Suppression of early treatments and natural immunity

If you hear your pharmacist, physician, or academic dean parrot the malignant regurgitated trope of “Ivermectin doesn’t work for Covid” or that there is “no evidence” or “no data” to support ivermectin’s use in Covid-19, send them this meta-analysis summary and annotated bibliography of over 100 studies.

Part 3: Who is Andrew Owen?

by WorldTribune Staff, December 9, 2021 In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half mil…

The incentives of Ivermectin's 'ghostwriters'. Was an effective medicine moved out the way?

The vaccine gold rush and the damning ivermectin tape

Epidemic of Fraud. Full film. 28 Language Captions. Donate to support this work. Paypal: https://EpidemicOfFraud.com/donate Coinbase: https://Epidemicoffra...

It's right there in front of us

Despite the proven efficacy of ivermectin in treating COVID-19, some studies in top-tier journals have concluded otherwise. Which data should we trust?

Natural immunity and a strong immune system are what are really needed to build full protection and a healthier population.

The FDA, which denied any wrongdoing, said it will remove content warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 within 21 days. Plaintiffs called the settlement a big win for patients and the patient-physician relationship.

A group of respected physician-scientists in Australia and in America with specialties in gastroenterology and immunology collaborated to educate their peers on the criticality of multi-drug therapy targeting COVID-19, given the imminent threat of microbial resistance. The recognized experts in gut health and the microbiome affiliated with Australia’s Center for Digestive Diseases, University of Queensland and Progenabiome, California address the escalating threat of microbial resistance and COVID-19. Articulating the need for multi-drug combinations to counter this trend, the physician-scientists introduce the combination of ivermectin, antibiotics and zinc as a regimen to consider. While it’s important to note that the medical and health establishment in the United States has rejected ivermectin as an off-label repurposed option for COVID-19, recent court battles slapped the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its information war against the anti-parasite drug used by hundreds of millions annually for various parasite-borne diseases such as Merck’s Mectizan program.

Benjamin Singer, M.D., the Lawrence Hicks Professor of Pulmonary Medicine in the Department of Medicine and a Northwestern Medicine pulmonary and critical care physician and colleagues conducted a study using machine learning finding no evidence of cytokine storm in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Rather, the Illinois-led team at Northwestern finds that secondary bacterial infection of the lung (pneumonia) was extremely common in patients with COVID-19, affecting almost half the patients who required support from mechanical ventilation. It turns out cytokine storms were nowhere near as prevalent as was assumed according to this data. TrialSite contributor Peter McCullough, M.D., MPH December 13, 2023, in his Courageous Discourse https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/secondary-bacterial-pneumonia-common?r=14jb45&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true covered this topic reporting that inpatient COVID-19 protocol-driven care led to new findings by the National Institutes of Health Autopsy Consortium—secondary bacterial and in some cases invasive fungal infections not recognized clinically before death, were frequent.

Dr Pierre Kory on the disgraceful suppression of ivermectin to treat Covid

Dr. Pierre Kory's testimony at MP Andrew Bridgen's UK Parliament meeting "For Democracy, Truth, and Freedom."

PANDEMIC STRATEGIES, LESSONS AND CONSEQUENCES Stockholm, 21st- 22nd January 2023 More event information: https://lakaruppropet.se/international-conference-pandemic-strategies/

Fact: The total number of COVID fatalities in the United States in the last 4 months is 500 times higher than the fatalities in Uttar Pradesh in the same period.

The US CDC estimates that SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 100 million Americans, and evidence is mounting that natural immunity is at least as protective as vaccination. Yet public health leadership says everyone needs the vaccine. Jennifer Block investigates When the vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than one quarter of Americans—91 million—had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate.1 As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults aged 18-59 (table 1). View this table: Table 1 Estimated total infections in the United States between February 2020 and May 2021* The substantial number of infections, coupled with the increasing scientific evidence that natural immunity was durable, led some medical observers to ask why natural immunity didn’t seem to be factored into decisions about prioritising vaccination.234 “The CDC could say [to people who had recovered], very well grounded in excellent data, that you should wait 8 months,” Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at University of California San Francisco, told Medpage Today in January. She suggested authorities ask people to “please wait your turn.”4 Others, such as Icahn School of Medicine virologist and researcher Florian Krammer, argued for one dose in those who had recovered. “This would also spare individuals from unnecessary pain when getting the second dose and it would free up additional vaccine doses,” he told the New York Times .5 “Many of us were saying let’s use [the vaccine] to save lives, not to vaccinate people already immune,” says Marty Makary, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University. Still, the CDC instructed everyone, regardless of previous infection, to get fully vaccinated as soon as they were eligible: natural immunity “varies …

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.

Two and half years later, the federal health agency also acknowledges that testing everyone is not a good strategy.

Washington, DC (August 12, 2022) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its first lawsuit challenging vaccine mandates over a year ago on behalf of George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki. This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally followed the science and acknowledged the scientific fact that NCLA has defended […]

By late last year with mounting numbers of ivermectin clinical trials, mostly from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the potential for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 gained significant movement. Key studies from McMaster’s TOGETHER study to a meta-analysis authored by Dr. Andrew Hill, affiliated with the University of Liverpool, and Unitaid—affiliated organization of the World Health Organization (WHO)—were to pave the way for use of the low cost, repurposed drug. But due to a purported under-dosing in the TOGETHER study and some questionable last-minute changes in the Unitaid-sponsored Hill meta-analysis, the pro-ivermectin consensus went south. With pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines in support of a universal vaccination program, any low-cost alternatives for early care weren’t well supported by any influencers in the medical establishments of North America and Europe. Additional companies such as Gilead, Merck, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, and Pfizer were busy securing in the aggregate billions of taxpayer dollars to develop antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. The market for early-stage antiviral care for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 involves big stakes, and key industry players know it. The potential market could be worth $10 billion per year—clearly, blockbuster-plus territory. The vaccines could produce $100 billion in the first two years of the pandemic for Pfizer—just unprecedented amounts of money. Did a combination of well-intended vaccination and advanced therapy programs coupled with industry interests and regulatory capture lead to the sabotage of ivermectin initiatives? If true, does this implicate an entire drug development system that became painfully obvious during the first modern pandemic? If this is the case, then Andrew Hill becomes a poster child for bias, questionable ethics, and possibly even corruption at the highest levels. On the other hand, was it just a system working the way it has evolved to work?

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, ofab358, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab358

CNN says study shows Ivermectin does not work -- but it shows that it DOES

800,000 people died in the USA for nothing.

Will we hear apologies?