From the Brownstone Institute

BY DAVID GORTLER 

In the wake of the FDA settling a lawsuit brought against it for wantonly and aggressively smearing ivermectin, the agency has deleted its postings. That’s good, but we shouldn’t forget how egregiously it mischaracterized the drug, ignored copious evidence in its favor, and portrayed its proponents as dangerous crackpots.

About 30 months ago, America’s FDA was publishing articles with headlines like this: “Should I take ivermectin to treat COVID?” Answer: No. The agency also told Americans not to use ivermectin to prevent Covid. Then, in what became known as its infamous “horse tweet,” the FDA even patronizingly told Americans: “Seriously, y’all. stop it.”

Prescribers who advocated for alternate treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were mocked online by America’s “trusted journalists” as being part of a “right-wing conspiracy” and labeled “hucksters.” Those who didn’t demure to the Covid mRNA or other Big Pharma treatment narratives were banned, fired, and spoken harshly about around the world and into the reaches of the stratosphere in what seemed like coordinated messaging.

Many clinicians lost their jobs – at best. At worst, their reputations, practices, finances, and careers were shattered. If that was not bad enough, after losing their jobs, state medical and pharmacy boards initiated legal proceedings against their licensure, singling out their “off-label” Covid treatments, despite other off-label treatments being a near-ubiquitous component of pharmacy and medical practice.

Within days of FDA’s initial postings above, the American Pharmacist’s Association (APhA) the American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP), and the American Medical Association (AMA) all collaborated to release a joint press release condemning doctors who prescribed ivermectin to treat Covid, but it appears that these organizations, instead of actually performing independent analysis of primary literature data, blindly regurgitated FDA, CDC, and NIH plus other government and Big Pharma talking points “strongly opposing” ivermectin use.

For generations and especially during the Covid pandemic, professionals depended on these “elite” medical groups. Some of them have existed for around 170 years and have around $150 million to $1.2 billion in assets, so they clearly had the history, personnel, and wherewithal to objectively examine published data. Even beyond that, the AMA has several floors in a skyscraper in Chicago and the APhA’s Constitution Avenue’s “landmark headquarters” is so luxuriant that it is advertised and utilized as a wedding venue.

Of course, that extravagance was paid for by millions of pharmacists, physicians, and benefactors who expected these organizations to act as a checksum and ensure excellent clinical practice standards. These medical organizations have a duty to honor their histories, responsibilities, and ethical duties to better the human condition through verified scientific evidence. Instead, they appeared to outrageously abandon their obligations from their lofty positions of respect, comfort, money, and power.

APhA, ASHP, and AMA Clinical Declarations Now Indefensible:

On March 22, the FDA rightly acquiesced and agreed to remove their anti-ivermectin postings due to 1) a lawsuit filed against them and 2) the impossible task of having to defend themselves with an overwhelming amount of data disagreeing with not only dispensing medical recommendations, but the published data backing their Covid-19 use (e.g., see below).

With that gone, the APhA, ASHP, and AMA assertions suddenly have no leg upon which to stand.

Several non-FDA links within their press releases have (unsurprisingly) also quietly vanished with no explanation. NIH references are slated to be shut down, on top of multiple FDA and CDC links already no longer working.

Ivermectin Mechanism of Action, History and Evidence:

The broad antiviral mechanism of action of ivermectin is complicated and may partially involve blocking the uptake of viral proteins, but the bottom line is that it has been shown to yield positive results in a variety of published results for Covid-19. Had APhA, ASHP, and AMA pharmacists and physicians independently examined the data, (as I, just one drug-safety analyst without fancy headquarters, have done) rather than simply parroting now-deleted narratives of others, they would have learned that ivermectin works as an antiviral.

It has an extensively proven track record of being not just safe – but astonishingly safe for a variety of viral diseases. This is not breaking or fringe science; it has been known for years. Ivermectin is such a safe and effective drug that back in 2015 it was the first drug for infectious disease associated with a Nobel Prize in 60 years.

While I have stacks of electronic files and printed materials, dog-eared and food/drink-stained, there is a most elegantly presented meta-analysis website designed by some brainy and web-savvy scientists detailing over 100 studies from over 1,000 different scientists, involving over 140,000 patients in 29 countries describing the benefit and safety of ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment. It actually appears to be more extensive than Cochrane’s outdated review of ivermectin which only examined 14 trials – and excluded seven of them from consideration.

According to these data, consisting of smaller international publications that include real-world findings and small observational studies, ivermectin shows a statistically significant lower Covid-19 risk as detailed in the image above.

The less-positive findings associated with late treatment/viral clearance/hospitalization data cohort were associated with delayed administration. That is because any late-state use of antiviral pharmacology tends to be ineffective after hundreds of millions of viral replications have taken place – whether it’s cold sores, influenza, AIDS, or Covid-19.

ASHP, APhA, and AMA Press Releases Contradict Available Data and Clinical Practice Standards:

When the FDA scolded Americans not to use ivermectin for Covid-19, on April 25, 2021, there were 43 different published manuscripts showing its potential benefit. Around three months later, on August 21, the FDA released its infamous horse/cow tweet which implied that ivermectin was only for animals, not humans. This “doubling down” occurred as an additional 20 studies had subsequently been written detailing additional benefits for Covid-19. See the timeline below:

Multiple APhA/ASHP/AMA statements ignored published scientific and clinical evidence. Specifically, statements declaring the: “Use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated to be harmful to patients” (bold emphasis theirs) are objectively inaccurate. I do not know on what basis those statements were made. The recommendation to healthcare professionals to “…counsel patients against use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, including emphasizing the potentially toxic effects of this drug” represents a departure from pharmacist and physician practice standards.

The absurdity of the latter statement is quite outrageous. Pharmacists and physicians know that all drugs have “…potentially toxic effects” so if they applied the standard of “emphasizing potentially toxic effects” while discussing every prescribed medication, few if any patients would ever take any of their medications. The APhA/ASHP/AMA discriminatory hostility towards ivermectin was not only clinically unjustified and irresponsible; it was – as far as I know – without precedent.

These anti-ivermectin talking points also benefited new Big Pharma product advancement including the rebounding, overpriced taxpayer-funded boondoggle of Paxlovid and Remdesivir, such a “safe and effective” drug that hospitals had to be heavily incentivized (i.e., bribed) to entice nurses, physicians, and hospital administrators to promote its use with a staggering 20% “bonus” on the entire hospital bill paid by our federal government. Remdesivir quickly earned the sardonic nickname of “run-death-is-near” by American Frontline Nurses and others, due to serious questions about its clinical benefit.

Why were federal agencies’ and professional organizations’ talking points against ivermectin not backed by independent, original APhA/ASHP/AMA data examinations? That question needs to be thoroughly probed with regard to potential regulatory capture within these groups.

Both then and now, those FDA webpages, postings, and tweets were not just biased. They were irresponsible in their denigrating ivermectin as an off-label treatment, which is why they are now gone.

The question is, who was worse? The FDA for overstepping its congressional authority in not just making medical recommendations, but making recommendations ignoring data, or the servile “independent” elite professional organizations exuberantly echoing a narrative?

Prescient or not, here is an excerpt of the expert panel congressional testimony to the Covid Select House Oversight Committee, explaining the FDA’s disparaging ivermectin versus promoting mRNA injections using an automobile analogy, delivered just one day prior to the FDA’s yielding to physicians’ lawsuit to remove its postings denigrating ivermectin:

Heritage Foundation on X: ““To the countries, physicians, & pharmacists who prescribed ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, I would like to tell you right now, you were right.” Dr. Gortler obliterated the “science” Americans were expected to believe about COVID treatments and the COVID vaccine in Congress… https://t.co/UJInVqdSdb” / X (twitter.com)

Despite FDA Settlement and Data Abundance, the Press is Still Anti-Ivermectin

Even after the FDA’s about-face, on March 26, 2024, a Los Angeles Times journalist published a column calling the removal of FDA tweets “groundless” unilaterally declaring ivermectin is still “conclusively shown to be useless against COVID-19,” comparing ivermectin to “snake oil,” and describing those who advocate for it as “purveyors of useless but lucrative nostrums” …whatever that means. (Regarding the ‘lucrative’ claim, it is worth noting that since ivermectin is generic and inexpensively available, it is not ‘lucrative’ to anyone.) It also referenced ivermectin lacking “scientific validation,” even though the above-cited data abundantly indicates otherwise.

Regarding the FDA’s choice to settle its lawsuit disparaging ivermectin, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research leadership isn’t “shooting itself in the foot” as the Times says. It seems that the FDA is indirectly attempting to prevent further embarrassment likely because it now realizes that its ivermectin assertions were wrong and outdated with every passing day. But where does that leave the APhA, ASHP, or AMA who heavily relied on these now deleted FDA links in their press releases?

The APhA, ASHP, AMA Response to the FDA’s Removal of Postings Used in Press Releases? An Embarrassing Silence:

Over a month later, and as of this publication date, none of these organizations have a single thing to say about their previous press releases quoting the now-removed FDA articles and tweets. In fact, here is an indication of their concerns: one week after the FDA acquiesced to remove its postings in ivermectin, APhA’s newly elected speaker chair and pharmacist Mary Klein is “happy danc[ing]” and giving her official acceptance speech wearing Mickey Mouse ears. ASHP’s (A/K/A “#MedicationExperts”) still shows its official page with clinicians wearing ineffective, unnecessary surgical masks despite the pandemic having ended well over a year ago and Cochrane reviews indicating that this sort of masking is almost certainly ineffective. AMA officials are making multiple posts on transgender issues and declaring climate change a public health crisis, – all while fully ignoring its impactful, incorrect, inappropriate statements on ivermectin.

Take a look:

The APhA, ASHP, and AMA have remained conspicuously silent on this topic while focusing their newsfeeds on everything but. To this day, their press releases remain online, with multiple dead links to government agencies. In blindly backing incorrect narratives pointing to removed web pages, they are now all alone in their ivermectin declarations.

Bottom line: ivermectin was and is safe, and more than likely effective for Covid when timed and dosed correctly, and under medical supervision, despite what was declared by organizations and federal officials. In fact, ivermectin’s general antiviral activity might even be helpful for bird flu (avian influenza) in animals and humans, in lieu of another novel adverse-event-ridden “warp speed” mRNA “vaccine” with an endless boondoggle of boosters.

The past and current record on ivermectin needs to be set straight. We know there is an important (but untransparent) list of who is responsible for misrepresenting published data, but will anyone be held accountable?

DISCLAIMER:  Do NOT discontinue or initiate taking ANY drug without first discussing it with a pharmacist or physician you know and trust. 

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Dr. Wahome Ngare pointed out that there is a history of population reduction efforts in Africa despite the fact that the country is not overpopulated, saying, ‘The problem is greedy global corporate owners who are interested in appropriating our natural resources.’

A Kenyan doctor declared last week that the globalist World Health Organization (WHO)’s proposed “Pandemic Accord” treaty aims to pave the way for a new lethal man-made virus and vaccine, as well as establish a global government by undermining national sovereignty.

Dr. Wahome Ngare explained before the Second African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values & Sovereignty that the real purpose of the pending treaty, which would achieve unprecedented medical control of the WHO over all of its member nations, is depopulation.

He pointed out that there is a substantial history of population reduction efforts in Africa despite the fact that it is demonstrably not overpopulated. To drive this home, he explained that the land mass of Africa can fit that of the U.S., China, India, and Japan but contains only about a fourth of the population of all of those countries combined.

“The problem with Africa is not its growing population, (which) is actually an asset. The problem is greedy global corporate owners who are interested in appropriating our natural resources,” Dr. Ngare said.

The doctor maintains that there are ongoing efforts to reduce the population on the continent through war, famine, disease, and even genetically modified organisms (GMOs), explaining, “The biggest problem with GMO is that the seed is patented — it is owned by someone. And once you use it long enough and your natural seed has disappeared, they can withdraw their seed and kill you through hunger.” In fact, Bill Gates-backed initiatives in Africa have pushed GMO crops for years, under the pretext that it will “end starvation in Africa.”

Dr. Ngare went on to make the case that the COVID-19 outbreak was deliberately used to depopulate the world, including Africa, and that this was only a prelude to what is planned to follow this next WHO Pandemic Accord.

During COVID-19, he noted, people were told that a “frightening” number would die from the virus, and that the disease was untreatable, and that “natural immunity cannot protect us and save us.”

“We were told not to shake hands, we were told not to social distance, we were told to stay at home … If you were given this psychological torture for six months and then you were told there was a vaccine, what would you do? You would run for the vaccine!” Dr. Ngare said.

Vaccination then “became mandatory through coercion,” because evidence of vaccination was needed in order to access goods and services, said Dr. Ngare, suggesting that this showed that “The end game of the whole covid fiasco was to vaccinate everybody … That is what COVID was about.”

The problem with these vaccines, explained the doctor, is that they were so dangerous as to constitute “a national security risk.” Why?

For one, only the manufacturers knew what exactly was in the vaccines, and only the laboratories involved in creating them were permitted to test and examine these vaccines.

The supposed basis of their usefulness was also based on an erroneous foundation, Dr. Ngare declared, because the spike protein created by the vaccine was modeled after the very same protein that caused disease in COVID-19.

The shot was also pushed along with the assertion that natural immunity is not protective — and yet, the very vaccine was based on the body’s ability to “mount an immune response to the pathogen!”

Worse, data from the jab trials released by a court order in the U.S. revealed a disturbing amount of death and injury caused at least by the Pfizer shot. According to Dr. Ngare, 61 people died from strokes and five people died from liver damage during the trials, while 80% of pregnant mothers lost their babies during the first three months of pregnancy after being injected with the COVID shots. Moreover, harm was inflicted on both men and women’s reproductive systems by the shots, which harmed sperm count and motility, ovaries, menstrual cycles and placentas.

“This was known during the time of registration of the vaccines, but was not known by doctors,” Dr. Ngare said.

He went on to tell how in Africa there has long been a precedent of imposing unnecessary vaccines, as well as even pushing vaccines that harmed fertility, particularly through the tetanus shot.

According to Dr. Ngare, during the campaign to eradicate tetanus in Africa, females from age 14 to 49 were vaccinated every six months for tetanus, with shots that were in fact contraceptives, unbeknown to the women. This shot was intentionally designed and developed by the U.N, W.H.O., and World Bank to reduce fertility, he added.

The doctor asserted that a paper has been published demonstrating the contraceptive nature of these tetanus vaccines, which has been read over 300,000 times.

Dr. Ngare suggested that these efforts to depopulate Africa and the world through vaccines are precedents for an upcoming depopulation campaign to be initiated through the Pandemic Accord treaty.

The amendments to the international health regulations (IHR) that are part and parcel of the treaty will determine how the WHO would manage pandemics, or diseases that cross country borders, according to Dr. Ngare.

“The WHO is seeking to increase its powers so that the Director General can unilaterally declare that there is a pandemic, whether real or imagined,” Dr. Ngare said. “The minute he pronounces that, the new regulations would allow him to take charge of pandemic management in every country that is a signatory to WHO.”

“It is director Tedros who will say when you will lock down, whether you can ever go to work, which vaccines you’ll be given,” he explained.

“If the WHO causes so much damage with its current power, can you imagine what it would do if you actually gave it more power?” he continued.

“My conclusion is (that) the WHO is no longer a health-promoting body. It has become an imperialism arm of global corporate interests,” he said, adding that the proposed pandemic treaty and IHRs “aim to give the WHO the legal mandate to facilitate the creation of new pandemic … using new man-made viruses, and (the) use of vaccinations as a counter-measure, both designed to reduce the world population through reducing fertility, maiming and killing.”

“It will also give the WHO the mandate to use the pandemics to establish a one-world government by totally obliterating the sovereignty of member states and countries and eroding the citizens’ individual liberties,” he warned.

He urged African nations to avoid this immense harm by first writing “formally to the WHO” to reject the amendments and IHRs, and then to “consider exiting the WHO by 2024, which is when the pandemic treaty is supposed to come into force.”

The doctor also called on African countries to “collectively call for an end to gain-of-function research,” which described as both absurd and extremely dangerous.

“African countries should take a step and say, it is criminal for anybody to train viruses and bacteria to attack human beings as a way of creating a vaccine just in case that virus escapes,” he said. “That is witchcraft. It is not medicine.”

He also advised African countries to “collectively treat all vaccination programs as a national security risk,” stating, “If you cannot determine what is in the vaccine that is being given to your people, you may be opening a door to destroy the African population.”

Finally, Dr. Ngare urged African nations to “reject any linking of individual health records, including vaccination records, to the digital ID that is now being forced” on them.

“Honorable members, do not allow the government to access private health information as a means to determine who will get health services or not. It is medically unethical and it is against basic human rights,” he said.