In early September 2021, Oklahoma’s KFOR news ran a falsified story about emergency rooms being overrun with patients who had overdosed on horse ivermectin.¹ Other mainstream media followed suit — all incorrectly referring to ivermectin as a dangerous veterinary drug.

In the real world, ivermectin is a human drug that has been safely used by 3.7 billion people since the early 1990s.² In 2016, three scientists received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their discovery of ivermectin against parasitic infections in humans.³ It’s also on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.⁴

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to disparage ivermectin as a “horse dewormer” that only a loony person would consider taking. Yet that’s what mainstream media have done, virtually without exception.

When comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan revealed⁵ he’d treated his bout of COVID-19 with ivermectin and other remedies — fully recovering within three days — NPR reported Rogan had taken “ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug that is formulated for use in cows and horses,” adding that “the Food and Drug Administration is urging people to stop ingesting” the medication, saying animal doses of the drug can cause nausea, vomiting and in some cases severe hepatitis.⁶

Sanjay Gupta Admits CNN Lied

CNN, among many others, also reported on Rogan’s use of “horse dewormer.” In mid-October 2021, Rogan interviewed CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, grilling him on why CNN would outright lie about his use of ivermectin.

“It’s a lie on a news network,” Rogan said, “and it’s a lie that they’re conscious of. It’s not a mistake. They’re unfavorably framing it as a veterinary medicine …

Don’t you think a lie like that is dangerous … when they know they’re lying? They know I took medicine [for humans] … Dude, they lied. They said I was taking horse dewormer. It was prescribed to me by a doctor, along with a bunch of other medications.”

Gupta finally relents and agrees that ivermectin should not be called horse dewormer. When asked, “Does it bother you that the news network you work for out and out lied about me taking horse dewormer?” Gupta replied, “They shouldn’t have said that.”

When asked why they would lie about such an important medical issue, Gupta replied “I don’t know.” Gupta also admits he never asked why they did it, even though he’s their top medical correspondent.

FDA Attacks Ivermectin

While CNN and mainstream media are certainly at fault for spreading disinformation here, they got the idea from a supposedly reputable source — the FDA. In an August 21, 2021, tweet,⁷ the FDA linked to an agency article warning against the use of ivermectin, saying “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

This blatantly misleading post seeded the lie that then spread across mainstream media. In an article posted on RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo substack, two independent investigative health journalists, Mary Beth Pfeiffer and Linda Bonvie, detail how the FDA’s anti-ivermectin campaign began:⁸

“Within two days, 23.7 million people had seen that Pulitzer-worthy bit of Twitter talk. Hundreds of thousands more got the message on Facebook, LinkedIn, and from the Today Show’s 3 million-follower Instagram account.

‘That was great!’ declared FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in an email to her media team. ‘Even I saw it!’ For the FDA, the ‘not-a-horse’ tweet was ‘a unique viral moment,’ a senior FDA official wrote to Woodcock, ‘in a time of incredible misinformation’ …

When CNN retweeted ‘not-a-horse,’ FDA was gleeful. ‘The numbers are racking up and I laughed out loud,’ wrote FDA Associate Commissioner Erica Jefferson in one email … There was one problem, however. The tweet was a direct outgrowth of wrong data — call it misinformation — put out the day before by the Mississippi health department.

The FDA did not vet the data, according to our review of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and questions to FDA officials. Instead, it saw Mississippi, as one email said, as ‘an opportunity to remind the public of our own warnings for ivermectin.’”

The now infamous tweet was born out of a single sentence in a Mississippi poison control health alert, which stated that “At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.” The problem? That wasn’t accurate either.

Much Ado About Nothing

As it turns out, the real percentage of recent calls to poison control related to veterinary ivermectin was 2%, not 70%. In an October 5, 2021, correction, the Mississippi health department clarified that it wasn’t 70% of all poison control calls that involved veterinary ivermectin, it was 70% of all ivermectin-related calls.⁹

In absolute numbers, there were six such calls, and four of those calls actually related to livestock accidentally receiving the drug. Investigation by Pfeiffer and Bonvie also revealed that between July 31 and August 22, 2021, 40%, 10 of 24 ivermectin-related calls to the Mississippi poison control center were mere requests for information, which is a common occurrence.

“Without question, people should not take drugs made for animals, given issues of dosing and medical oversight, to name just two. That much is clear,” Pfeiffer and Bonvie write.¹⁰

“But in hopping on the Mississippi bandwagon, the FDA … turned ivermectin, which doctors and health ministers in several countries say has saved many from covid-19, into a drug to be feared, human form or not.

This highly effective bait-and-switch began last March with a webpage, to which the FDA tweet linked, that conflates the two ivermectins. On one hand, the FDA tells of receiving ‘multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention’ after taking the animal product.

On the other, it describes the fate awaiting people who take large amounts of any ivermectin, ending a long list with ‘dizziness, ataxia, seizures, coma and even death.’

The medical literature,¹¹ nonetheless, shows ivermectin to be an extremely safe medicine … Last March, a safety review¹² of ivermectin by a renowned French toxicologist could not find a single accidental overdose death in the medical literature in more than 300 safety studies of the drug over decades.

The study was performed for MedinCell, a French pharmaceutical company … Since 1992, twenty deaths have been linked to inexpensive, off-patent ivermectin, according to a World Health Organization drug tracker called VigiAccess …

So how big was the surge that FDA described as ‘multiple’? Four, an agency spokesperson said just after the page went up. Three people were hospitalized, but it wasn’t clear if that was for COVID itself.

When pressed for details, FDA cited privacy issues, and said in an email, ‘Some of these cases were lost to follow up.’ This is how government gets away with some whoppers, and with the media’s help.”

Ivermectin Is Safe; Remdesivir, Not so Much

According to VigiAccess, the World Health Organization’s drug tracker, a total of 20 deaths have been linked to ivermectin since 1992.¹³ Compare that safety profile to remdesivir, the primary drug used by hospitals across the U.S. against COVID-19.

Since the spring of 2020, VigiAccess has received 7,491 adverse events in all attributed to remdesivir, including 560 deaths, 550 serious cardiac disorders and 475 acute kidney injuries.¹⁴

The question is why remdesivir is being used at all, with the World Health Organization recommending¹⁵ against it and a new Lancet study¹⁶ finding “no clinical benefit.” Could it be that Fauci is involved with the fraud? Pfeiffer and Bonvie write.^17,18

“The other question is why ivermectin is not. The FDA tweet arrived just as ivermectin prescriptions were soaring, up twenty-four-fold in August from before the pandemic.

These were legal prescriptions written by doctors who, presumably, had read the studies, learned from experience, and decided for themselves. Indeed, 20 percent of prescriptions are written off-label,¹⁹ namely for other than an approved use.

The effort to vilify ivermectin broadly has helped curb the legal supply of a safe drug. That’s what drove people to livestock medicine in the first place.”

State AG Calls Out Medical Establishment for Misinformation

In better news, in early October 2021, the Nebraska Department of Health asked Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson to issue a legal opinion on the off-label use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

October 15, 2021, Peterson issued a legal opinion^20,21 stating health care providers can legally prescribe these medications for off-label use for the treatment of COVID, provided they have informed consent from the patient.²² The only causes for disciplinary action are failure to obtain informed consent, deception and/or prescribing excessively high doses.

Peterson concluded that, based on the available evidence, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin “might work for some people.”

He highlighted studies demonstrating the safety and benefits of these drugs against COVID-19, as well as the shocking scientific fraud that led to worldwide shunning of hydroxychloroquine, and the cherry-picking and exclusion of data in studies that are critical of ivermectin. He also pointed out how illogical it is to discourage early treatment.

“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” Peterson wrote.^23,24

Peterson also called out the FDA and Dr. Anthony Fauci on their hypocrisy, detailing how the FDA and National Institutes of Health seeded confusion by issuing contradictory guidance. The NIH has taken a neutral position to ivermectin, which Peterson “clearly signaled that physicians should use their discretion in deciding whether to treat COVID-19 patients with ivermectin.”

NIH officials, however, have ignored the agency’s official position. At the end of August 2021, Fauci “went on CNN and announced that ‘there is no clinical evidence’ that ivermectin works for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,’ and that ‘there is no evidence whatsoever’ that it works,” Peterson writes, adding:

“Yet this definitive claim directly contradicts the NIH’s recognition that ‘several randomized trials … published in peer-reviewed journals’ have reported data indicating that ivermectin is effective as a COVID-19 treatment.”

AG Blames FDA for Seeding Confusion

Peterson goes on to review the FDA’s behavior with respect to ivermectin:

“The FDA has similarly charted a course of confusion. In March 2021, the FDA posted a webpage entitled ‘Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Great or Prevent COVID-19.’

Although the FDA’s concern was stories of some people using the animal form of ivermectin or excessive doses of the human form, the title broadly condemned any use of ivermectin in connection with COVID-19.

Yet there was no basis for its sweeping condemnation. Indeed, the FDA itself acknowledged on that very webpage (and continued to do so until the page changed on September 3, 2021) that the agency had not even ‘reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19.’

But without reviewing the available data, which had long since been available and accumulating, it is unclear what basis the FDA had for denouncing ivermectin as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19.”

Peterson also highlights the fact that while the FDA claims ivermectin “is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses),” on another FDA webpage they list a study in Antiviral Research that “identified ivermectin as a medicine ‘previously shown to have broad-spectrum antiviral activity.”

“It is telling that the FDA deleted the line about ivermectin not being ‘anti-viral’ when it amended the first webpage on September 3, 2021,” Peterson writes.

He also points out that while the FDA now claims off-label use of drugs “can be very dangerous,” and that this is why they don’t recommend ivermectin for COVID, doctors routinely use drugs off-label, and ivermectin has a well-established safety record.

So, “it is inconsistent for the FDA to imply that ivermectin is dangerous when used to treat COVID-19 while the agency continues to approve remdesivir despite its spottier safety record,” Peterson writes.

AG Puts Professional Associations Under the Microscope

Peterson also questioned the stance of professional associations such as The American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which in September 2021 issuing a joint statement²⁵ opposing the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of clinical trials.

Their statement, Peterson points out, relied on the FDA’s and CDC’s “suspect positions,” and a statement by Merck, in which they opposed the use of the drug due to a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

“But Merck, of all sources, knows that ivermectin is exceedingly safe, so the absence of safety data in recent studies should not be concerning to the company,” Peterson writes, adding:

“Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons.

First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to ‘conduct clinical trials’ on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. [T]he U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment [molnupiravir], if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.

Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than, or even the same as molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.”

Another excellent article²⁶ detailing the FDA’s questionable actions, and Merck’s incentives to disparage their old drug, ivermectin, was published by the American Institute for Economic Research.

“While we can all be happy that Merck has developed a new therapeutic that can keep us safe from the ravages of Covid-19, we should realize that the FDA’s rules give companies an incentive to focus on newer drugs while ignoring older ones,” David Henderson, a senior fellow with AIERS, writes.²⁷

“Ivermectin may or may not be a miracle drug for Covid-19. The FDA doesn’t want us to learn the truth. The FDA spreads lies and alarms Americans while preventing drug companies from providing us with scientific explorations of existing, promising, generic drugs.”

Early Treatment Is Crucial

There’s no doubt that many have died unnecessarily due to our health authorities’ incomprehensible decision to discourage all prevention and early treatment of COVID-19. As noted by many doctors, early treatment is absolutely crucial for preventing hospitalization, death and long-term side effects of the infection.

There are several proven protocols to choose from at this point, including the following. Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

• The Zelenko protocol²⁸
• The MATH+ protocols²⁹
• Nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper³⁰ and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery

• Ivermectin vs. Merck’s New Antiviral, Molnupiravir

  Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

   

  • October 25, 2021

  https://youtu.be/hKa3EZqofNo

  <iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/hKa3EZqofNo” title=”YouTube video player” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>

  STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • One paper compared Merck’s data on molnupiravir against peer-reviewed data on ivermectin and found ivermectin has a low side effect profile, costs less than molnupiravir and is more effective against SARS-CoV-2
  • Clinical Trials data show Merck gathered 1,850 participants but released data on only 762 in the non-hospitalized arm of the study. The study with hospitalized patients anticipated 1,300 participants, but enrolled 304 before terminating for “business reasons”
  • Merck has applied for emergency use authorization for molnupiravir against COVID-19. Some are excited about an antiviral that may be effective against the virus, but the exclusion criteria for participants in the study may mean few will qualify to take the drug
  • For many, prophylaxis and early treatment do not require prescription medication. Optimize your vitamin D level to help prevent the illness, and use nebulized hydrogen peroxide after exposure or in combination with nutraceuticals for early treatment

  In the video above retired nurse lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D., reports on a comparative analysis of molnurpirivir and ivermectin published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics.¹ The first is Merck’s new antiviral drug and the second is the much vilified and maligned^2,3 antiparasitic drug used in humans since 1987⁴ and approved for human use in the U.S. in 1996.^5,6

  Campbell compares the efficacy, safety and cost using available data for ivermectin published in peer reviewed studies and the first interim data for molnupiravir published by Merck. Molnupiravir, also known as EIDD-2801/MK-4482⁷ has data published as early as October 2019 that showed it was a clinical candidate for monotherapy in influenza viruses.⁸

  And yet, Merck’s investigation into the oral antiviral medication against SARS-CoV-2 was not logged with Clinical Trials until October 5, 2020.⁹ While Gilead raced to release remdesivir, posting their first clinical trial February 5, 2020,¹⁰ Merck appeared to be slow off the mark. Gilead suspended or terminated the early trials for remdesivir. The reasons given included:

  • “The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well at present, no eligible patients can be recruited.”¹¹
  • “The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well in China, no eligible patients can be enrolled at present.”¹²

  The advantage molnupiravir has over remdesivir is that it is administered orally and can be used for early treatment in an outpatient setting. However, as we review the comparison between the drugs, it’s important to remember that the early data on molnupiravir has been published in a press release.¹³

  How Do Ivermectin and Molnupiravir Stack Up Against COVID-19?

  In the video Campbell reviews a paper published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics¹⁴ that was a chemical comparison of the pharmacological effects of molnupiravir and ivermectin. Looking at the two ways science uses to develop new treatments when a new condition arises,¹⁵ Campbell explains the first is to create a new drug and the second is to repurpose medications used for other conditions.

  For example, aspirin originally was used to treat fever. Once it became evident that it was also effective against pain, doctors began recommending it to relieve headaches and other minor aches and pains. Subsequently, it was found that aspirin was an effective antiplatelet, as well, and this function was added to the known uses for aspirin.

  According to the paper,¹⁶ Ivermectin is the “most studied, ‘repurposed’ medication globally, in randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies and meta-analysis.” Ivermectin is an FDA-approved, broad spectrum antiparasitic¹⁷ with known anti-inflammatory properties.¹⁸

  As Campbell reviews, an in vitro study¹⁹ demonstrated that a single treatment with ivermectin effectively reduced viral load 5,000 times in 48 hours in cell culture. By comparison, Merck claims molnupiravir is a broad-spectrum antiviral that is active against the Gamma, Delta and Mu SARS-CoV-2 variants.²⁰

  The data in the comparison paper show molnupiravir is more potent in-vitro than ivermectin,²¹ which means it needs less drug to work with a lower tissue concentration.²² The amount of time the maximum drug dose is found in the serum is one to 1.75 hours for molnupiravir and four to six hours for ivermectin.

  Interestingly, the half-life for Merck’s drug is seven hours and the half-life for ivermectin is 81 to 91 hours. This is the amount of time it takes for your body to reduce the active ingredients in the drug by half. Campbell also reviews the following factors:

  •Safety — No matter how well a drug works, if it’s not safe for use, it cannot be effective. Offering some examples of how ivermectin’s safety compares to other drugs, according to Campbell²³ the global database of the World Health Organization, VigiBase, recorded 5,593 adverse events from ivermectin after 3.7 billion doses were administered to humans.

  For comparison, VigiBase recorded 136,222 adverse events for amoxicillin and 165,479 for ibuprofen. At this time there is no VigiBase data available for molnupiravir, so no comparisons can be made for that drug yet. To take the example one step further, an outside look at acetaminophen adverse events shows that this drug (aka Tylenol) is many times more dangerous than ivermectin.

  In the U.S. alone²⁴ the National Institutes of Health’s STATPearls manual reports that there are 2,600 hospitalizations, 56,000 emergency room visits and 500 deaths each year for acetaminophen overdoses as of July 2021. And, the drug is the second leading cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the leading cause of transplantation in the U.S.

  •Efficacy — According to interim data from Merck,²⁵ molnupiravir reduced hospitalizations or deaths by 50% in 385 participants who had at least one risk factor associated with poor disease outcome. A meta-analysis of 15 trials²⁶ that included 2,438 participants demonstrated that ivermectin could reduce the risk of death by 62%.

  According to an ongoing collection from published data,²⁷ across all studies ivermectin is 86% effective prophylactically, 66% effective in early treatment and 36% effective in late treatment. By comparison, a Cochrane review of the literature²⁸ that Campbell references in the video found the data did not determine if ivermectin leads to more or less infections, worsened or improved infection, or increased or decreased unwanted events.

  •Cost — According to a Forbes report,²⁹ the raw material for the active pharmaceutical ingredients in molnupiravir costs about $2.50 per treatment. The cost of manufacturing the product would be $20, which is 35 times less than the price set by Merck of $700 per treatment. Additionally, Forbes reports that initially the drug will be purchased using federal funds.

  According to the treatment protocol by the FLCCC,³⁰ ivermectin is dosed at 0.4 to 0.6 mg/kg of body weight per dose once daily for five days. For an average person 160 pounds (72.5 kg), the dose is 29 mg to 43.5 mg per day for five days.

  The average cost for 30 tablets of 3 mg of ivermectin in the U.S. can run as high as $108 or as little as $29.72 with a drug discount program — a fraction of molnupiravir’s prices.³¹

  Peer Reviewed Study May Answer Molnupiravir Questions

  As I mentioned, according to the data released by Merck, molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% as compared to the placebo group.³² According to the numbers in their study, 28 people in the intervention group died or were hospitalized by Day 29 while 53 in the placebo treated group were hospitalized or died.

  Merck did not identify the placebo in either their press release³³ or in the Clinical Trials data.³⁴ Dr. James Lyons-Weiler also evaluated the results of the trial and asked some very pertinent questions, such as:³⁵

  •Why were patients taking a placebo allowed to die?

  “When there is a vast amount of published research on clear winners are the early treatment protocols as described by the medical authorities on the matter? Merck and NIH allowed 14.1% of people in the control arms to develop severe COVID-19 and die with no treatment. None. Just placebo.

  How did the NIH and the FDA let this happen in the face of the evidence of efficacy of early treatment? How could they? Because that’s the standard of care for early COVID-19: go home, incubate, get sick, and die if you must. But don’t call us until you are seriously ill.”

  •Why are the number of participants low? — When the study was first listed on Clinical Trials³⁶ the team initially anticipated 1,450 patients in a parallel phase 2/3 randomized, placebo-controlled study. This changed May 25, 2021, to 1,850 participants anticipated.³⁷

  At the completion of the study when they were no longer recruiting participants, they reported data on 762 participants in the press release³⁸ from 173 locations. What happened to the data from the rest of the participants?

  •Why was the second study for hospitalized patients terminated? — A second study³⁹ was ongoing during the same time period for hospitalized patients, having started October 5, 2020, and last updated September 9, 2021.

  They anticipated enrolling 1,300 patients but terminated the study for “business reasons” after enrolling 304. What happened to cause the company to close this arm of the study after enrolling so few patients and what happened to the data?

  Lyons-Weiler is a senior research scientist at the University of Pittsburgh.⁴⁰ He also listed the numerous exclusion criteria for participants in the study and went on to write:⁴¹

  “If, by any stretch of reason, FDA approval is made using the one interim analysis of (potentially) cherry-picked data in a cherry-picked study published as a press release without peer review, ignoring the data from the study not mentioned at all- their guidance should carry restrictions disallowing the use of the drug on or by patients in all of the excluded groups, including those who are hospitalized.

  If by some miracle the rules on full reporting are enforced for the buried molnupiravir trial, the identified data from the trials need to be audited to make sure patients with an undesirable outcome under one trial were not excluded because they were enrolled in another trial focused on studying that same outcome. That would point to more scientific chicanery, and we’ve all had more than enough of that.”

  CBS News⁴² reports that Merck has asked U.S. regulators for emergency use authorization for the drug against COVID-19. The decision could come in just a few weeks and “The FDA will scrutinize company data on the safety and effectiveness of the drug, molnupiravir, before rendering a decision.” It is hoped the FDA has access to all the data.

  Do We Really Need a Vaccine and a Treatment?

  Although Campbell adamantly defends the need for both a vaccine and treatment,⁴³ he also points to diseases such as the bubonic plague for which we have adequate treatment but do not have a vaccine,⁴⁴ even for areas of the world where it may have greater incidence.⁴⁵

  Campbell also believes that if there is a good quality antiviral medication, there would be less of an impact from COVID in countries where the vaccine rollout is patchy.

  And yet, data show that the number of confirmed cases of COVID in countries where much of the population is unvaccinated is not higher than in countries where nearly 100% have been given the jab. For example, as of October 13, 2021, according to the CNN COVID-19 vaccination tracker⁴⁶ and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center:⁴⁷

  Country	Vaccination Rate	Infections	Population48	% Population Infected
  Portugal	86.4%	1,075,639	10,196,709	10.5%
  United Arab Emirates	84.3%	737,890	9,890,402	7.4%
  Spain	79%	4,977,448	46,754,778	10.6%
  Ireland	74.6%	404,514	4,937,786	8.1%
  United States	55.8%	44,455,949	331,002,651	13.4%
  Russia	39.9%	7,687,559	145,934,462	5.2%
  Romania	29%	1,365,788	19,237,691	7%
  Indonesia	21.1%	4,228,552	273,523,615	1.5%
  India	19.6%	33,985,920	1,380,004,385	2.4%
  Vietnam	16.4%	843,281	97,338,579	0.86%
  Bangladesh	11.1%	1,562,958	164,689,383	0.9%
  Iraq	7.1%	2,024,705	40,222,493	5%
  Kenya	1.9%	251,248	53,771,296	0.4%
  Sudan	1.3%	38,827	43,849,260	0.088%

  In the past, according to the CDC’s definition, a vaccination program used a product that “stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”⁴⁹ But today, CDC’s new definition says vaccines are only meant to “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”⁵⁰ You’ll note that the new definition says a vaccine isn’t responsible for stimulating the immune system or protecting against any specific illness.

  According to COVID-19 statistics from the CDC,⁵¹ people over 65 carry the greatest burden of mortality. In 2020 this population accounted for 80.7% of deaths and thus far in 2021 this age range accounts for 71.2% of deaths in the U.S. However, these percentages are highly skewed since, to date, large populations of people are not offered or treated with successful protocols.

  This begs the question: How high has the CDC and FDA allowed the death rate to go by suppressing effective treatments that are readily available and economical?

  Prophylaxis and Early Treatment May Not Require Medication

  While ivermectin has demonstrated it is a useful strategy, it’s not my primary recommendation. You don’t necessarily need prescribed medication to help prevent, and in the early treatment of, COVID-19.

  I believe your best option to fighting the onset of any disease is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body requires this for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.^52,53 Then, for early treatment, or after you’ve been exposed to someone with COVID, I recommend using nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment.⁵⁴

  This treatment is inexpensive, highly effective, can easily be done at home and is completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended. In the video below I demonstrate how to make a low concentration of hydrogen peroxide at home and how to use your nebulizer. You’ll find my interviews with Dr. Thomas Levy⁵⁵ and Dr. David Brownstein⁵⁶ about this treatment on Bitchute.

  Argentinian Doctor Shares His Ivermectin Experience

  Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

   

  STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Argentina has extensive medical experience with ivermectin. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was used to treat dengue fever, which is endemic in Argentina
  • Early in the pandemic, Dr. Hector Carvallo, a retired medical professor in Argentina, devised two ivermectin trials to assess the drug’s usefulness against SARS-CoV-2. His treatment protocols are used in five Argentinian provinces. In one province, the death rate was reduced to one-third in less than a month, in the middle of the outbreak
  • When used preventatively, ivermectin is administered in conjunction with carrageenan, which also has antiviral properties
  • When treating mild cases, ivermectin is administered with aspirin; in moderate cases with aspirin and corticosteroids, and in severe cases, ivermectin is given with enoxaparin, an anticoagulant drug
  • These drug combinations were selected based on what was known about other viruses that cause similar health effects as SARS-CoV-2, such as the rhabdovirus’ effect on neurology, the paramyxovirus, which causes hyperinflammation in the lungs, and the dengue virus, which overamplifies the immune system

  In this interview, we continue the COVID-19 discussion with a medical expert from Argentina, Dr. Hector Carvallo, whose focus since early 2020 has been the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

  Carvallo graduated from medical school in 1981 — the same year AIDS emerged as a global pandemic. In the first two years, AIDS killed 2 million people. Since 1981, it has claimed the lives of 35 million. While officially retired for a couple of years, the 2020 COVID pandemic brought him out of retirement.

  “My first fire baptism was with AIDS,” he says. “I have dedicated my professional time to teaching and assisting. I graduated as a professor in 1996, and worked as a professor for the School of Medicine in Buenos Aires, which is public. Later, I was an associate professor of internal medicine for two private schools of medicine until I retired a couple of years ago.”

  Ivermectin Is a Potent Antiviral

  Interestingly, Carvallo had experience with ivermectin as an antiviral before the COVID outbreak. Argentinian doctors were using it against dengue fever, which is endemic in Argentina. So, when SARS-CoV-2 emerged, they decided to take another look at the drug to see if it might be useful.

  “We came across some studies that were being conducted in Australia at the Monash University by people like Dr. Kylie Wagstaff,” Carvallo says. “We supposed that it would be very useful because the virology in effect already proved that, and we decided — even before they published their first findings — to replicate what they were doing, but in vivo. That is, not in the laboratory but in human beings.”

  In early April 2020, Carvallo and his team developed two trials submitted to the National Library of Medicine in the United States. One was for preexposure¹ (prevention) and the other for treatment. In both cases, ivermectin was used as an adjunct to other compounds, as they didn’t believe it was a silver bullet by itself.

  For preventive purposes, they used ivermectin together with carrageenan, a food emulsifier and thickener that has a long history of use in both food and medicine. According to Carvallo, carrageenan has antiviral effects too, so the ivermectin was used in combination with topical carrageenan, administered through the nose and mucus membranes of the mouth.

  In the treatment trial, ivermectin was combined with aspirin for mild cases, aspirin and corticosteroids for moderately severe cases, and enoxaparin (an anticoagulant drug) for severe cases.

  These drug combinations were selected based on what was known about other viruses that cause similar health effects as SARS-CoV-2, such as the rhabdovirus’ effect on neurology, the paramyxovirus, which causes hyperinflammation in the lungs, and the dengue virus, which overamplifies the immune system.

  Early Treatment Is Crucial

  Like so many other doctors, Carvallo knew right from the start that early treatment would be crucial and that telling patients to just wait it out at home until they couldn’t breathe would be a death sentence.

  “We knew from the very first day we entered the school of medicine that the sooner you treat any illness, the more chances you will have to be successful in the treatment,” he says. “You have to treat quickly, and strongly. This is natural thinking. Nobody has to be a genius to know that. In this case, inexplicably, many doctors have been told to do nothing.

  To keep the patients in their homes on their own with just a few pills of Tylenol — which we know it’s good for nothing — until they cannot breathe properly. Then they have to be referred to the hospital. That is patient abandonment under any law in any country …

  If you walk around a corner and you see your neighbor’s house on fire, you may call 911. You may play hero and enter the house and try to save them. You may cry out for help. The only thing you must not do is nothing.

  I believe in any attempt to keep a mild patient, mild. What I cannot accept as a medical doctor — because it is against our oath — is to remain with arms folded until that person gets worse. That’s criminal … There’s only one reason for all this. The reason is summarized in one word, greed.”

  Aspirin was chosen for its anticoagulant effects. Another option recommended by American doctors is NAC, an over-the-counter supplement that both prevents blood clots and breaks up existing ones. NAC also has other benefits that makes it useful against COVID-19. Argentina does not allow the sale of supplements without prescription, so no dietary supplements were used in these particular trials.

  “That doesn’t mean we say they are not good,” Carvallo says. “We simply adjusted ourselves to what was there. We believe in the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. We believe in the effectiveness of azithromycin. Vitamin D, zinc, doxycycline. We believe in those compounds too. But we have not tried them.”

  Situational Update in Argentina

  So far, only five of the 24 provinces in Argentina have authorized these ivermectin-based protocols for prevention and early treatment, but at least that’s better than the U.S., where ivermectin is rejected outright. In many U.S. hospitals, doctors who dare prescribe it face being fired.

  As you’d expect with something that actually works, those five provinces are indeed faring better in terms of infection rates, hospitalizations and deaths. In one province, the death rate was reduced to one-third in less than a month, in the middle of the outbreak, when no vaccines were available.

  Argentina didn’t start rolling out their COVID shots until March 2021, and the vaccination campaign has been slow. Carvallo estimates no more than 40% of the population has received two doses so far.

  He believes the slow vaccine uptake is partly due to logistical challenges, and partly due to safety concerns. “Many people have preferred to use alternative methods instead of vaccines,” he says. Argentina may still move to make the injections mandatory, though.

  “You know what? Making an experiment mandatory and using the media to convince everybody to use it is not new,” Carvallo says. “It was done during the second World War. Josef Mengele and Joseph Goebbels did that.

  One made any experiment he wanted on people that were hopeless and at the camps. The other one was a minister of propaganda who convinced everybody that everything was OK … That’s what we are seeing. Let’s forget about science — common sense has been disregarded.”

  Carvallo himself ended up taking the Chinese COVID shot, as proof of vaccination was required for him to travel to Europe. In an effort to counter any potential side effects, he continues to take aspirin to prevent blood clots, and ivermectin. “I keep on using Ivermectin,” he says, “I’ve been using it for over a year.”

  Recommended Dosing Schedule

  In the U.S., ivermectin has been mocked and misrepresented as a veterinary drug. In reality, it’s been approved for human use for decades, and won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1995, at which time it was considered a miracle drug.

  “Even people from the CDC have said, ‘You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Why should you use Ivermectin?’” Carvallo says. “I would answer them, if they consider ivermectin is only for veterinary use, they are neither horses nor cows, they are asses. The fact is, we use ivermectin on a weekly basis for preexposure, that’s for prevention. The dose is 0.2 mg per kilo [of bodyweight. To calculate pounds into kilos, divide your weight in pounds by 2.2].

  We adjust the dose to the patient’s weight. One of the worst comorbidities for somebody contracting the virus is obesity. You cannot give the same dose to a skinny person and to an obese or morbid obese person. So, we adjust for that.

  We use it once a week. Now that Delta is appearing in South America, we are considering reducing it to three or four days between doses. Do you know why we use it on a weekly basis? Because ivermectin will work for 3.5 days. For the other three days, you will be exposed.

  You may contract the virus, but even before the virus can replicate enough to pass from the incubation period to the invasion period, you will take ivermectin again. So, you won’t know it exists. You won’t even realize you have contracted the disease. Your immune system will have [encountered] the virus and will start creating immunity …

  We keep on using that four months. We’ll stop for a couple of months because ivermectin will accumulate in the fat tissue. After two months of not using it, we start again.”

  Carvallo also points out that natural immunity is far stronger than artificial immunity created by the COVID shots. This is no surprise, because that’s how it’s always been with all other viruses. The key is to prevent the infection from getting a strong foothold. With early treatment, you’ll get through the infection just fine, and have robust and likely lifelong immunity.

  Addressing Toxicity Concerns

  As for the safety of ivermectin, studies in Africa have used doses that were 10 times higher than the 0.2 mg/kg recommended for COVID, without toxic effects. Hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, has a far narrower safety margin. This is well-known, and was clearly used to discredit the drug. As explained by Carvallo:

  “What they did with hydroxychloroquine in order to discredit it was easy. Hydroxychloroquine is also very useful against COVID. But the safety margin is narrow. What they did was to use three times the dose in order to cause toxicity. There were 200 studies in favor of hydroxychloroquine.

  There was one study talking about the toxicity, and all the scientific community in the world latched on to that one. That’s crazy. In the case of ivermectin, it was so wide a gap between safety and toxicity that they couldn’t do that. So, they just disregarded it.”

  Now, there are veterinary formulations of ivermectin. Do not use these, as they typically contain polyethylene glycol (PEG), which is toxic to humans. Ironically, the COVID shots actually contain PEG. Many are allergic to this substance, which is why anaphylaxis is such a common acute side effect of the jabs.

  Why Are COVID Jabs Still Recommended?

  As of September 24, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 15,937 reports of deaths following the COVID shot, 71,036 hospitalizations and more than 752,800 adverse events in total.²

  Calculations by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, based on VAERS data suggests the actual death toll may be around 212,000.³ He estimates side effects and deaths are under-reported by a factor of 41 or more, so the total number of injuries is likely between 2 million and 5 million.

  Even if we were to accept the official VAERS numbers, the death toll is astronomical. Under normal circumstances, a pandemic vaccine would be pulled after about 50 deaths. No explanation has ever been given for why the COVID shots are still being universally recommended after nearly 16,000 reported deaths.

  What we’re living is really a classic imitation of George Orwell’s book “1984.” Almost everything government and health officials say is the exact opposite of the truth. Right is left. Up is down. Black is white. For those who know the facts, it’s a surreal experience. Double standards have also become the norm. As noted by Carvallo:

  “The vaccine is almost sacred. It’s like a Bible. Whatever we say in favor of other treatments is a sin. Nobel Prize [winners] of medicine, like Luc Montagnier and Satoshi Omura, have been censored on the media. It’s crazy.”

  What’s more, we already have evidence showing the shots don’t work as advertised. They lose effectiveness very rapidly. The answer we’re given is booster shots. Israel is already talking about a fourth dose, and the injections have not even been out for a full year yet.

  “If you give a medicine and don’t get a positive result in a few days, you reconsider either your diagnosis or your treatment,” Carvallo says. “You don’t insist on the same thing because it’s insane to insist on the same thing trying to get different results.”

  The reason we keep getting more variants is because the vaccine is “leaky.” It doesn’t prevent you from getting infected, so the virus starts to mutate to evade the vaccine-induced antibody. Carvallo agrees, adding that it’s equally insane that the shots are designed to produce antibodies against just one portion of the virus, the spike protein, rather than act against the pathogenesis of the virus.

  When you recover from a natural infection, you have both humoral and cellular immunity, and even though humoral immunity (antibodies) will decrease within a few months, you still have latent cellular immunity that will spring into action when needed.

  The COVID shots do not provide any cellular immunity, which is why they cannot achieve herd immunity, even if 100% of a population is injected. Carvallo also points out that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is now the weakest it’s ever been. The real enemy at this point is the propaganda that keeps fear alive.

  Now’s the Time to Take Control of Your Health

  Carvallo is one of those rare individuals who has been able to perform research others cannot at this time. He’s retired, so he has no funding or career to lose. He hopes that, eventually, more doctors will go back to thinking for themselves and return to their oath to do no harm, and to focus on what’s best for their patients rather than the bureaucracy currently dictating what they can and cannot do.

  According to projections, we could potentially see billions of people die or be permanently disabled from these experimental injections. How are we going to take care of them all? Who’s going to pay for their care? Already, U.S. entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — are nearing bankruptcy.

  According to David Martin, Ph.D.,⁴ pension programs and entitlement programs will all run out by 2028, and as they run out of money, the drug industry will collapse as well, as they are the primary beneficiaries of these programs. Medicare and Medicaid pay for the bulk of the drug dependency in America.

  So, in just a few years’ time, we’ll be facing a convergence of collapses on multiple fronts, and at the same time, large portions of the population may be severely ill and wholly dependent on these systems for their survival.

  Society also requires all sorts of infrastructure, and if large portions of society are crippled or dead, society will collapse from lack of qualified workers alone. So, the COVID shot mandates are clearly making an already precarious situation far worse, as the financial system would be collapsing anyway.

  The best thing anyone can do right now to prepare for this convergence of collapses is to focus on your health. Make sure you’re as healthy as you can be. Be sure to optimize your vitamin D level, for example, and avoid toxins of all kinds. Getting used to growing some of your own food would also be a good idea, as would looking into ways to protect your retirement assets.

  More Information

  To learn more about ivermectin, you can download a free ebook created by Carvallo and his team. It contains not only their Argentinian studies but also other peer-reviewed scientific articles detailing the benefits of ivermectin in the fight against COVID-19. You can find the bilingual (English and Spanish) book, “Ivermectin in COVID-19: Prophylaxis and Treatment,” on iniciatherapeutics.com.

   

• October 24, 2021