If you really want to know what lengths our government and the global “powers that be” have gone to in order to sell us on COVID-19 vaccines and no other treatment, then read on.
In a column published by The Blaze, Daniel Horowitz lays out in stunning detail how a major trial in Brazil involving the use of the COVID wonder drug ivermectin is being ignored and even attacked because, quite obviously, Big Pharma is pulling the strings when it comes to deciding what “acceptable” treatments for the virus are and which ones are not.
It’s pathetic how politicized literally every aspect of Western civilization has become and now that obviously extends to ‘science’ and medicine.
Horowitz writes:
Everyone in the entire southern Brazilian city of Itajai was invited to participate in a preventive study of ivermectin for efficacy against severe COVID-19 symptoms. 133,051 (60.3%) volunteered to take ivermectin for two days every 15-day period between July and December 2020 at a low dose of 0.2mg per kilogram of body weight. 87,466 (39.7%) chose to enroll their information as the control group without taking the treatment. So no complaints can be made about a small sample size. The results? The hospitalization and mortality rate of the trial group was nearly half that of the control group!
However, the results are much more impressive than the top-line numbers suggest. One of the complaints about studies like this that are not randomized is that it’s possible for the healthier, more treatment-conscience individuals to sign up for the trial group, thereby confounding the conclusion of the trial results. But in this case, the opposite is true. The ivermectin group had nearly twice as many people over age 50 enrolled, which also included many more people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and pulmonary issues. Thus, the relative risk reduction in mortality rate among those high-risk people taking ivermectin was actually much higher – 71% among those with type 2 diabetes and 67% among those with hypertension. The absolute risk reduction was also even greater among older people who are most at risk.
The overall effect on the city’s population was remarkable. The COVID-19 hospitalization rate decreased from 6.8% before the program with preventive use of ivermectin, to just 1.8% after its beginning (73% reduction). The mortality rate also dropped by 59%, from 3.4% to 1.4%.
“In many respects, this is more illuminating than a standard randomized controlled clinical trial. If we actually want to project what the world would look like if everyone would take ivermectin, this is a perfect case study of an entire city and its effect on the hospitals,” Horowitz adds.
But it gets better. Or worse — depending on your perspective:
Well, we already see from doctors in the U.S. who have applied this approach, and their reduction in mortality is near 100%. And all the drugs they use range from safer than over-the-counter medications (in the case of ivermectin) to much safer than anything being administered by the hospital systems, such as remdesivir, baricitinib, and tofacitinib.
One thing is certain: Ivermectin is much safer than anything the medical establishment is using, and there definitely is a degree of efficacy. So why would it face such visceral opposition?
That’s a great question, but Horowitz adds another aspect of scandal: It’s likely the World Health Organization, when it wasn’t helping China avoid taking responsibility for the virus, was busy hiding ivermectin results showing the drug is effective:
Dr. Andrew Hill, a senior visiting research fellow in pharmacology at Liverpool University, adviser to the Gates Foundation, and researcher for the WHO, was tasked with conducting an ivermectin trial for the WHO. Based on his preliminary findings, Hill testified enthusiastically about the use of ivermectin before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel on Jan. 6, 2021. But then he suddenly changed course and published a study dinging the drug’s efficacy against COVID.
According to the Tribune, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, who was also involved in the ivermectin research, recorded a Zoom call she had with Hill and revealed a remarkable exchange between the two of them.
“…Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use,” the World Tribune reported.
“Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study,” the outlet continued. “In the call, Lawrie berated Hill’s study as ‘flawed,’ ‘rushed,’ ‘not properly put together,’ and ‘bad research . . . bad research,’ which Hill appears not to have denied.”
“Instead, when pressed he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions,” World Tribune added.
Horowitz concludes:
Now, imagine the difficult position that millions of people found themselves in when they were denied access to this treatment early, and many more, even on a ventilator. Imagine how many other promising treatments we know about (and possibly ones we don’t) because research was squelched in order to deny the public a cheap and effective way around the false choice the establishment has created – either confront the bio-weapon virus without treatment or take their bio-weapon injection as the panacea?
It’s not too late for red-state governors and legislatures to correct this mistake by barring all punitive actions taken against doctors for prescribing FDA-approved drugs off label and prohibiting pharmacists from denying those prescriptions.
