• [stock-market-ticker symbols="AAPL;MSFT;GOOG;HPQ;^SPX;^DJI;LSE:BAG" stockExchange="NYSENasdaq" width"100%" palette="financial-light"]

    Did Woke Doctors Sabotage 2022 Ivermectin Trial & Flaunt Contempt On Twitter?

    October 26, 2022

    Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR, Truth Social    

    On 21 October 2022, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an article by multiple doctors called “Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate Covid-19.”  The physician researchers concluded that Ivermectin was no more effective than placebo (sugar pills) for outpatient covid treatment.  Immediately, the left leaning media praised the trial, for obvious reasons.  This was the ’nail in the coffin’ and a victory for those who ‘follow the science.’

    The research study has numerous critical flaws that invalidate its results.  The trial was done late in the pandemic (June 2021-February 2022) when fewer Americans were getting sick and dying.  Why they waited nearly 2 years when the pandemic was winding down was not explained.  The trial used a dose that was 50% less and a duration that was 40% shorter than the Ivermectin protocols recommended by Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).  FLCCC is the most visible doctor organization that has advocated since the beginning of the pandemic for off the shelf Covid treatment and has been vilified by the medical establishment and mass media since early 2020.  Worse, most patients started Ivermectin at day 6 of symptoms, after the peak of covid viral loads in the body.  For comparison, Paxolovid (covid drug) must be started by day 5 and anti-flu drugs must be started in the first 2 days of symptoms.  After the peak viral load, medications usually do little to no good.

    The entire trial, though, should be examined for sabotage due to massive researcher bias.  During the research protocol, researchers received money from numerous large pharmaceutical companies that sell expensive covid drugs and vaccines.  Money came from Gilead Sciences (maker of Remdesivir covid drug), Bristol, Myers, Squibb (monoclonal antibodies), stock options from Vir Biotechnology (pipeline for Covid-19 antibodies),  AstraZeneca (covid vaccine), Pfizer (covid vaccine), GlaxoSmithKline (covid vaccine), Novartis (covid antiviral drugs), Sonafi (covid boosters), and Merck (covid antiviral treatment).  

    Most egregious is the researcher’s violation of research ethics.  Researchers are expected to be nonbiased in the focus of their research.  Bias can consciously or unconsciously impact the actual protocol, patient selection, data that is kept or discarded, etc.  Bias can then skew results to become what the researcher wants it to be, not what it should be.  In November 2021 (during the trial), Dr David Boulware (the 2nd in command of the Ivermectin project) bashed Ivermectin research when he tweeted about another Ivermectin study:  “Yet another Ivermectin study retracted.  I’m losing count of the retractions.  How many thousands of Americans have taken Ivermectin.”  He was also involved in the failed TOGETHER Ivermectin trial in Brazil that also used 400mcg/day for 3 days (dosing that is less than the FLCCC protocol).  His contempt raises concerns that he is purposefully ensuring that the Ivermectin protocols fail.  Worse still, Dr Carolyn Bramante, another physician researcher in this project, retweeted a cartoon that Dr Boulware posted on his professional twitter.  The cartoon mocks Ivermectin with the caption saying, ““who needs vaccines when you got livestock dewormer.”  The cartoon tweet/retweet occurred in August 2021, while these 2 physician researchers were claiming to do nonbiased Ivermectin research.

    The article was published in JAMA last week.  The American Medical Association disabled the comment button and when questioned via email, declined to explain why they had done this.  Immediately and predictably, the mass media praised the article.  On 24 October 2022 CNBC posted the following headline article: “Ivermectin, a drug once touted by conservatives as a treatment for Covid, does not meaningfully improve the recovery time for people with mild to moderate Covid-19.”

    ‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘

    This trial was clearly meant to fail.  The dosing and duration of treatment combined with the trial being done at the end of covid when the virus was far less lethal question the motives of the researchers.  Perhaps they betrayed their intent openly with their brazen contempt for Ivermectin WHILE the trial was still ongoing.   Perhaps they hoped to be the ‘heroes’ of the medical narrative that is still pushing for obedience and medical censorship.  Perhaps they personally profited from drug company influence (drug companies don’t want cheap, off the shelf drugs when they can exclusively market billion dollar ‘game changers’).

    The tragedy is that Ivermectin’s value in Covid is still in question.  This article is not to advocate for or against it but rather to advocate for proper science to be done at the right time in the right way with the right mindset.  The proper large-scale trials were never done at the beginning of the pandemic when they would have had more relevance and validity.  Why they were not done and why Ivermectin was vilified so early when no trials had been done is very concerning to patient care and science.  The researchers manifested unprofessionalism and contempt for the very drug they purported to be investigating before, during, and after the trial.  This is not ‘following the science.’  American should be very afraid because the US medical complex is refining its playbook that will be used in the next pandemic.

    John Hughes, MD

    Emergency Physician

    West Point Graduate 1996

    Member www.starrs.us

    1 Naggie, Susanna, et al.  “Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery In Outpatients With Mild to Moderate Covid-19.”  Jamanetwork.com  21 October 2022.

    2 https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/i-care/

    3 Twitter.com/bramantecarolyn retweet 27 August 2021.



    John Hughes

    Emergency Physician. United States Military Academy Class of 1996. #1 graduate. 3rd Generation West Pointer. 4 combat tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. www.americandoctor.org Member of STARRS.US & MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates.
  • Subscribe
    Notify of

    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Worse yet is the lack of any mention of zinc. The ivermectin works as a key to allow the zinc into the cells. It is the zinc that rerards the viral replication. Any study that does not include zinc is doomed to fail


    The FACT is India proved how critical ivermectin was saving over 100 million those infected by covid, anyone who demonized it for what every reason must be charged with crimes against humanity, NOW!.


    study results are just exactly that.....they are the best we have until the next study is done and shows updated newer results......if you really want newer better information on ivermectin then you should conduct your own randomized double blinded prospective clinical trial of ivermectin in covid disease and publish your results...........picking holes in other research based on politics alone is not persuasive.......doing newer better quality fresh research is usually very persuasive.

    John Hughes

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fortunately platforms like this allow for differing opinions which is good for intellectual discussion. The same cannot be said for the current state of the medical community that increasingly bans dissenting views.

    The inherent status of a study being a RCT does not make a study immune to feedback. Many RCTs have been questioned; many were forced to be withdrawn for various issues found by other observers even after publication. This is not new. If the new norm is to never question RCTs after publication, then science is truly dead.

    AMA didn't allow physicians to comment on this particular study online on its website. I contacted the JAMA editor and he confirmed this with no explanation provided. Why won't they allow immediate peer commentary?

    RCTs can and often have bias and errors. Recall the first big Remsidivir RCT changing the endpoint weeks before trial completion, removing mortality. Only 18-20% of trials do this, it is allowed, but it calls for inquiry into serious protocol issues. None were done, Gilead won the contract and it was a sugar pill for mortality at $3,000 a pop for Gilead. WHO confirmed no benefit in mortality again this year. The US medical community was largely silent on this event.

    The latest NEJM Paxlovid trial I saw published in 2022 gave over 2/3 of patients Paxlovid in 0-3 days, well within the viral load issue, and gave the drug more of a chance to show effect. ACTIV-6 was 6 days. Why? Paxlovid trial was done earlier as well in the pandemic. Why wasn't ACTIV-6 done in June of 2020 when the max potential effect to decrease death/hospitalization was present? Instead, it was blacklisted with no RCTs. until nearly 2 years into the pandemic.

    Interesting how if anyone questions mainstream science these days they get labeled 'political.' The sad truth is that medical organizations are crushing dissent. My ER organization's president called me out in front of 30,000 doctors for daring to ask about institutional bias. She called me a right wing radical and told me to get psychiatric therapy. Yes, she said that. Very professional and unbiased.

    Truth in science and concerns for research bias is an apolitical issue. I don't 'peddle' ivermectin nor am I am member of FLCCC. I search for truth. Anyone can manipulate data collection or worse change study data. I am not saying that the researchers did but when they are so publicly arrogant and negative about the study drug intellectual integrity is fair game to question just as in any other profession. Integrity is easy to lose and hard to get back.

    Regarding the researcher who owned the Twitter cartoon you see. I have done IRB approved RCT research and was once a key leader in a large academic ER. If I had discovered one of our researchers lacking in professionalism to this degree, I would have recommended professional punishment and a prohibition against research activity, and sent a warning to other researchers in our department. In this case, he is a hero to those with a bias against the investigational drug he is 'studying.'

    RCTs can be questioned during and after a trial.


    The only question that needs to be answered is: How big was the kickback from big pharm?


    Further to what Will says, I have to wonder why Ivermectin believers (I'm open to real proof) didn't do a bulletproof study two years ago. To my knowledge, even the Indian "experiment" wasn't given rigorous analysis - just anecdotal references. This should have been a slam dunk regardless of Big Pharma suppression IF there was demonstrable evidence of Ivermectin's, and Quercetin's, efficacy as preventative or cure but there has obviously NOT been a definitive study.

    OTOH, this Covid "pandemic" was obviously fake from the start so, instead of chasing Ivermectin squirrels, common sense people should back then and even today ought to have focused on debunking the whole "safety" narrative with all its spin-off rewards to the lying promoters.

    Teena Johnson

    Just like Google- Twitter and Facebook used Censoring techniques to suppress intelligent questions- AND Fauci- the "King of Science" pulled the clinical trial for Ivermectin.
    People are apparently too stupid or brainwashed to understand that pretty much all drugs started out or were tested on animals before humans.... Even Coumadin- which is used and adored by millions was initially a RAT POISON called Warfarin- the research for which was paid for with Tax Dollars! A tweak of a molecule and voila you have Coumadin a pantentable pill.
    Similarly- Fauci pushed for the development of a molecule that began as Ivermectin and ended up as Plaxovid! BEWARE of this experimental drug too.


  • Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!