The War on Ivermectin: The Smoking Gun
The safety and effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is as well-established as anything in medicine. Ninety-eight studies testify to the effectiveness of this safe, off-patent drug in reducing one or more of the following clinically relevant endpoints: time to viral clearance, cases, time to recovery, hospitalization, intensive care, ventilation, and/or death.
Nevertheless, at the start of the covid pandemic, our rulers made a decision. They had this new modified RNA platform ready, and they were going to use it, come Hell or high water. Towards this end, they deployed a twin-pronged strategy. On the one hand, they hit every button they could to systematically exaggerate the effectiveness of the vax in preventing infection. On the other hand, they hit every button they could to exaggerate both the purported death toll and the actual death toll, the latter by means of vicious persecution of courageous doctors working on the front lines of the pandemic, treating covid with safe and effective off-patent drugs. This is how you get that oft-repeated factoid that the shot saved millions of lives, even though the drugmakers were unable to demonstrate any reduction in mortality at all in clinical trials.
This vicious persecution is detailed in Pierre Kory’s book, The War on Ivermectin. Industry-funded researchers have a vast amount of expertise in jiggering trials to exaggerate the effectiveness of their wares. In the case of ivermectin, this expertise was deployed in reverse, to diminish the apparent effectiveness of this drug. Chapter Twenty-Five of Dr. Kory’s book explains how this was accomplished.
Six large randomized controlled trials were carried out, and all six concluded that ivermectin doesn’t work – a conclusion that was dutifully parroted by the legacy media. Were the researchers correct?
In the first place, it needs to be pointed out that at most, all a given trial can prove is that a given dose of a drug, given to that population of patients at that point in their illness, does not have an effect. To go from there to the sweeping conclusion that “ivermectin doesn’t work” is a gigantic leap of logic.
Moreover, Dr. Kory details numerous problems with these six trials, to wit:
Massive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical companies and/or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (which has invested heavily in vaccine manufacturers)
Not excluding subjects taking ivermectin from the “control” groups
Enrolling only mildly ill, young or otherwise healthy patients (who are least likely to be hospitalized), with a primary endpoint of hospitalization
Administering too-low doses of ivermectin
Administering ivermectin on an empty stomach, even though we know that taking the drug on a full stomach increases concentration, and higher concentrations lead to more potent efficacy
Placing arbitrary weight limits to dosing, with the result that obese patients (who are most at risk for death or serious complications due to covid) were underdosed
Publishing trial data only after long (and unexplained) delays
Enrolling patients many days into the disease, when we know ivermectin works best when it is administered early
Endpoint switching
Refusing to share patient-level data
And yet, with all that, each of these trials did show ivermectin had a positive effect – although, after deploying all these tricks to diminish the efficacy of ivermectin, the effect did not rise to customary levels of significance. Big surprise.
On page 158 of his book, Dr. Kory produces what may fairly be regarded as the smoking gun in this case: two trials, run by the same pharma-funded principal investigator: the PANORAMA trial of Merck’s patented drug molnupravir and the PRINCIPLE trial of ivermectin. A side-by-side comparison of the protocols for these two trials is instructive:
Randomization delay: Molnupravir: Up to 5 days after onset (median 2 days); Ivermectin: Up to 14 days after onset (median unknown)
Patient population: Molnupravir: 50 or older OR 18 or older with comorbidity; Ivermectin: 18 or older, switched to 18 or older with comorbidty OR 65 or older
Treatment: Molnupravir: 5 days, 2x/day; Ivermectin: 3 days, 1x/day, dosage below real-world protocols
Number of patients: Molnupravir: 25,873; Ivermectin: 4,500
Cost: Molnupravir: $707/patient; Ivermectin: < $1/patient
Profit for Merck: Molnupravir: > $5 BILLION; Ivermectin: Zero
Mutagenic: Molnupravir: Yes; Ivermectin: No
Note how all the differences between the two trials favor molnupravir over ivermectin. As anyone who has ever dealt with a hospital billing department knows, when all the mistakes are in their favor, you have to wonder.
On a personal note: I heard Dr. Kory speak at the Expert Panel meeting convened by Senator Ron Johnson on 24 January 2022. I wrote about the event on my blog on Medium, and within hours my Medium account was canceled.
The War on Ivermectin must rank among the greatest crimes in the history of medicine, and The War on Ivermectin tells the story of this travesty, from the man who was in the trenches from the beginning. This is a book everyone needs to read.
To purchase The War on Ivermectin, click here