Archives for posts with tag: ivermectin

“The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

Think about it for just a moment. The quote is 1,900 years old.

Western culture is a history of empires, preceding the Greeks of Alexander by millennia. But now, this cycle is finally exhausted in the 21st Century where colonialism, proselytizing, and seduction (consumerism) have overtaken the world but exposed the fallacy of sustained economic development (empire enabled growth of private fortunes) through conquest. There’s nothing left to exploit, nowhere else to go.

But the patrician (oligarchs) appetite for wealth hasn’t ceased. So they’ve been increasingly turning on their own people to sate their (insatiable) appetites. In the abstract, this is nothing short of cultural cannibalism.

Like big fish eating little fish of the same species, of too many examples of this necrotic cultural phenomenon of modern Western civilization’s cannibalism to list, we’ll go to the recent, largest scale ever, ‘dining out’ so aptly anticipated in 1968 by George Harrison:

Everywhere there’s lots of piggies living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner with their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon

That’s what’s going on with Big Pharma & Covid; and the straw man argument of whether to open up (waive) the covid vaccine patents. Oligarch Bill Gates both 1) opposes (together with Angela Merkel) violating the ‘intellectual property rights’ of corporations that if ‘waived’ would see any competent pharmaceutical lab in the world begin to manufacture covid vaccines. But some of the politicians (e.g. Joe Biden or whoever is standing in for his dementia on any given day) are becoming uncomfortable over the issue of Big Pharma vaccine patents making ungodly amounts of money as they (the politicians) bungle handling the pandemic with its politicized ‘medicine’ (e.g. Dr ‘Faustus’ Fauci.) All of this preceding is a straw man argument foisted on a panicked public.

“We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic”

Meanwhile, going to the real issue, recalling Oligarch Bill Gates is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization (Gates’ foundation is the largest WHO donor after the USA) and the World Health Organization has refused approval of an effective, cheap, generic drug, Ivermectin, as a treatment for covid that should render the vaccination hysteria moot (stamp the pandemic out), look at these six graphs:

Ivermectin in Czech Republic:

Ivermectin in Slovakia

Ivermectin in Mexico:

Ivermectin in Panama:

Ivermectin in Peru:

Ivermectin in Delhi:

“The West, as I thought of it extending thousands of miles beyond the setting sun, was astonishing in its corruption, in its desire for death, and in its complacency towards its disease” -Cicily Isabel Fairfield

updated 17 July 2021

Čitajte na srpskom

Since the days of Edward Bernays adapting his uncle Sigmund Freud’s psychological principles to propaganda (euphemistically renamed ‘public relations’) for purpose of corporate advertising, the world’s populace has been exposed to what the intelligence agencies refer to as ‘psyops’ or “psychological operations.” In certain circumstance these operations are carefully designed to be supported by politicians in the intelligence agency sense of ‘backstopped’ or restated: Lying to the public requires unethical ‘convincing’ (lying to) a nation’s leadership to accomplish certain (greed driven) marketing objectives. Furthermore, this ‘culture’ can easily reflect what rogue CIA officer Phillip Agee had noted becomes a social-environmental phenomenon:

“You get so used to lying that, after awhile, it’s hard to remember what the truth is.” 

In short other words, capitalism’s lobbyist (public relations) infection creates a social-cultural environment where ‘truth’ becomes a ‘relative’ or incidental, accidental, or oftentimes, a deliberately concealed (depending on the level of awareness within the hierarchy) thing with little bearing on what has become a plasticized, or artificial, reality for the targets of larger psyops (populations.) [1]

The ‘psyops’ or psychology integrated to lobbyists’ presentations prepared for politicians are actually a necessary ‘pre-psyop’ to accomplish the larger psyops goal of manipulating a populace to ‘buy’ and it goes something like this hypothetical analysis of what is recently happening in Serbia:

“Patients … have started receiving a new drug against Covid-19, Bamlanivimab, which prevents further spread of the infection, that is, the progression of the disease from mild to severe…” [2]

Nowhere in this news presented at the Serbian media site is there any mention that

1) Bamlanivimab is an experimental drug that had been initially authorized for use against covid in the USA in December 2020 only because of a state of emergency; the drug has not been put through the necessary studies and medical trial procedures the law would normally require to protect the consumers.

Highlighted in the illustration (screenshot) from “It is not yet known if Bamlanivimab is a safe and effective treatment for any condition” [3]

2) Ivermectin, a cheap, generic drug, with a safety track record of 50 years use, had been shown in laboratory testing (April 2020 or a full year ago) to kill 99.8% of the covid 19 virus in 24 hours, but this medical fact is practically unknown to the Serbian medical community. Why?

Highlighted in the illustration (screenshot) from “The trials so far have shown ivermectin reduces the number of cell-associated viral RNA by 99.8 % in 24 hours” [4]

3) Following the (dated April 2020 in the above screenshot) ivermectin lab test result on covid, this drug was used in Peru and there was a DRAMATIC DROP in covid deaths, that is until there was a change in political administration and the use of ivermectin had been restricted, which saw a DRAMATIC HIKE in covid deaths [5]

4) Demand from top health professionals across the world pushing data at the World Health Organization to attempt authorizing the use of ivermectin merely elicits a promise of a ‘probe’, no matter the existing positive result indicated in multiple trails comes from some of the top specialists in the world (as government institutions like the USA’s Federal Food & Drug Administration drag their feet and demand large, time consuming studies)

Highlighted in the illustration (screenshot) from an MSN article on World Health Organization & ivermectin: American pulmonary and critical care specialist Pierre Kory, president of the Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – a group of critical care specialists and published academic authors developing treatment protocols to prevent the transmission of Covid-19: “It is certainly another tool in the toolkit and we need everything we can to go after this pandemic. It’s not that I think that Ivermectin can help people. I know it helps people. The data is unmistakable and consistent. It shows quicker time to viral clearance, lower viral loads, faster times to recovery and lowered mortality rates” [6]

5) So, we have gone from “It is not yet known if Bamlanivimab is a safe and effective treatment for any condition” to the suppression of a known to be safe (fifty years) drug that is shown to beat covid. Why? A cheap generic drug (ivermectin) that is effective doesn’t make Eli Lilly (big pharma) money. The price of a experimental drug Bamlanivimab dose for covid? USD $1,250.

The price for an effective against covid dose of ivermectin? Over 95% less than Bamlanivimab

Yet Bamlanivimab is the national governments (not only in USA but following the USA’s lead) covid treatment of choice, even as the USA’s National Institute of Health allows (if not endorses) ivermectin as a covid treatment due to overwhelming pressure from medical professionals [7]

Highlighted in the illustration (screenshot) from the Blitz news site: “Safe, inexpensive, widely available, with a decades-long track record, and even a Nobel Prize attached to it, the drug recently cleared National Institute of Health (NIH) hurdles to be an allowed treatment for Covid-19. Frontline doctors using the drug to great success argue it needs to be adopted widely and rapidly”

“Transcendent Corruption” is legal but unethical and immoral gains that exacts a social price up to, and is inclusive of, unnecessary suffering and death. It is in a sense legalized murder with impunity. It works like this: ‘science’ is presented to politicians by psyops (public relations) trained parties in a culture of political lies where lobbyists simply point to the USA ‘approving’ (not mentioning under emergency powers, forgoing safety studies) the unproven, experimental drug Bamlanivimab and altogether remain silent on ivermectin. Because the politicians are dependent on the lobbyists money and associated power, whether in ‘legal’ form of donation (transcendent corruption’s method of bribe) or other forms of enrichment such as investment, they simply accept the lobbyists’ word and Eli Lilly (big pharma’s player in this case) makes immense amounts of money with a dice throw on the common citizens backs; where the citizens not only pay the outrageous sum for the unproven medicine with taxes, the citizens will, in the absence of safety studies, perhaps pay in future with their literal lives. In the case someone brings up ivermectin as a plausible alternative, the lobbyists will point to the USA’s Food and Drug Administration (or other governments & agencies) recommending against its use, as well the World Health Organization having not yet approved ivermectin’s use, and fail to mention the USA’s National Institute of Health allows the use of ivermectin and the many positive reviews for this safe, cheap drug in treating covid by medical professionals across the world.

Relevant to the preceding, in Serbia, Transcendent Corruption in media takes a twofold track; neither of which is good for the common people. 1) the ‘regime’ is attacked as corrupt by those Western style media outlets characterized as ‘opposition’ but in fact are funded by a ‘who’s who’ of color revolution instigators such as Soros, and the many usual suspects fronting for Western intelligence agencies, such as the several organizations functioning under the ‘umbrella’ (‘whorehouse’ would be the better noun) of USAID. Predictably, there should be little interest in raising awareness concerning ivermectin in these ‘opposition’ media venues pushing agendas for Western corporate capitalism and its oligarch minions, in this case, those associated with big pharma. 2) There will be little motivation for the ‘regime’ to correct its mistakes in a sea of political lies and raise awareness concerning ivermectin; where in circumstance of  Transcendent Corruption, with a psyops (public relations) assist, the principal leaders assume a posture of (self) denial of the actual facts; the regime’s politicians will have actually convinced themselves they are doing what is good for the people (authorize Bamlanivimab) and state controlled media will not bite the hand that feeds them. This is cumulative result of psyops preying upon a frailty of human psychology per the observation of Thucydides 2,500 years past:

“It is the habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they would prefer not to examine”


Transcendent Corruption & Corona Virus part two


Related: Covid 19 (scientific counter-narratives)










A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.


“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi

Čitajte na srpskom

“…It is also clear that the overall death rate in 2020 was exceeded by the five years of 1999-2003. I need to define the death rate here, as it is based on the deaths per thousand people, which eliminates the fact that populations were lower in earlier years. It’s a given that larger population might have a higher death total from a given disease, but not a higher death rate. Diseases work on the susceptible individuals of a population and, thus, it is a proportion of the population that becomes ill or dies.

“That said, how does the death rate in the UK for 2020 compare to previous years? It is clear that the death rate in the UK for 2020 was not exceptional compared to previous years. How can that be? If you have Covid-19 as well as influenza killing people, what is going on? An observation has been made that, for some mysterious reason, influenza, as of April in the US, dropped to zero and continues at zero in the latest flu season.

“In light of the apparent missing influenza, claims have been made that masking, distancing, and lockdowns were completely effective against influenza, but then there is no talk about its failure in stopping Covid-19, which is a virus of the same size and transmission mode.

“Then, we are told that Covid is still around because people are not masking and such properly, which means influenza should also still be around in the US. Since these are infectious viruses, how can these restrictions be effective against one virus and not the other? It does not make sense.

“It is also easy to find that US states with strict mandates have the same rates of PCR-positive cases as those who do not. The conjecture can be made that influenza cases are largely reported as Covid-19, based either on a positive PCR test result or on symptoms alone.

“In the US, it is clear that there has been a monetary incentive for diagnosing the disease and encouraging hospitalizations. The cessation of other medical procedures and tests during this period clearly is going to lead to increased overall deaths. The fact that there appears to be no excess deaths despite this, indicates that the C-19 virus itself was not as lethal as they claim.

“Overall, the death rate in the UK is not out of line with the normal death rates from other years and clearly not close to the highest in the last 22 years. It is difficult to consider influenza deaths when there appears to be a bias toward categorizing influenza and other causes as Covid-19 deaths.

“Every year and, for that matter, all year long, there is a population of health-critical individuals who may be overwhelmed by a flu-like illness and open to pneumonia complications. The questionable Covid-19 PCR test appears to be keeping the presence of Covid-19 alive, possibly detecting viruses of the current flu season.

“The WHO is now admitting that that this test can be 97% false positives or more, with higher processing cycle numbers. The argument could be made that we have an epidemic of [false positive] testing…”

Or so says PhD biologist Banson Wilcot at ‘fringe conspiracy’ site Principia Scientific International. [1]

So, I looked up several references not related to the ‘fringe conspiracy’ site itself on the subject of how the ‘flu vanished’ and Wilcot seems to spot on.

Why? I was trying to make sense of Covid numbers in Serbia (that don’t make sense) and Wilcot’s was the first article I’d come across that addressed the issue in a sensible way. Specifically, I wanted to know how a vicious pathogen (Covid) could justify pandemic “measures” when the national mortality rate for the year 2020 hadn’t spiked (at all) in comparison to previous years:

Graph: Serbia’s death rate has been flat at 13.2 deaths average per 1,000 for the past four years; 2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020. [2]

The ‘fringe conspiracy’ site then caused me to look at other statistics to establish (or disestablish) its veracity while casting a wider net to see what is going on elsewhere in comparison to Serbia and violà! The so-called ‘progressive’ site VOX News supports two points made by ‘fringe conspiracy’ author Wilcot:

1) Flu has virtually vanished in the USA (VOX graph credit to Center for Disease Control and Prevention) for the 2020-2021 statistical season &  2) the VOX article upholds the oxymoron pointed out by Wilcot; crediting masks for the ‘historic’ low level of flu in the same environment where masks have NOT halted the spread of Covid, a disease spread by identical method. Clearly, someone is not being honest concerning the ‘vanished flu’ phenomenon and it would appear that dishonest someone is VOX and is NOT ‘fringe conspiracy’ author Wilcot. [3]

Now, for some initial perspective on what certainly appear to be grossly inflated figures ascribed to Covid in the USA with highly unreliable PCR tests as well as forgoing tests for other pathogens (includes the vanished flu and likely many tens of thousands of deaths by other pathogens and related underlying cause such as frail health or any other reason wrongly attributed to Covid.) [4]

If we take the roughly 500,000 deaths ‘attributed’ to Covid in the USA and apply that as a percentage to the USA population of about 330 million for the 2020-2021 season, Americans arrived at sacrificing their civil liberties for a 0.15% gross population Covid death rate that relies on severely inflated (official) Covid numbers incorporating the missing flu and untold other causes of death such as stress related deaths due to underlying health issues aggravated by lock-downs, Covid related policies pushing people into poverty & higher mortality, America’s staggering problem with obesity (Covid kills obese people in high numbers), attrition in America’s exploding homeless population et cetera. These numbers won’t be properly sorted before years of study but in the meanwhile a highly politicized (Dr ‘Faustus’ driven) Covid panic-power grab dishonestly lumps everything together. Bolstering Wilcot’s account:

I still can’t find 500,000 excess deaths caused by Covid in 2020; they’re simply not there among the diseases the CDC reported out and since the base risk is 1/50,000 even across half the population being infected we could only account for 3,000 deaths. It is thus clear that if in fact Covid-19 has killed anywhere near the number of people claimed those other morbid conditions, all of which are serious diseases standing alone, have to account for the increase between them. Indeed the most-common, by far (40% of additional deaths by disease) were due to heart attacks and the next was diabetes at 13%. Between diabetes and heart attacks, both almost-exclusively due to lifestyle choices and thus your personal decisions, 53% of the excess 120,475 deaths are accounted for. If we add in strokes, which also are largely lifestyle-related then we’re at about 2/3rds.

Among those diseases that are allegedly “the biggest comorbid factors” I can find only 120,475 more deaths that Covid-19 may have contributed to and which included those diseases as a causal factor in total. Did Covid-19 cause all of those 120,000 additional deaths or were they caused by, in the case of diabetes, strokes and heart attacks for example, the additional 50lbs that a material percentage of people put on during the lockdowns (and over 20lbs on average!) from eating takeout trash full of fast carbs and being involuntarily cooped up in their homes? We do not know so this can only describe an upper boundary or caused mortality — not a lower one. This analysis doesn’t mean even more people didn’t die with Covid, but an alleged “Covid” death that wasn’t accompanied by one of the CDC’s specifically-called out diseases” (maybe those 500,000 USA covid deaths don’t actually exist: 24 April 2021 update, read it HERE)

As pointed out by Wilcot, the official USA numbers (that don’t add up) are consistent with what is observed in the United Kingdom’s data. It should be expected this will be the case elsewhere.

Back to Serbia:

If we take the ‘official’ Covid death rate 0.9% or 4,700 deaths (necessarily includes the ‘missing’ flu and other untold manner of death) and rather than apply this to what should be called ‘the includes false positives aggregate’ or 516,000 (reported positives) and instead apply this official death statistic (4,700) attributed to Covid to the 8,700,000 population of Serbia as whole (includes untested & tested negative) to arrive at 0.05%, it is only then a flat national death rate (no significant statistical increase) for the ‘pandemic’ year 2020 begins to make sense because it is only then we can understand what happened to the ‘missing’ flu and other, untold manner of death. They’ve been folded into the Covid statistic. There is no other straightforward explanation. [5]

Now that ‘fringe conspiracy’ author Banson Wilcot PhD is vindicated, let’s shortly note one other article at the ‘offending’ site Principia Scientific International on Covid: the article by another PhD (psychology), Dr Elsa Schieder, on Ivermectin. In short, she simply states what is known to be a scientifically established fact; Ivermectin cures Covid, except in those states that suppress this information about an effective, generic (cheap) drug that should render the vaccine hysteria moot. [6], [7]

The inescapable conclusion is that Covid, although real, and in some cases deadly, is not nearly so lethal on a societal-wide basis as it is presented to us, and need not be nearly so lethal as it presently is. The obvious question is why?

Social Analysis

Firstly, in Western cultures particularly, people lie to themselves, especially when it comes to pecuniary interests versus altruism. There is big money in addressing Covid as a (blown out of proportion) ‘pandemic’ and self importance takes on altruism as a lie (self deceit of doing the right thing) when in fact it is the pecuniary interests (money is power) driving the urge to control. So, the Covid ‘pandemic’ is not as much a conspiracy to control populations (even as strategies are devised to do this) as much as it is a self-importance inflating, power driven meme.

Western style politicians (taking bait from the sociopath oligarchs fishing for them with lobbyists) are narcissists, and narcissists are those personality constructs which are most prone to self deceits. In lay terms, it should be said our leaders are self-aggrandizing morons incapable of comprehending the damage they are causing is by far worse than the damage which should happen if they were to step out of the way, stop politicizing medicine and let the community doctors do their job with a full set of Covid facts available to them (e.g. treat with Ivermectin.)

Insofar as the ‘fringe conspiracy’ site Principia Scientific International, well, in fact it harbors an Islamophobe associated personality like the Dr Elsa Schieder mentioned above, who it just happens provided accurate information on Ivermectin, together with any number of other trained scientists who do not (for whatever reasons) find a place in mainstream to have a voice. What does it say about Western culture when searching for the better information, one finds it at a site that is not entirely wholesome? How is that somehow more damning than the Western media lies we are fed every day by corporate entities protecting the interests of Western oligarchs and their corrupt self (and societal-wide) political deceits concerning Covid, leading to unnecessary loss of life?









A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.


“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi

Read in English

Facebook, Twitter i Youtube (‘veliki momci’), svi u ulozi vratara:

„Rat protiv „dezinformacija“ zahteva dve žrtve. Istinu. I pravo na lečenje.“


Arhiva (1)

Arhiva (2) (Čitajte na srpskom)

Piše Meri Bet Fajfer
Trenutno se vode dve bitke za javno zdravlje.

Prva je, naravno, protiv koronavirusa.

Druga cilja u široku i amorfnu ​​metu zvanu „medicinske dezinformacije“. Cilj ove kampanje je da, barem delimično, kontroliše šta ljudi čitaju, vide i znaju o potencijalnim tretmanima KOVIDA-19. Nepokolebljivo na svom nišanu ima jedan jeftini, generički lek koji bi mogao preokrenuti ovu pandemiju, ivermektin.

U ovoj drugoj borbi,YouTube video snimci su uklonjeni. Twitter nalozi sa hiljadama pratilaca su ugašeni. Facebook objave i grupe su nestale. Ovo su očigledna dela cenzure ivermektina i drugih mogućnosti za lečenje.

Malo je prikrivenija odbojnost glavnih medija prema izveštavanju o praktično bilo čemu što obećava lečenje KOVID-a u ranoj fazi bolesti, uključujući 42 studije koje zajednički kažu da bi ivermektin mogao smanjiti smrtnost od KOVID-a za 75 do 83 procenta. Ono malo što se izveštava je da je ivermektin eksperimentalan i nedokazan – lek koji se koristi za lečenje šuge i rečnog slepila kod ljudi i parazita na konjima.

Možda je iz tih razloga Šeril Džeret (64), u početku, odbila predlog svog lekara da uzima ivermektin, kada joj je dijagnostifikovao nešto što je izgledalo kao blagi slučaj KOVID-a. Predomislila se trećeg dana, kada se borila za dah nakon što se popela stepenicama, a snimak je pokazao da je KOVID zahvatio 25 posto njenih pluća.

„Uzela sam ga“, rekla mi je. „U roku od 2 sata bila sam dobro.“ Ponovo je pokušala da se popenje stepenicama. Bez problema.

Mnogo je priča poput Džeretove. Nećete ih naći u štampi ili na Vikipediji, uobičajenom izvoru informacija o ivermektinu. Podelite ih na Facebook-u i možda će vam zabraniti objavljivanje, što se nedavno dogodilo lekaru Džeretove, Brusu Borosu.

Kontrola poruka o ivermektinu se navodno vrši pod paravanom zaštite javnog zdravlja. Ali umesto toga, prema intervjuima sa advokatima, lekarima i analitičarima ovaj napor ima suprotan efekat,.

„Vodi se rat protiv dezinformacija koji šteti dobrim informacijama“, rekao je dr Pjer Kori, predsednik grupe lekara koji zagovaraju lek nazvan Frontline KOVID-19 Udruženje intenzivne nege ili FLCCC. „Imamo sve podatke koji pokazuju korist ivermektina kada je u pitanju velika smrtnost. Što se manje o tome zna, to je više smrtnih slučajeva. “

Gde je sve počelo
Pokušaj upravljanja informacijama o lečenju KOVID-a svoje korene delimično vuče iz tužnog poglavlja američke nauke i novinarstva: Trampova podrška prošlog proleća hidroksihlorokinu (HCQ). U trenu je lečenje u ranoj fazi pretvoreno u desničarski mit koji zanima samo Fox News. Ostatak štampe je nemilosrdno ponavljao tvrdnje da je pouzdani farmaceutski proizvod koji se koristi za nekoliko bolesti opasan za KOVID. Mnogo studija je to pobilo i pokazalo delotvornost u ranoj fazi bolesti, što većina ljudi ne zna. Dr Mobin Sajed bio je među prvima, marta prošle godine, koji je istražio potencijal HCQ-a u YouTube video snimku koji je postao viralan i doveo ga u žižu podele na one koji ga vole i one koji ga mrze, na desnicu i levicu. „Počeo sam da primam toliko pretnji“, rekao je, što ga je podstaklo da sam ukloni objavu.

Posle toga, međutim, YouTube je sam odlučio šta bi trebalo da vidi 250.000 pratilaca Medicinskih predavanja Drbeen, uklanjajući prinudno video zapise o vitaminu D, remdesiviru i, što su drugi rekli da je često bilo cenzurisano, ivermektinu.

Drugi primeri ovog novog trenda cenzurisanja:

* 31. januara Facebook je uklonio stranicu pod nazivom „Ivermectin for MDs Team“, sa 10.200 članova iz više od 100 zemalja. Poslednja kap koja je prelila čašu bila je objava o odluci slovačkog Ministarstva zdravlja da dozvoli upotrebu ivermektina, za koji cenzori Fejsbuka „veruju da je štetan za fizički integritet“, napisao je administrator. Facebook je takođe presudio da su vesti o odobrenju ivermektina od strane južne države u Brazilu kršile njegove standarde. Drugim rečima, gigantu društvenih medija nisu se svidele odluke dve nezavisne vlade i smatrao je da on zna bolje.

* 12. januara, Twitter je presudio da je tvit brazilskog Ministarstva zdravlja – 1,2 miliona pratilaca – „širio obmanjujuće i potencijalno štetne informacije“. Zašto? Pozivao je ljude sa simptomima KOVID-a da „odu u zdravstvenu jedinicu i zatraže rano lečenje“.

* Još nečuvenije, YouTube je nedavno izbrisao dva video zapisa koja je objavio komitet američkog Senata o svedočenju dr Kori o ivermektinu. Dalje, uklonio je video u kojem je naučnik govorio o svom prikazu ivermektina kao delu projekta agencije Unitaid čiji je domaćin Svetska zdravstvena organizacija. YouTube je čak uklonio video zapis o svojoj cenzuri ivermektina.

U nagoveštaju koliko je velika cenzura, Facebook je ponosno potvrdio u objavi na vebsajtu 8. februara da je „uklonio više od 12 miliona objava na Facebook-u i Instagramu koji sadrže dezinformacije koje mogu dovesti do neizbežne fizičke štete“. Sedam mojih postova, o članku koji sam napisala sa višestrukim linkovima ka naučnim objašnjenjima o ivermektinu, bilo je pogođeno tom oznakom. (Dospela sam na 14-satnu zabranu objavljivanja).

Moji napori da Facebook, Twitter ili Google, koji poseduje YouTube, daju objašnjenje metodologije koju koriste za cenzuru, ostali su jalovi. U javnoj objavi YouTube kaže da ne dozvoljava informacije koje su „u suprotnosti sa lokalnim zdravstvenim vlastima“ i Svetskom zdravstvenom organizacijom. Twitter tvrdi da uklanja „sadržaj koji je očigledno lažan ili obmanjujući i može dovesti do značajnog rizika nanošenja štete“.

Ali ko zapravo odlučuje o videu ili postu? Da li odluke donose algoritmi koje su podesili tehničari ili naučnici i lekari? Da li smernice vlade treba da budu krajnje merilo kada se ove stvari razvijaju – ponekad i pogrešno?

Na početku KOVID-a, zvaničnici su zapravo savetovali da se ne nose maske i da se KOVID ne leči kortikosteroidima; sada su to uobičajene prakse koje spasavaju živote.

Štaviše, vladine odluke u prethodnoj pošasti pokazuju koliko vlade mogu biti sklone greškama. Godine 1987. aktivisti za HIV-AIDS molili su dr Entonija Faučija da odobri upotrebu Bactrima i drugih sulfa lekova za sprečavanje virulentne upale pluća povezane sa AIDS-om. Vlada je čekala dve godine na dodatne podatke, tokom kojih je, kako je Šon Strab u svojim memoarima „Brojanje tela“ prebrojao, umrlo 17.000 ljudi.

Ono što je Fauči tada želeo, i želi i danas, je veća, bolja, dobro osmišljena studija – čak i ako je rezultat čekanja veći broj preminulih.

Stiv Kirš, kalifornijski preduzetnik, finansirao je istraživanje o antidepresivu koji se pretvorio u anti-KOVID tretman nazvan fluvoksamin i koji uveliko obećava zaustavljanje KOVID-a u ranoj fazi. Kao i kod ivermektina, lek nailazi na otpor.

U članku objavljenom 26. februara na Quora, Kirš je argumentovao da se granica za prihvatanje već odobrenih lekova mora spustiti, s obzirom na njihovu poznatu sigurnost i efikasnost. „Danas imamo lečenja zasnovana na dokazima koja imaju veliku verovatnoću da značajno smanje hospitalizaciju i smrt … praktično bez povećanja rizika“, napisao je. „Stoga su pogrešni i bespotrebni gubici života zbog „čekanja na više podataka “.“ Naveo je da su fluvoksamin i ivermektin dva najperspektivnija leka za lečenje KOVID-a u ranoj fazi bolesti.

Veliki Brat na Delu
Twitter je 27. decembra suspendovao nalog pod nazivom @COVIDAnalysis, koji je pratilo skoro 7.000 ljudi. Taj nalog, koji su vodili anonimni naučnici, rutinski je objavio tvit o istraživanju lečenja KOVID-a, i nastavio da rezimira i analizira njegove implikacije na svom vebsajtu.

Nisam usamljena u oslanjanju na njegovo poučno tumačenje, koje ponekad stane u zaštitu, a ponekad kritikuje.
Twitter nije pružio nikakvo upozorenje pre gašenja naloga i od tada nije odgovorio na zahtev grupe za objašnjenjem. Komentar jednog pratioca @c19d3k2, „Zaista moram da se zapitam koliko smo blizu same ivice #1984 već sada.“

Ugašeni su i drugi nalozi, uključujući onaj istaknutog i pristalice hidroksihlorokina u ranoj fazi, dr Zeva Zelenka, koji je imao više od 150.000 pratilaca.

Na trenutak ostavite po strani implikacije napora da se kontroliše ono što Amerikanci i građani širom sveta znaju – o bilo čemu. Ne tako davno, takva kontrola je bila nezamisliva.

Sada uzmite u obzir da je ivermektin lek koji je odobrila FDA i koji se nalazi na listi osnovnih lekova SZO. Među više od tri desetine ispitivanja nalazi se 19 recenziranih studija i 21 randomizovano kontrolisano ispitivanje. Oni pokazuju da ivermektin deluje u različitim fazama protiv virusa SARS-CoV-2. Zaustavio je infekciju prehlade kod zdravstvenih radnika u tri argentinske studije i jednoj u kojoj je učestvovalo 4.000 ljudi u Indiji. Zaustavio je bolest u ranoj fazi u studijama iz Pakistana i Bangladeša. Održao je ljude u životu u Egiptu i u studiji u okrugu Brauard, na Floridi.
Lekari to uglavnom ne znaju. Ni šira javnost.

Pronašla sam previše primera cenzure lečenja u ranoj fazi da bih ih sve ovde nabrojala, uključujući brisanje Facebook grupe sa 4.000 članova pod nazivom koja često raspravlja o hidroksihlorokinu i uklanjanje popularnog video zapisa dr Kristi Rizinger koja moli regulatorna tela da razmotre naučne činjenice o ivermektinu. Ipak, zamračenje sigurno nije potpuno. Na YouTube-u, Facebook-u i Twitter-u još uvek ima puno podataka o ivermektinu.

Ali cenzorski nož, prikaz leka kao konstrukcije desnice i otpor medija da izveštavaju o bilo čemu vezanom za lečenje u ranoj fazi uzeli su danak. Čini se da je ivermektin neprihvatljiv u javnoj raspravi o lečenju KOVID-a u ranoj fazi bolesti. Evo kako se ovo odvija: Tri izveštaja za štampu istraživala su bezbrojne faktore koji redukuju KOVID u Indiji – NPR (National Public Radio), Wall Street Journal i Washington Post. Pa ipak, upadljivo je da niko od njih nije pomenuo lečenje, uprkos široko rasprostranjenoj indijskoj upotrebi ivermektina i hidroksihlorokina, što je sigurno zaslužilo raspravu.

Pitala sam nadaleko objavljivanu naučnu spisateljicu Ester Landuis o njenim razmišljanjima o ovome: „Generalno se čini da je prepolitizovani debakl sa hidroksihlorokinom pomutio vode glavnim naučnim časopisima“, rekla mi je. „Mnogi se plaše da pogreše u vezi sa još jednim lekom kome bi bila promenjena namena; čekaju konačne podatke iz faze tri RCT (randomizovanog kontrolisanog ispitivanja) sa hiljadama pacijenata.“

Rezime prećutkivanja
Istraživanje ivermektina pokazuje da je lek najefikasniji u sprečavanju i zaustavljanju infekcije u ranoj fazi – upotreba koja će doprineti da ljudi ne završe u bolnici i sprečiti simptome na duge staze. Ipak, cenzura ivermektina lišava pacijente lečenja sigurnim lekom koji bi mogao da se koristi za tu namenu i uz informisani pristanak. Mnogi lekovi se koriste na ovaj način, posebno u odeljenjima za intenzivnu negu, gde se pacijentima može davati desetak lekova u nadi da će neki delovati.

Ali zatražite ivermektin za člana porodice i verovatno će vam reći, kao što je rečeno jednom članu porodice pacijenta: „Ovde to ne koristimo“. Kao posledica toga, porodice hospitalizovanih pacijenata ponekad ulažu velike napore da bi ga dobili.

Porodica muškarca iz Teksasa (67) planirala je da mu prošvercuje ivermektin u hrani, a zatim su dali advokatu da interveniše da se obezbedi lek. Dve porodice iz države Njujork dobile su sudske naloge kojima se ženama, starim 80 i 65 godina, dozvoljava davanje ivermektina – ali da im prepišu samo njihovi lični lekari. Kada je dr Erika Espinoza mislila da će izgubiti muža – takođe lekara – zbog KOVIDA-19, sredila je da ga prebaci u bolnicu u Hjustonu (odbilo ju je šest vazdušnih kompanija za hitnu pomoć), zato što primenjuje protokol koji uključuje ivermektin. Malo bolnica primenjuje takav protokol.

U ta četiri slučaja, svi osim muškarca iz Teksasa, oporavili su se nakon što su dobili ivermektin, a odlaganje lečenja njime sigurno nije pomoglo. Njegova smrt 5. februara razorila je njegovu porodicu; ostavio je suprugu sa kojom je bio 40 godina, dva sina i snahe i šestoro unučadi.
Doktor Brus Boros, lekar Šeril Džeret i vlasnik tri centra za hitnu negu u Florida Kis, nedavno je odslužio ono što on i drugi nazivaju „Facebook zatvorom“, naišavši na cenzore ivermektina. To je, međutim, mačji kašalj za Borosa, koji je lečio jednog hospitalizovanog pacijenta Kajla Kartera, kome je isporučio ivermektin do kreveta i uputio ga telefonom koliko treba da uzme. (Bolnica je rekla da nije imala lek, a zatim je odložila davanje, dok se Karter borio da diše).

„U roku od 12 sati,“ rekao mi je Karter, „osećao sam se prilično fantastično. Znao sam da se nešto promenilo.“ Još uvek ne zna da li je bolnica znala da je uzimao ivermektin.

Dve stotine pacijenata kasnije, Boros kaže sledeće: „Ako vam lekar ovo ne da, potražite drugog lekara“.

Kao da je to tako lako.

***Meri Bet Fajfer je istraživački novinar i autor dve knjige. Njena web stranica:

Imajte na umu da su stavovi izraženi u ovom članku mišljenje autora i ne nužno stav kompanije TrialSite News LLC.






















iRNK: „To je genska terapija, a ne vakcina“

Kovid vs grip: Gde je kosa, alatka Smrti, u 2020-2021?



Čitajte na srpskom

Facebook, Twitter & Youtube (the ‘big boys’), all playing gatekeeper:

“The War on ‘Misinformation’ Claims Two Victims. Truth. And the Right to Treatment.”


Archived at:

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

Two public health battles are being waged right now.

The first, of course, is against the coronavirus.

The second has its sights on a broad and amorphous target called “medical misinformation.” This campaign aims, at least in part, to control what people read, see and know about potential treatments for COVID-19. Firmly in its crosshairs is a cheap, generic drug that just might turn this pandemic around, ivermectin.

In this second battle, YouTube videos are removed. Twitter accounts with thousands of followers are purged. Facebook posts and groups are disappeared. These are the overt acts of censorship of ivermectin and other treatment contenders.

More covert is the mainstream media’s aversion to reporting virtually anything promising about early COVID treatment, including on 42 studies that collectively say ivermectin could reduce COVID deaths by 75 to 83 percent. What little is reported is that ivermectin is experimental and unproven – a drug that’s used to treat scabies and river blindness in people and parasites in horses.

For perhaps those reasons, Cheryl Jarrett, 64, initially rejected her doctor’s suggestion that she take ivermectin when diagnosed with what seemed a mild case of COVID. She changed her mind on day three, when she struggled to breathe after climbing her stairs, and a scan showed COVID infiltrates in 25 percent of her lungs.

“I took it,” she told me. “Within 2 hours I was fine.” She tried the stairs again. No problem.

There are many stories like Jarrett’s. You won’t find them in the press or on Wikipedia, a common source of ivermectin information. Share them on Facebook and you might get barred from posting, as Jarrett’s doctor, Bruce Boros, recently was.

Control of the ivermectin message ostensibly is done under the guise of protecting public health. But the effort is instead doing the opposite, according to interviews with advocates, doctors and analysts.

“There’s a war on misinformation which is hurting good information,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, president of a group of doctors advocating the drug called Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC. “We have all the data showing massive mortality benefits of ivermectin. The less that’s being known about it, the more deaths are resulting.”

Where It Began

The effort to manage COVID treatment information has its roots, in part, in a sad chapter in American science and journalism: The Trump endorsement last spring of hydroxychloroquine. In an instant, early treatment was turned into a right-wing myth of interest only to Fox News. The rest of the press was merciless in repeating assertions that a reliable pharmaceutical workhorse used for several diseases was dangerous for COVID. Multiple studies have since refuted that and shown effectiveness in early illness, something most people do not know.

Dr. Mobeen Syed was among the first last March to explore HCQ’s potential in a YouTube video that went viral and landed him in a love-it/hate-it, right/left firestorm. “I started getting so many threats,” he said, prompting him to take the piece down himself.

After that, however, YouTube itself decided what the 250,000 subscribers to Drbeen Medical Lectures should see, removing videos willy-nilly, it seemed, on Vitamin D, remdesivir and, what others said was frequently censored, ivermectin.

Among other examples of this new censorship trend:

  • On Jan. 31, Facebook removed a page called Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries. The last straw was a post on the Slovak Ministry of Health’s decision to allow use of ivermectin, which Facebook censors “believe is harmful to physical integrity,” the administrator wrote. Facebook also ruled that news of ivermectin approval by a southern state in Brazil violated its standards. Put another way, the social media giant did not like two independent government decisions and thought it knew better.
  • On Jan. 12, Twitter ruled a tweet by the Brazilian Ministry of Health — 1.2 million followers — was “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” Why? It urged people with COVID symptoms to “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment.”
  • More egregious, YouTube recently expunged two videos posted by a U.S. Senate committee on Dr. Kory’s ivermectin testimony. Further, it purged a video in which a scientist discussed his review of ivermectin as part of a project for a World Health Organization-hosted agency called Unitaid. YouTube even removed a video on its censorship of ivermectin.

In a hint at how vast the censorship is, Facebook asserted proudly in a Feb. 8 website post that it had “removed more than 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram containing misinformation that could lead to imminent physical harm.” Seven of my posts, on an article I wrote with multiple links to the science of ivermectin, were stricken with that label. (I got off on a 14-hour posting ban.)

My efforts were fruitless to get Facebook, Twitter or Google, which owns YouTube, to explain the methodology it uses to censor. In a public post, YouTube says it disallows information that “contradicts local health authorities” and the World Health Organization. Twitter maintains it culls “content that is demonstrably false or misleading and may lead to significant risk of harm.”

But who actually decides on a video or post? Are algorithms by technicians making the decisions or scientists and doctors? Should government guidelines be the ultimate yardstick when these are evolving — and sometimes wrong?

At the outset of COVID, officials actually advised against wearing masks and treating COVID with corticosteroids; both are common practices now that are saving lives.

Moreover, government decisions in a previous plague show how fallible they can be. In 1987, HIV-AIDS activists implored Dr. Anthony Fauci to endorse the use of Bactrim and other sulfa drugs to prevent a virulent AIDS-related pneumonia. The government waited two years for more data, during which, Sean Strub recounts in his memoir, “Body Counts,” 17,000 people died.

What Fauci wanted then and wants today is a bigger, better, well-designed study – even if the result of waiting for it is a higher death toll.

Steve Kirsch, a California entrepreneur, has funded research on an anti-depressant-turned-anti-COVID treatment called fluvoxamine that holds huge promise for eliminating COVID early. As with ivermectin, the drug is meeting resistance.

In a Feb. 26 article in Quora, Kirsch argued that the bar for acceptance of already approved drugs must be lowered, given their known safety and efficacy. “We have evidence-based treatments today that have a high probability to significantly reduce the hospitalization and death…with virtually no incremental risk,” he wrote. “It thus is wrong, and an unnecessary loss of life, to ‘wait for more data.’” He called fluvoxamine and ivermectin the two most promising drugs for early COVID treatment.

Big Brother at Work

On Dec. 27, Twitter suspended an account called @CovidAnalysis, which had been followed by nearly 7,000 people. The account, run by anonymous scientists, routinely tweeted on COVID treatment research, and continues to summarize and analyze its implications on its website. I’m not alone in relying on its informed interpretation, which is at times guarded and critical.

Twitter provided no warning before exorcising the account and hasn’t answered the group’s request for an explanation since. Commented one follower, @c19d3k2, “I really have to wonder how close to #1984 we have edged by now.”

Other accounts have also been purged, including that of a prominent and early hydroxychloroquine supporter, Dr. Zev Zelenko, who had more than 150,000 followers.

Put aside for a minute the implications of efforts to control what Americans and citizens around the world know – about anything. Not too long ago, such control was unthinkable.

Now consider that ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug that is on the WHO list of Essential Medicines. Among more than three dozen trials are 19 peer-reviewed studies and 21 randomized controlled trials. They show ivermectin works at various stages against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It stopped infection cold in healthcare workers in three Argentinian studies and one involving 4,000 people in India. It shut down early illness in studies from Pakistan and Bangladesh. It kept people alive in Egypt and in a study in Broward County, Florida.

Doctors largely don’t know this. Nor does the general public.

I found too many examples of early treatment censorship to list them all here, including the purging of a 4,000-member Facebook group called that often discusses hydroychloroquine, and removal of a popular video by Dr. Christy Risinger imploring regulators to consider ivermectin science. Nonetheless, the blackout surely isn’t complete. There is still plenty of ivermectin information on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

But the censor’s knife, the image of the drug as a right-wing construct, and the resistance of the media to report most anything on early treatments have all taken a toll. Ivermectin, it seems, is unacceptable in public discussion of early COVID treatment.

Here’s how this plays out: Three press reports explored the myriad factors driving down COVID in India — on NPR, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Yet each conspicuously made no mention of treatment, despite India’s widespread use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which surely deserved discussion.

I asked a widely published science writer, Esther Landuis, her thoughts on this: “In general it seems that the over politicized hydroxychloroquine debacle has muddied the waters for mainstream science magazines,” she told me. “Many outlets are afraid to be wrong about another repurposed drug; they are waiting for definitive data from a Phase 3 RCT (randomized controlled trial) with thousands of patients.”

The Upshot of Silencing

Ivermectin research shows the drug is most effective in preventing and quelling early infection – uses that would keep people out of hospitals and prevent long-haul symptoms. Yet ivermectin censorship robs patients of treatment with a safe drug that could be used off label and with informed consent. Many drugs are used this way, particularly in ICUs, where patients may be on a dozen medications in hopes that something works.

But ask for ivermectin for a family member, and you’ll likely be told, as one family member of a patient was, “We don’t use that here.” As a consequence, families of hospitalized patients sometimes go to great lengths to get it.

The family of a Texas man, 67, plotted to smuggle ivermectin to him in food then had lawyer intervene to secure the drug. Two New York state families got court orders to allow women, 80 and 65 years old, to be given ivermectin – but only prescribed by their personal physicians. When Dr. Erica Espinosa thought she would lose her husband – also a physician — to COVID-19, she arranged to fly him to a Houston hospital (six air ambulance companies declined) because it uses a protocol that includes ivermectin. Few hospitals do.

In those four cases, all but the Texas man rallied after getting ivermectin, and his treatment delay surely did not help. His death on Feb. 5 devastated his family; he left a wife of 40 years, two sons and daughters-in-law, and six grandchildren.

Dr. Bruce Boros, Cheryl Jarrett’s doctor and the owner of three urgent care centers in the Florida Keys, recently served time in what he and others call “Facebook Jail,” having run afoul of ivermectin censors. That’s small potatoes to Boros, however, who treated one hospitalized patient, Kyle Carter, by having ivermectin delivered to his bedside and directing him by phone on how much to take. (The hospital said it didn’t have the drug and then delayed giving it while Carter struggled to breathe.)

“Within 12 hours,” Carter told me, “I was feeling pretty fantastic. I knew that something had changed.” He still doesn’t know if the hospital was aware he’d taken ivermectin.

Two hundred patients later, Boros says this: “If your doctor doesn’t give this to you, get another doctor.”

If only it were that easy.

***Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and the author of two books. Her website:

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s and not necessarily those of TrialSite News LLC.

Explore Further:

%d bloggers like this: