Friday, October 22, 2021

The Confusing Message About Ivermectin

Since the early days of the pandemic, one drug that has been used to solve the "COVID-19 puzzle" has been the object of scorn from the left-leaning mainstream media since it doesn't involve the use of expensive, experimental vaccines brought to the world by Big Pharma.  This has become particularly evident since Joe Rogan brought his use of ivermectin during his experience with COVID-19 to the forefront, creating a sh!tstorm of criticism from the mainstream media which gleefully refers to ivermectin as "horse paste" or "horse dewormer".  In this posting, I want to provide a bit of interesting trivia about ivermectin which actually appears on the website of the National Institutes for Health of which Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is a part, one of 27 Institutes or Centers which make up the NIH.


Let's open with this information on ivermectin from the NIH website regarding the use of the "wonder drug" in humans:


"There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. Several extensive reports, including reviews authored by us, have been published detailing the events behind the discovery, development and commercialization of the avermectins and ivermectin (22,23-dihydroavermectin B), as well as the donation of ivermectin and its use in combating Onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis.  However, none have concentrated in detail on the interacting sequence of events involved in the passage of the drug into human use....


Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, being highly effective and broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated and could be easily administered (a single, annual oral dose). It is used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, including Onchocerciasis, Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).  Ivermectin is the essential mainstay of two global disease elimination campaigns that should soon rid the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases, Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic filariasis, which blight the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics. It is likely that, throughout the next decade, well over 200 million people will be taking the drug annually or semi-annually, via innovative globally-coordinated Mass Drug Administration (MDA) programmes."


In reading the entire article, ivermectin has successfully been used in humans for nearly three decades and, since 1988, has not just been used as "horse paste".


With that in mind, let's now look at with this tweet from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from August 2021:



Here's another weigh in on ivermectin from the FDA:


As a viable and preferred option to ivermectin, not surprisingly, here's what the FDA recommends to prevent COVID-19 even though none of the vaccines prevent transmission:


"The most effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 include getting a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available to you and following current CDC guidance."


The World Health Organization has also weighed into the ivermectin controversy as shown here:



According to the WHO's guidance, ivermectin is only supposed to be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials.


Now, let's look at what the NIH has to say about ivermectin in this table regarding the characteristics of antiviral agents that can be used to treat COVID-19:


While the table from the NIH outlining three antivirals which are either approved or under evaluation as treatments for COVID-19, it is, nonetheless, quite interesting to see that "horse paste" makes the list as a potential treatment and would appear to have minimal adverse events associated with its use compared to the myriad of adverse events associated with the use of the mRNA vaccines currently being heavily promoted by public health officials and governments around the world.  Given the haste to which the COVID-19 vaccines were brought to market, it is interesting how slow the drug approval agencies are to provide clearance for the use of the decades-old ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, particularly since the use of the drug was proposed by Dr. Pierre Kory during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on December 8, 202 as shown here.


Is is any wonder that the general public is so confused about the most effective treatment options for COVID-19 when even the United States government seems to have difficulty keeping their own narrative straight?  But, then again, how would Big Pharma profit from a drug that costs a few dollars per dose?  Just like other options for treating COVID-19, ivermectin has been turned into a political football, pitting the right against the left.  


  1. i think you're the one using uncertainty to promote a certain kind of agenda or "narrative".
    Ivermectin use for Covid-19, at this point, is not supported by good quality evidence. Overall, it's unlikely to be beneficial at any stage of the disease.
    The statement: "here's what the FDA recommends to prevent COVID-19 even though none of the vaccines prevent transmission" is almost certainly wrong as evidence strongly suggests significantly decreased transmission before the Delta variant and still adequate decreased transmission (although more modest) since the the Delta variant. You also need to note that variants' emergence have been relatively high as a result of unusual levels of low vaccine availability or (which is especially perplexing) irrationally elevated hesitancy.

  2. Carl

    I'm not sure what your agenda is. Do you happen to work for Big Pharma? How do you explain India's success at using Ivermectin to reduce cases?

    Try looking at some of these studies. I have.

  3. -My agenda is enlightenment through reason.
    -India's evolution shows some correlation between ivermectin use and decreasing cases but there's no coherent link to causality.
    -I've done due diligence on a large number of ivermectin studies. Many are of poor design, quality etc. Meta-analyses that include poor studies (garbage-in garbage-out) cannot be relied upon. The meta-analysis that focused on good quality studies did not support the use of ivermectin for Covid.

    1. So I assume that you are okay with Pfizer using only 12 human guinea pigs over the age of 65 in their trials for the booster shots? Do you rate that as a "good quality study'?

    2. Can you provide a specific reference? i will look into this specific issue.
      Before your comment, i had completed a deep look into: