How Safe Are the Covid Vaccines vs Ivermectin and Remdesivir?

Last Updated on June 26, 2022 by Shaun Snapp

Executive Summary

  • What is curious is health authorities promote vaccines and Remdesivir as safe and Ivermectin as not safe.
  • We cover this comparative safety.

Introduction

This article shows the adverse reaction comparisons between the covid vaccines, Remdesivir and Ivermectin as tabulated by the WHO.

Our References for This Article

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

The WHO’s VigiAccess Adverse Reaction System

The following information is found at the website VigiAccess.gov, and it is a website maintained by the WHO.

The Adverse Reactions for The Covid Vaccines

I found a source that stated that 7.8 billion doses of vaccines have been given. 

The Adverse Reactions for The Remdesivir

I was not able to find a source for the number of Remdesivir doses given, but it is very small compared to covid vaccines and Ivermectin. Remdesivir was only approved by the FDA in October of 2020. I took a guess at 2.5 million doses based upon reading about the number of dosages purchased and manufactured per month.

  • The drug was approved in October of 2020
  • I found an article that stated as of June 2020 that the US had purchased “500,000 doses, which is all of Gilead’s production for July and 90% of August and September” which means that the production at that time was roughly 250,000 per month — although this is pre-approval.
  • I found an article in August of 2021 that the production that by June of 2021, the manufacturing had been increased by 3x to 12.2 million. If we take June to November of 2021 at 12.2 that is 6 x 12.2 = 73.3 million.
  • I found an article in April of 2021 that the 3.8 million doses per month were being manufactured. However, the level before April was much lower. If we take 3.8 million from October 2020 to April of 2021 that is 7 * 3.8 = 26.6 million.
  • 26.6 million + 73.3 million = 102.9 million

At the 14:00 mark, this excellent video explains that Fauci rigged an NIH study on Remdesivir by changing the endpoint from mortality to time to recovery, to match with the reduced benefits of Remdesivir. This was done to enrich Gilead. Fauci has a pattern of announcing things while being interviewed prior to the study being published. 

Remdesivir is a bust as a drug. Highly expensive, ineffective, and with high adverse reactions.

The Adverse Reactions for Ivermectin

I found a source that stated that 3.7 billion doses of vaccines have been given. 

Mathematical Comparison #1: Adverse Reactions Reported  Per Dose

  • Covid Vaccines Problems per Dose = 7.8 Billion / 2.7 Million = 28,888
  • Remdesivir Problems per Dose = 102.9 Million / 7859 = 13,192
  • Ivermectin Problems per Dose = 3.7 Billion / 5812 = 636,613

The higher the number the lower proporation of adverse reactions. Now we can determine the relative risk difference with the following calculations.

Mathematical Comparison #2: Relative Risk Per Dose

  • Covid Vaccines Versus Remdesivir Relative Risk = 28,888 / 13,192 =  2.1
  • This means Remdesivir has 2.1x as many adverse reactions per dose as the Covid vaccines.
  • Covid Vaccines Versus Ivermectin Relative Risk = 636,613 / 28,888 =  22
  • This means Covid vaccines have 22x as many adverse reactions per dose as the Ivermectin.
  • Ivermectin Versus Remdesivir Relative Risk = 636,613 / 13,192 = 48
  • This means Remdesivir has 48x as many adverse reactions per dose as the Ivermectin.

What should also be noted is that while Ivermectin is roughly $1 per dose, Remdesivir is $3120 per dose. And Ivermectin has proven to be more than 3x more effective than Remdesivir while having far more studies. You can see this in the article How Effective is Ivermectin Versus the Pfizer and Moderna Corona Vaccines?

Technical Reason for Ivermectin’s High Degree of Safety

Ivermectin is approved for use as an antiparasitic. Ivermectin does many things, and is not just antiparasitic. However, the following explains why Ivermectin is so effective against insects while not being toxic for mammals.

Ivermectin and its related drugs act by interfering with the nerve and muscle functions of helminths and insects.[81] The drug binds to glutamate-gated chloride channels common to invertebrate nerve and muscle cells.[82] The binding pushes the channels open, which increases the flow of chloride ions and hyper-polarizes the cell membranes,[81] paralyzing and killing the invertebrate.[82] Ivermectin is safe for mammals (at the normal therapeutic doses used to cure parasite infections) because mammalian glutamate-gated chloride channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord: the causative avermectins usually do not cross the blood–brain barrier, and are unlikely to bind to other mammalian ligand-gated channels.[82] – Wikipedia

Another issue regarding Ivermectin’s excellent safety profile is the following.

The discovery of ivermectin has been described as a combination of “chance and choice.” Merck was looking for a broad-spectrum anthelmintic, which ivermectin is indeed; however, Campbell noted that they “…also found a broad-spectrum agent for the control of ectoparasitic insects and mites.”[88]

Merck began marketing ivermectin as a veterinary antiparasitic in 1981.[6] By 1986, ivermectin was registered for use in 46 countries and was administered massively to cattle, sheep and other animals.[89] By the late 1980s, ivermectin was the bestselling veterinary medicine in the world.[6] Following its blockbuster success as a veterinary antiparasitic, another Merck scientist, Mohamed Aziz, collaborated with the World Health Organization to test the safety and efficacy of ivermectin against onchocerciasis in humans.[9] They found it to be highly safe and effective,[90] triggering Merck to register ivermectin for human use as “Mectizan” in France in 1987.[9] A year later, Merck CEO Roy Vagelos agreed that Merck would donate all ivermectin needed to eradicate river blindness.[9] In 1998, that donation would be expanded to include ivermectin used to treat lymphatic filariasis.[9]

Ivermectin earned the title of “wonder drug” for the treatment of nematodes and arthropod parasites.[91] Ivermectin has been used safely by hundreds of millions of people to treat river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.[6] – Wikipedia

Analysis of Remdesivir Studies

The following presentation slides are from the document Whose Interests do Public Health Officials Represent?

This slide analyzes a study that seems to indicate Remdesivir is a weak antiviral. 

And this does the same. 

The China study also found Remdesivir was not an anti-viral.

The studies showed that Remdesivir was so dangerous it was removed from use by the FDA’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board. 

This slide highlights that Remdesivir causes skin and liver abnormalities. Remdesivir is completely toxic to the liver. It has been widely prescribed and must have ruined the organs of many patients. This brings up the topic of how these side effects were covered up at hospitals. And the answer is that they were all attributed to covid. 

Another patient organ failure, in this case, renal or kidney failure. Observe this chilling quote.

On Feburary 5, because of the disease severity and the persistence of viral detection, Remdesivir was re-initiated. Mulitiple organ failure persisted without any other co-infections identified. He died on Feburary 14.

Amazing.

Another organ failure, this time the liver. This patient’s body repaired itself — after Remdesivir was discontinued.

And another patient with kidney damage, and multiple organ failure. And another dead patient.

Four of the five patients experienced major side effects? How can such a drug not be disallowed for common usage? The quote states that kidney failure could have been related to SARS-CoV-2, but that is not what covid does.

The many conflicts with the maker of Remdesivir, Gilead Sciences. 

This first slide note observes that the 7 patients with “no treatment data,” would be a very convenient place to hide strong adverse reactions. Remdesivir constantly has strong negative reactions — so Gilead would have pressured the conductors of the study to “lose that data.” There were only (8 + 53) = 61 study subjects in the study. Losing 8 / 61 = 13% of the data is amazing. Why was this study even submitted for publication? Why did the New England Journal of Medicine publish it? This along with other observations I have taken from studies published in NEJM indicates that NEJM has no standards whatsoever. 

Also, the New England Journal of Medicine had no problem accepting a study funded by Gilead Sciences when it knew that the study would be rigged by Gilead to produce a false outcome. This is why the comment on the slide is that the statement of 36 of 53 patients seeing clinical improvement needed to be independently reviewed.

This note observes the obvious, that due to Remdesivir’s well-established pattern of damaging organs, a shorter treatment keeps the outcomes from being seen in the organs. Of course, Gilead needed an excuse, so it came up with the idea that more patients could be treated. So apparently Gilead did not have very much of its product to use for the study, which is difficult to believe. They are also lying about the results of Remdesvir during the Ebola studies. 

This slide points out that this entire study was most likely ghost-written by Gilead Sciences, and then shopped around (a common tactic of pharmaceutical companies) to different prestigious scientists to place their name on in return for compensation. 

This slide shows the precautions relate to all manner of dangerous side effects. 

Here is another study funded by Gilead and published in NEJM.

Here is the page of conflicts from this study. Gilead, Gilead, Gilead all over the conflicts. A high percentage of those running the study are paid by Gilead. 

Overall, study after study on Remdesivir is funded by Gilead.

However, NEJM nor the other journals are effective at checking the validity or honesty of the submitted studies.

Is any study ever done that is not funded by Gilead?

How can studies ghostwritten by Gilead that the NEJM was never present or involved in any of the studies be considered reliable? I have software vendors that seek to submit articles to Brightwork Research & Analysis for publication. All of the information they provide is rigged and written by the marketing department. We would never republish any of the information provided by software vendors. 

Now, along with these ridiculous side effects, the WHO states that Remdesivir had no effect. However, as the note points out, HCQ was tested without zinc. However, HCQ requires zinc to work. 

Conclusion

This clearly illustrates that Ivermectin is far safer than either Remdesivir or the covid vaccines.

Be Notified When Our Upcoming Subscription Website on Ivermectin and Other Medical Treatments is Ready

Ivermectin has many treatment applications outside of its approved use (as an antiparasitical. These treatments include cancer, covid, immunity, and more. And due to perverse financial incentives, many of these applications are hidden from the public.

Due to the many questions we receive on Ivermectin, we are now working on a subscription website that covers everything related to Ivermectin ranging from its many health improvement applications to dosages, and contrasting this with the false information presented on Ivermectin by medical authorities. The site will be ready soon as we are making good progress. We will also be adding questions from subscribers answered as customized articles. 

If you are potentially interested in subscribing, contact us using the text chat widget in the lower right-hand corner of this page and just tell us you are interested in being informed when the website is live.