About six weeks ago, the WHO promised to issue updated guidance about ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that many believe is a panacea for COVID-19. “This drug has broad spectrum activity,” they admitted, “and this is why it can be used at the early stage of the disease, trying to prevent the severe disease,” but of course, they said, as they have said from the start, more studies are needed to determine if it actually works. “We need more clinical trials.” That was their guidance six months ago, that was their guidance six weeks ago, and that is the same horseshit they regurgitated when they finally issued their updated guidance Wednesday, on the heels of some Philippines-specific guidance WHO had issued the very day before, serving to muddy those murky waters.
For weeks, health care professionals, ivermectin advocates and early treatment activists had lobbied the organization to #BeBraveWHO, but some of those people are now realizing that it was not cowardice driving these acts, but rampant, unchecked corruption. Others take the more generous view that the WHO was only negligent issuing counter-productive guidance from the belated start of the pandemic, when they advised against travel restrictions, asserted that there was no evidence for human-to-human transmission, insisted there was no evidence for asymptomatic transmission and that it was rare before walking that back, played dumb about the implications of what “aerosolized” means, adamantly denied that the virus is airborne, finally admitted the virus might be aerosolized and airborne, but couched it in mealy-mouthed, weaselly wording, saying they’re “open to ’emerging’ evidence on modes of transmission,” said that masks “create a false sense of security” and advised against their use for the general population before recommending in favor of mass-masking, and demanded that people refrain from even wondering about the origin of the virus aloud, saying that the potential “stigma” was actually “more dangerous than the virus itself“.
WHY is anybody listening to the WHO?
This is an organization that redefined “pandemic” and quietly deleted the definition from their website weeks before declaring a “level six” pandemic in 2009, explaining, just as the DNC asserted in court that the definition of “impartial” is too difficult to define, the definition of what a pandemic is is “too elusive” to have nailed down, then backtracked and said actually, it’s not “too elusive,” but by classical definitions, the pandemic they declared after revising the definition of pandemic was already a classic pandemic anyway, so the controversy was beside the point. Again, from their own website:
Just recently, the WHO altered their definition of “herd immunity” to make it such that it would be impossible to achieve without mass-vaccination campaigns, saying “herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus [with a vaccine], not by exposing them to it.” This constant shifting of goalposts in pursuit of their ends is typical of the WHO – but worse, it is endlessly parroted and echoed by health officials all over the world. As a result of this inconsistent, and often confusing guidance, our own CDC was prompted to retract accurate information about airborne spread.
Called “The World Heath Organization,” the WHO seems to favor some parts of the world over others. They reportedly tried to bribe Madagascar to poison their artemesia and Vitamin C “COVID Organics,” then settled for bribing them to shut up about it instead, refused to address any questions about Taiwan and when pressed, aborted the call, made a policy of censoring any reference to China or Taiwan on their Facebook page, quietly revised the definitions of the words “pandemic” and “herd immunity,” have participated in the ongoing suppression of everything shown to be effective in treating and preventing COVID-19, and appear to have worked with the CCP to clear their name with a cursory “investigation” into the origin of the bioweapon that basically concluded “no harm, no foul, nothing to see at Wuhan lab.”
More clinical trials are always needed
In the six weeks since they promised updated guidance on ivermectin to thousands of petitioners demanding to know why the drug has been excluded from the standard of care and exiled from even compassionate use, or at any point over the last year, the WHO could have conducted several trials to evaluate ivermectin’s efficacy, if they truly had any questions about it, and cared. But they didn’t. Instead, they cherry-picked sixteen studies of many that exist, compiled the results of these studies into their own meta-analysis, and instructed an “independent, international panel of experts, which includes clinical care experts in multiple specialties and also an ethicist” to evaluate the data, with a specific focus on the drug’s impact on mortality, arriving at an opaque “consensus” without so much as a vote.
This anonymous panel decided that “evidence was rated as very low certainty primarily because of very serious imprecision for most outcomes: the aggregate data had wide confidence intervals and/or very few events. There were also serious concerns related to risk of bias for some outcomes, specifically lack of blinding, lack of trial pre-registration, and lack of outcome reporting for one trial that did not report mechanical ventilation despite pre-specifying it in their protocol (publication bias).”
Of these sixteen studies they cherry-picked to evaluate, they decided that all of them were unreliable, because each had too small a sample size, and because each seemed to corroborate the results of the other, they must all have been biased. This is not how science works. Their own curated data indicates a dramatic reduction in mortality when ivermectin is administered, cutting the need for mechanical ventilation in half. Then, based on the result of a PCR test seven days into the treatment regimen, they suggest that “ivermectin may increase or have no effect on viral clearance” — when literally no PCR test will show successful viral clearance after just seven days, recovered or not. When their data demonstrates that ivermectin more than halved hospital admission, their takeaway is that “The effect of ivermectin on hospital admission is uncertain.” In a world less given to humoring idiocy, all things being equal, these conclusions would be purged from the discourse with uproarious laughter. But it’s 2021, and instead, this poppycock will be cited in educated circles around the globe as justification to continue a “standard of care” that is anything but.
From the WHO’s updated “living guidelines“:
A pattern of scientific malpractice
This is not the first time that science has been undermined to diminish the perception that COVID is a treatable disease. Last year, Surgisphere (presumably) altered real data to impugn the efficacy of HCQ; from that same data set, a study on the described, impressive results from ivermectin was published. As a result, both the corrupt HCQ trial and the positive study on ivermectin based on the same data were discredited along with the journal itself. Similarly, The Lancet, NEJM and JAMA have compromised the integrity of their journals by publishing laughably corrupt “studies” masquerading as peer-reviewed science. We have been admonished to “listen to the experts,” while doctors, nurses, scientists, and medical health professionals that say anything that runs counter to the official narrative of the moment have been silenced on social media, censored by the establishment, ridiculed in the media, and had their licenses threatened. We continue to be told to “trust the science,” while evidently corrupt studies are hailed as the “gold standard” as good science is relegated to the “excepted science” bin, and when even the rigged studies demonstrate some benefit from ivermectin, the data is dismissed as “statistically insignificant,” while credible studies are ignored by the mainstream media, jacked around by medical journals that waste precious time before refusing to publish them, and disputed by verified “experts”.
Disinformation parroted by official health agencies
There are so many easily disprovable things being cited by those who are charged with serving the interests of public health, it is almost difficult to keep track. Shall we count the ways?
FALSE: Dangerously high doses of ivermectin may be needed to treat COVID
Cited by the WHO in the Philippines as recently as this week, and often repeated by our own FDA and disreputable news organizations like the NYT, is the erroneous assumption that dangerously high doses of ivermectin may be required to effect viral clearance, basing this misinformation on data from the Australian study which used high concentrations of the drug. This is demonstratively false — the standard human dose given to children for head lice in the US: 150mcg/kg, has been shown to be effective as treatment and as prophylactic, for the better part of a year. There are many, many RCTs that confirm this. The idea that “we don’t know what dose to give COVID patients” is countered by thousands of doctors fighting on COVID front lines, many of whom have not lost a single patient to COVID-19.
FALSE: Ivermectin is just a drug used on animals
From within a week of the Australian in vitro study coming out, ivermectin detractors have conflated human ivermectin with animal ivermectin, attempting to exploit the nuance of veterinary versus human applications to diminish the drug, muddying the waters about any efficacy by suggesting that ivermectin is only “a drug used on animals,” or citing anecdotal evidence of desperate people self-medicating with animal formulations and overdosing on the drug. This flies in the face of decades of WHO guidance that “mass treatment with ivermectin” is a great idea actually, and underutilized in its capacity to eradicate parasites, scabies, and malaria. Even The New York Times, which has acted as an anti-ivermectin advocacy group since early 2020, touted the drug as “extraordinarily safe” for “both humans and animals” in 2010, and said “the drug is considered safe enough to give to almost everyone except the youngest infants & pregnant women” in 2019, but seemed to have forgotten that when they parroted FDA misinformation that the drug “could cause serious harm in humans” last year, incidentally, slandering this author as a “conspiracy mill” in their fervor to discredit my “paranoid conspiracy theories” about COVID-19 — my “paranoid conspiracy theory” that it is a treatable disease.
FALSE: Ivermectin is comparable to hydroxychloroquine
Unscrupulous actors have compared ivermectin to hydroxychloroquine, linking ivermectin to a drug that has been politicized since the moment it escaped Trump’s lips in March of 2020, in an attempt to scandalize ivermectin, and shame doctors who use it. The terrible irony here is that hydroxychloroquine does work against COVID-19, when used in combination with Zinc, prophylactically or at early stages of the disease. It doesn’t work nearly as well as ivermectin to treat (and eradicate) the disease, but if HCQ+Zinc had been adopted as standard of care from the date the former President suggested it, hundreds of thousands — possibly millions of lives could have been spared, and economies allowed to recover. Treating COVID early or using prophylaxis, whether with Zev Zelenko’s protocol, i-MASK+ or MATH+ protocols, or The Gaertner Protocol, or with a host of treatments that have been shown to effect prophylaxis and improvement in the condition of COVID victims, is vastly preferable to sending COVID victims home and telling them to “hope for the best” and “come back when you can no longer breathe comfortably,” and results in much better outcomes, across the board. It is difficult for some people to understand how, if COVID-19 is such a terrible disease that we must alter our entire lives and restructure Western society to accommodate it, why this common sense about early treatment is being shunned by our health agencies, erased from the public discourse, derided by verified doctors and mocked by our media. Presuming, as nobody really does anymore, that these entities have the welfare of their communities and our best interests at heart, how can it be against community standards for doctors to suggest people take vitamins when they feel sick?
FALSE: People taking ivermectin suffer from a false sense of security
This incredibly hot take was first floated on CNN Espanol in March, citing the European Medicines Agency’s recommendation against using the drug for COVID-19, and bundling that with an oncologist’s opinion that ivermectin gives people a false sense of security, just like the WHO said of mask-wearing months ago. This is the entire article, translated to English:
Now the WHO has co-opted this line, using it just the day before they released their updated guidance, saying “Without proof, what we are actually creating is a false confidence that if they take Ivermectin, they are going to be protected and that could actually be harmful. That is why it requires a carefully-planned clinical study to understand whether this has a protective efficacy.”
Then they reference the Australian in vitro study again, with the debunked “higher doses than humans can safely handle are required” disinformation, reiterate that they are always open to new evidence, and call it a day.
Many people find it very interesting that after keeping the people waiting “four to six weeks” for “updated guidance” on ivermectin, the WHO put out this absolutely laughable regurgitation of discredited excuses in the Philippines, the very day before their somewhat more credible official “report” came out, causing confusion and making some wonder if the Philippines release was the updated guidance they had been waiting a month and a half for.
The idea that ivermectin, like masks, gives people a false sense of security, is just insult to injury, and laughable on its face. There are thousands of testimonials from people who will attest to the fact that ivermectin has saved their lives, hundreds of doctors swearing that they have never lost a patient to COVID because they prescribe ivermectin, dozens of studies that demonstrate ivermectin’s efficacy, and tens of countries that have effectively managed the COVID crisis without mass-fatalities because they have availed themselves of early treatment with off-label drugs like ivermectin. Ivermectin saves lives.
The WHO said that masks might give people a false sense of security a year ago. Studies have been done that confirm their initial hypothesis: masks help a little when used properly. Very little. Yet, with reluctance, the WHO has capitulated to political peer-pressure and recommended mass-masking, leading to terrible scenes like this one, where a family is forcibly removed from an airplane for being unable to keep their infant masked. The most comprehensive study on public masking to date demonstrated .3% fewer people contracted coronavirus due to masking. The Danish study is not the only one. In Spain, another study “observed no association of risk of transmission with reported mask usage”. There is admittedly little evidence that supports mass-masking to control COVID, and significantly less evidence in favor of masking than there is for the efficacy of ivermectin, yet the WHO recommends in favor of one of these things, and one of these things is being mandated despite this sparse, if not non-existent, evidence. It seems that even with an allegedly low certainty of confidence in the evidence, eighty percent (ivermectin’s efficacy according to the meta-analysis WHO evaluated) is greater than point three percent (public masking efficacy according to the Danish study).
FALSE: NIH says ivermectin should not be used to treat COVID outside of clinical trials
The NIH initially recommended against any use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. They finally updated their guidance on ivermectin January 14th, rescinding their explicit guidance against using ivermectin outside of clinical trials, and downgrading their recommendation to reflect their opinion that “there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against” its use. This page has since gone missing, replaced, presumably, with this page, updated February 11th, which prefaces their recommendation with their proposed method of action, which leaves much to be desired, and highlighting a mixed bag of trial outcomes, using this to suggest no one can know for sure if the drug is effective against COVID-19, or if it might actually worsen outcomes:
Keep in mind, this was just updated in February. Notice that they are using the exact same excuses for refusing to acknowledge ivermectin’s efficacy here as cited in the WHO guidance released Wednesday, despite some of the studies evaluated demonstrating significant benefits. “The sample size of the trials was small.” If these health authorities are supposed to be looking out for the health of their constituents, would it not behoove them at some point over the last year to run a trial with a sample size they would consider adequate? “Various doses and schedules of ivermectin were used.” Again, not once, in all this time, could the WHO & the NIH and the rest of the public bodies that are tasked with keeping the world in good health get together and commission a study using a standardized protocol? “Some of the studies weren’t double-blind.” They want the “gold standard” of double-blinded, randomized controlled trials — during a pandemic they all characterize as so deadly, it is worthy of upending entire economies over. Can we just stop and consider the ethics of that for a second? This is justified by giving the control arm the “standard of care,” which, ostensibly, is what any random schlub off the street might be given in any random hospital if they wandered in with a case of COVID: nothing that will help their condition improve. To this day, many hospitals are still treating COVID victims with Remdesivir, which doesn’t work, and in worst cases, a ventilator, which can do more harm than good, and often leaves victims traumatized and injured.
FALSE: Off-label drugs should not be used to treat COVID
Doctors use off-label drugs to treat their patients every single day. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship has been central to modern Western medicine since its inception, and “compassionate use” allows doctors to prescribe “long-shot” therapies when there is no standard of care available. When it comes to COVID-19, the standard of care in Western nations is abominable.
There are some off-label drugs that are condoned in treating COVID in the ICU: some steroids, some antibody therapies, blood thinners, and a few random name-brand drugs that don’t do anything, but early treatment with off-label drugs, and even common sense “take some vitamins” wisdom has been lampooned as quackery. Interestingly, just as ivermectin began gaining some traction in mid-2020, dexamethasone was pushed into prominence — a drug which happens to have deleterious action against ivermectin’s bioavailability and mechanics, mitigating the beneficial impacts of ivermectin, and muting the perception that ivermectin could be worthy of the miraculous hype heard in hundreds of anecdotes when unwary ER doctors began trying — it in conjunction with dexamethasone. Outside of the hospital, this is the entire guidance from the NIH:
And this is their current, official guidance on ivermectin, as of February 11th:
It seems criminal, when there is conclusive evidence that treating disease early can entirely mitigate deleterious impacts and even prevent morbidity, that the current guidance from our health authorities, a year since this crisis began to unfold here, is still to basically ignore COVID-19 until it gets bad enough to warrant an ER visit. Even when doctors dare to prescribe ivermectin, their patients often find that the pharmacy refuses to fill the prescription. Some COVID victims have been forced to petition courts to compel pharmacies to fill the prescriptions, or to force hospitals to provide treatment they otherwise withhold, while some pharmacies have instituted a policy to fill prescriptions for the drug only if explicitly specified that it is not used for COVID. What happened to the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship?
Doctors daring to treat their patients with off-label medications like ivermectin have had their licenses threatened, been barred from emergency rooms and ICUs, lambasted by the mainstream press as everything from witch-doctors to anti-vaxxers to conspiracy nutjobs, and deplatformed from social media. Meanwhile, doctors who post 30-tweet threads about the horrors of hooking their hapless patients to ventilators to make a point about the moral imperative to mask-up are hailed as heroes and invited on the nightly news.
Every pillar of medicine has been turned upside down to accommodate and cause these genocidal practices by otherwise competent, smart, caring medical professionals. Long-reputed journals have thrown away their reputations — to those who know better — in pursuit of the Big Lie that there is no effective treatment for COVID-19. Our most esteemed, highly placed professionals like Fauci have been thoroughly exposed as incompetent (at best) frauds, and yet somehow the large majority of medical practitioners still follow their orders, murdering their patients, even as they know and use what works for themselves and their families, trapped by a system that demands strict compliance under pain of being fired and ostracized. In effect, everybody is just doing what they’re told, while they tacitly play their part in perpetrating crimes against humanity.
Still, it goes on.
What happened to “Never Again”? What happened to “Do No Harm”? What happened to ethical standards? What happened to basic competence, and respect for the lives and well-being of patients coming before any other considerations? For those medical professionals who have been genuinely deceived — you may be among them — how are you going to feel when you finally, FINALLY, realize the answer was sitting in front of you the whole time?
What will it take?
How could this happen?
It is difficult for anyone to comprehend the scale of this conspiracy to suppress treatments and cures during a pandemic. Many rational people are still incredulous that it could even be happening. Even of those who are aware that is happening, many are eager to give our health officials the benefit of the doubt — they only need to be educated about ivermectin’s mechanisms of action, or they just need to be petitioned to look at the data by enough reputable health professionals and they will eventually see the light, these optimists hope. Even as we write this, awareness campaigns are being set into motion and letters are being written to high ranking politicians and officials. Scientists and doctors are endeavoring to get the studies that are being demanded approved, against insurmountable obstacles and incomprehensible corruption. Real experts are working every day to explain what is happening and warn of worst-case scenarios if this is allowed to continue, against a sea of rubber-stamped propaganda.
Why is this happening?
Some believe treatments are being suppressed because Big Pharma has big plans to profit from vaccines, but this, again, gives the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity too much benefit of the doubt. While it’s true that the experimental coronavirus vaccines could not be granted Emergency Use Authorization if treatments were recognized to exist, and therefore billions of dollars of investment in experimental vaccines might be jeopardized by official acknowledgement of ivermectin’s efficacy, this is only the first of many neatly arranged dominoes that would start a cascading collapse of even bigger plans the masters of the universe hope to see follow the mass-vaccination campaigns. Digital passports could not be implemented if there wasn’t an imperative to mandate vaccination. Without digital passports, the criminals at the top of this pyramid of corruption cannot effectively carry out phase two of their pandemic agenda: complete societal reset.
Anytime you see things start to normalize: cases and fatalities dwindling, businesses opening, people taking off their masks and going about their lives, you may notice mainstream media talking about the positive environmental impacts of lockdowns, casually floating the idea of “environmental lockdowns,” or suggesting that “racism is a deadly pandemic,” laying groundwork to force populations to accept the draconian measures that have been put into place for the sake of mitigating the pandemic crisis for the sake of social justice issues. A page from Klaus Schwab’s book explains why:
Always notice the emphasis on interconnectedness and solidarity. Since all things are interconnected, any society that steps out of line jeopardizes the whole. Since we must have solidarity to achieve complete submission to the goals of the benevolent global state, any individual who speaks outside the officially sanctioned narrative must be purged from the discourse. When digital passports are implemented, it won’t just be social media that you find yourself deplatformed from, it’ll be your job, your bank, your ability to travel compromised at the press of a button, or the blink of an AI.
This is the world they are trying to create. Allowing treatments and cures to be suppressed is the one domino that has to fall to see the whole dystopian vision come crashing down around its architects.
EDIT: 4/5/2021: Removed one sentence editorializing about Klaus Schwab’s motives. We’ll leave those up to the reader.