In a Substack newsletter, Dr. William Makis cited a paper from 2020 (by Juarez et al) on the antitumor effects of ivermectin at clinically feasible concentrations where it was found to support its clinical development as a repositioned cancer drug.

According to the study, at a human dose of two mg/kg, ivermectin can achieve anti-cancer effects such as cell cycle arrest (inhibit proliferation), preferential inhibition of cancer stem-like cells, synergize with several chemotherapy drugs and inhibit tumor growth in a breast cancer mouse model.

Ivermectin was tested at two mg/kg/day, translating to roughly 5uM in vitro concentration. They found that the drug goes after cancer stem cells, which tend to be resistant to chemotherapy.

“Ivermectin has a preferential depletion effect on the cancer stem-like cell population,” the authors included in the research. “We observed that among all the evaluated cell lines, a decrease in cell viability and clonogenicity is more evident in the cancer stem-like cells than in their parental population.”

It also found that the most sensitive cancer cell lines were the ovarian, breast, glioblastoma (brain), lung, colon, uterine squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), hepatocellular, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), pancreatic and endometrial.

Meanwhile, the least sensitive were osteosarcoma, gastric and melanoma.

Moreover, lymphoma and leukemia cell lines appear to be more resistant to Ivermectin but the drug has a significant impact on those cells’ ability to form colonies, according to the study. (Related: Ivermectin can “kill cancer cells” and boost immune response, suggest health experts.)

Makis further highlighted that this was the first study he had ever seen that had tested as many as 28 cancer types with ivermectin.

“No wonder it’s hidden from the public,” he commented.

NEW ARTICLE: IVERMECTIN Tested against 28 types of Cancer – which cancers were most sensitive to Ivermectin? Which were least sensitive?

A research group from Mexico investigated Ivermectin in Cancer

Paper: 2020 (Juarez et al) – Antitumor effects of ivermectin at clinically… pic.twitter.com/xWhgEBa1uv

— William Makis MD (@MakisMD) August 26, 2024

FDA took down social media posts discouraging ivermectin use for COVID-19 but mainstream media seemed to have missed this

Back in March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to permanently take down its social media posts urging people to avoid the usage of ivermectin for COVID-19.

One of the pages that the agency has removed was a page that said: “Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? No.” It also took down posts, including one that reads: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

The move was done following a lawsuit with a settlement filed with a federal court in Texas that ordered the agency to delete another page titled “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 within 21 days.”

The article said that ivermectin was neither authorized nor approved to be used to prevent or treat COVID-19 in humans or animals. It also claims that evidence does not support the efficacy of ivermectin against coronavirus.

On June 2, 2022, Doctors Paul Marik, Mary Talley Bowden and Robert Apter filed a lawsuit against the FDA and its secretary Robert Califf, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary Xavier Becerra. They accused the FDA of meddling with their capacity to practice medicine. The lawsuit was first turned down on the basis that the FDA has “sovereign immunity.” However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled the lower court’s ruling, stating that the “FDA is not a physician” and “even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond the FDA’s statutory authority.”

Ivermectin has long been approved for use in both animals and humans. In cases of humans, the drug is recommended to treat parasitic infections such as river blindness disease, threadworm infestation, tropical eosinophilia, roundworm infestation, whipworm infestation, filariasis (also called elephantiasis) and loiasis.

On X, formerly Twitter, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden wrote: “This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship.”

Moreover, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr in a tweet said: “The FDA is biased against many low-cost, generic, and/or natural therapies with low-profit potential. Could it be because half its funding comes from Big Pharma?”

Ivermectin is not an exceptional case. The FDA is biased against many low-cost, generic, and/or natural therapies with low profit potential. Could it be because half its funding comes from Big Pharma? https://t.co/LxpqLuvb6A

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 22, 2024

Australian politician Craig Kelly also called the FDA “corrupt,” stating that they have “blood on their hands.”

Head over to Cancer.news for more stories, similar to this.

Sources for this article include:

• Makismd.substack.com
• HindustanTimes.com

The time to self-reported recovery was a median of two days faster among the ivermectin recipients, according to the large UK study.

The quicker recovery period was statistically significant.

People who received ivermectin were also less likely to be hospitalized or die, with 1.6 percent of ivermectin recipients being hospitalized or dying versus 4 percent of the comparison group, which received typical care, which in the UK is largely focused on managing symptoms.

Ivermectin recipients also enjoyed a reduction of severe symptoms and sustained recovery, according to the study.

The paper was published by the Journal of Infection on Feb. 29.

The study covered an open-label trial that involved 2,157 ivermectin recipients and 3,256 who received typical care from June 23, 2021, to July 1, 2022. Participants were randomized and reported symptoms and recovery.

Researchers Say Findings Don’t Support Using Ivermectin

The authors, including Christopher Butler, a University of Oxford professor and joint chief investigator of the trial, downplayed the positive findings in part because the hazard ratio of 1.14 was lower than what authors pre-specified as a meaningful ratio, or 1.2. Hazard ratios are a way to determine whether a treatment is beneficial.

The authors also focused on the lack of differences in the number of days participants felt sick in the previous two weeks, impact on work, and likelihood of using the health care system at 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment.

“Overall, these findings, while evidencing a small benefit in symptom duration, do not support the use of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 in the community among a largely vaccinated population at the dose and duration we used,” the authors said.

Funding for the research came from the UK government.

Conflicts of interest included one researcher receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, and other authors receiving grants from the University of Oxford.

The trial, known as PRINCIPLE, was touted by investigators as “the world’s largest clinical trial of possible COVID-19 treatments for recovery at home and in other non-hospital settings.”

“Ivermectin is readily available globally, has been in wide use for many other infectious conditions so it’s a well-known medicine with a good safety profile, and because of the early promising results in some studies it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries,” Dr. Christopher Butler, a University of Oxford professor and joint chief investigator of the trial, said when it was announced ivermectin would be assessed. “By including ivermectin in a large-scale trial like PRINCIPLE, we hope to generate robust evidence to determine how effective the treatment is against COVID-19, and whether there are benefits or harms associated with its use.”

Doctors Weigh In

Dr. Pierre Kory, an American physician who was not involved in the trial, said that the authors wrongly downplayed how ivermectin improved recovery from COVID-19.

“PRINCIPLE was a profoundly positive study that was instead analyzed and written up as a negative one,” Dr. Kory, who has long promoted ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, wrote in an essay.

He accused the authors of undertaking “statistical chicanery” by coming up with the pre-specified hazard ratio (HR), noting that no such level was used in other parts of the PRINCIPLE trial.

“A hazard ratio does not need a pre-specified level. If the HR is > 1.0, and it is statistically significant, it is a robust finding,” he said.

The positive findings should also be interpreted in the context of recipients only receiving one dose per day across three days and being directed not to eat food before ivermectin, Dr. Kory said.

Dr. Butler and his co-authors said “no food should be taken two hours before or after administration” despite previous research finding that taking ivermectin with food increases plasma concentration.

Participants also received ivermectin a median of five days after symptom onset, a period of time considered by some to be too late to have much of an impact. Ivermectin works best when applied within 24 hours of symptom manifestation, according to a meta-regression of ivermectin studies.
Dr. Butler did not respond to a request for comment.

There have been additional studies that found ivermectin worked against COVID-19. The drug, commonly used for purposes such as combating malaria, has divided scientists since 2020, when doctors around the world began using it to treat COVID-19.

Some other research, including a U.S. trial, has found that ivermectin did not improve time to recovery.

Dr. David Boulware, another American doctor, who helped run that trial, argued on X that the faster recovery recorded in the UK trial was similar to the quicker recovery reported in an open-label trial of molnupiravir, an antiviral sometimes used to treat COVID-19.

“Molnupiravir also had a 2 day faster improvement in symptoms over ‘usual care’ yet no benefit existed in double-blind trial,” Dr. Boulware said on X. “Placebo effect influences self-reported symptoms.”

Mrs. Downs, 64, contracted COVID-19 while on vacation. She went to the local emergency room after returning home for treatment. She was transferred to a bigger facility in Ohio when her condition worsened.

Mrs. Downs, though, kept getting worse, despite a federally recommended treatment course including remdesivir.

On the same day Mrs. Downs was placed on a ventilator, her family asked doctors to try ivermectin, an anti-malarial that has had some success against COVID-19. Because the treatment course was not working, relatives felt it was time to try something new.

The hospital refused. A clinical ethicist there cited how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned people against using ivermectin against COVID-19. The ethicist claimed there could be “great harms” if Mrs. Downs was given ivermectin.

“This may make the family upset,” he wrote in notes reviewed by The Epoch Times.

But Mrs. Downs’s husband and daughters weren’t giving up. They sued the hospital to try to force the facility to either administer ivermectin or allow an outside doctor in to administer it.

A local doctor who reviewed Mrs. Downs’s case said she should be able to receive the drug. Based on his research into ivermectin, he said there was “very little downside” in trying the drug, whether it worked or not.

A settlement was reached on Aug. 19, 2021. The settlement said that the hospital would administer ivermectin, but that the administration was conditional on “the treating physician(s) professional judgement and discretion, and the applicable standard of care.”

Mrs. Downs never received ivermectin. She died at the hospital on Sept. 2, 2021.

If she had received the drug, “I believe it would have set some kind of precedent, so they did everything they could to make sure she was never going to get it,” Donald Downs, Mrs. Downs’s husband, told The Epoch Times. “If we could’ve gotten it to her sooner, maybe things would’ve been different.”

Possible Fine Looms Over Family

The family experienced pressure from the court system and OhioHealth, which runs the facility to which Mrs. Downs was admitted, to agree to a fine of $100,000 for each person who disclosed the existence of the settlement.

They still signed the confidential settlement because they felt there was limited time for Mrs. Downs to receive ivermectin.

“We were under severe pressure and in desperation to save my wife and my daughter’s mother,” Mr. Downs said. “We would do anything to try to save her.”

Ralph Lorigo, a lawyer who was representing the family, said that the judge in the case wanted him to sign the settlement, which would open him up to being fined as well if he violated the agreement.

“I’ve never in my at that point 47 or 48 years in my career had a judge ever tell the lawyer that they had to be part of that settlement,” Mr. Lorigo told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Lorigo said a confidential agreement was fine but that the parameters of this one were “so broad.”

“If you named the hospital, for Christ’s sake, you could be responsible for $100,000,” Mr. Lorigo said.

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Serrott, who was overseeing the case, told the Downs family that Mr. Lorigo was blocking the settlement by refusing to sign, according to the family. The family fired Mr. Lorigo to make sure the settlement went through.

Judge Serrott “tells us that we will be able to get my wife the medicine as soon as we sign the agreement,” Mr. Downs said. Judge Serrott and Jeffrey Perry, a local attorney who helped secure the settlement, did not respond to requests for comment.

Judge Serrott, the family says, told them they were forbidden to discuss the case. “When someone asks you about this case, you are going to say, ‘the judge says I’m not allowed to talk about it,'” he said, the family recalls. The judge made them repeat the sentence.

The threat of a fine loomed over the family for years, preventing them from talking about how their mother and wife died.

On Oct. 27, 2022, the Downs family asked the Franklin County court to declare the settlement void on the grounds it was illegal, procured fraudulently because OhioHealth never intended to administer ivermectin or allow it to be administered, and was procured under duress. OhioHealth countersued, asking the court to sanction the family for a frivolous filing.

Judge Carl Aveni ruled on Oct. 6, 2023, that the settlement agreement was never enforceable because Mr. Downs voluntarily dismissed the suit after his wife died. He said he would rule on the countersuit at a later time.

Initially Alert

Mr. and Mrs. Downs were enjoying summer vacation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana when Mr. Downs became ill. His wife began experiencing symptoms several days later. They returned home early. Mrs. Downs then went to a local hospital with symptoms including cough, headache, and sore throat.

A doctor who on July 28, 2021, saw Mrs. Downs said she was “not ill-appearing or toxic-appearing,” nor “in acute distress. Mrs. Downs did test positive for COVID-19, he wrote in notes reviewed by The Epoch Times. The doctor sent her home with an inhaler in stable condition.

Five days later, Mrs. Downs went back to the same hospital, Hocking Valley Community Hospital, reporting diarrhea, nausea, cough, fever, and loss of taste and smell.

Dr. John Ireton, the doctor at Hocking Valley, described plans to start Mrs. Downs on the anti-inflammatory dexamethasone. He did not plan to administer remdesivir due to “recent poor efficacy data,” he wrote in notes from the Aug. 2, 2021, encounter.

Even a day later, Mrs. Downs was in relatively good condition despite experiencing some symptoms, according to additional notes. The patient was “pleasant and cooperative” while appearing “moderately ill,” Dr. Ireton wrote.

But the patient’s inflammatory markers started trending upward, and she soon required oxygen.

Mrs. Downs was transferred to Doctors Hospital, the bigger facility, on Aug. 5, 2021, in part because the facility had “remdesivir and other COVID-19 treatments unavailable at this facility,” Dr. Ireton wrote in discharge notes.

Remdesivir is an antiviral cleared by the FDA for treating COVID-19.

Placed on Ventilator

Mrs. Downs was admitted to the intensive care unit at Doctors Hospital the same day, with conditions including acute respiratory failure and a slow heartbeat, the doctors there said.

Other symptoms were later noted, including acute kidney injury. It was “unknown” whether those conditions were present at admission, the doctors said in notes reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Doctors after admission started Mrs. Downs on a course of remdesivir, which some researchers have said is linked to kidney injury. The doctors also continued the dexamethasone and added various vitamins and other drugs, including the monoclonal antibody tocilizumab and vitamin C. Family members say they asked if remdesivir was being administered and were told no.

Doctors used a bilevel positive airway pressure machine to assist Mrs. Downs with breathing. They ended up placing her on a ventilator on Aug. 11, 2021, due to worsening symptoms, despite her telling them she did not want to be intubated. Fentanyl and other drugs were administered.

On the same day as the intubation, the family asked that ivermectin be administered, under the Right to Try Act, as the treatments applied by the hospital weren’t working.

Gavin Enck, a clinical ethicist at OhioHealth, said that the request would have to be rejected because it did not meet the conditions of the act, such as being an investigational drug studied in clinical trials. “Second, the FDA has publicly stated that it neither treats COVID nor benefits the patients; in fact, there are great harms in using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. As a result, ivermectin is non-beneficial treatment,” Mr. Enck wrote in an analysis dated Aug. 11, 2021, that was reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug, but not for COVID-19. Doctors in the United States commonly prescribe drugs for non-approved uses. The FDA said in a warning earlier in 2021 that ivermectin was not approved to treat COVID-19 and that “taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.” The FDA has since acknowledged doctors can prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19, while an appeals court said the FDA likely overstepped its authority with the warning and similar statements.

Mr. Enck said that if the family didn’t like the decision, they could take action.

“While this may make the family upset, they do have the right to request a transfer,” he wrote. “While it is extremely unlikely another organization would accept the patient in order to provide ivermectin, they family [sic] can still work on setting up a transfer.”

Mr. Enck did not pick up his phone or return a voicemail. OhioHealth did not respond to a request for comment.

The family asked to speak to hospital administrators and offered to sign waivers. They said their attempts were turned down.

Family members also spoke to Dr. Brian Still, Mrs. Downs’ primary care doctor. He agreed to prescribe Mrs. Downs ivermectin and wrote a letter saying he felt there was little downside to trying it.

Suit Filed

Desperate to give their loved one a better chance at surviving, the family took OhioHealth to court.
They chose Mr. Lorigo, who had won multiple similar cases for patients that wanted ivermectin, to represent them.

“Every time he won a case in court, the person that got it lived,” Cara Bookman, Mrs. Downs’s daughter, told The Epoch Times.

The family through their lawyers filed an emergency request for relief in the Franklin County court on Aug. 16, 2021. Attorneys asked for an emergency sealed hearing.

The hearing was held on Aug. 18, 2021. The family was not present. Judge Serrott, the family said, called them and said that the parties were nearing an agreement on a confidential settlement that would bar the family from discussing the settlement and include a fine if they did.

OhioHealth wanted a $1 million fine but Judge Serrott changed the amount to $100,000, according to the family.

The judge also said that Mr. Lorigo was holding up the settlement by refusing to sign it. The family offered to fire him in a bid to finalize the settlement and get Mrs. Downs the ivermectin.

That’s when the family says the judge told them Mrs. Downs would be able to receive the drug as soon as they signed the settlement.

The agreement indemnified OhioHealth for administering ivermectin and stated that OhioHealth “shall prescribe and administer a 12 (twelve) mg daily oral dose of ivermectin for 4 (four) days” to the patient.

It also said, however, that the prescription and administration were “subject to the [sic] treating physician(s)’ professional judgment and discretion, and the applicable standard of care.”

No Ivermectin

The family went to the hospital after signing the agreement and learned Mrs. Downs had not received ivermectin. A nurse said that Mrs. Downs was experiencing cognitive issues and doctors felt ivermectin could harm her. Several doctors then met with the family and said that they didn’t want to administer the drug. The family agreed to a one-day delay.

According to the Downs family, Dr. Joseph Gastaldo told them during the meeting that ivermectin may have helped Mrs. Downs if it had been administered at an earlier date. But Dr. Gastaldo later told a local broadcaster that there was “no proven benefit” for using ivermectin against COVID-19 and “potentially has toxicities if you take it at a higher dose.”

Additional attempts to secure the drug for Mrs. Downs were not successful, prompting the family to ask Mr. Perry, the local attorney, about dismissing the case.

“We did not want to be held liable for the $100,000 each [in the] confidentiality agreement knowing that they were still not going to give her the medicine,” Mr. Downs said.

Mrs. Downs died on Sept. 2, 2021.

Judge Serrott, about a week later, dismissed the case.

The family said they later found they were still held to the confidentiality agreement. They filed the fresh action in October 2022 to ensure they could speak about their ordeal.

The complaint was straightforward, Warner Mendenhall, who is now representing the family, told The Epoch Times. Without a ruling from the court, the family “would be under the threat” of the fines, he said.

OhioHealth countersued, alleging that the family was launching a frivolous action. Hospital lawyers asked for sanctions.

Judge Aveni finally ruled on the matter nearly one year later. While confirming the confidentiality agreement was not in effect, he rejected the family’s attempt to dismiss the countersuit, saying the case would be decided in the future.

The family wants people to know about their experience with a major hospital and the court system.

“If I hadn’t went through this, I don’t know if I could believe it,” Mr. Downs, a pastor, told The Epoch Times. “It’s that horrendous.”

They are hoping that OhioHealth, the doctors there, and Judge Serrott are in some way held accountable for what transpired.

“We are seeking justice,” Mr. Downs said, “so that no other family has to go through what we did.”

(Article cross-posted from Natural News)

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden told the Epoch Times of this medical fascism, adding: “I see it every single day. Enough is enough.”  She recounted the ordeal of one of her patients, who had been refused the life-saving medication. The elderly patient’s health has deteriorated in the time it took to find a pharmacy that honored the ivermectin prescription.

“It’s hard to believe, but pharmacists are still blocking these potentially life-saving drug. The pharmacist didn’t talk to the patient, and won’t know if the patient lives or dies – yet had control of [their] care,” said Bowden.

“This needs to come to an end. In telling my patients what medicines they can and cannot have access to, we effectively have a large group of pharmacists practicing medicine without a license. They have no accountability for this yet they are allowed to dictate patient care.”

According to Bowden, individual pharmacists aren’t the ones to blame in most cases as they often carry out orders from corporate leadership. However, she said there are examples of pharmacists preventing her patients from getting their medication due to their own “personal agenda.”

“Prior to COVID, I never had a pharmacist refuse a prescription. This is a new phenomenon and it needs to come to an end. This is going beyond their role and it’s a dangerous trend,” she said. “It’s an outrage. I would have thought we were beyond this but it continues to happen.”

Bowden also warned that this could lead down a slippery slope that diminishes patients’ rights if pharmacists are left unchecked.

Gov’t lawyer affirms that doctors CAN prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19

While ivermectin has been around for decades, it became the center of controversy in 2020 after medical opinion split over its effectiveness against COVID-19. Many pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the medication. Meanwhile, the FDA smeared ivermectin as a “horse dewormer” and advised Americans against taking it to address SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But on Aug. 8, a government lawyer representing the FDA confirmed that doctors were free to prescribe the drug against COVID-19. Ashley Cheung Honold of the Department of Justice told the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: “[The] FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID-19.” (Related: FDA now admits doctors can prescribe IVERMECTIN to treat COVID-19.)

Her testimony came during the course of oral arguments before the court, following a lawsuit filed by Bowden and two other plaintiffs against the federal government. They accused the FDA of interfering with their ability to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients. According to Bowden, she hoped that the FDA’s acknowledgment during the Aug. 8 court hearing would have put an end to the objections at the pharmacist counter.

Later, the regulator issued a clarification on Aug. 17 regarding the use of the drug. While it had approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it had not issued any statement affirming the safety or effectiveness of the drug for treating COVID-19.

The FDA nevertheless affirmed that individual doctors have the final say on whether or not to prescribe it for SARS-CoV-2 infection. “Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient,” the agency said.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) also believes the widespread denial of ivermectin could have hugely contributed to untold numbers of COVID-19 deaths.

“The doctors I’ve been dealing with and talking to for years now, they believe that probably hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives because they were denied early treatment. They were denied because the FDA sabotaged, for example, ivermectin,” Johnson told Fox News.

“We are going down a very dangerous path, but it’s a path that is being laid out and planned by an elite group of people who want to take total control over our lives. That’s what they’re doing bit by bit.”

Visit IvermectinScience.com for more stories about the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Watch InfoWars founder Alex Jones expounds on the truth behind the suppression of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

This video is from the Katy Odin channel on Brighteon.com.

Sound off about this article on the End Medical Tyranny Substack.

More related stories:

• WHY ONLY NOW? FDA rules that doctors can now prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19.
• REVISIONIST HISTORY: FDA now claims its crusade against ivermectin was just a “recommendation” against taking it.
• After bashing it for 3 years and watching millions die, FDA now admits doctors had every right to prescribe Ivermectin as legitimate treatment for COVID-19.

Sources include:

• TheEpochTimes.com 1
• TheEpochTimes.com 2
• Brighteon.com

As the COVID pandemic wore on, with potential treatments supposedly unknown, New York pulmonologist Dr. Pierre Kory and others tried to get the word out about ivermectin. A widely used antiparasitic drug that’s listed on the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list¹ and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ivermectin is widely available, inexpensive and has a long history of safe usage.

In fact, since 1987, 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been used among humans worldwide,² but it was quickly vilified — as were those who dared to prescribe it. Now, the tables have turned. Not only did ivermectin work against COVID-19, it was remarkably effective, resulting in a 74% reduction in excess deaths in the 10 states where it was used most intensively.³

Ivermectin Dramatically Slashed COVID Deaths

Kory and other physicians with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) had success early on treating patients with ivermectin and other therapies during the pandemic. His efforts to get the word out on this treatment protocol were stifled by censorship, ridicule and colleagues brainwashed by the official narrative and unwilling to accept the science.

A preprint paper showing ivermectin’s effectiveness against COVID-19 in Peru “was the final piece of evidence which convinced me, Paul [Marik] and the FLCCC that widespread ivermectin distribution could end the pandemic in Oct of 2020,” Kory tweeted.⁴ “Took 2 years but now peer-reviewed & published in a major journal.”

That study, published in Cureus,⁵ vindicates ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. “Reductions in excess deaths over a period of 30 days after peak deaths averaged 74% in the 10 states with the most intensive IVM [ivermectin] use,” the study found.⁶ It used Peruvian national health data from Peru’s 25 states to evaluate ivermectin’s effects.

A natural experiment was set in motion in May 2020, when Peru authorized ivermectin for COVID-19. The significant reduction in excess deaths noted “correlated closely with the extent of IVM use,” the researchers noted.

Global Success Stories Highlight Ivermectin’s Potential

Few have heard about the astonishing success of ivermectin in Uttar Pradesh, India, which embraced large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients, close contacts of patients and health care workers.⁷

“The possibility of both preventative and treatment efficacies of IVM was raised by outcomes in another world region in which IVM was distributed to the population at risk for COVID-19 on a mass scale. This IVM distribution occurred in Uttar Pradesh, the largest state in India, having a population of 229 million,” the study added.⁸

There, widespread ivermectin distribution likely resulted in significantly lower COVID-19 deaths compared to areas not using the drug:⁹

“The cumulative total of COVID-19 deaths per million in population from July 7, 2021 through April 1, 2023 was 4.3 in Uttar Pradesh, as compared with 70.4 in all of India and 1,596.3 in the United States … The much lower number of COVID-19 deaths per population in all of India versus the United States in that period may reflect the use of these same home treatment kits containing IVM, doxycycline, and zinc in some other states of India.”

A similar series of events occurred in Itajai, Brazil, a city of 220,000 people. In June 2020, they implemented a prophylaxis program using ivermectin. The program was advertised throughout local media, and people were encouraged to participate and take ivermectin four times a month, on days 1, 2, 15 and 16.

On the appropriate days, they set up tents and centers where people could get the drug, and the entire program was carefully logged in an electronic database. In all, 159,000 Brazilians participated, of those 113,000 elected to take the ivermectin.

Kory and eight coauthors published a paper on the results, which showed “regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.”¹⁰

Those who used ivermectin had a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate, a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate compared to those who did not.¹¹

Meanwhile, a study from Japan demonstrated that just 12 days after doctors were allowed to legally prescribe ivermectin to their COVID-19 patients, cases dropped dramatically.¹² The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association¹³ noticed the low number of infections and deaths in Africa, where many use ivermectin prophylactically and as the core strategy to treat river blindness.¹⁴

Government’s Ivermectin Restrictions Increased Deaths

In a striking revelation, ivermectin was used against COVID-19 in Peru for four months, before the new president put restrictions on its use. During that time, “there was a 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths and then a 13-fold increase in the two months following the restriction of IVM use.”¹⁵

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has towed the anti-ivermectin narrative all along, with its infamous tweet reading, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”¹⁶ While commanding the U.S. public and physicians not to use ivermectin for an off-label use, the irony stands that close to 40% of U.S. prescriptions are for off-label uses.¹⁷

But now, after years of vilification, it had no choice but to admit what’s been right all along — doctors have the authority to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19. Attorney Jared Kelson of Boyden Gray & Associates, who is representing physicians who have sued the FDA for interfering with their practice of medicine, including relating to ivermectin for COVID-19, explained:¹⁸

“The fundamental issue is straightforward. After the FDA approves a human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to influence or interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor-patient relationship? The answer is no.”

The FDA did just that, nonetheless, but finally admitted the truth on August 16, 2023, tweeting, “Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient.”¹⁹

In September 2021, the American Medical Association also told doctors to stop prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19. In a statement, AMA, along with the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), warned:²⁰

“We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months. As such, we are calling for an immediate end to the prescribing, dispensing, and use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.

In addition, we are urging physicians, pharmacists, and other prescribers — trusted health care professionals in their communities — to warn patients against the use of ivermectin outside of FDA-approved indications and guidance, whether intended for use in humans or animals, as well as purchasing ivermectin from online stores.”

How many died unnecessarily as a result of these commands? As noted by journalist Kim Iversen, even the FDA’s move advising doctors that they’re allowed to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 is too little, too late. “Now, two, three years later, too little, too late… ultimately, we now get this study that has been officially peer reviewed and published, and it shows significant, significant, significant reduction [of mortality] in COVID-19.”²¹

How Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID?

Ivermectin binds to SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, limiting the virus’ morbidity and infectivity.²² The drug, while best known for its antiparasitic effects, also has demonstrated antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. An in vitro study demonstrated that a single treatment with ivermectin effectively reduced viral load 5,000 times in 48 hours in cell culture.²³

Studies have shown that ivermectin helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication.²⁴ A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours.²⁵ A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics also showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively.²⁶

Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage.²⁷ This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%²⁸ to 83%.^29,30

Additionally, the drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure.³¹ As the Cureus study noted, the latest data only adds further evidence that ivermectin has an important place in COVID-19 treatment:³²

“These encouraging results from IVM treatments in Peru and similar positive indications from Uttar Pradesh, India, which have populations of 33 million and 229 million, respectively, offer promising models for further mass deployments of IVM, as needs may arise, for both the treatment and prevention of COVID-19.”

It’s worth noting, too, that ivermectin has notable antitumor effects, which include inhibiting proliferation, metastasis and angiogenic activity in cancer cells.³³ It appears to inhibit tumor cells by regulating multiple signaling pathways, which researchers explained in the Pharmacological Research journal, “suggests that ivermectin may be an anticancer drug with great potential.”³⁴

Why Was Ivermectin Suppressed?

The average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.³⁵ Do you think this has anything to do with ivermectin’s vilification? The authors of the Cureus study certainly do:³⁶

“The exceptional safety profile and low cost of IVM certainly support its use as in Peru’s operation MOT [Mega-Operación Tayta] and in Uttar Pradesh as an attractive national policy for COVID-19 mitigation. These significant reductions in mortality as achieved in Peru and Uttar Pradesh suggest that the impact of such a national IVM deployment would be observable within a relatively short period.

However, generic drugs have often fared poorly in competition with patented offerings in past decades, based upon the unfortunate vulnerability of science to commodification and regulatory capture … Such a potential bias against IVM was suggested by a February 4, 2021 press release from Merck, which was then developing its own patented COVID-19 therapeutic, claiming that there was ‘a concerning lack of safety data’ for IVM.

However, IVM is Merck’s own drug, found safe at doses considerably higher than its standard dose in several studies, as cited in the section on the background on IVM treatments of COVID-19, and the Nobel Prize committee specifically noted IVM’s safety record in honoring the discovery of this drug in its 2015 prize for medicine.”

If you’d like to learn more about ivermectin’s potential uses for COVID-19, FLCCC’s I-CARE protocol can be downloaded in full,³⁷ giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19.

• ¹ WHO March 31, 2021
• ^{2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 22, 32, 36} Cureus August 8, 2023
• ³ WND August 19, 2023
• ⁴ Substack, The Vigilant Fox August 15, 2023
• ⁷ Indian Express May 12, 2021
• ^10, 11 Cureus. 2022 Jan; 14(1): e21272
• ¹² YouTube, November 23, 2021 Min 1:25
• ¹³ Tokyo Web, August 13, 2021
• ¹⁴ World Health Organization, Onchocerciasis
• ¹⁶ Twitter, Broken Truth August 13, 2023
• ^17, 18 Courthouse News Service August 8, 2023
• ¹⁹ Twitter, U.S. FDA August 16, 2023
• ²⁰ AMA September 1, 2021
• ²¹ Twitter, FLCCC August 15, 2023
• ²³ Antiviral Research, 2020;178(104787)
• ^24, 31 FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)
• ²⁵ News-Medical.net, April 6, 2020
• ²⁶ American Journal of Therapeutics, 2021;28(4) Therapeutic Advances
• ²⁷ Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, August 29, 2021
• ²⁸ FLCCC January 7, 2021 Press Release (PDF)
• ²⁹ Swiss Policy Research December 31, 2020
• ³⁰ Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis January 3, 2021 (PDF)
• ^33, 34 Pharmacol Res. 2021 Jan; 163: 105207
• ³⁵ JAMA 2022;327(6):584-587
• ³⁷ FLCCC Alliance, I-CARE

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

One of the “side effects” of taking ivermectin for COVID, it turns out, is that it also helps prevent cancer cells and tumors from forming. This could be very helpful for those dealing with the sudden onset of “turbo cancer,” a phenomenon that appeared not long after the launch of Operation Warp Speed.

If “fully vaccinated” people who got jabbed for COVID had easy access to ivermectin, many of them could potentially find relief and healing from it. And even better is the fact that fenbendazole, another anti-parasite drug, also works to fight against cancer.

“What would happen if one did a combination therapy for both the prevention and treatment of cancer using BOTH ivermectin and fenbendazole?” asks “2nd Smartest Guy in the World” on his Substack. “The synergistic pairing would be far more effective than just using one of these miraculous drugs.”

Ivermectin and quercetin together fight prion diseases

When taken together, ivermectin and fenbendazole deliver a one-two punch to cancer. When combined with other anti-cancer nutrients such as quercetin, vitamins C and D, and curcumin, the effects are even more pronounced.

Preclinical studies show that both ivermectin and fenbendazole exhibit cytotoxic effects against cancer cells. The two drugs also inhibit the growth and spread of cancerous tumors.

“The mechanisms underlying these effects appear to involve disruption of critical cellular processes, leading to cancer cell death,” wrote Sid Belzberg in a paper cited by one of 2nd Smartest Guy in the World’s readers.

Both ivermectin and fenbendazole are off-patent drugs, meaning their original intended use as licensed has expired and they have become generics. This allows for many different generic drug manufacturers, including a slew of them across India, to produce them cheaply and abundantly.

United States regulators make it hard to access them without a prescription – unless you purchase the versions available for pets – but they are out there. And when combined with other anti-cancer vitamins and minerals they show incredible promise in cancer prevention and mitigation.

You will be hard-pressed to find much helpful information about these two drugs in the mainstream, though. Because they are off-patent, ivermectin and fenbendazole bring in minimal profits, which means pharmaceutical companies are not interested in promoting them or touting their benefits.

Belzberg makes the case for ivermectin and fenbendazole to be compounded with other complementary substances to create a synergistic anti-cancer concoction that is safe and effective for widespread use.

“Despite these challenges, the repurposing of these compounds carries potential advantages that justify further exploration,” Belzberg wrote. “Since the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of these substances are well-known, their development as anticancer agents could be faster and less expensive than for new drugs.”

“Furthermore, the successful repurposing of these compounds could provide a cost-effective way to expand anticancer treatments, possibly improving patient outcomes while reducing healthcare costs.”

Another paper by Belzberg suggests that taking ivermectin with quercetin can synergistically fight prion diseases, also known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs.

TSEs represent a group of fatal neurodegenerative diseases characterized by the misfolding of the prion protein, or PrP.

“The promise shown by ivermectin and quercetin in their potential anti-prion activities and their modulation of tauopathy offers an interesting avenue for further exploration,” he wrote.

More tips and tricks to beating cancer without chemotherapy or radiation can be found at PreventCancer.news.

Sources for this article include:

• 2ndSmartestGuyInTheWorld.com
• Newstarget.com
• NATURAL NEWS

The Washington Medical Commission announced the allegations on Jan. 18 against Cole after receiving complaints about Cole’s conduct. Cole lives in Idaho but is licensed in Washington state.

The state alleges that Cole made “numerous false and misleading statements” during the COVID-19 pandemic about the pandemic, vaccines, ivermectin, and the effectiveness of protective masks.

The statements “were harmful and dangerous to individual patients, generated mistrust in the medical profession and in public health, and had a wide-spread negative impact on the health and well-being of our communities,” the commission said.

Cole also provided “negligent care” to four patients by prescribing ivermectin, which is “not indicated for a COVID-19 infection,” according to a statement of charges. Cole did not respond to requests for comment.

Cole has until Jan. 30 to file a response to the charges, according to the commission. Cole will have a chance to defend himself against the allegations at a hearing. The commission is a licensing authority. The charges can lead to the suspension of Cole’s license.

Statements on Vaccines, COVID-19

Washington state authorities say that Cole’s alleged false and misleading statements include claims that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused more deaths than COVID-19 and that the vaccines can lead to cancer and infertility.

Cole, the founder of Cole Diagnostics, has said in interviews with The Epoch Times and other outlets, as well as during public presentations, that he observed a spike in unusual cancers and other problems after the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines were introduced in late 2020. He asserted that heart inflammation is known to be caused by the shots, as well as other issues not proven to be linked, that stem from introducing the spike protein into the human body.

“The naysayers [say], Oh, the spike isn’t … [a] toxin,” Cole said during one interview with The Epoch Times “American Thought Leaders.”

“I’m like, ‘The cells don’t lie.’ And that’s my defense. The cells don’t lie. These people aren’t looking at the cells under the microscope. They’re not seeing the damage I am. Many of my colleagues are. The cells don’t lie. If it’s inconvenient to what you want to tell yourself, that’s fine. But the cells don’t lie. The clots don’t lie. The damaged organs don’t lie,” he added.

Cole has also said COVID-19 vaccines are “fake” and referred to vaccination with them as “needle rape,” the commission noted.

Some of the statements the commission referenced as “false and misleading: were actually accurate. Among them: Cole’s noting that natural immunity, or post-infection immunity, against COVID-19 is superior to the protection bestowed by vaccines. That’s been shown or indicated in many studies, including a study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a paper from Israel.

According to the commission, Cole said it in a written statement in 2022 that he has not advised people not to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Treatment

Cole was part of MyFreeDoctor.com, according to archived versions of the website. The website is a telehealth service that enables doctors to correspond with and see patients remotely using the internet. The charges say Cole treated patients for COVID-19 over a “virtual telemedicine platform.”

Cole prescribed medicine to four patients after reviewing their records and speaking with them over an instant chat function on the platform, according to authorities. He prescribed ivermectin multiple times. Ivermectin is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms but the administration says it should not be used against COVID-19, though some of the studies it cites actually support its use.

Cole’s treatment of the patients, including not documenting “appropriate medical decision-making” for them, constituted unprofessional conduct, according to the commission.

State law defines unprofessional conduct as “the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption relating to the practice of the person’s profession, whether the act constitutes a crime or not.”

A practitioner can also violate the law if they commit “Incompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed,” though the code stipulates that “the use of a nontraditional treatment by itself shall not constitute unprofessional conduct, provided that it does not result in injury to a patient or create an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed.”

Cole has told The Epoch Times in previous interviews that he has seen 500,000 patients in his 26-year career and has never had a patient complain about him or file a lawsuit.

“Now all of a sudden I find myself in the crosshairs for sharing science. Because of that, I lost one of my major insurance contracts for my ‘unprofessional behavior’ of talking about ivermectin and helping save a handful of lives with that for free. I never charged a patient,” he said.

“Then they say, ‘Well gosh, you’re a pathologist.’ I did years of emergency medicine, years of family medicine, years of dermatology,” Cole said. “I never quit being a doctor. I’m the doctor to the doctor, as a laboratory physician now.”

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch  Times.

• In his book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic,” Dr. Pierre Kory details the history of ivermectin and the how and why behind Big Pharma’s suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19
• After spending his career as an internist and critical care physician, Kory has now turned his attention to long-haul COVID and post-jab injury syndromes
• Daily ivermectin use is a mainstay of the treatment plans for long-haulers and those with COVID jab injuries, as the drug very effectively binds to the toxic spike protein that is causing most of the damage in both of these conditions
• Methylene blue can be helpful for those struggling with crippling fatigue, as it boosts mitochondrial respiration and improves energy metabolism. It’s actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs used to treat COVID-19 along with zinc
• “The War on Ivermectin” reveals the disinformation playbook used by Big Pharma and its many allies to suppress highly useful and inexpensive medicines in order to protect and increase corporate profits

In this interview, return guest Dr. Pierre Kory discusses his new book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic.” In it, he details the history of ivermectin and the how and why behind Big Pharma’s suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19.

Like Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Peter McCullough, Kory has been threatened by the American Board of Internal Medicine, which is seeking to yank his medical license. While a family doctor in private practice can operate without board certification, most medical centers will not hire a doctor who isn’t board certified in his specialty, and insurance companies won’t put you on their panel.

Kory’s Response to the American Board of Internal Medicine

Kory, however, is not overly concerned about this threat — which is really little more than an intimidation tactic to shut him up — as he has no intention of ever going back to a hospital setting.

“I’m done,” he says. “There’s no way I could walk into a hospital. I’ve just learned too much. I’ve learned too much about pharmaceutical control of almost all of the medical evidence. There’s no way I can fit. Now I’m a square peg in a round hole.

So, to be honest, I don’t think [losing my board certification] would have an impact. I am now in private practice. I have a bustling telehealth practice and I’m very happy. I’m outside the system, I can do and say and care for the patients in a manner that I best see fit.

Anyway, our reply [to the American Board of Internal Medicine] was different than Peter’s. He presented all the evidence to support all the statements they accused him of as being misinformation; very data driven, evidence-based.

What we did is, our lawyer looked at their policy on misinformation and the process of ‘convicting’ someone of misinformation, and it required that they provide us the evidence showing that we are wrong and misinformed.

But the letter to us was bizarre. It was this hodgepodge of statements that I’d made or written on my Substack, and it was just implied that that’s misinformation …

So, we wrote back very simply, ‘Excuse us, but your letter does not follow your own misinformation policy. We ask that you kindly reissue the letter with the evidence showing that we’re wrong.’ And we’ve gotten radio silence ever since.”

Kory’s New Specialty

After spending his career as an internist and critical care physician, Kory has now turned his attention to long-haul COVID and post-jab injury syndromes — complex chronic illnesses. To that end, he’s collaborating with doctors who’ve spent decades treating other tricky conditions, such as chronic Lyme disease, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

“So, not only do I have a new career and practice, but also a new intellectual focus and it’s much more satisfying. I’m literally returning people to levels of function that they weren’t at before.

These were oftentimes healthy people with full careers, children, they exercised, ate right and now they’re fully disabled with numerous organ system complaints.

And I’ll tell you, getting them from 20% [function] to 40% [function] is a big deal, when they can actually do just a little bit more than they were doing before, and when you get them to 80%, it’s transformative.

But it’s way more challenging. And I tell my patients, ‘Listen, I have to be humble here. I’m trying to figure this out. I’m collaborating, I’m reading, I’m learning from you.’ I’m learning from each patient, because we’re doing a lot of empiric therapies.

We’re trying things, and so I learn. Each patient serves as their own control and I’m finding different things work on different patients. But the real challenge that I’m finding is that I don’t have any biomarkers or tests that I find helpful to direct therapies.

A lot of the tests are normal, even inflammatory markers. Clotting markers are normal, and yet I know that they have inflammatory processes and they’re thrombogenic. So, I wish there was more research and guidance.”

Treating Long-Haul COVID

One of the primary complaints of those struggling with what we’re now calling “long-haul COVID” is fatigue, a lack of energy to do even the most basic things. Since mitochondria are responsible for 90% of the energy production in your body, it stands to reason that impaired energy production in the mitochondria, or more simply, mitochondrial dysfunction, is at play.

The challenge is how to recover that function. One fascinating drug that can help in this regard is methylene blue, which helps mitochondrial respiration and improves brain energy metabolism. Methylene blue is actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs commonly used to treat not only malaria but also COVID-19.

Best known as a fish tank antiseptic and textile dye for blue jeans, it was actually the first synthetic drug in modern history, developed in 1876. Since then, we’ve discovered it has many really important medicinal benefits. Importantly, it’s the only known antidote for metabolic poisons, i.e., any poison that interferes with oxygen transport or displaces oxygen, either from the blood or from the mitochondria.

Basically, as an electron cycler, methylene blue acts like a battery, but unlike other compounds that do the same thing, it doesn’t cause damaging oxidation in the process. You can review my interview with Dr. Francisco Gonzalez Lima here for more information.

If anything interferes with oxygenation or cellular respiration, such as cyanide, methylene blue is able to bypass that point of interference through electron cycling, thus allowing mitochondrial respiration, oxygen consumption and energy production to function as it normally would. And, the effect is typically felt within hours, as it increases, by about 30%, the ability of the mitochondria to produce ATP in the electron transport chain. Kory has also found it useful.

“My really sick patients use methylene blue,” he says. “Some of the really sick ones that aren’t responding to medicine, I send to a clinic where they do apheresis, ozone, methylene blue, infrared. One of them actually was discharged on oral methylene blue. And so, I want to figure out how to implement oral methylene blue.”

Trial and Error

Methylene blue is far from a cure-all, however. Any number of processes could be impacting your mitochondria, and they all need to be addressed. Adding to the complexity is that remedies that work really well in one long-hauler or COVID jab-injured patient often will not work for another, even though they present with very similar symptoms.

“We’ve [found] about six or seven different pathophysiologic mechanisms, and one of them is mitochondrial dysfunction, but I don’t know which is the predominant one in each patient,” Kory says. “I have no way of figuring that out. The only way I figure it out is by responses to therapy.

For instance, I had one young woman recently. I tried a number of therapies and what resurrected her, finally, was when I started to treat mast cell activation. I put her on antihistamine, famotidine [a heartburn medication], ketotifen [an asthma medication], and Boom.”

The Case for Sun Exposure

Daily sun exposure for about an hour around solar noon can also be important, as the near-infrared wavelengths will trigger melatonin production in your mitochondria, where you need it the most.

Melatonin is a potent antioxidant, so getting plenty of sunshine on bare skin is a simple way to reduce reactive oxygen species (ROS) that cause damage, and secondarily increase the efficiency of ATP production. Kory has been recommending this as well.

COVID Really Revealed the Level of Corruption in Science

During our conversation, the issue of medical journals came up, and their role in the corruption of science. Kory notes:

“That’s the other transformation that Paul [Marik] and I have undergone. We really looked to those journals thinking they were the most sophisticated and that was the top levels of science. But seeing what was published in those journals throughout COVID uncovered the absolute control by the pharmaceutical industry.

I mean, what appears in those journals is what they allow to appear in those journals. Period. I know of many positive studies of repurposed drugs rejected. We’ve seen them pull the following — JAMA and The New England Journal both — where instead of rejecting [the paper] they hold onto it as if they’re considering it, and then the rejection comes months later.

I’ve never heard of that in my career. Usually, when I’ve tried to submit manuscripts, they either say, ‘This is interesting. We’re sending it out for peer review,’ or they say, ‘This is not of sufficient interest to our readership at this time.’

They rejected positive trials of ivermectin. And then, probably the greatest and most saddening corruption that they pulled, is that they published the Together trial on ivermectin, which is so brazenly fraudulent and corrupt.

There are so many documented actions those investigators took in order to ensure they did not have a statistically significant benefit for ivermectin. Yet the New England Journal of Medicine published it. When you look at the design and the conduct of the trial, it should never be published. It was brazenly corrupt.

The investigators were all working for either their own companies or other companies whose sole job was to do research contracts for pharmaceutical companies. I mean, what would happen in their careers had they published a positive trial on ivermectin? That’s it. Bye. No more contracts.”

The War on Ivermectin

According to Kory, the idea for “The War on Ivermectin” was birthed after reading an article titled “The Disinformation Playbook,”1 published by the Union for Concerned Scientists. He explains:

“What happened is that after my ivermectin testimony2 [December 8, 2020, before Sen. Ron Johnson], which went viral and brought a lot of attention to the FLCCC … our protocols were looked in to. Doctors started prescribing ivermectin.

And I thought — this is how naive I was — I literally thought that we were providing a major intervention that would alter the trajectory of the pandemic, without question. It would reduce cases, hospitalizations and deaths, and now you have an effective early outpatient treatment. And I thought that news would be welcomed.

I thought the FLCCC would come out as heroes. It was really Paul who identified the data signal first. He said, ‘Wow. You got to see what these studies are starting to show.’ I jumped in right behind him. I was the first author of that comprehensive review paper.

I worked a lot and I got deeply expert on ivermectin. But what happened in the next few months is that everything started going sideways, and I could not figure it out. I saw hit pieces. To you, this is not news. You’re probably like, ‘Yep. I’ve seen that before.’

The thing is, I didn’t know. I didn’t know that what I was really doing — bringing forth data supporting the efficacy of a generic drug — that is poking the bear. And when I say poking the bear, what is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry and their whole business model is they cannot have generic off-patent drugs become standard of care. It obliterates the market for their pricing new pills.

I didn’t know I was stepping into a war. In the history of pharma, I don’t think any single medicine threatened as many [drug] markets and campaigns. The only other medicine that did that was hydroxychloroquine, but they already killed hydroxychloroquine in 2020.

I was coming out now with ivermectin, and it threatened hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity for these insanely lethal vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir — all of the markets for their novel new pills to enter. I mean, I don’t think any medicine has ever threatened that much of a market.

So, we were getting attacked. I did an interview with the Associated Press and the article that came out, I mean, I almost had a heart attack [reading it]. I saw unending attacks on ivermectin and it was coming in different directions. I saw academia getting all hot and bothered.

‘It’s a fringe medicine. It’s unproven. The trials are small.’ I saw all these narratives and I didn’t know they were narratives at the time. I thought people were being stupid … Now, I see everything. I see everything they do now, even before they do it, because they’re really predictable.”

The Disinformation Playbook

The turning point came when Kory received a two-line email from Dr. William B. Grant (who also co-wrote my review paper3 on vitamin D for COVID prevention). The email said, “Dr. Kory, what they’re doing to ivermectin is what they’ve done to vitamin D for decades.” Attached was a link to The Disinformation Playbook article.4

“It’s a short article. It’s very well-designed. They have little diagrams and then they have examples of disinformation campaigns. They describe the five plays, which they name after American football plays. And these are the tactics that pharma used. I read the article and I was like, ‘Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.’

Suddenly, the world made sense — and not in a good way. It was very ugly, because I was like, ‘That’s what’s going on. There’s a massive disinformation campaign directed at ivermectin.’ From that moment on, everything that happened, every day, it was almost like I got tied to a front row seat for a horror movie. I’ve had to watch a horror movie unfold ever since.

Millions dying, hospitals overflowing. And there’s a drug that could prevent that. It could avert catastrophe. It would’ve definitely either put the brakes on or stopped the vaccine campaign obsession, which is in my mind, is one of history’s greatest humanitarian catastrophes.

It’s a holocaust out there with these vaccines. That’s easily proven from immense sources of data now, from life insurance data, disability data, excess mortality data. Now we’re even seeing birth rates dropping.

So, the theme of the book is centered around that. It’s my experiences and knowledge of what they do … It’s almost like a teacher’s manual, because I saw everything they pulled, how they did it and how successful they were — the fire plays, the blitz, harass the scientists that come out with inconvenient science, the diversion, inject doubt where there is none.”

Indeed, these disinformation tactics have a long history. They’re not new. It’s just that people in general have not been aware of these tactics, so they worked like a charm and could be used over and over again.

Disinformation Is an Old PR Tool Used by Toxic Industries

In the 1950s, the tobacco industry hired a PR agency called Hills and Knowlton, which established all the strategies Kory just listed and discuss at depth in his book. The tobacco industry used it so effectively, they were able to quash cancer concerns for another 50 years.

Their disinformation campaign didn’t end until attorneys general across the country finally decided to collaborate and bring massive lawsuits against the tobacco industry, winning not only settlements but also — and more importantly — limiting their ability to practice disinformation through media and advertising.

The telecommunications industry has used the same tactics since the ’90s. They actually hired the same PR firm to protect their business and hoodwink customers, and they’re still going strong. Unlike tobacco, which was finally understood to cause cancer, electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from cell phones and Wi-Fi is still not recognized as a biological danger, despite massive amounts of evidence.

The drug industry, though, has perhaps used the disinformation playbook the longest, and it’s high time to break their magic spell. The way we do that is by educating ourselves and others about how they use disinformation to manipulate you. Once you know their playbook, it’s like being equipped with X-ray vision.

“I think ‘The War on Ivermectin’ is almost as important as Bobby Kennedy’s book, ‘The Real Anthony Fauci,’ where he, in a highly-referenced fashion, documents the control of medicine and the medical sciences and how it’s literally controlled by pharma and how depraved that control is,” Kory says.

“They do not care. The pharmaceutical industry is a documented criminal industry. They’ve released many, many products that have caused untold deaths and what do they do? They try to suppress that evidence for as long as possible. They get caught. They pay a fine. They do it again.”

Academic Freedom Is an Illusion

Kory also became wise to the fact that these kinds of medical disinformation campaigns have been routine for decades. Ivermectin was just the last in a long line of repurposed drugs that were being suppressed, lest it threaten Big Pharma profits. Cancer drugs, heart medications and psychiatric remedies have all been buried in the same way. He continues:

“So, I started to learn about how pharma practices disinformation, and I think the most terrible disinformation campaigns, which caused more deaths than any other, were the ones on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin …

So, the book is about all of the tactics that I witnessed. It’s also about my personal journey. I’ve been through a lot. I’ve lost three jobs. One I left voluntarily. One was mutual. The third was a firing. Also, my proudest contribution to COVID [was writing what] I thought was the best paper of my life. It was a paper that argued that the pulmonary phase of COVID is actually an organizing pneumonia, or what they used to call BOOP.

I wrote a paper with one of the top chest radiologists in the world. I consulted pathologists. I looked at autopsy data, even just the CAT scans were in a pattern of organized pneumonia, which is a terrible descriptor for the disease, because it suggests that it’s an infection and it’s not.

Organizing pneumonia is an inflammatory response to a lung injury. The gold standard of care is corticosteroids. That’s the only thing that’s been shown to really reverse organized pneumonia.

I gave testimony in the Senate in May 2020, telling the world that it was critical to use corticosteroids in the hospital phase of disease. I got attacked by the University of Wisconsin. By the way, you know another thing that I learned? Academic freedom isn’t real. As soon as you’re a professor with an opinion that goes against orthodoxy or the system, oh, you’re going to feel the pressure …

I was vindicated on corticosteroids. It’s now the standard of care around the world. However, the standard of care dose is 6 milligrams of dexamethasone, which is too low, [and] methylprednisone is far superior in its effects on the lung.

It’s well-known that in fulminant cases, like whited out lungs on a ventilator, you need … 1,000 milligrams of methylprednisone for three days in a row. Six milligrams of Dex is equivalent to about 32 milligrams of methylprednisone.”

COVID Hospitalizations Eradicated With Ivermectin

While there are many individual success stories out there, one that Kory believes best illustrates the power of ivermectin against COVID is that of Itajai, Brazil, a city of 220,000 people. In June 2020, they implemented a prophylaxis program using ivermectin. The program was advertised throughout local media, and people were encouraged to participate and take ivermectin four times a month, on days 1, 2, 15 and 16.

On the appropriate days, they set up tents and centers where people could get the drug, and the entire program was carefully logged in an electronic database. In all, 159,000 Brazilians participated, of those 113,000 elected to take the ivermectin. Kory and eight coauthors published a paper5 on the results in March 2022.

“The 113,000 [who took the ivermectin] were older, sicker, fatter. Way more cardiovascular disease and diabetes. And, obviously, they were probably more worried about the impacts on their health.

So, when you look at that comparison, I mean, there are massive negative confounders. But despite those confounders, even when you didn’t propensity match, there were insanely positive benefits in the ivermectin group.

They died much less, I think it was 70% lower risk of dying, 68% lower risk of hospitalization and 50% lower risk of getting COVID. And that was in the sickest of the sick in that city. Then, when we did propensity matching, matching them for age and other things, it was even greater.

There’s a follow up study which is astounding, where … they were able through pharmacy records to split the ivermectin group into two. Regular ivermectin users, those who took all their pills, and irregular, those who missed doses.

And when you look at the regular users, the ones who were most adherent to the protocol, no one went to the hospital. There was a 100% reduction in hospitalization and a 90% lower risk of dying. It’s astounding … I’ve never seen a more proven therapy in any disease model, which they successfully got everyone to believe is a horse dewormer used by unvaccinated conspiracy theorists.”

Dosage Recommendations

Ivermectin recommendations have changed over time, as newer variants have acted differently, requiring updated approaches. At present, Kory still recommends ivermectin for prevention, if you really feel you need it. Current COVID variants are very mild, however, and rarely cause severe problems (unless you got the COVID jab).

For those struggling with long-haul COVID, ivermectin is a mainstay. “It’s the most frequently effective therapy,” Kory says. “I do have in my practice a minority who are ivermectin non-responders, but the majority respond in either small or large ways.” Importantly, ivermectin is the most effective drug available for binding to the spike protein.

So, if there’s circulating spike protein in your body, be it from natural infection or the jab, ivermectin will help bind to it, thereby preventing much of the spike’s negative impacts.

Ivermectin also repolarizes macrophages from the M1 to the M2 subtype. M1 is hyperinflammatory and M2 is hypo-inflammatory. So, it reduces inflammation. In addition to that, ivermectin has at least 18 other mechanisms of action and downstream effects that can be helpful.

For long-haulers and the COVID jab injured, Kory typically starts patients out at 0.3 mg per kilo of bodyweight once a day. For most, that dose works well. It’s still unclear how long people need to stay on this daily dose. Oftentimes, when they try to cut back, symptoms return, which suggests they still have spike protein in their bodies. Fortunately, the safety profile of ivermectin, even for long-term use, is very good.

Save the Date: Medical Conference in Orlando, October 2022

Hopefully, more doctors will get involved in the treatment of spike protein injuries. October 15 and 16, 2022, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) will be holding a medical conference in Orlando, Florida, titled “Understanding and Treating Spike Protein Induced Diseases.” You can register for the conference on the FLCCC’s website.

“We have a lineup of speakers, deeply studied in treatment of complex chronic illnesses from different specialties. There are a lot of ways to approach this disease, so it’s really important. It really is directed at the treating providers. Because one of the many abject failures is they literally don’t recognize vaccine injury.

There’s no clinic for the vaccine injured. They’re abandoned, and I’m just going to be crude here — they’re pissing off the doctors because all of these patients are showing up that doctors have no idea what’s wrong with.

They have no knowledge of the mechanisms. They have no knowledge of what some effective therapies can be. So, they’re not treating these patients. They’re abandoned and gaslit.

Some doctors actually get angry when the patients relate their symptoms to the vaccine. They don’t want to hear it. They don’t want a vaccine injured in their practice. I have numbers of patients where the physician literally told them, ‘You don’t need to schedule a follow up.’

So, for those [doctors] who still have a shred of humanity, empathy and understanding that the spike protein is a toxin that causes immense amounts of disease, I hope they attend and/or watch the lectures that we’ll stream afterwards.

We’re coming at this very humble. I mean, there are very few trials on therapies in these two syndromes. So, it’s really about clinical knowledge, expertise and experiences from this disease and other diseases.

I am looking forward to it because I want to learn. I want to listen to those other speakers and hear about what they think and how they approach this. And I think it’s going to be a really tremendous conference. I think a lot of laypeople will show up too …

Laypeople who are much more deeply studied and knowledgeable on what’s really going on. They didn’t go to medical school, but they’re deeply studied and they read papers. They watch, read a lot of data sources.

So, I think it would be of interest to laypeople who want to learn how to either help themselves, or help their friends and colleagues, just like they did with COVID. You know how many laypeople passed around our protocols and tried to get their friends and relatives access to the medicines on our protocol? They saved lives. They saved lives by doing that.”

More Information

In the interview, Kory also reviews the clear and present danger the COVID jab poses to women, especially if they’re pregnant or want to get pregnant in the future. We also review the blatant fraud perpetrated by Pfizer to hide the massive number of miscarriages that occurred in its human trial.

In summary, the miscarriage rate is 87.5%, which is just astounding. No woman in her right mind would pull that trigger if she had that information. We also discuss the worldwide drops in birth rates (which began after the rollout of these experimental jabs), the complete absence of any supporting data for the authorization of COVID shots for children (which is yet another medical fraud perpetrated on the American people), and the lie that COVID is a pandemic of the unvaccinated (it’s actually the complete opposite).

So, for more on those topics, please listen to the full interview, or read through the transcript. You can also find more of Kory’s work on PierreKory.substack.com. Last but not least, be sure to pick up a copy of “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic” to learn all about how the biggest, most lethal medical disinformation play was perpetrated, right before your eyes.

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s Substack.