(1) PLA scientist first to file a patent for a Covid-19 vaccine, died 3 weeks later(2) Biggest Crime: suppression of safe and effective treatments, including Ivermectin(3) Hospitals fought hard to refuse Ivermectin treatment even for dying patients(4) Pfizer & Moderna get better press than other Covid-19 vaccines- they're the only for-profit jabs(5) Ivermectin inhibits Dengue and other Viruses - Nature, and Journal of Antibiotics(6) Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen(7) YouTube censors video of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura discussing ivermectin(8) Ivermectin as antiviral - from Archives of Pharmacology (2020)(1) PLA scientist was first to file a patent for a Covid-19 vaccine on February 24 2020. He died 3 weeks later; his death was only mentioned in passinghttps://www.dailywire.com/news/top-chinese-military-scientist-filed-coronavirus-vaccine-patent-in-february-2020-died-mysteriously-reportTop Chinese Military Scientist Filed Coronavirus Vaccine Patent In February 2020, Died Mysteriously: ReportBy  Ryan SaavedraJun 7, 2021   DailyWire.comThe Five Eyes intelligence alliance is reportedly investigating the death of a top Chinese military scientist who died in spring 2020 only several weeks after filing the first coronavirus vaccine patent.The People's Liberation Army scientist, Zhou Yusen, reportedly had connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "Bat Woman," Shi Zhengli. The Australian reported that national security experts told the publication that this was proof that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was engaged in  "secret military activity".The Australian reported:Zhou, who conducted the research in conjunction with the Wuhan institute, the University of Minnesota and the New York Blood Centre, was the first to file a patent for a Covid-19 vaccine on February 24 last year, according to documents obtained by The Weekend Australian. This was only five weeks after China admitted there was human-to-human transmission of the virus.Zhou is listed as the lead inventor on the patent application lodged by the "Institute of Military Medicine, Academy of Military Sciences of the PLA".Nikolai Petrovsky, a medical researcher at Flinders University who has been creating a vaccine for the coronavirus, told the publication that while it was technically possible a vaccine could have been developed in that short of amount of time, it would be a "remarkable achievement." He said, "This is something we have never seen achieved before, raising the question of whether this work may have started much earlier."However, just several weeks after Zhou filed the patent for the vaccine, he died. The Australian reported that the Five Eyes intelligence alliance — which is comprised of intelligence agencies from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand — is now investigating Zhou's "unexplained death" in May."While he was an award--winning military scientist, there were no reports paying tribute to his life. His death was only mentioned in passing in a Chinese-media report in July and at the end of a December scientific paper, both had the word -'deceased' in brackets after his name," the report said. "The Weekend Australian has established that his death has been treated as unusual and is an early line of inquiry under the new Five Eyes probe into the origins of Covid-19 launched by Joe Biden."The report said that Zhou had conducted research experimenting with the spike proteins in coronaviruses and vaccine development.David Asher, who led the Trump administration's investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, told Fox News during the last week in May that he had U.S. government biostatisticians calculate the probability that the coronavirus developed evolved in nature and that they concluded that it was "about one in 13 billion."(2) Biggest Crime: suppression of safe and effective treatments, including Ivermectinhttps://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/ivermectin-covid-19-treatment.aspxThe Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heistby Dr. Joseph MercolaJune 30, 2021STORY AT-A-GLANCEWhile the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID "vaccine" programThe COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives availableSeveral systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug "probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment"According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearanceWhile the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization's list of essential medications.What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It's been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.Gold Standard Review Supports Use of IvermectinDr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug "probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment."7Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it's not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in "More Good News on Ivermectin." Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8"Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,' whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement' and ‘deterioration' clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …"World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend IvermectinDespite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What's more, in the WHO's summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That's a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without "strong" evidence is "harmful" because it can give "false confidence" to the public.11Why Ivermectin Has Been CensoredIf you've been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you're undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform's posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke's Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14But why? Why don't they want people to feel confident that there's treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they've been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15"What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it's on the WHO's lists of Essential and Children's Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.'The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won't happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily."The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely CompromisedThe WHO's rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17"Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …Merck's patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies' of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn't work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It's a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy."FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of IvermectinIn the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.As noted by the FLCCC:23"The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy."The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocolI-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndromeIn addition to Lawrie's meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.This paper, "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19," published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces "large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and DeathThe FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin "significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19." In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, "the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result."The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in "rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality," which indicate that ivermectin is "effective in all phases of COVID-19." For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.It's worth noting that ivermectin's effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul SyndromeThe FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it's really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It's extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy's free e-book, "Rapid Virus Recovery," in which he details how to use this treatment.- Sources and References1 Antiviral Research June 2020; 178: 1047872 Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.3 Trial Site News April 9, 20214 Ivermectin for COVID Conference5 Ivermectin for COVID Conference Speakers List6 Bird-group.org Conference videos7 Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis January 3, 2021 (PDF)8 American Journal of Therapeutics June 17, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]9 WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: Living Guideline March 31, 202110 WHO March 31, 202111 The Blaze April 1, 202112 FLCCC Alliance13 Trial Site News May 30, 202114 Taibbi Substack June 19, 202115, 16, 17 Biz News May 12, 202118 Merck Statement on Ivermectin Use During COVID Pandemic February 4, 202119, 21 FLCCC December 8, 202020 Medpage Today January 6, 202122 FLCCC January 7, 2021 Press Release (PDF)23 Newswise December 8, 202024 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol25 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol26 Journal of Intensive Care Medicine December 15, 2020 DOI: 10.1177/088506662097358527 FLCCC I-RECOVER protocol28 American Journal of Therapeutics May/June 2021; Volume 28(3): e299-e31829 Principletrial.org(3) Hospitals fought hard, hiring expensive law firms, to refuse Ivermectin treatment even for dying patients - Matt Taibbihttps://taibbi.substack.com/p/ivermectin-can-a-drug-be-right-wing-ca7Ivermectin: Can a Drug Be "Right-Wing"?A potential Covid-19 treatment has become hostage to a larger global fight between populists and anti-populistsMatt TaibbiJun 26	Ivermectin: Can a Drug Be "Right-Wing"? by Matt TaibbiPosted on June 26, 2021Drugs aren't political, but the people who decide which drugs will and won't be used often are. From Matt Taibbi at taibbi.substack.com:A POTENTIAL COVID-19 TREATMENT HAS BECOME HOSTAGE TO A LARGER GLOBAL FIGHT BETWEEN POPULISTS AND ANTI-POPULISTSOn December 31st of last year, an 80 year-old Buffalo-area woman named Judith Smentkiewicz fell ill with Covid-19. She was rushed by ambulance to Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital in Williamsville, New York, where she was put on a ventilator. Her son Michael and his wife flew up from Georgia, and were given grim news. Judith, doctors said, had a 20% chance at survival, and even if she made it, she'd be on a ventilator for a month.As December passed into the New Year, Judith's health declined. Her family members, increasingly desperate, had been doing what people in the Internet age do, Googling in search of potential treatments. They saw stories about the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, learning among other things that a pulmonologist named Pierre Kory had just testified before the Senate that the drug had a "miraculous" impact on Covid-19 patients. The family pressured doctors at the hospital to give Judith the drug. The hospital initially complied, administering one dose on January 2nd. According to her family's court testimony, a dramatic change in her condition ensued."In less than 48 hours, my mother was taken off the ventilator, transferred out of the Intensive Care Unit, sitting up on her own and communicating," the patient's daughter Michelle Kulbacki told a court.After the reported change in Judith's condition, the hospital backtracked and refused to administer more. Frustrated, the family turned on January 7th to a local lawyer named Ralph Lorigo. A commercial litigator and head of what he calls a "typical suburban practice," with seven lawyers engaged in everything from matrimonial to estate work, Lorigo assigned one of his attorneys to review materials given to them by the family, which included Kory's Senate testimony. The associate showed Lorigo himself the the material next morning."I was so convinced by what Dr. Kory was saying," Lorigo says. "I saw the passion and the belief."Lorigo immediately sued the hospital, filing to State Supreme Court to force the facility to treat according to the family's wishes. Judge Henry J. Nowak sided with the Smentkiewiczes, signing an order that Lorigo and one of his attorneys served themselves, and after a series of quasi-absurd dramas that included the hospital refusing to let the Smentkiewicz family physician phone in the prescription — "the doctor actually had to drive to the hospital," Lorigo says — Judith went back on ivermectin."She was out of that hospital in six days," Lorigo says. After a month of rehab, his octogenarian client went back to her life, which involved working five days a week (she still cleans houses). Her story, complete with photo, was told in the Buffalo News, causing Lorigo's phone to begin ringing off the hook. Doppleganger cases soon began dotting the map all over the country.One of the first was in nearby Rochester, New York, where the family of Glenna Dickinson went through an almost exactly similar narrative to the Smentkiewiczes: they read about ivermectin, got a family doctor to prescribe it, saw improvement, only to later have the hospital refuse treatment. Again Lorigo intervened, again a judge ordered the hospital to treat, again the patient recovered and was discharged.Hospitals fought hard, hiring expensive law firms, at times going to extraordinary lengths to refuse treatment even with dying patients who'd exhausted all other options. At Edward-Elmhurst hospital in Chicago, a 68 year-old named Nurije Fype was admitted, put on a ventilator, and again, as all other treatments failed, her family got a judge to order the use of ivermectin. Lorigo claims the hospital initially refused to obey the court order, which led to the filing of a contempt motion, which in turn led to a pair of counter-motions and another confrontation before another befuddled Judge named James Orel."Why wouldn't this be tried if she's not improving?" the Chicago Tribune quoted Orel as saying. "Why does the hospital object to providing this medication?""He basically said, ‘What do you have left?'" Lorigo recounts. "No one would administer the ivermectin. It's as safe as aspirin, for Christ's sake. It's been given out 3.7 billion times. I couldn't understand it."Stories like these aren't proof the drug works. They don't even really rise to the level of evidence. People recover from diseases all the time, and it doesn't mean any particular treatment was responsible. Short of the gold standard of randomized controlled trials, there's no proof.However, anecdotes have a power all their own, and in the Internet age, ones like these spread quickly. Lorigo estimates he now gets "10, 15, 20" calls and emails a day. At this level, at the bedside of a single Covid-19 patient who's already received the full official treatment protocol and is failing anyway, the decision to administer a drug like ivermectin, or fluvoxamine, or hydroxychloroquine, or any of a dozen other experimental treatments, seems like a no-brainer. Nothing else has worked, the patient is dying, why not?Telescope out a little further, however, and the ivermectin debate becomes more complicated, reaching into a series of thorny controversies, some ridiculous, some quite serious.The ridiculous side involves the front end of Lorigo's story, the same story detailed on this site last week: the censorship of ivermectin news that, no matter what one thinks about the evidence for or against, is clearly in the public interest.Anyone running a basic internet search on the topic will get a jumble of confusing results. YouTube's policies are beyond uneven. It's been aggressive in taking down videos containing interviews with people like Kory and doling out strikes to independent media figures like Bret Weinstein, but an interview with Lorigo on TrialSite News containing basically all of the same information is still up, as are clips from a just-taped episode of the Joe Rogan Experience that feature both Weinstein and Kory. Moreover, all sorts of statements at least as provocative as Kory's "miraculous" formulation in the Senate still litter the Internet, many in reputable research journals. Take, for instance, this passage from the March issue of the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics:When the effectiveness of ivermectin for the COVID-19 pandemic is confirmed with the cooperation of researchers around the world and its clinical use is achieved on a global scale, it could prove to be of great benefit to humanity. It may even turn out to be comparable to the benefits achieved from the discovery of penicillin…There clearly is not evidence that ivermectin is the next penicillin, at least as far as its effects on Covid-19. As is noted in nearly every mainstream story about the subject, the WHO has advised against its use pending further study, there have been randomized studies showing it to be ineffective in speeding recovery, and the drug's original manufacturer, Merck, has said there's no "meaningful evidence" of efficacy for Covid-19 patients. However, it's also patently untrue, as is frequently asserted, that there's no evidence that the drug might be effective.This past week, for instance, Oxford University announced it was launching a large-scale clinical trial. The study has already recruited more than 5,000 volunteers, and its announcement says what little is known to be true: that "small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19," that 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."The Oxford text also says "there is little evidence from large-scale randomized controlled trials to demonstrate that it can speed up recovery from the illness or reduce hospital admission." But to a person who might have a family member suffering from the disease, just the information about "early promising results" would probably be enough to inspire demands for a prescription, which might be the problem, of course. Unless someone was looking for that information, they likely wouldn't find it, as mainstream news even of the Oxford study has been effectively limited to a pair of Bloomberg and Forbes stories.Ivermectin has suffered the same fate as thousands of other news topics since Donald Trump first announced his run for the presidency nearly six years ago, cleaved in two to inhabit separate factual universes for left and right audiences. Repurposed drugs generally have had a hard time being taken seriously since Trump announced he was on hydroxychloroquine last year, and ivermectin clearly also suffers from its association with Republican Senators like Ron Johnson. Still, the drug's publicity issues go beyond the taint of "conservative" news.The drug has become a test case for a controversy that's long been building in health care, about how much input patients should have in their own treatment. Well before Covid-19, the medical profession was thrust into a revolution in patient information, inspired by a combination of Google and new patients' rights laws.Should people on their deathbeds be allowed to try anything to save themselves? That seems like an easy question to answer. Should the entire world be allowed to practice self-care on a grand scale? That's a different issue. Some would say absolutely not, while others would say the corruption of pharmaceutical companies and the medical system unfortunately make it a necessity. The world is increasingly divided along this trust/untrust axis.(4) Pfizer & Moderna get better press than other Covid-19 vaccines- they're the only for-profit jabshttps://www.rt.com/op-ed/527639-mrna-vaccine-corruption-downplayed/I'm no anti-vaxxer but there's obvious corruption in how mRNA vaccine complications are downplayed compared to other jabsBradley Blankenship26 Jun, 2021 12:12I'm no anti-vaxxer but there's obvious corruption in how mRNA vaccine complications are downplayed compared to other jabsPfizer's and Moderna's offerings seem to be getting a much easier ride in the press than other Covid-19 vaccines available. Could this possibly be because they're the only for-profit jabs on the market?A safety group from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently said that there's a "likely association" between myocarditis, a rare inflammatory condition of the heart, for young adults and adolescents after receiving their second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccines. The fact that the media is largely brushing this aside and countries aren't pulling them pending a safety review, like they did with the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines, shows an innate bias towards for-profit medicine.There have been instances like this before with the mRNA vaccines. Whereas blood clotting concerns have been the impetus for some countries to pull the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines until a safety review could be undertaken, a study by Oxford University published on April 15 suggests that these complications actually have a higher incidence with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.According to the study, the risk of portal vein thrombosis (a blood clot in the liver) appears to be 30 times higher with the mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer than with AstraZeneca's. As well, the risk of cerebral vein thrombosis (a blood clot in the brain) appears to be quite similar with both AstraZeneca (five in a million) and those mRNA vaccines (four in a million).This was pretty much ignored in the media and there's been no public outrage about this. It begs the question in both of these cases, why? There could be many reasons but I think two reasons immediately come to mind that are obviously interlinked.First, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are the only two for-profit vaccines on the market. The already-massive drug company Pfizer raked in $900 million in the first quarter of this year. Big Pharma is a massive lobby in Washington and is also a huge patron of the news media, so it's no wonder everyone's hushing up about any potential dangers from these vaccines.There's simply too much at stake for the US and its ultra-wealthy ruling class to make a fuss about these particular vaccines even though they did the same thing with other vaccines that are being sold not-for-profit.Second, these vaccines, Pfizer in particular, are the cornerstone of the US-led global vaccination effort that has now pledged 1 billion doses to poor countries. If it were the case that these vaccines were pulled, countries might lose faith in them, pull them and then the US would lose some of the soft power it's looking for through these donations.The US wants to use these vaccines to expand its global influence and prove that "democracy" (neoliberal capitalism) is the best socioeconomic system to spur innovation and provide basic necessities for people, which is clearly doomed to fail since the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic was driven by this system in the first place.Put simply, the US wants to pull a "come-from-behind" victory on the pandemic and prove that its brand of for-profit medicine can address a global health emergency even though putting profits ahead of people is exactly why millions of people, including over 600,000 Americans, died from Covid-19. At the same time, Moderna and Pfizer are more than happy to lap up profits paid for mainly by Johnny Taxpayer.To be perfectly clear, I am not advocating against taking mRNA vaccines. These vaccines are shown to be highly effective against transmission, hospitalization and death, so of course you should take them. Any potential risks are far outweighed by potential complications from actually catching Covid-19, especially as more virulent variants, like the Delta or Gamma variants, become predominant in many parts of the world.This is no doubt a solid reason why public health experts are not in an uproar about potential dangers from the mRNA vaccines, since they're the most widely available in the United States and many other countries. This is especially true if you live in a country like the US, where now virtually every Covid-19 death is preventable with vaccination. With governments unlikely to reinstate social distancing measures when variant-driven cases swing up, getting inoculated is crucial to protecting your health.However, what I'm trying to say here is that when these arguments are only used to defend for-profit companies' products, and thus help them profit even more, it reeks of corruption. This corruption becomes even more obvious when media outlets glorify Big Pharma, only to rediscover their critical faculties when they write about vaccines developed in countries like China, Russia, Iran or Cuba, as well as not-for-profit Western-developed vaccines like AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson.The fact is that the best vaccine is the one you have access to, therefore no vaccine should be getting biased coverage or attention from media outlets or government officials.(5) Ivermectin inhibits Dengue and other Viruses - Nature, and Journal of Antibioticshttps://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711Published: 15 February 2017Review ArticleIvermectin: enigmatic multifaceted 'wonder' drug continues to surprise and exceed expectationsAndy CrumpThe Journal of Antibiotics volume 70, pages495–505 (2017)Cite this articleAbstractOver the past decade, the global scientific community have begun to recognize the unmatched value of an extraordinary drug, ivermectin, that originates from a single microbe unearthed from soil in Japan. Work on ivermectin has seen its discoverer, Satoshi O¯mura, of Tokyo's prestigious Kitasato Institute, receive the 2014 Gairdner Global Health Award and the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which he shared with a collaborating partner in the discovery and development of the drug, William Campbell of Merck & Co. Incorporated. Today, ivermectin is continuing to surprise and excite scientists, offering more and more promise to help improve global public health by treating a diverse range of diseases, with its unexpected potential as an antibacterial, antiviral and anti-cancer agent being particularly extraordinary. [...]Antiviral (e.g. HIV, dengue, encephalitis)Recent research has confounded the belief, held for most of the past 40 years, that ivermectin was devoid of any antiviral characteristics. Ivermectin has been found to potently inhibit replication of the yellow fever virus, with EC50 values in the sub-nanomolar range. It also inhibits replication in several other flaviviruses, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis and tick-borne encephalitis, probably by targeting non-structural 3 helicase activity.97 Ivermectin inhibits dengue viruses and interrupts virus replication, bestowing protection against infection with all distinct virus serotypes, and has unexplored potential as a dengue antiviral.98Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent broad-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin a/b-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. It has been shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes. Ivermectin may be of import in disrupting HIV-1 integrase in HIV-1 as well as NS-5 (non-structural protein 5) polymerase in dengue viruses.99, 100Antibacterial (tuberculosis and Buruli ulcer)Up until recently, avermectins were also believed to lack antibacterial activity. However, in 2012, reports emerged that ivermectin was capable of preventing infection of epithelial cells by the bacterial pathogen Chlamydia trachomatis, and to do so at doses that could be used to counter sexually transmitted or ocular infections.101 In 2013, researchers confirmed that ivermectin was bactericidal against a range of mycobacterial organisms, including multidrug resistant and extensively drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the authors suggesting that ivermectin could be re-purposed for tuberculosis treatment. Although other researchers found that ivermectin does not possess anti-tuberculosis activity, the results were later shown to be non-comparable due to differences in testing methods, with the original findings being confirmed by further work in Japan.102, 103, 104 Unfortunately, the potential use of ivermectin for tuberculosis treatment is doubtful due to possible neurotoxicity at high dosage levels. Ivermectin was also reported to be bactericidal against M. ulcerans,105 although other researchers found no significant activity against this bacterium.106Anti-cancerThere is a continuously accumulating body of evidence that ivermectin may have substantial value in the treatment of a variety of cancers. The avermectins are known to possess pronounced antitumor activity,107 as well as the ability to potentiate the antitumor action of vincristine on Ehrlich carcinoma, melanoma B16 and P388 lymphoid leukemia, including the vincristine-resistant strain P388.108 ...(6) Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen - Journal of Antibiotics (2020)https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-zIvermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen.Fatemeh Heidary & Reza GharebaghiThe Journal of Antibiotics (2020) Review Article Published: 12 June 2020(7) YouTube censors video of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura discussing ivermectinhttps://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-censors-dr-satoshi-omura-ivermectin/July 2, 2021YouTube censors video of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Satoshi O¯mura discussing ivermectinHe won the prize for his work that led to the development of ivermectin.By Tom ParkerBefore the coronavirus pandemic, ivermectin was described as a "wonder" drug by the medical community. And in 2015, Dr. Satoshi O¯mura and Dr. William C. Campbell were awarded half the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that led to the development of ivermectin."The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable," the Nobel Assembly stated in its press release for the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.But after the pandemic began, the tech giants have gone all out to purge content that recommends ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.And today, these Big Tech policies against ivermectin resulted in one of O¯mura's speeches where he discussed ivermectin being struck down for "violating YouTube's community guidelines.""When the fascists at YouTube censor the Noble Prize winner Dr. Satoshi Omura, a man whose discoveries have saved a hundred million + from blindness, the world has entered a very, very dark place," Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly tweeted. "I cannot express in words how angry & sad this makes me & fearful for the future."Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care, an alliance of physicians and scholars that has committed to "research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness," also spoke out against the censorship and warned that "brilliant scientists and lifesaving science are systematically being gagged."O¯mura joins the ranks of many other senators, lawmakers, medical journals, biologists, and YouTubers who have been censored by Big Tech for discussing ivermectin.(8) Ivermectin as antiviral - from Archives of Pharmacology (2020)https://covid19ivermectin.info/antiviral/Ivermectin as antiviralIvermectin, antiviral properties and COVID-19: a possible new mechanism of actionEmanuele Rizzo  Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology volume 393, pages1153–1156(2020)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00210-020-01902-5[...] Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen.Fatemeh Heidary & Reza GharebaghiThe Journal of Antibiotics (2020) Review Article Published: 12 June 2020https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-zThe broad spectrum antiviral ivermectin targets the host nuclear transport importin a/b1 heterodimer, Antiviral Research, Volume 177, 2020, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354219307211Ivermectin Inhibits Bovine Herpesvirus 1 DNA Polymerase Nuclear Import and Interferes With Viral Replication. Raza, S.; Shahin, F.; Zhai, W.; Li, H.; Alvisi, G.; Yang, K.; Chen, X.; Chen, Y.; Chen, J.; Hu, C.; Chen, H.; Guo, A. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 409. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/3/409Potential use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and azithromycin drugs in fighting COVID-19: trends, scope and relevance. R. Choudhary, A.K. Sharma, New Microbes and New Infections, Volume 35, 2020,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520300366Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin: A synergistic combination for COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis and treatment?, Angela Patrì, Gabriella Fabbrocini, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2020, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962220305570Ivermectin and COVID-19: a report in Antiviral Research, widespread interest, an FDA warning, two letters to the editor and the authors' responses, Mike Bray, Craig Rayner, François Noël, David Jans, Kylie Wagstaff, Antiviral Research, 2020, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302199"Ivermectin's key direct target in mammalian cells is a not a viral component, but a host protein important in intracellular transport (Yang et al., 2020); the fact that it is a host-directed agent (HDA) is almost certainly the basis of its broad-spectrum activity against a number of different RNA viruses in vitro (Tay et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2020). The way a HDA can reduce viral load is by inhibiting a key cellular process that the virus hijacks to enhance infection by suppressing the host antiviral response. Reducing viral load by even a modest amount by using a HDA at low dose early in infection can be the key to enabling the body's immune system to begin to mount the full antiviral response before the infection takes control."The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, Leon Caly, Julian D. Druce, Mike G. Catton, David A. Jans, Kylie M. Wagstaff, Antiviral Research, Volume 178, 2020, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011