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
West Point Graduate 1996
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.
3 Twitter.com/bramantecarolyn retweet 27 August 2021.