Atty General: IVM side effects “vanishingly small”,Docs can Rx IVM –and HCQ– for COVID; Calls our FDA,CDC,Fauici,Media for “fueling..misinformation” — Nebraska AG(2)Twenty mechanisms of action for IVM vs COVID analyzed:Published paper
Article Compilation and Commentary by EconDemocracy.
- Main article from Children’s Health Defense with comments
- Bombshell quotes from 2020 article in New York Times which shows that the later-retracted anti-hydroxychloroquine article (with FAKE data) couldn’t have been published by mistake
- “Blast from the Not So Distant Past” on Ivermectin as “multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations” say 2017 article in top level research journal
- Powerful NIH-indexed published review article on effectiveness of Ivermectin including FLCCC luminaries as co-authors
- Research paper lists a whopping twenty (20!) plausible or proven methods of action for Ivermectin
- Resource links: Meta-analysis websites for Ivermectin and for Hydroxychloroquine
- Bonus: truly remarkably in depth, on Resistance Chicks website: “What To Do If Your Family Gets The Bug” (link)
Nebraska Attorney General calls out disinformation by the Establishment and backs use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorquine? Not only that, but:
“The Lancet’s own editor-in-chief admitted that the [later retracted] paper was a ‘fabrication,’ a ‘monumental fraud‘ and a ‘shocking example of research misconduct’ in the middle of a global health emergency,” Peterson wrote in the opinion.Quotes we covered months ago but went on to research some more, showing it was not a ‘mistake’ when the anti-HCQ paper was originally accepted; we quoted several experts who covered huge red flags that no editor could possibly have missed, including “impossible data” so pristine and perfect that data of that kind simply in decades of research, does not exist. So it was not a mistake. It was either massive political pressure on them, or their own anti-HCQ biases, or both, that led them to ignore the huge, obvious, in-your-face red flags, and publish the anti-HCQ paper anyway; only outrcy from e.g. the reserach community itself (so glaring and over the top were the holes, red flags and more) led the Editors to question the “researchers” for data, and then it blew up that it was frauduelnt data, “fabrication” But the hysteria succeeded: it forced WHO which until then was for allowing trials, to suspent..and others, governments, etc…eventually retracted, but how many people died first? But hey, at least politicians got to score fake “I’m more anti-Trump than you” points and Big Pharma had its own reasons to smile.
The evidence and dozens of RCTs for Ivermectin are even more dramatic and possibly more effective (though ex Harvard Med School professor Dr. George Freed among others, has used both IVM and HCQ (along with zinc etc) in his cocktail, so using one doesn’t exclude the other) and it’s currently the major target and victim of character assassinations against doctors, smears, massive pressure, and an enormous propaganda campaign including the FDA “you’re not horses y’all”. Can you imagine if the Trump admin tweeted that out?
While CNN et al calling what a physician prescribed to a human (Joe Rogan’s physician prescribed to him) calling it “Joe Rogan announces he had COVID and..[used] horse dewormer Ivermectin” (CNN, I have the screenshot) and “Joe Rogan taking livestock drug” (CNN, I have the screenshot; also thanks to leftist Jimmy Dore Show on youtube) Not only 2015 Nobel Prize winner in human Medicine but more narrowly on the specific drug Rogan took, he did not use animal grade — it was his physician, that makes it 100% a lie and CNN knew it was lying and as I said before, those Americans who resorted to animal-grade medicine that is completely and squarely on the shoulders of the vicious campaign to suppress and deny access — nothing like the fairy tales (long debunked by the hospital in Louisiana that I sent email about, right on their hospital website’s front page) of hospitals overrun with adverse reactions etc…but what much smaller harm *was* done from people resorting to using animal grade and/or self prescribing is 100% morally —and probably legally -should be what the establishment must be held accountable for
(1) Groundbreaking: Nebraska AG Says Doctors Can Legally Prescribe Ivermectin, HCQ for COVID, Calls Out FDA, CDC, Fauci, Media for ‘Fueling Confusion and Misinformation’
At the request of the Nebraska Department of Health, on Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.
By Megan Redshaw for Children’s Health Defense
Few subjects have been more controversial than ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine—two long-established, inexpensive medications widely and successfully used in many parts of the world for the prevention and treatment of COVID.
On Oct. 15, Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe off-label medications like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.
However, if they did neglect to obtain consent, deceive, prescribe excessively high doses or other misconduct, they could be subject to discipline, Peterson wrote.
The AG’s office emphasized it was not recommending any specific treatment for COVID. “That is not our role,” Peterson wrote. “Rather, we address only the off-label early treatment options discussed in this opinion and conclude that the available evidence suggests they might work for some people.”[far stronger language than “might”, below, and on IVMmeta website for that matter -E.D.]
Peterson said allowing physicians to consider 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.
The opinion, based on an assessment of relevant scientific literature, was rendered in response to a request by Dannette Smith, CEO of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.
Smith asked the AG’s office to look into whether doctors could face discipline or legal action under Nebraska’s Uniform Credential Act (UCA) — meant to protect public health, safety and welfare — if they prescribed ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
“After receiving your question and conducting our investigation, we have found significant controversy and suspect information about potential COVID-19 treatments,” Peterson wrote.
For example, a paper published in the Lancet — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world — denounced hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, yet the statistics were flawed and the authors refused to provide analyzed data.
The paper was retracted, but not before countries stopped using the drug and trials were cancelled or interrupted.
“The Lancet’s own editor-in-chief admitted that the paper was a ‘fabrication,’ a ‘monumental fraud’ and a ‘shocking example of research misconduct’ in the middle of a global health emergency,” Peterson wrote in the opinion.
A recently published paper on COVID recognized that “for reasons that are yet to be clarified,” early treatment has not been emphasized despite numerous U.S. healthcare providers advocating for early treatment and “scores of treating and academic physicians” — who have published papers in well respected journals — urging early interventions.
Peterson cited numerous studies showing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by up to 75% or more when used as a preventative or prophylaxis for COVID, suggesting hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved had the drugs been widely used in America.
“Every citizen — Democrat or Republican — should be grateful for Doug Peterson’s thoughtful and courageous counteroffensive against the efforts of Big Pharma, its captive federal regulators, and its media and social media allies to silence doctors and deny Americans life-saving treatments,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender via email.
“We finally have a leader who puts constitutional rights, peer-reviewed science and human health above industry profits. Doug Peterson is uncowed and unbowed — a genuine hero on horseback for all Americans.” Kennedy said.
Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland agreed. “This Nebraska AG opinion lets doctors get back to being doctors — without being second-guessed by government, pharmacists and others interfering in the crucial doctor-patient relationship,” Holland said.
Although the AG’s office did not rule out the possibility that other off-label drugs might show promise — either now or in the future — as a prophylaxis or treatment against COVID, it confined its opinion to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for the sake of brevity.
Nebraska AG highlights science on ivermectin
In his legal opinion, Peterson concluded evidence showed ivermectin demonstrated striking effectiveness in preventing and treating COVID, and any side effects were primarily minor and transient. “Thus, the UCA does not preclude physicians from considering ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID,” Peterson wrote.
In the decade leading up to the COVID pandemic, Peterson found numerous studies showing ivermectin’s antiviral actiÂvity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins, adding to 50 years of research confirming ivermectin’s antiviral effects.
In addition, safety data for ivermectin showed side effects were “vanishingly small.” The latest statistics available through VigiAccess reported only 5,674 adverse drug reacÂtions to ivermectin between 1992 and October 13, 2021, an “incredibly low” number given that 3.7 billion doses have been administered since the 1980s, Peterson wrote.
Peterson cited several studies showing ivermectin led to improvement of COVID outcomes when used in early treatment or as a prophylaxis, while noting many studies with negative findings about ivermectin “excluded most available evidence,” cherry picked data within studies, misreported data, made unsupported assertions of adverse reactions to ivermectin and had “conclusions that did follow from evidence.”
Peterson also found that epidemiological evidence for ivermectin’s effectiveness, derived by analyzing COVID-related data from various states, countries or regions is instructive in the context of a global pandemic.
In one instance, a group of scholars analyzed data comparing COVID rates of countries that routinely administer ivermectin as a prophylaxis and countries that did not. The research showed “countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic…ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.”[Not just countries; also countries-during-periods; can’t recall if FLCCC or elsewhere, about, iirc, Peru or other South aMerican country, change of government (more pro-Establishment one), ended policy, stopped IVM, rates spiked, finally gov’t relented, re-started IVM, and rates went much lower again. Need to find my notes for details but that’s in a nutshell. Also FLCCC on Uttar Pradesh nix’d the first COVID wave, then massive (literally millions) of internal immigrants from other parts of India, brought Delta into Uttar Pradesh, a big spike; they again used IVM plus massive public health outreach including at public bus stops to make sure education, testing, contact tracing, and IVM (plus etc) as prophylaxis..and second spike was taken way down by ~240M population state of Uttar Pradesh -E.D.]
“This ‘highly significant’ correlation manifests itself not only ‘in a worldwide context’ but also when comparing African countries that regularly administer prophylactic ‘ivermectin against parasitic infections’ and African countries that do not,” Peterson wrote. “Based on these results, the researchers surmised that these results may be connected to ivermectin’s ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely leads to lower infection rates.”
Nebraska AG calls out FDA, Fauci on hypocrisy on ivermectin
Many U.S. health agencies have now addressed the use of ivermectin for COVID. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has adopted a neutral position, choosing not to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin — a change from its position in January 2021 where it discouraged use of the drug for treatment of COVID.
“The reason for the change is the NIH recognized several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals. And some of those studies reported positive outcomes, including shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, [and] lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.”
Yet, on Aug. 29, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases within the NIH, went on CNN and announced “there is no clinical evidence” that ivermectin works for the prevention or treatment of COVID. Fauci went on to reiterate that “there is no evidence whatsoever” that it works.[Complete bunk, and Fauci knows it -E.D.]
“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 COVI D-19 treatment,” Peterson wrote.
In March 2021, the FDA posted a webpage, “Why You Should Not Use lvermectin to Treat 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 [which is the 100% fault of the massive campaign to clock, hamper, smear, intimidate and otherwise suppress access to human grade from Rx by healthcare providers -E.D.], the title broadly condemned any use of [even human grade] ivermectin in connection with COVID-19,” Peterson wrote. “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 to 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.
“On that same webpage, the FDA also declared that ‘[i]vermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).’ It did so while another one of its webpages simultaneously cited a study in Antiviral Research that identified ivermectin as a medicine ‘previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity.'” [See also my own additions below this Children’s Defense article; we’ve known for years and years IVM is an **antiviral** not just anti-parasitic, drug! -E.D.]
“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 noted.
Peterson said the FDA’s most controversial statement on ivermectin was made on Aug. 21, when it posted a link on Twitter to its “Why You Should Not Use lvermectin” webpage with this statement: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
“This message is troubling not only because it makes light of a serious matter but also because it inaccurately implies that ivermectin is only for horses or cows,” Peterson wrote.
Peterson said the FDA has assailed ivermectin’s safety while ignoring the fact that physicians routinely prescribe medications for off-label use and that ivermectin is a “particularly well-tolerated medicine with an established safety record.”
Peterson added the FDA is ignoring several randomized controlled trials and at least one metaÂanalysis suggesting ivermectin is effective against COVID. He pointed out the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention has adopted a similar stance — unsupported by scientific evidence — and the media has fueled confusion and misinformation on the drug.
Peterson questions professional associations’ stance on ivermectin
Professional associations in the U.S. and internationally have adopted conflicting positions on ivermectin and COVID. The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) issued a statement in September strongly opposing the ordering, prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of a clinical trial.
But their statement relied solely [!] on the FDA’s and CDC’s suspect positions.
The AMA, APhA and ASHP also mentioned a statement by Merck — the original patent-holder — opposing the use of ivermectin for COVID because of 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 wrote.
Peterson called into question the objectivity of Merck in providing an opinion on ivermectin that U.S. health agencies are relying upon. “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?” Peterson asked. “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, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”
Merck’s treatment is known as “molnupiravir,” and aims to stop COVID from progressing when given early in the course of disease. When Merck announced Oct. 1, that preliminary studies indicated molnupiravir reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half [aka less impressive than IVM -E.D.] , the drug maker’s stock price immediately jumped to 12.3%.
“Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than, or even the same as molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars,” Peterson wrote.
Peterson takes on science of hydroxychloroquine
Peterson said based on his review of the evidence, his office did not find clear and convinÂcing evidence that would warrant disciplining physicians who prescribe hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or early treatment of COVID after first obtaining informed patient consent.
Peterson pointed to similar findings with hydroxychloroquine — a less toxic derivative of a medicine named chloroquine — widely used since it was approved by the FDA in 1955 for treatment of malaria.
Peterson noted that as early as 2004, a lab study revealed chloroquine was “an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro” and should “be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections.”
In 2005, another study showed chloroquine had strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection and was effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV in cell cultures.
Other studies showed hydroxychloroquine exhibited antiviral properties that can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 virus entry, transmission and replication, and contains anti-inflammatory properties that help regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Peterson wrote, “many large observational studies suggest that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death when administered to Âparticularly high-risk outpatients as part of early COVID-19 treatment.”
Peterson said the drug is considered to be so safe it can be prescribed for pregnant women, yet during the pandemic, the FDA raised questions about hydroxychloroquine and adverse cardiac events [but let’s experiment on pregnant women with the vaccine, without any ‘concerns’ ruling that out, right? -E.D.]
These concerns prompted one group of researchers to conduct a systematic review of the hydroxychloroquine safety literature pre-COVID. Their review indicated people taking hydroxychloroquine in appropriate doses “are at very low risk of experiencing cardiac [adverse events], particularly with short-term administration” of the drug.[Search your inbox for past issues of this email list on Dr. Oz interviewing mult-award winning physician from renowned Cedars Sinai med. center on how HCQ is not only safer than CQ but how they can safely administer to e.g. Lupus patients for year/their whole lives with near zero risk; let alone, the renowned physician added, for something short-term like in the case of COVID -E.D.]
Researchers noted COVID itself can cause cardiac problems, and there was no reason “to think the medication [HCQ] itself had changed after 70 years of widespread use,” Peterson wrote.
Peterson said one piece of key flawed data had substantially contributed to safety concerns surrounding the drug — the admittedly fraudulent Lancet study that falsely claimed hydroxychloroquine increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID.
The findings were so startling that major drug trials involving hydroxychloroquine “were immediately halted” and the World Health Organization pressured countries like Indonesia that were widely using hydroxychloroquine to ban it. Some countries, including France, Italy and Belgium, stopped using it for COVID altogether.
“The problem, however, is that the study was based on false data from a company named Surgisphere, whose founder and CEO Sapan Desai was a co-author on the published paper.
“The data were so obviously flawed that journalists and outside researchers began raising concerns within days of the paper’s publication. Even the Lancet’s editor in chief, Dr. Richard Horton, admitted that the paper was a fabrication, a monumental fraud and a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.”
Despite calls for the Lancet to provide a full expansion of what happened, the publication declined to provide details for the retraction.
As with ivermectin, the FDA and NIH adopted positions against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID — making assertions that were unsupported by data. The AMA, APhA and ASHP, which opposed ivermectin, also resisted hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID.
By contrast, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and other physician groups, support the use of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment option for COVID. Peterson cited an article co-authored by more than 50 doctors in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine who advocated an early treatment protocol that includes hydroxychloroquine as a key component.
Governing law allows physicians to prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, AG says
Neb. Rev. Stat. Â§ 38-179 generally defines unprofessional conduct as a “departure from or failure to conform to the standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of a profession or the ethics of the profession, regardless of whether a person, consumer or entity is injured, or conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public or is detrimental to the public interest.”
The regulation governing physicians states that unprofessional conduct includes:
“[c]onduct or practice outside the normal standard of care in the State of Nebraska which is or might be harmful or dangerous to the health of the patient or the public, not to include a single act of ordinary negligence.”
Peterson said healthcare providers do not violate the standard of care when they choose between two reasonable approaches to medicine.
“Regulations also indicate that physicians may utilize reasonable investigative or unproven therapies that reflect a reasonable approach to medicine so long as physicians obtain written informed patient consent,” Peterson wrote.
“Informed consent concerns a doctor’s duty to inform his or her patient, and it includes telling patients about the nature of the pertinent ailment or condition, the risks of the proposed treatment or procedure and the risks of any alternative methods of treatment, including the risks of failing to undergo any treatment at all.”
Peterson said this applies to prescribing medicine for purposes other than uses approved by the FDA, and that doing so falls within the standard of care repeatedly recognized by the courts.
Peterson said the U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that “off-label usage of medical devices” is an “accepted and necessary” practice, and the FDA has held the position for decades that “a physician may prescribe [a drug] for uses or in treatment regimens or patient populations that are not included in approved labeling.”
Peterson said the FDA has stated “healthcare providers generally may prescribe [a] drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient, and nothing in the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) limit[s] the manner in which a physician may use an approved drug.”
In a statement to KETV NewsWatch 7, Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services said:
“The Department of Health and Human Services appreciates the AG’s office delivering an opinion on this matter. The document is posted and available to medical providers as they determine appropriate course of treatment for their patients.”
(2) Bombshell quotes from 2020 article in New York Times which shows that the later-retracted anti-hydroxychloroquine article couldn’t have been published by mistake
One thing not in the Children’s Health Defense article; research I’d previously done, revealing there’s no way that later-retracted anti-HCQ article could have been accepted despite the fraud data by pure innocent mistake — couldn’t have been.. I’m referring to info I sent to my email list, Subject:
Deadly Scandal WORSENS: Your Health Is Political Football; even New York Times Forced to Admit (part of) Ugly Truth
…an email sent out on June 18 of 2020 — which you can find by searching your inbox for longer and more details but: not the only but a key quote from that email:
It was an enormous international registry, yet scientists had not heard of it[DID YOU GET THAT?No way top experts “didn’t notice” that—it was politically motivated to publish -E.D.]. The data were immaculate, he noted. There were few missing variables: Race appeared to have been recorded for nearly everyone. So was weight. Smoking rates didn’t vary much [which it shouldhave varied, its noted elsewhere -E.D.] between continents, nor did rates of hypertension.[and] “Nobody has complete data on all these variables. It’s impossible. You can’t.”
That’s already three huge red flags, “enormous international registry, yet scientists had not hear of it” plus [smoking etc] rates the same for countries where that isn’t the case; and thirdly, the bombshell, “the data were immaculate…Nobody has complete data on all these variables. It’s impossible. You can’t” [I link to MedicalExpress article and a New York Times article in that June 2020 email..let’s see..it’s the New York Times and here’s a backup copy at:
which has the “impossible” quote. This is why I say it can’t have been a mistake; it means the editors, top to bottom, were either under huge pressure, or themselves biased; probably some of each, probably (i) a lot of people who despite being scientists believed the MSM lies that “Trump likes it so it must be poison” or believed lies by Big Pharma against it (that woman from Frontline Doctors group; not Dr. Stella..she is religious conservative and she was on Glen Beck and said she initially thought it was only due to anti-Trump but says she later found out some country in Europe banned or stopped the ok for HCQ before even Trump spoke..suggesting Big Pharma hand was first reasons, and “Trump Derangement Syndrome” was only second reason, for insane anti-HCQ. Doesn’t matter that IVM seems to be somewhat better now, it means back when HCQ was best we knew of, lives came second to them. Ugh) and (ii) other editors under huge pressure, I’m not excusing them, but they might not have been as evil, and might have even tried to push back a little and raised questions, but faced massive pressure to OK it…and some a mix of both
(3) Blast from the Not So Distant Past:
From 2017 prestigious journal:
Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations
Abstract: Over the past decade, the global scientific community have begun to recognize the unmatched value of an extraordinary drug, ivermectin, that originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan. Work on ivermectin has seen its discoverer, Satoshi ÅŒmura, of Tokyo’s prestigious Kitasato Institute, receive the 2014 Gairdner Global Health Award and the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which he shared with a collaborating partner in the discovery and development of the drug, William Campbell of Merck & Co. Incorporated. 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.
Very highly respected journal: https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
Hello..Antiviral was known and not just from this one paper..So wasn’t even a shock that it was a good candidate versus viruses and even coronavirus family..It was therefore, medically and scientifically,100% reasonable to suspect that it might help at least a little and maybe very significantly. But mention it today and millions brainwashed will ridicule you all while confident that *you* are the uneducated one…
(4) Powerful review article on effectiveness of Ivermectin including FLCCC luminaries as co-authors (FLCCC) at:
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 Pierre Kory, MD,1,* Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, MD,2 Joseph Varon, MD,3 Jose Iglesias, DO,4 and Paul E. Marik, MD5
Conclusions: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of Ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of Ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of Ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
(5) Research paper lists a whopping twenty (20!) plausible or proven methods of action for Ivermectin
Last big item for now, found a paper listing 20(!) plausible or proven methods of action by Ivermectin versus COVID:J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2021 Jun 15 : 1–13.
The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article
They go into much more detail but just their outline:
The possible modes of action of anti-viral agents would include the following:
- Inactivate extracellular virus particles.
- Prevent viral attachment and/or entry.
- Prevent replication of the viral genome.
- Prevent synthesis of specific viral protein(s).
- Prevent assembly or release of new infectious virions
The role of Ivermectin against the SARS-CoV-2 virus
The targets of activity of Ivermectin can be divided into the following four groups:
- A.Direct action on SARS-CoV-2Level 1: Action on SARS-CoV-2 cell entryLevel 2: Action on Importin (IMP) superfamilyLevel 3: Action as an Ionophore
- B.Action on host targets important for viral replicationLevel 4: Action as an antiviralLevel 5: Action on viral replication and assemblyLevel 6: Action on post-translational processing of viral polyproteinsLevel 7: Action on Karyopherin (KPNA/KPNB) receptors
- C.Action on host targets important for inflammationLevel 8: Action on Interferon (INF) levelsLevel 9: Action on Toll- like-Receptors (TLRs)Level 10: Action on Nuclear Factor-ÎºB (NF-ÎºB) pathwayLevel 11: Action on the JAK-STAT pathway, PAI-1 and COVID-19 sequalaeLevel 12: Action on P21 activated Kinase 1 (PAK-1)Level 13: Action on Interleukin-6 (IL-6) levelsLevel 14: Action on allosteric modulation of P2X4 receptorLevel 15: Action on high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1),Level 16: Action as an immunomodulator on Lung tissue and olfactionLevel 17: Action as an anti-inflammatory
- D.Action on other host targetsLevel 18: Action on Plasmin and Annexin A2Level 19: Action on CD147 on the RBCLevel 20: Action on mitochondrial ATP under hypoxia on cardiac function
The direct “antiviral targets” may be useful in the early stages while the anti-inflammatory targets might be addressed in the later stages of the disease.
For example for #3 alone, which I looked at because I also have heard about HCQ and Quercetin as *zinc* ionophores thus helpful, I peeked at their paragraph for #3 alone, other types of ionophore actions:
Level 3: Action as an Ionophore
Ionophores are molecules that typically have a hydrophilic pocket which constitutes a specific binding site for one or more ions (usually cations), while its external surface is hydrophobic, allowing the complex thus formed to cross the cell membranes, affecting the hydro-electrolyte balance . It can be hypothesized that two ivermectin molecules, reacting with each other in a “head-tail” mode, can create a complex suitable to be considered such . These ionophores allow neutralizing the virus at an early stage of the infection before it can adhere to the host cells and enter it to exploit their biochemical machinery for the production of other viral particles.
Remind me again why FDA approves drugs with zero or one Randomized Controlled trial but IVM with dozens and dozens and dozens or RCTs for IVM and the average showing 84% effectiveness as prophylaxis [current average(*)] and 62%-73% effective for Early Treatment[and nontrivial for even late treatment] plus 100,000,000’s of people having taken it and almost 4 Billion doses over decades and decades — is “not” enough to recommend, or worse, not enough for even a lukewarm allowance by the alphabet agencies, for doctors to try IVM? But EUA’s and even red carpet for Big Pharma?(wait did the “EUA” just partly answer our question?Since EUA may be nix’d if alternatives exist, so it’s “ok” if people die because politicians did their CYA?)
(6) Two “Backgrounder” Resources — Meta-Analyses of Published Papers on IVM&HCQ Effectiveness
[I haven’t been following very orten since IVM seems better at the moment but meta analysis summary for HCQ is at https://hcqmeta.com/ ]
(7) Another resource, truly remarkably in depth, on Resistance Chicks website is: What To Do If Your Family Gets The Bug