THE NIH ADMITS IT: Ivermectin has a place in the treatment of Covid-19

Editor's Note: Our readers know that, by and large, the US medical establishment and its Big Pharma arm, are highly compromised due to the capture of political, regulatory and research institutions by corporate interests. This, of course, applies not only to Congress and state politicians, a crowd already well known for their astonishing venality, but to the NIH, the FDA, and other critical US government institutions responsible for the health of all US citizens. Indeed, the Covid pandemic has provided the American nation with a stern lesson about the wrongheadedness, nay, crime, of allowing profits to rule the nation's medical decisions. In this context, we have witnessed (and still do), Big Pharma's aggressive meddling to control the extremely lucrative production and approval (in record time) of drugs and modalities to handle the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (which, as we know, causes COVID-19), with practically no legal liability, the latter a highly unusual provision guaranteed by the US government, which has also exerted its influence on behalf of certain players such as Pfizer to ensure that even the WHO would follow global guidelines benefiting this firm and its associates.

As a result, strange things have characterised this global emergency. We'll leave the contentious origins of Covid-19 for another discussion, although we suspect that Covid came into being as a misfire (?) in the development of "ethnoweapons", a form of biowarfare targeting specific nationalities, races, etc., currently prohibited by international treaties such as the Geneva Protocol. The US is supposed to have ended its program in 1969, but this is a field in which the US military—given a bloated budget that affords it to leave no technology untouched—is strongly suspected to engage. During the Ukraine war, and to Washington's embarrassment, advancing Russian troops discovered more than a dozen US-funded biolabs apparently involved in this type of sordid research.

Along with the pharmaceutical industry, a key component these days of global capitalism, the pandemic also gave other sectors of the US ruling elite excuses to institute dubious policies and rules, such as massive lockdowns, (useful in future mass pacification campaigns), all in the name of safeguarding the nation's health. One of the most bizarre and controversial phenomena (albeit with little of this controversy reflected in the mass media) has been the rapid erosion of standard medical ethics and long-accepted practices, with virtually no serious discussion in professional circles and institutions, nor peer reviews. Indeed, the protocols to treat patients were suddenly upended, and while actual therapies were denied or put aside, the public was herded into accepting the notion that a new "vaccine" —which is formally a preventative—should be exclusively used. Further, and compounding this curious shift, we also saw an unjustifiable delay in the treatment of patients with known and effective antiviral drugs such as Ivermectin—a low-cost (it's a generic), widely used and well-known drug, and the subject of an all-out defamation campaign by Big Pharma, especially Pfizer—that could have prevented a substantial number of deaths in patients being treated with other dubious pharmacological options. Equally disturbing, many patients in the US and worldwide were admitted to ICUs showing signs of respiratory failure due to Covid's more dangerous inflammatory phase but denied proven antivirals like Ivermectin, using instead chiefly compensatory invasive mechanical ventilation with a high mortality rate. (See, for example, ICU and ventilator mortality among critically ill adults with COVID-19, and draw your own conclusions. The paper admits alarmingly high mortality rates among patients hooked to ventilators, even among the best cohorts examined, but still defends the practice of aggressive ventilation without showing enough data nor providing an adequate discussion of whether effective antivirals had been used or not instead of just mRNA vaccines). That said, while ventilators do save lives under certain circumstances, as an expert reminds us, being put on a ventilator is a serious matter:

"When using a ventilator, you may need to stay in bed or use a wheelchair. This raises your risk of blood clots, serious wounds on your skin called bedsores, and infections. Fluid can build up in the air sacs inside your lungs, which are usually filled with air. This is called pulmonary edema..."

The NIH has a helpful paper on this topic. See Risks of Being on a Ventilator (Last updated on March 24, 2022.)

The record shows that the entire medical and political establishment, supported by a revoltingly complicit media (an instance in which the normally subterranean "Censorship Industrial Complex", set up to supposedly fight disinformation, was first deployed en masse), embarked on practices of such cost, unconstitutionality, and mediocre-to-poor results, that the whole thing may eventually obligate an extensive formal inquiry. Meanwhile, to defend the narrative favoring Big Pharma and the complicit NIH and FDA—as good an example of a captive agency as they come— dozens of reputations were tarnished. Many highly qualified and ethical doctors such as Dr Robert Malone, who objected to the corporate-government alliance's handling of the pandemic, were simply defamed or rendered invisible. Just observe this infamous stab by none other than our paper of record. If anyone needs an example of why liberal authoritarianism is both underhanded and repellent, this piece on the New York Times will do just fine.

Clearly, the Times and the forces it represents were agitated because Dr Malone was supposedly "spreading bad information" about the virus. But in their frenzy to institute a new medical orthodoxy, the powers that be forgot that there had been no proper open national discussion among competent experts on what policies to follow, a demand that many respectable members of the medical community, such as the maligned Dr Malone repeatedly made, to no avail. 

In this ongoing mess, some corporations and their circles of influence played a singularly nefarious role. Pfizer, in particular, stands out for its outsize greed and lack of an ethical conscience in an industry where outrageously exploitative behavior is the norm. Its malignant footprint, which has even attracted the attention of corrupt entities such as the EU, includes not just the wholesale and often high-handed bribery of the US political and medical establishments, but, through a gigantic advertising budget, the mass media themselves, which, as commercial entities, put profits, too, above the public interest. 

Incidentally, do note that while the value of Ivermectin is well established in all phases of Covid treatment, the author(s) chose to suggest restricted use to only its "mild" stages, or relegation to a distant, purely secondary role in the presence of supposedly more modern and powerful antiviral agents. This is totally wrong, and prejudicial against Ivermectin, but the upshot is that most doctors, especially those working at large group practices that operate like (and often are part of) some much larger Wall Street conglomerate, refuse to include it in their formularies. As usual, this is America, where conformity rules and nobody wants to make waves.

—PG