Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘ivermectin’

Doctor who quit her job after being suspended for promoting ivermectin, criticizing mandates sues Houston Methodist Hospital for COVID data, financial reports


Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | January 19, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/doctor-suspended-for-promoting-ivermectin-sues-houston-methodist-hospital-covid-data-financial-reports/

Dr. Mary Bowden, who was previously suspended from Houston Methodist Hospital for spreading what the hospital said was “misinformation” surrounding COVID-19 and who later quit her job there, is suing the hospital, the Texan reported. Bowden, a private-practice otolaryngologist, promoted ivermectin as a viable COVID-19 treatment in 2020 — a move with which her employers took grave issue.

She announced the lawsuit on Monday and in a press conference said that she is demanding data from the hospital on the effects of COVID-19 vaccines along with financial reports. During the conference announcing the pending litigation, Bowden said, “Medical freedom has been hijacked by hospitals, big pharma, insurance companies, and the federal agencies.” Bowden added that she and investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino requested the information contained in the lawsuit in November and December, but the hospital reportedly did not respond.

The outlet reported that the suit — which was filed in state district court on Monday — is requesting “financial documents detailing all revenue generated at the hospital throughout he COVID-19 vaccination program, including details about reimbursements or payments from government, insurance companies, and patients.” The suit is also requesting information about “any financial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 treatments.”

Bowden’s suit also states that the hospital should make public the number of all recently admitted COVID-19 patients who were fully vaccinated and how many employees are experiencing breakthrough infections.

Bowden also pointed to the hospital’s 2019’s assets — which reportedly totaled approximately $4 billion — and said that the public is entitled to know how those assets have increased after 2019 and amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

“I want to make this clear,” she said during the conference. “I’m not seeking any financial gains from this or personal gain, I’m simply seeking the truth, which we all deserve.”

Attorney Steve Mitby, who is representing Bowen, said that he fully expects that he and his client will receive the records.

“It’s state law,” he insisted.

Bowden added, “We all know that early COVID treatment works, it saves lives, and I’m not going to be silenced, intimidated, or bullied by Houston Methodist, Houston Chronicle, or anyone else who wants to target physicians that question the narrative.”

In November, Mitby said that Bowden had never peddled disinformation, as a Stanford University-trained physician who has had vast experience in treating coronavirus patients.

“She is helping her patients, through a combination of monoclonal antibodies and other drugs, to recover from COVID. Dr. Bowden’s proactive treatment has saved lives and prevented hospitalizations,” he said at the time. “Dr. Bowden also is not anti-vaccine as she has been falsely portrayed. Dr. Bowden has opposed vaccine mandates, especially when required by the government. That is not the same as opposing vaccines.”

A Houston Methodist spokesperson declined to comment when approached by the Texan for its report.

Judge holds hospital in contempt of court for refusing ivermectin to COVID patient on ventilator, ignoring court order


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | December 14, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/judge-holds-hospital-in-contempt-of-court-for-refusing-ivermectin-covid-patient/

A Virginia hospital was held in contempt of court Monday after refusing to administer ivermectin to a woman who has been battling COVID-19 since early October.

Kathleen Davies, a 63-year-old northern Virginia woman, became severely ill with COVID in October, and she has been on a ventilator since Nov. 3. Davies was prescribed ivermectin by her family doctor, but she could not complete her regimen upon being admitted to the Fauquier Hospital in Warrenton. That’s because the northern Virginia hospital refused to administer the drug, “citing medical, legal and practical concerns,” the Fauquier Times reported. Davies’ son, Christopher — who works at the hospital as a radiologist technician — urged the hospital to administer the drug as his mother’s health declined and all other medical treatments had been exhausted. But the hospital continued to refuse.

So on Dec. 6, the Davies family took legal action to compel Fauquier Hospital to administer ivermectin. Just one day later, Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Jim Fisher agreed with the Davies family and ordered the hospital to administer the drug in compliance with the family’s wishes. Shockingly, the hospital ignored the order.

“They believe it’s a fight between the rights of the hospital and the rights of citizens. They feel their rights trump her rights,” Christopher Davies told the Fauquier Times.

The hospital claimed because none of its doctors “believe Ivermectin is in Ms. Davies’s best interests and all have refused to prescribe” and because Kathleen’s doctor — Dr. Martha Maturi — did not have privileges to practice medicine at Fauquier Hospital, it could continue to ignore the court order.

But on Dec. 9, Fisher ruled that such a policy is not state law and again ordered the hospital to permit the administration of the drug in compliance with the family’s wishes. Importantly, Fisher did not rule on the medical merits of ivermectin as effective treatment for COVID-19. But with all other treatment options exhausted, Fisher clearly sided with the family.

Still, the hospital refused to allow Maturi to administer ivermectin. And in a court filing on Monday, the hospital began raising objections to Maturi’s medical qualifications and requested that she testify under oath.

The hospital said in its motion, in part:

Fauquier Medical Center requests that Dr. Maturi be made available to testify under oath regarding her qualifications, the discussions, steps taken and ultimate decision that she is unable to care for Mrs. Davies. Both parties have been working together to comply with the court’s order; however, as it stands, neither the hospital nor the plaintiff has been able to find a physician capable of assuming care for Mrs. Davies while she remains in critical condition in the ICU.

In a ruling on Monday, Fisher held the Fauquier hospital in contempt of court, ordered the administration of ivermectin, and imposed daily $10,000 fines retroactive to Dec. 9.

Fisher held the hospital in contempt for “needlessly interposing requirements that stand in the way of the patient’s desired physician administering investigational drugs as part of the Health Care Decisions Act and the federal and state Right to Try Acts.”

“No good reason or good cause was given, other than convenience, for the need of a formal ‘attending physician’ when there are at least three physicians involved in the patient’s care. The relief herein can be accomplished without requiring anyone serving in the role of ‘attending physician,'” the order explained.

Fisher gave the hospital until 9 p.m. on Monday to administer ivermectin, or he would levy additional fines.

Kathleen Davies was given ivermectin at 8:45 p.m.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs-theblaze-2655321861.html/

A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the details.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!

Just looking at the NIH’s own table, why in the world would remdesivir be the expensive mandatory standard of care and ivermectin, buttressed by 64 studies, be relegated to hemlock status even for patients about to die and with no other options?

Yes, we get the message – every one of those studies is supposedly low-powered, a fraud, and all the thousands of doctors turning people around on ivermectin are some how frauds even though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from pushing it. But if that is our standard for ivermectin, it raises the obvious question about remdesivir. How could remdesivir not only be approved but made the standard of care when it has negative efficacy in trials, has a negative recommendation from the WHO, and, by the NIH’s own admission, causes liver and kidney failure?

Even if the medical establishment dismisses the preponderance of evidence and reality of the past 18 months, with ivermectin saving so many people, just from a safety standpoint, why would they not allow people to at least try something this safe while forcing on them a dangerous drug like remdesivir? In addition, these are the same hospitals that administer Olumiant, which has a rare FDA black box warning for blood clots, even though these very patients are at high risk for a pulmonary embolism and other clotting disorders?

In other words, there is no way anyone can justify the war on ivermectin (and every other cheap treatment that has been and will be proposed) as being rooted in anything related to medicine and science. If that were the case, the medical establishment would be dead set against remdesivir and Olumiant. Moreover, to the extent remdesivir has any efficacy that is worth its risk, it would be outpatient during the viral stage. There is quite literally no scientific way remdesivir can work in the pulmonary inflammation stage. Unlike ivermectin, which tones down inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha, remdesivir has no anti-inflammatory qualities.

However, remdesivir does have a lot of political science behind it. Aside from having the weight of Big Pharma pushing it (and it was concocted by UNC-Chapel Hill, curiously the same institution at the center of the coronavirus gain-of-function research), hospitals get a 20% bonus for using it!

Gee, is there any wonder hospitals will fight patients in court – including those whom they already recommend to remove from life support – to not even try ivermectin as a last resort?! So much for the desire to flatten the curve of hospitalizations. They want people in the hospital! If they really cared about the run on hospitals, they’d promote treatments that work early and outpatient so that nobody would need to come to the hospital.

For more information, watch this devastating contrast of ivermectin vs. remdesivir.

Here’s one other strong piece of evidence that this is not about any shortcoming of ivermectin, but stems from unrelenting war on anything off patent that might work, in order to run interference for expensive, dangerous, and ineffective tools of big pharma. Let’s go back to that NIH chart of potential antiviral drugs for COVID. There is actually a third one on that list aside from remdesivir and ivermectin.

Nitazoxanide, much like ivermectin, is a (potentially) cheap off-patent anti-parasitic that has been praised for years as a very safe, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic mechanism and is written about glowingly in studies. And it actually has an even longer and more direct precedent of research and clinical use against viruses than even ivermectin. It is the standard of care for norovirus and rotavirus in Brazil and has shown promise against not just flus and hepatitis, but coronavirus colds, SARS, and MERS. This research has been known even in the media for well over a year! Gee, we have an antiviral that is so safe it’s given to young kids for viral diarrhea and has been known to work against coronaviruses. Yet our government has refused to pursue any meaningful research for 18 months!

Originally, it was as cheap as ivermectin, but one company seems to have bought it up, and now it is prohibitively expensive in the U.S. However, were the government to promote it, this off-patent drug could easily be mass-produced for pennies on the dollar and costs just a few dollars for a full regimen in Mexico and Brazil.https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

Notice that, just like with ivermectin, the NIH prefaces the side effects section on nitazoxanide by saying it is “generally well tolerated” and then proceeds to list the boilerplate of typical minor side effects that are disclosed for every drug under the sun. Anyone merely looking at this NIH page alone can see how the government and medical establishment’s treatment of remdesivir vs. every other therapeutic that has been tried is built upon control, greed, and something much darker than that. Now, just remember, these are the same people who will look you in the eye and say the shots are 100% effective and carry zero risk. It’s all in the $cience.
What is self-evident from the NIH’s disclosure, which was updated as late as July 2021, is that ivermectin and nitazoxanide work for a lot more than just parasites. It’s primarily the political parasites that fear that those drugs.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: New study shows denial of ivermectin is a crime against humanity


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-new-study-shows-denial-of-ivermectin-is-a-crime-against-humanity-theblaze-2655204407.html/

“How can I get hold of ivermectin in case I get sick?” is probably the most common email inquiry I receive daily. It’s a shame we didn’t make this safe, Nobel prize-winning drug as available as we do needles in San Francisco for the injection of dangerous drugs. Perhaps we can ask the Mexican cartels to get into ivermectin production.

In all seriousness, given the data behind ivermectin, it is shocking how our government refuses to even embark on a study. In the meantime, insurers refuse to cover it and pharmacists refuse to dispense it — and that’s if you can get hold of a doctor willing to prescribe it.

Until now, despite dozens of studies and doctors all around the world with no financial gain at stake vouching for its efficacy, our government has balked at ivermectin because, it claims, the studies are too small. Well, the Argentinian Provincial Ministry of Health just published the results of a retrospective study of a trial of over 21,000 participants. The results were unmistakable among those participants above age 40, all non-vaccinated. Overall, when adjusting for confounding factors like less healthy people joining the ivermectin group, those in the ivermectin group had a 66% lower ICU admission rate and a 55% lower mortality rate than those in the control group. Anyone in the ivermectin group was treated with a dose of 0.6mg per kg of weight one time a day for five days.

This is just the latest study, but the key is to look at the preponderance of the evidence. A meta-analysis posted earlier this week of 65 total studies netted the following pooled results.

As the author notes, while many of the studies are small sample sizes, taken together, “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion.”

So many people, including actor Louis Gossett Jr., are human testimonies to ivermectin being more than a theoretical statistical benefit. They are alive today, even after having used it at a late stage. The war on ivermectin and the embargo against early treatment are truly a crime against humanity.

Ultimately, it’s important to keep in mind that this has never been about any one treatment. Imagine if along with making ivermectin cheap and available;

  • our government had helped empower people to raise their vitamin D levels and
  • exercise more rather than gaining a ton of weight over the pandemic.
  • Imagine if our government had encouraged doctors to treat this early and often with a cocktail of several drugs plus made the monoclonal antibodies available for everyone the minute they came out, over one year ago,
  • in addition to the successful nasal irrigation techniques using povidone-iodine sprays.

Well, then the reduction in mortality would have been closer to 100%.

Vitamin D alone could have saved anyone who has gotten seriously ill recently, a year and a half after our government should have been encouraging people to take high-dose supplements. There are now at least 113 studies vouching for the correlation between high vitamin D levels and positive outcomes. The results of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of eight vitamin D studies showed that the risk of COVID mortality for people with D levels at 50 ng/ml is close to zero.

Then, of course, there is exercise and obesity. Weight is such a strong factor in determining risk of serious illness that BMI is now being used as a way of vetting people for eligibility for the monoclonal antibodies. Yet our government encouraged a lifestyle that caused obesity to skyrocket. The rates have gone up so quickly that, according to the latest CDC data, 16 states now have obesity rates of 35% or higher, an increase of four states in just one year.

Rather than encouraging people, in addition to seeking early COVID treatment, to pound vitamins, exercise, and eat right — which would induce a cascading confluence of benefits in every other area of health and wellness — they placed all of their eggs in the vaccine basket. Now what do they have to offer those people getting infected despite taking on so much known and unknown risk from the shots?

Finally, more than any one drug or therapeutic, it’s about the art of practicing medicine, which involves having a competent doctor prescribe the right course of action for the right patient for the given symptoms at the right time. Every primary care doctor should have been encouraged, rather than discouraged, to treat this virus early with their respective patient workloads. Each drug alone might have a 30%-60% efficacy rate, but a good doctor putting it all together achieves close to 100% success.

Drs. Brian Tyson and George Fareed posted a summary of their patient outcomes after treating thousands of COVID patients in Imperial County, California, since last March. Out of 6,000 patients they treated, they never lost a patient who came to them within the first week of symptoms. What Dr. Tyson explains is so simple, yet eloquent:

“We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories,” Dr. Tyson explains. “We saw blood clots, so we used anti-coagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications. … It wasn’t just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them.” As Tyson notes, if you are not in favor of early treatment, that’s fine, but why do you have to attack others who try to treat the virus? “If I’m wrong, people are still going to die,” asserted Tyson. “But if I’m right, how many thousands of lives would have been saved?”

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Now that vaccinated people need the monoclonal treatments, Biden admin and media attack the treatment


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | September 20, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-now-that-vaccinated-people-need-the-monoclonal-treatments-biden-admin-and-media-attack-the-treatment/

For those of you who couldn’t believe that the government’s war on ivermectin and every other treatment was rooted in a sinister motivation, its new attack on the monoclonal antibodies should indelibly cement the terrifying thought in your mind. The government and the media are now using the same attack pattern on the monoclonal antibody treatment that they used on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin now that it has become popular with people desperate for treatment – vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

On Sept. 14, the Biden administration announced that the feds would be cutting the number of monoclonal treatments per week in the southern states and reallocating them as part of a broader plan to start rationing the treatments. For example, in Florida, HHS issued an allocation for the week of Sept. 13 of 3,100 doses of BAM/ETE treatments and 27,850 doses of REGN-COV. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a press conference last week, this would effectively reduce Florida’s allocation by 50%. The federal agency did this without any warning or indication that there was a shortage.

Then, last Thursday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki explained the move as follows“Our supply is not unlimited and we believe it should be equitable.” HHS then followed up with an explanation of the policy of “equity.”

But wouldn’t you focus on where it’s needed at a given time rather than blind “equity”? Also, Biden promised just days earlier during the announcement of his vaccine mandate to boost monoclonal distribution by 50%.

Well, here is the answer to the enigma: In that same announcement, Biden warned, “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.” Is the federal takeover of the monoclonals his ace in the hole? And why wouldn’t the government just produce more? We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare, shutdowns, and vaccines that failed so miserably that people who already got the shots still need the monoclonals! So why not put the funding into the monoclonals?

Well, if you are trying to ascertain the motivation of government always watch carefully for its stenographers in the media to follow up with the psy-ops on the general public, which will reveal the true messaging. Once you read this New York Times article, you will see clearly that this is really not about “equity” or some concern over supply. In an article titled, “They shunned COVID vaccines but embraced antibody treatments,” the NYT essentially frames the monoclonals as some right-wing solution that is only for those who didn’t want to get the vaccine.

Some Republican governors have set up antibody clinics while opposing vaccine mandates, frustrating even some of the drugs’ strongest proponents. Raising vaccination rates, scientists said, would obviate the need for many of the costly antibody treatments in the first place. The infusions take about an hour and a half, including monitoring afterward, and require constant attention from nurses whom hard-hit states often cannot spare.”It’s clogging up resources, it’s hard to give, and a vaccine is $20 and could prevent almost all of that,” said Dr. Christian Ramers, an infectious disease specialist and the chief of population health at Family Health Centers of San Diego, a community-based provider. Pushing antibodies while playing down vaccines, he said, was “like investing in car insurance without investing in brakes.”

Except it’s simply not true. The vaccines are no longer working, especially for those who got them early on — particularly the elderly — and many of the people who got them badly need treatment. As Gov. DeSantis reported, the majority of those seeking monoclonals are vaccinated, a fact I have verified in the facility closest to me in Baltimore. Here are the statistics the Florida government publicized at last week’s press conference:

At our Broward site, 52% of the patients that have received treatment have been vaccinated, 69% of those over 60 that have received treatment at the Broward site had been vaccinated. In Miami Dade almost 60% of everybody that’s been treated at the Tropical Park site has been vaccinated. And 73% of the patients treated at the state site in Tropical Park that are over the age of 60 have been vaccinated.

So again, it’s the exact opposite of what the media and the Biden administration are saying. The vaccines cost a fortune and failed. Now these same people need treatment. The same government officials rationing the monoclonals have already scared 99% of doctors away from prescribing and pharmacists from filling cheap off-patent drugs that have cured the few people who can access them. The monoclonals are made by the cool kids at big pharma and are approved by the government. Except our government paid them off up front and then refused to even make the public aware of their existence. Thus, even things produced by big pharma are now attacked, so long as they actually work and people begin successfully using them.

It’s so cute to watch the government and media suddenly become concerned about expensive treatments after spending billions on the vaccines. There is a simple solution, and that would be mass production of ivermectin and encouraging all physicians to treat everyone early with it and other cheap drugs. But now that the government has essentially banned them, the monoclonals are the only show in town. This is where the Biden administration wants to place Americans they don’t like into a death trap.

Texas Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough warned that this is not about a lack of supply. “The manufacturer has confirmed supplies are ample but due to the Defense Production Act, the White House and its agencies are the only entities who can purchase and distribute this treatment,” wrote Keough on Facebook.

With the war on any and all forms of early treatment, ask yourself this question: Does our government really want the pandemic to end?

Hospital debunks story that claimed ‘gunshot victims left waiting’ because of ivermectin overdoses


Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | September 05, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/hospital-debunks-ivermectin-overdose-story/

An Oklahoma hospital corrected the record Saturday after the mainstream media pushed a false story claiming “gunshot victims” had been turned away after experiencing a surge of patients who purportedly overdosed on ivermectin.

Rolling Stone published a headline that said, “Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says.”

The story was built on a single interview that Oklahoma-based physician Dr. Jason McElyea gave to KFOR-TV. In that interview, McElyea claimed “the [emergency rooms] are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated” because people with COVID-19 are allegedly overdosing on ivermectin. The claim was widely circulated by Democrats and the mainstream media, including the New York Times (which linked to KFOR’s story), The HillNewsweekThe GuardianInsider, and even MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

The hospital that KFOR stated McElyea was associated with — Northeastern Health System – Sequoyah — released a statement Saturday revealing that McElyea is “not an employee” there, and explained the hospital has not experienced a single case of ivermectin overdose.

Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months.

NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.

All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care. We want to reassure our community that our staff is working hard to provide quality healthcare to all patients. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue and as always, we value our community’s support.

In an interview with KXMX-FM, hospital administrator Stephanie Six reaffirmed what the statement said.

“We at NHS-Sequoyah have not seen or had any patients in our ER or hospital with ivermectin overdose,” Six said. “We have not had any patients with complaints or issues related to ivermectin.”

“I can’t speak for what he has witnessed at other facilities but this in not true for ours,” she explained. “We certainly have not turned any patients away due to an overload of ivermectin related cases. All patients who have come into our ER have been treated as appropriate.”

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: CDC endorsed use of ivermectin … for Afghan refugees!


Commentator DANIEL HOROWITZ | September 03, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-endorsed-use-of-ivermectin-for-afghan-refugees/

“I have long been convinced that Nature has all the solutions we need to solve our past … that will be the primary source of the treasures and solutions that we seek.” ~Professor Satashi Omura, Nobel co-laureate for the discovery of ivermectin

Looking at 2019 CDC guidance, one has to wonder if one of the reasons why there is such a run on ivermectin is because our own government is using it. And no, not for horses, but for refugees. Yet these same government agencies are running a blood libel-style smear campaign against the drug and its users by misleading people into conflating it with a veterinarian version of the drug, leading many people to think it’s some sort of poison for humans. In the process, they are leaving thousands of COVID patients without any other options for treatment.

It’s not clear whether the hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees will be forced to get vaccinated like American international travelers, but one thing is clear: They will likely get the ivermectin that most Americans can no longer access. It turns out that in 2019, the CDC issued guidance for refugees from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East to be given ivermectin pre-emptively for potential infections.

The CDC advises the International Organization for Migration (IOM) physicians who screen the refugees for departure, and U.S. doctors who treat them upon arrival, to prescribe “all Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees” with ivermectin and albendazole.

To the extent the government even screens refugees for COVID, will officials suspend ivermectin treatment for a refugee who has COVID alongside a parasitic infection? After all, we are told that somehow one of the safest drugs in the history of humanity suddenly turns unsafe if you want to use it for another ailment. Or perhaps Americans can self-identify as refugees and then obtain prescriptions for this lifesaving drug. The question now is whether the rest of the media that ignored ivermectin’s success for 17 months will continue to call the drug a “horse dewormer” even as it’s administered to Afghan refugees.

The revelation of this CDC guidance demonstrates that ivermectin is not some obscure drug, much less an animal drug that was used one time for humans in Africa many years ago. The agency feels it is needed today in most parts of the world. To suggest that it is not safe is a scandalous lie. Perhaps doctors will have to start punching in the prescription code for abortion or suggest it’s for an Afghan refugee in order to get the prescription filled:

In reality, anyone who thinks that somehow one of the safest and most successful drugs of all time cannot work for other ailments is woefully uninformed. I trust Professor Omura, the man who won the Nobel Prize for developing ivermectin for Merck, over the company itself, which now stands to benefit from an expensive drug it is developing, with which the cheap ivermectin, which is off patent, would interfere.

In March, Omura wrote in the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics that he hopes “ivermectin will be utilized as a countermeasure for COVID-19 as soon as possible.” Ten years ago, Omura observed: “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.”

Any sampling of the internet will reveal a unique degree of reverence for this drug among all of the (pre-political) literature on ivermectin. For example, in 2017, Nature’s Journal of Antibiotics observed the following about the fact that ivermectin held promise outside use just as an-antiparasitic agent:

Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary. …

Moreover, whereas ivermectin-resistant parasites swiftly appeared in treated animals, as well as in ectoparasites, such as copepods parasitizing salmon in fish farms, somewhat bizarrely and almost uniquely, no confirmed drug resistance appears to have arisen in parasites in human populations, even in those that have been taking ivermectin as a monotherapy for over 30 years.

As for the drug’s exact mechanism of action against COVID, Dr. Ryan Cole, a brilliant Mayo Clinic-trained pathologist, listed eight different mechanisms in an exclusive interview with TheBlaze:

1. Inhibits binding at ACE2 and TMPRSS2, keeping the virus from entering our cells.

2. Blocks alpha/beta importin (the virus cell taxi), keeping it from getting to the nucleus.

3. Blocks the viral replicase zipper (RdRp).

4. 3-Chimotrypsin protease inhibition (keeps the virus from assembling).

5. Ivermectin strengthens our natural antiviral cell activity by increasing our natural interferon production (this counters SARSCOV2 activity, which inhibits cellular interferon).

6. Decreases IL-6 and other inflammatory cytokines through NF Kappa Beta downregulation, taking the patient from a cytokine storm to calm.

7. Binds NSP14, necessary for viral replication, and blocks it (equals less virus).

8. Most important mechanism is inhibiting binding to CD147 receptor on red cells, platelets, lung, and blood cell lining. Ivermectin keeps the virus from binding here and decreases deadly clotting.

For those who want a more detailed explanation of each of these mechanisms, Dr. Cole has provided me with important links and videos, which I posted together in this twitter thread:

So, the next time you hear any media figures refer to ivermectin as an animal medicine, just remember that they are regarding people from three continents as something less than human. And now, they are treating every American – increasingly those who are also vaccinated – as subhuman beings who don’t deserve any treatment until it is too late.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: