IVERMECTIN: One Story of Superb Success and One Story of Sordid Skullduggery

Introduction by RWA

The following two articles provide extremely current information about IVERMECTIN and to a lesser extent, HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE. IVERMECTIN is a medication that is safe, cheap, and incredibly effective in not only curing anyone who has become infected by COVID-19, but also in preventing infection from the virus. In other words, it not only acts like a vaccine, but it does more than a vaccine because it can cure you if you weren’t using it as prophylaxis before you became infected!

The first article from Argentina provides these superb success details. There are a number of other articles here on Gumshoenews, that present similar but somewhat more dated details from other parts of the world.

So why aren’t we, the Australian public, who are so thoroughly battered and bruised by months of pandemic Lockdowns and associated devastating limitations, being fed this miracle pill?

Read the second article to gain an understanding of why HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, and similarly IVERMECTIN, is not available to we Ozzies to combat COVID-19, and why the lack of availability of HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE in the USA is controlled by the FDA but is associated with a vast amount of sordid skullduggery. The FDA’s limitations on HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE (and similarly IVERMECTIN) are used as a convenient excuse by the AuGov to also apply its own limitations. In addition, however, the AuGov is probably also engaged in its own skullduggery to limit both HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE and IVERMECTIN because of their unwelcome competition to the Far-Off-Vaccine in which the AuGov has invested a considerable amount of money.

Read on, then consider how the AuGov and other authorities are toying with your life, your health and your wellbeing. Also consider how the AuGov may very well have contributed to the untimely death of your beloved grandparents from COVID-19 infection by withholding their access to HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE or IVERMECTIN. There are many other pandemic-associated situations that have caused enormous distress to numerous members of the Australian population. Perhaps you might like to consider joining one of the Class Actions against the AuGov because of this. One is presented here on Gumshoenews via this link here. 

ARTICLE #1

Source of the article here. Translated from Spanish to English by Google with some minor editing by RWA.

TITLE: “IVERMECTIN: verified as effective against COVID-19, but still not authorised.”

OCTOBER 18, 2020 – 11:56 AM

by Bernardita Ponce Mora

[Editor Note: BPM is a journalist with El Tribuno, an Argentine newspaper.]

Héctor Eduardo Carvallo is one of the physicians who has studied the use of IVERMECTIN – alone and with other drugs – both as a preventive (prophylaxis) and as a cure (curative) for COVID-19.

The results, successful in both cases, were presented on July 4 (2020) to the authorities of Nación, the Province of Buenos Aires, and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA). Earlier, the results had been registered with the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Carvallo is a physician who graduated from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) some 40 years ago. He was director of the Ezeiza hospital and is a professor of Medicine at the Inter-American Open University and the University of Morón. Previously, he taught at UBA and Maimónides University.

What studies did they do?

We have worked on two protocols: one as a preventive (prophylaxis) and one as a cure (curative) of COVID-19.

In both protocols, we use IVERMECTIN, which is an antiparasitic that has been used for more than 20 years in human pharmacology and is approved for human use not only in Argentina by the National Administration of Medicines, Food and Medical Technology (Anmat), but also in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

For the preventive (prophylaxis) protocol, we use IVERMECTIN once a week together with a nasal spray having carrageenan as the active ingredient.

We call the curative protocol IDEA, which is the acronym for the four components involved: IVERMECTIN, Dexamethasone (a corticosteroid), Enoxaparin (an anticoagulant) and Aspirin (a blood thinner).

“There were several protocols used in May that, in our view, no longer worked. With the new protocols, we demonstrate that we reduced lethality sevenfold!”

What was the process?

During the preventive (prophylaxis) protocol, we worked with 121 health care workers with all existing protective equipment plus our treatment and another 98, with the same equipment, in the same place, seeing the same patients, but without the preventive protocol.

Within the second (98) group, during that month, there were 11 contagions. In the first group who received the preventive protocol, there was no contagion.

What happened next?

After we got the results, very few wanted to be involved in the control arm (ie without the preventive protocol.)

Three months ago, the protocol was extended and 1,200 health care workers were involved in total. Some 800 received the preventive protocol and another 400 did not, but only because they personally chose not to adhere to the protocol. Regardless, they agreed to be considered purely for comparison purposes. In this group of 400, there were 252 contagions – more than half – while the group of 800 had zero contagion. [Editor Note: This is very strong evidence of the prophylaxis value of IVERMECTIN!]

Are there any more studies on this?

I have worked on another preventive protocol together with Professor Roberto Hirsch, who is the director of the Infectology Department of Muñiz Hospital, which is the reference center of this topic in the country (Argentina). In this study, only IVERMECTIN is used ie without the carrageenan nasal spray, but the results are very similar to those when the spray is used. [Editor Note: In effect, the carrageenan nasal spray is of no value as part of the preventive protocol.]

The preventive protocol was used in Muñiz (a town in Argentina), the Penna hospital and the Polyclinic of the Metallurgical Workers’ Union in San Nicolás de los Arroyos, in the north of the province of Buenos Aires.

How was the curative protocol applied?

We never wanted to use the curative protocol versus a placebo. In the midst of a pandemic, in which people’s lives are at stake, condemning the placebo patients to take that risk (ie exposure to infection without the protection of any prophylaxis) seemed to us to be too unethical. Science should never place itself above ethics.

(Editor Note: Ethics appear to be of no consequence to the Australian Federal and State Governments who refuse to make IVERMECTIN available for use by the public, or for prescription by GPs, etc to combat COVID-19. Ethics also appears to be of no consequence to other authorities who have helped to foster the Govs’ negative attitude to IVERMECTIN. This has condemned the Australian population to the devastation of Lockdowns etc, plus an increased chance of infection by COVID-19, or of prolonged recovery and of possible death once infected.)

As there were already several protocols in use, such as hydroxychloroquine, kaletra, and plasma, and some people had already chosen one of them and had signed an associated consent form to receive it, we used the IDEA curative protocol versus the other treatments which no longer worked according to our opinion which we developed in May.

What were the conclusions?

During the month of the protocol use, we had about 180 patients. In that group, there were 135 cases of mildly infected, which are those that have all the Coronavirus symptoms but do not have anything serious, so can be treated at home.

According to a global statistic, about 10 percent of mild cases get worse and over time they need to be hospitalised. Of our 135, we, therefore, expected about 13 (10%) to go to the hospital later. As it turned, none of them became that bad.

Of the others, who were no longer mild at the time of our late intervention, more than half went straight into intensive care. This consisted of 35 patients.

The control group which was self-generated consisted of 12 other patients who did not want to adhere to our protocol as they preferred other forms of treatment.

With the IDEA curative protocol, we demonstrated that we were able to reduce lethality sevenfold.

Is this protocol still used?

Several provinces use it, such as Corrientes, Misiones, Jujuy, Tucumán, Chubut, and some places in Buenos Aires. As it is not yet official, each location adheres to its own standards. It’s becoming more widespread, but not with the speed we wanted and which would be more beneficial to the general population.

Is the protocol used in Salta?

(Editor Note: Salta is the name of a city and province in Argentina. It is the home of José Evaristo Uriburu, the president of Argentina, so is probably an influential area.)

It’s an open secret that everyone uses it. Some hospitals such as that of Dr. Arturo Oñativia, San Bernardo, and others whose names I do not know, they use it (NdR: the Ministry of Public Health of the Province approved from 21 September the use of ivermectin in drops -24 mg- or ivermectin 6 mg -four tablets – for the treatment of high-risk adult patients).

In addition to health care workers, who else used the preventive protocol?

In the Partido de la Costa, in the province of Buenos Aires, the preventive protocol is used by police forces and in some aged care homes, too.

In Jujuy (San Salvador) there was the case of two institutions, one of which applied the preventive protocol from the beginning and the other did not. In the second, there were 40 cases of infection and several deaths and in the first, there were no cases of infection. [Editor Note: Yet more evidence of IVERMECTIN’s successful abilities as a preventive (prophylaxis)].

In an aged care home in the province of Buenos Aires, where there had already been four cases of infection with one death, we were asked to apply the curative protocol. In one week it cured the outbreak with 50 patients and we were left with only four unresolved cases of infection.

The most interesting thing is that after a month they measured the defenses of the 50 patients and 42 had immunity; i.e. they had become infected but no-one had noticed.

Can anyone use this treatment?

We believe that it has to be used by all essential staff, at the very least, and then distributed to the rest of the community.

To those who want to use this medication I recommend that, before doing so, a patient should consult with a hospital such as one in San Bernardo, in the Oñativia or in other health centers so that the patient can receive a reasonable and professional explanation on how they should use it.

Until it is official and they say “for now, this is the treatment”, it is necessary to sign a consent form because it is a medication that, although approved by the Anmat, is being used in a manner for which it was not originally intended.

Why is the availability of IVERMECTIN and associated medications, being delayed?

I’ll leave that to you to investigate [as a journalist]…

There are two things that concern us, due to the slowness of government entities to formalise protocols.

On 4 July, when we promoted the results to the relevant authorities, there were 1,452 deaths. Today, there are 26 thousand. That makes us lose sleep…

[Editor Note: See “Afterword” below.]

By not making it official, we not only detract from people’s ability to do something that has proven effective, but there is also the risk and dangers of self-medication.

Which authorities did you submit the results to?

In the Province of Buenos Aires, in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, and in the Nation.

As we saw that it would be long, since July we started contacting companies and medical teams in different parts of the country, not to sell a product because we are not employed as promoters of any laboratory or its products. In fact, IVERMECTIN’s patent expired more than 10 years ago. It can now be produced by whoever wants to do so.

On Friday (16 October 2020), the World Health Organization recognised that all the treatments that some authorities had stated were successful, such as remdesivir, actually did not work.

How much does this treatment cost?

It’s not an expensive remedy. It is sustainable for any health system. The protocols we push costs $10 per person per day. The remdesivir, on the other hand, comes out $3,000 per person per day and, on top of that, it doesn’t work.

Is this a vaccine?

It’s not a vaccine, but it functions like one. It is this “vaccine effect” that Professor Hirsch is promoting. In effect, it is a low-cost default vaccine, without the risks that usually appear and which extend the progress of vaccine trials, at least in well-regulated countries.

[AFTERWORD – RWA’s Note: Australia’s death count is nowhere near the “26 thousand” figure quoted above, but there is little doubt that if IVERMECTIN had been made available in early-to-mid 2020, the horrendous Seniors’ death count could have been easily reduced if not totally eradicated. In addition, had IVERMECTIN been made available to the Australian population in general and not just the Seniors, it would have enabled every individual who had just been infected with the Coronavirus to IMMEDIATELY take the curative dosage, thereby ensuring TOTAL RECOVERY AT HOME, normally within a rapid 7 days, or even less. This encouraging result nullifies the fear created by mass infection, fear of overwhelmed hospital facilities, ICUs, and respirators.  The rapid recovery enables the infected individual to quickly return to a normal life, to quickly return to work, to quickly return to school, etc. In effect, infection with COVID-19 when treated IMMEDIATELY with IVERMECTIN is no worse than infection with the annual flu or even the common cold! Enabling the ready availability of IVERMECTIN would therefore totally negate the need for Lockdowns and any of its associated restrictions which have been so devastating to Australia’s economy, the community’s mental health, the proper schooling of children etc. IVERMECTIN and its curative properties provides all these amazingly beneficial advantages …. and this has not even considered using IVERMECTIN in the role as a preventive (prophylaxis). Australia, in fact, the World has been blessed with an amazing gift in the form of IVERMECTIN, but the authorities have been rendered blind by a dogmatic, arrogant and dismissive attitude, possibly bolstered by a certain degree of skullduggery as presented in Article #2.]

–END OF ARTICLE #1–

ARTICLE #2

Sourced from the Washington Examiner HERE.

TITLE: FDA obstruction: Patients die, while Trump gets the blame

By Harvey Risch.

October 19, 2020 – 5:38 PM

[Editor Note: The Washington Examiner is an American news website and weekly magazine based in Washington, D.C. USA. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.]

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, seven former FDA commissioners claimed that the agency has lost credibility with the public, and they blamed it on President Trump.

Jumping on the same bandwagon, an editorial in the once-venerable New England Journal of Medicine accused the president of “failing at every step” to stop the CO1VID-19 pandemic, thus enabling more than 220,000 deaths to date.

In reality, these charges are driven by craven politics and Big Pharma conflicts of interest. They divert attention from the FDA’s despicable efforts to block access to effective and inexpensive generic medications. Foremost among these is hydroxychloroquine.

[Editor Note: “The FDA’s despicable efforts to block access to …. hydroxychloroquine” also applies to Ivermectin which just happened to escape public scrutiny because President Trump never publicised it like he did hydroxychloroquine.]

Let’s take this in steps.

First, who is bringing these charges? The seven commissioners include David Kessler — adviser for the Biden campaign; Scott Gottlieb — board of directors of Pfizer and consultant to many pharmaceutical companies; Mark McClellan — board of directors of Johnson & Johnson; Robert Califf — extensive ties with many of the largest pharmaceutical companies; Andrew von Eschenbach — board of directors of the biotech company BioTime and director of Viamet Pharmaceuticals; and Jane Henney — who has served on the board of directors of AstraZeneca.

Many of these companies manufacture patented COVID-19 vaccines and medications. These products are in direct competition with generic, low-cost drugs that FDA has been asked to approve for outpatient COVID-19 use, but that it has refused.

Not to be outdone, the New England Journal of Medicine editorial was led by Deputy Editor Lindsey Baden, who disclosed that he is involved in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial work conducted in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health, COVID-19 Vaccine Prevention Network, and Crucell/Janssen, Moderna, the Gates Foundation, and the Ragon Institute.

Baden is also chair of the Antimicrobial Drug Advisory Committee of the FDA. Not only is Baden, because of his role with the FDA, motivated to deflect blame from the agency, but he appears to be incentivized financially to tilt the COVID-19 response away from inexpensive generic medications and toward patented and massively profitable vaccines.

The reality is that the FDA has undermined its own credibility, and it has done so brazenly in plain sight. No president was needed for that, as I’ll explain.

As background, one must understand that COVID-19 patients are typically hospitalized because they have developed a severe and life-threatening pneumonia, one that fills the lungs with inflammatory debris and causes abnormal blood clotting in the lungs and small blood vessels. This advanced and dangerous condition often described as acute respiratory distress syndrome, or ARDS, is entirely different from early “outpatient” (that is, outside the hospital) manifestations of COVID-19, which typically consist of a self-limiting, flu-like illness. We are thus speaking of two very different groups of patients. This distinction between COVID-19 outpatient and inpatient, of course, is well known to the FDA.

And yet, on July 1, the FDA posted on its website a large, black-letter warning against using hydroxychloroquine, or HCQ, to treat outpatients: “FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting.” The FDA justified this warning — stated on the website, just beneath the warning itself — by referring to safety concerns among hospitalized patients.

The FDA does not mention the crucial distinction between evidence for outpatients and inpatients. It does not mention the large body of evidence that HCQ is safe when used in COVID-19 outpatients. It does not mention that HCQ is currently being used safely by millions of outpatients with lupus and other rheumatological conditions. Nor does the FDA mention that HCQ has been safely used worldwide by hundreds of millions of persons, equaling tens of billions of doses, over more than half a century.

And finally, the FDA does not mention that it has no data showing adverse events in outpatient use. In short, among relatively healthy outpatients, HCQ has amassed one of the deepest and most extensive safety records of any drug in history, and the FDA’s warning implication of general harm is an outright lie.

On Aug. 18, Republican Sens. Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn asking the FDA to justify its public warning. After a seven-week delay, the FDA gave a vacuous non-response that contained no data on outpatient adverse events. Yet, the black-letter warning remains on the FDA website. That warning has caused state medical and pharmacy licensing boards to block physicians and patients from obtaining HCQ, and it has caused large health systems, medical groups, individual doctors, and other care providers to shun HCQ altogether.

Why is this important? There is extensive evidence that HCQ, when used within the first five days of symptom onset, produces a sharp and statistically significant reduction in hospitalization and mortality. Seven controlled, well-conducted clinical studies show this: 636 outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil; 199 clinic patients in Marseille, France; 717 patients across a large HMO network in Brazil; 226 nursing-home patients in Marseille; 1,247 outpatients in New Jersey; 100 long-term care institution patients in Andorra (between France and Spain); and 7,892 patients across Saudi Arabia.

All of these studies pertain to the early treatment of high-risk outpatients, and all showed 50% or higher reductions in hospitalization or death. Not a single fatal cardiac arrhythmia attributable to the HCQ was reported among these thousands of patients. In addition, a new summary analysis of five randomized controlled trials has also shown a statistically significant outpatient benefit, proving the case.

The inability of COVID-19 outpatients to obtain prescriptions for HCQ — a medication that along with zinc, vitamin D, antibiotics, and likely steroids will almost certainly prevent them from hospitalization and death — stems entirely from FDA’s refusal to remove its fictional website warning, and its refusal to grant HCQ emergency use authorization in spite of the major evidence of benefit. That evidence is much stronger than that involved in the FDA’s approval of convalescent plasma, and especially of its approval of remdesivir, which has now been proven ineffective.

(Editor Note: Amend the above statement: “The inability of COVID-19 outpatients to obtain prescriptions for HCQ … ” to read: “The inability of COVID-19 outpatients to obtain prescriptions for HCQ or IVERMECTIN ….”. This amendment exposes the problems imposed on IVERMECTIN as well as hydroxychloroquine, and the fact that with either of these medications, outpatients “…. will almost certainly (be prevented) from hospitalization and death.”)

Many or most of the 220,000 deaths in the United States to date could have been prevented by widespread HCQ (EN: or IVERMECTIN) use that the FDA blocked. It is the FDA that is responsible for these deaths, not the president. It is sheer corrupt hypocrisy, and completely shameful, for past FDA commissioners and for a New England Journal of Medicine editor with ties to the FDA to accuse the president of what the FDA itself has done.

It is time to clean up this mess once and for all. The FDA must remove its black-box warning, approve the emergency use authorization for outpatient HCQ (EN: and IVERMECTIN) use, and let doctors get on with the work of saving lives.

Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.

–END OF ARTICLE #2–