have provided on Ivermectin has been unreliable. Mainstream media entities parrot the statements and guidance of these corrupt entities without once informing their readers how much pharmaceutical interests have controlled them.

*I would like to thank Markian Jaworski for providing some of the preliminary analysis and several of the graphics and links for this article. 

Australia Health Officials Proposals Against Ivermectin

Dr. Campbell lampoons the official explanations given by the Australian authorities for not recommending Ivermectin. 

The Interesting Story of How Imvermectin Was Discovered

The story of how ivermectin was discovered is quite incredible. In the late 1960s, Satoshi Ōmura, a microbiologist at Tokyo’s Kitasako Institute, was hunting for new antibacterial compounds and started to collect thousands of soil samples from around Japan. He cultured bacteria from the samples, screened the cultures for medicinal potential, and sent them 10,000 km away to Merck Research Labs in New Jersey, where his collaborator, William Campbell, tested their effect against parasitic worms affecting livestock and other animals. One culture, derived from a soil sample collected near a golf course southwest of Tokyo, was remarkably effective against worms. The bacterium in the culture was a new species, and was baptised Streptomyces avermictilis. The active component, named avermectin, was chemically modified to increase its activity and its safety. The new compound, called ivermectin, was commercialised as a product for animal health in 1981 and soon became a top-selling veterinary drug in the world.

Campbell urged his colleagues to study ivermectin as a potential treatment for onchocerciasis (also known as river blindness), a devastating disease caused by worms and transmitted by flies, that left millions of people blind, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. The first clinical trials in Senegal showed that the treatment worked, and ivermectin was approved for human use in 1987. Since then, more than 3.7 billion doses (donated by Merck laboratories) have been distributed globally in mass drug administration campaigns against onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis (another disease caused by worms, which causes severe swelling of limbs).

Ivermectin, in fact, was the world’s first “endectocide” – a drug with activity against a wide variety of internal and external parasites, from nematodes to arthropods. It has also proved to be astonishingly safe for humans. This is because the drug acts by binding to special channels on the cell membrane (called glutamate-gated ion channels) that play a fundamental role in nematodes and insects. In mammals, however, the drug has no effect since the neurons expressing these channels are protected by the blood brain barrier. In addition to its high safety profile, no convincing evidence of drug resistance has been found to date among Onchocerca worms, despite 30 years of continued use and billions of doses administered. – IS Global