Ivermectin has helped millions of humans since its discovery in 1975. Initially, the drug was developed from golf course soil samples. The research at the Kitsato Institute in Japan showed great promise in its antiparasitic effects. The first name given to this drug was Avermectin. Further research improved the drug’s effectiveness and safety, and it was called Ivermectin and marketed as Mectizan.
History of Ivermectin
https://web.stanford.edu/group/parasites/ParaSites2005/Ivermectin/History.htm Human parasites are a common problem in many areas of the world, particularly in Africa. Mectizan was used in animals until a test study in 1981 and showed its effectiveness against the parasite, Onchocerca volvulus, which causes River Blindness in humans. It proved very successful in killing the parasitic worm but not the adult parasite.
Further testing showed that Mectizan controlled the growth of River Blindness parasites for up to twelve months. In 1987, the drug was reported to be safe and effective in humans and approved in France. Over the next several years, annual doses of this drug were routinely given to thirty-plus million people to control River Blindness.
The United States does not have River Blindness, and approval was not solicited there. Finally, in 1996, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the drug to treat strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis. By 2005, over sixty million people are regularly treated annually with Ivermectin (Mectizan) for River Blindness and Elephantiasis. The references in the link above were printed in 2005 – long before Ivermectin was used to treat the pandemic virus.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/japanese-pharmaceutical-company-says-ivermectin-shows-antiviral-effect. Ivermectin has antiviral properties in humans. Recent studies in Japan show that Ivermectin was effective against the Omicron and other pandemic viral variants.
Clinical trials are still ongoing. Japan has not approved Ivermectin for use against COVID-19 due to a lack of studies showing effectiveness, efficacy, and safety. The United Kingdom has clinical studies underway to determine if Ivermectin can be used to treat coronavirus.
All countries want any drug used to treat a problem studied to ensure it works and is safe. This is usually done through clinical studies. The studies are set up to thoroughly test the drug’s ability to counter the health threat but also not expose or increase new health vulnerabilities to its population.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html. The VAERS reporting system tracks adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. From December 14, 2020, to January 31, 2021, there were nearly 12,000 deaths reported. However, the report was quick to point out that the vaccine might not have caused the death and that the number of deaths is extremely low considering the number of vaccines distributed.
Remember those cases of vehicular accidents nearly killing people, and they later died in the hospital. During the check-in process, those people who tested positive for COVID-19 were declared dead because of or with COVID-19, and they became a death statistic in the pandemic count.
The CDC defended their position many times that it was necessary to count those deaths as COVID-1related. Who knows how COVID-19 might have played a part in the death process? Again, the same could be said for pneumonia, cancer, cardiovascular disease, strokes, and more. Did a person really die because of COVID-19 or with it? We will probably never know.
However, we do know that Ivermectin saved thousands, if not millions, of lives in India.
https://wp.me/p4ztmz-1sy and https://wp.me/p4ztmz-1rA are two of a few blogs I wrote last year when India was inundated with the Delta variant. They went from dozens of deaths/day to over 35,000/day in just a few weeks. There were not enough vaccines, and India chose to use Ivermectin. The daily death count was back in the few dozen per day within a few weeks. Testimonial data – yes! Clinical data – no!
https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/success-of-ivermectin-in-preventing-covid-19-in-india-has-not-been-proven/?article_id=761091. Since there were no clinical trials established and tracked as thousands of people were spared from the horrors of the pandemic virus, the current theory says that Ivermectin cannot be held accountable for saving those people – there is no scientific evidence to prove it.
When things do not make sense, a wise person (Deep Throat) coined the term, Follow the Money, during the 1972 Watergate Scandal. It is quite appropriate. Today, we know, or some of us know, that naturally acquired immunity is, or should be, better than vaccine immunity.
Vaccines view a sliver of genetic data to determine if our immune system should respond quickly. Naturally acquired immunity has a history of viewing the entire spike and viral molecule in its archive. Therefore, a vaccine focusing on the original spike configuration (and the Alpha and Beta variants) might not detect a slight change in spike proteins.
However, as variant mutations occur, the earlier, locked-in, window of vaccine immunity cannot discern between friend or foe – or between foe and a foe in sheep’s clothing (Omicron variant).
Additionally, the clinical studies did not stop in late 2020. The government made a wise decision to use something that appeared to work and work now rather than risk potentially millions of more new cases, hospital strain, and deaths. We were led to believe that vaccines were the panacea to the pandemic. In a short time, herd immunity would shut down the pandemic.
However, we now know that vaccines have a shelf life of about six or seven months before they are no longer effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus. Booster shots do not last as long. Yet, we are being told to get vaccines and boosters as if they are 100% effective when they are not. Why? Follow the money? I am just guessing. I do not know why.
Live Longer & Enjoy Life! – Red O’Laughlin – RedOLaughlin.com