How They Dissed HCQ and Ivermectin


An article at Science Defies Politics explains the fallacies in findings intended to disqualify actual C19 therapies in favor of vaccines Fraud and Mistakes in Reviews of IVM and HCQ for C19.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Cochrane was reputable in the past, but is now controlled by pharmaceutical interests.

Cochrane, once respected organization producing systematic reviews of peer-reviewed medical literature, issued a cherry-picked and biased review of Ivermectin for COVID-19, claiming not enough evidence. It is debunked by C19___ as Outdated very biased cherry-picking retrospective meta analysis …

That reminds the Cochrane’s HCQ review, published on Feb. 12, 2021. It was a similar piece of junk science and scientific fraud. This said, it contains three non-obvious methodological mistakes behind such non-positive reviews of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin treatments for COVID-19, which some people might make unintentionally.

Mistake #1:  Selection of randomized control trials (RCTs) and exclusion of observational studies.

RCTs are gold standard for detecting small (like 20%) improvements. However, RCTs are meaningless or even unethical when the treatment improves the odds by 3–6 times, as the case with Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. In such situation, RCTs tend to be small or using the main ingredient incorrectly.

Mistake #2: The same main ingredient can be used in many ways, including different phases of the disease, doses, and additional medications.

A proper review would have identified the best protocol, using the main ingredient, and reviewed the studies using this protocol. This mistake arises from a habit to review pharma-sponsored trials of patented drugs, in which the manufacturer determines the best way to use the drug.

Mistake #3: Reliance on academic papers and exclusion of the real world evidence.

Well, Cochrane cannot be blamed because reviews of literature are what it does, but the users of these reviews should not call them “the scientific evidence” or similar.

From the Cochrane’s HCQ review:

“We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020.” Enough said. They published a review of 13 trials with 9030 participants (including one post-exposure prophylaxis trial) in what was seemed to be the end of the pandemic, with a review cutoff date 5 months earlier.

“Treatment of COVID‐19 disease. We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults.” Enough said. By September 2020, millions of people had been treated with Hydroxychloroquine.

“Preventing COVID‐19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2. Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective.”

Cochrane Funding

Cochrane Review receives most of its charitable funding from the governments of the UK, Denmark, Germany, and the US ( It also sells subscriptions, mainly to government-funded universities, to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, which are effectively controlled by governments. It is essentially a governmental organization masquerading as an independent non-profit research organization. Cochrane also serves as a partner and source for Wikipedia on medical topics. Many people consult Wikipedia.

The result looks like an echo chamber in a mental asylum!

See also  Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor

Yes, HCQ Works Against Covid19


They Worried Us Sick


John Tierney writes at City Journal The Panic Pandemic.  

The first part of the article is a refresher on how it happened that all those who talked reasonably in the face of the panic narrative, were silenced and banished from public discourse.  Included are many recognizable names:  John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, Thomas Benfield, Stefan Baral, Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta,  and the most reviled heretic, Scott Atlas.  The excerpts below in italics (with my bolds and images) express Tierney’s conclusions to take away from this sorry mess.

Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus.

The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans—typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far more catastrophic, was a moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions.

Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom—and, worst of all, science. They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk that it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage. As evidence of their mistakes mounted, they stifled debate by vilifying dissenters, censoring criticism, and suppressing scientific research.


One in three people worldwide lost a job or a business during the lockdowns, and half saw their earnings drop, according to a Gallup poll. Children, never at risk from the virus, in many places essentially lost a year of school. The economic and health consequences were felt most acutely among the less affluent in America and in the rest of the world, where the World Bank estimates that more than 100 million have been pushed into extreme poverty.

The leaders responsible for these disasters continue to pretend that their policies worked and assume that they can keep fooling the public. They’ve promised to deploy these strategies again in the future, and they might even succeed in doing so—unless we begin to understand what went wrong.

But neither the plague nor Trump explains the panic. Yes, the virus was deadly, and Trump’s erratic pronouncements contributed to the confusion and partisanship, but the panic was due to two preexisting pathologies that afflicted other countries, too.

The first pathology is what I have called the Crisis Crisis, the incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians.

It’s a longstanding problem—humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the “population crisis” and the “energy crisis”—that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets. To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.


Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Early in the 1980s AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying possibility that the virus could spread to children through “routine close contact”—quoting from a study by Anthony Fauci. Life magazine wildly exaggerated the number of infections in a cover story, headlined “Now No One Is Safe from AIDS.” It cited a study by Robert Redfield, the future leader of the CDC during the Covid pandemic, predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn’t harm their careers or their credibility.

Journalists and politicians extend professional courtesy to fellow crisis-mongers by ignoring their mistakes, such as the previous predictions by Neil Ferguson. His team at Imperial College projected up to 65,000 deaths in the United Kingdom from swine flu and 200 million deaths worldwide from bird flu. The death toll each time was in the hundreds, but never mind: when Ferguson’s team projected millions of American deaths from Covid, that was considered reason enough to follow its recommendation for extended lockdowns. And when the modelers’ assumption about the fatality rate proved too high, that mistake was ignored, too.

More Covid Cases

Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded. For Americans under 70, the probability of surviving a Covid infection was about 99.9 percent, but fear of the virus was higher among the young than among the elderly, and polls showed that people of all ages vastly overestimated the risk of being hospitalized or dying.

The second pathology underlying the elite’s Covid panic is the politicization of research—what I have termed the Left’s war on science, another long-standing problem that has gotten much worse.

Just as the progressives a century ago yearned for a nation directed by “expert social engineers”—scientific high priests unconstrained by voters and public opinion—today’s progressives want sweeping new powers for politicians and bureaucrats who “believe in science,” meaning that they use the Left’s version of science to justify their edicts. Now that so many elite institutions are political monocultures, progressives have more power than ever to enforce groupthink and suppress debate. Well before the pandemic, they had mastered the tactics for demonizing and silencing scientists whose findings challenged progressive orthodoxy on issues such as IQ, sex differences, race, family structure, transgenderism, and climate change.


And then along came Covid—“God’s gift to the Left,” in Jane Fonda’s words. Exaggerating the danger and deflecting blame from China to Trump offered not only short-term political benefits, damaging his reelection prospects, but also an extraordinary opportunity to empower social engineers in Washington and state capitals. Early in the pandemic, Fauci expressed doubt that it was politically possible to lock down American cities, but he underestimated the effectiveness of the crisis industry’s scaremongering. Americans were so frightened that they surrendered their freedoms to work, study, worship, dine, play, socialize, or even leave their homes. Progressives celebrated this “paradigm shift,” calling it a “blueprint” for dealing with climate change.

This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust.

Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow “the science” to know what they’re talking about. Science is a process of discovery and debate, not a faith to profess or a dogma to live by. It provides a description of the world, not a prescription for public policy, and specialists in one discipline do not have the knowledge or perspective to guide society. They’re biased by their own narrow focus and self-interest. Fauci and Deborah Birx, the physician who allied with him against Atlas on the White House task force, had to answer for the daily Covid death toll—that ever-present chyron at the bottom of the television screen—so they focused on one disease instead of the collateral damage of their panic-driven policies.


“The Fauci-Birx lockdowns were a sinful, unconscionable, heinous mistake, and they will never admit they were wrong,” Atlas says. Neither will the journalists and politicians who panicked along with them. They’re still portraying lockdowns as not just a success but also a precedent—proof that Americans can sacrifice for the common good when directed by wise scientists and benevolent autocrats. But the sacrifice did far more harm than good, and the burden was not shared equally. The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world. Students from disadvantaged families suffered the most from school closures, and children everywhere spent a year wearing masks solely to assuage the neurotic fears of adults. The less educated lost jobs so that professionals at minimal risk could feel safer as they kept working at home on their laptops. Silicon Valley (and its censors) prospered from lockdowns that bankrupted local businesses.


Luminaries united on Zoom and YouTube to assure the public that “we’re all in this together.” But we weren’t. When the panic infected the nation’s elite—the modern gentry who profess such concern for the downtrodden—it turned out that they weren’t so different from aristocrats of the past. They were in it for themselves.




Covid Masks Make CO2 Toxic


It turns out CO2 is not a climate threat, but masking up for COVID makes it dangerous.  At the Federalist Maggie Hroncich explains in an article AMA Journal: Masks Are Bad For Your Kids. Quit Forcing Them To Wear Them  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A new report published by an American Medical Association journal revealed forcing children to wear face masks leads to adverse health effects. JAMA Pediatrics, a top-rated monthly journal published by the AMA, found wearing face masks increases the amount of carbon dioxide in inhaled air to unhealthy levels.

The study measured carbon dioxide levels in 45 children ages 6-17 while wearing masks. The normal content of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million (ppm), with anything above 2000 ppm considered unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office.

The JAMA report measured averages of 13,120 to 13,910 ppm of carbon dioxide in the inhaled air of children wearing masks, which is over six times higher than the unsafe threshold. The study further pointed out this measurement was after only three minutes of wearing a mask. Children forced to wear masks at school find themselves wearing masks for hours, five days a week.

The JAMA report follows a larger German survey of over 25,000 children, which found 68 percent of them reportedly had problems while wearing facial coverings.

“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air,” the JAMA study concluded. “This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.”

“This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.” The authors of the study urged those who are forcing children to wear masks to consider the scientific evidence when making that decision.

“Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak,” the study found. “We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”

Meanwhile Fauci Gets It Wrong Again

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:00 PM PT – Monday, July 19, 2021
Dr. Anthony Fauci has pushed for young children to wear face masks as school look to reopen nationwide. Earlier on Monday, the nation’s chief medical advisor stood beside the American Academy of Pediatrics who recommended schools could require young children as young as three-years-old to mask up indoors, regardless of their vaccination states.




No, Guardian, Ivermectin Not Discredited by Elgazzar Retraction


The hits against Ivermectin keep on coming.  Dr. Colleen Aldous and Dr. Warren Parker explain this latest smear campaign in their article Ivermectin — front-line doctors vs bureaucrats.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Given the safety profile of Ivermectin, there is nothing to lose and there’s a good possibility of saving many lives and slowing the pandemic

The Ivermectin battle of ideologies on safety and efficacy pits a group of doctors who deal with dying patients every day against bureaucrat academic clinicians. These academic clinicians have dismissed all evidence, favouring a single, large randomised trial that is entirely appropriate for novel drug development but not for pandemics.

This is akin to a person suffering a heart attack and refusing to be taken to hospital in a Toyota, choosing to wait for a Rolls-Royce.

If science is pure, there should not really be a debate, but there is, and it’s purely on the interpretation of science. The Ivermectin meta-analyses have shown that subjectivity in science does happen, something the layperson is made to believe is not possible.

Unfortunately, scientific fraud has also muddied the picture on both sides of the Ivermectin divide. The Elgazzar Ivermectin study, which showed Ivermectin to be highly effective, has been removed from the preprint website for unethical scientific reporting. If this is found to be true it is unforgivable and the authors need to be dealt with.

I’ve no doubt that this will be used to discredit Ivermectin, but it is one of many trials showing efficacy and will be shown to have little weight in the meta-analyses. Just because one lawyer is guilty of corruption does not mean all lawyers are corrupt. In the same vein, a study published in leading medical journal Lancet, showed that hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 was associated with an increased risk of death in patients hospitalised with the disease. However, it was found to be fraudulent and the Lancet was forced to retract the paper.

Bias can come in selecting studies to include in the analysis and the interpretation of the results. Ivermectin can be shown to work by a careful selection of studies that support it. It can be discredited by selecting studies that show it is ineffective.

The SA National Essential Medicines List Committee (NEMLC), which has published its methods on its website, has produced an in-house rapid-review on Ivermectin, which continues to find that Ivermectin should not be used outside clinical trials. This review is not peer-reviewed. The scientific community emphasises the importance of peer-review publication, but our regulatory authorities seem not to. To illustrate the degree of subjectivity, I was in a meeting with one of the authors from the Bryant paper and a NEMLC member. In the discussion the latter stated that while they are aware of the work done in their preprint paper, they disagree with it. Simple!

The methods used in the Ivermectin meta-analyses by Bryant et al are exact. They have a very low risk of bias in themselves. Meta-analyses pool data from several studies to report for a larger sample size than the studies themselves. The heterogeneity of the studies is addressed with rigorous methods to reduce the effect of bias from the individual studies. Bryant et al have careers in data and research analysis. They have prepared decision-to-treat recommendations for international and country-level health bodies.

Their analysis included 24 randomised controlled trials that showed both positive and negative outcomes. The recommendation, among others, is that with moderate certainty Ivermectin could reduce mortality by an average of 62%. Moderate certainty means there is a good chance it is effective to this level.

From looking at their methods in their peer-reviewed publication I believe the selection and interpretation of results were unbiased and currently provide us with recommendations that are more than sufficient to validate the positive effects of Ivermectin for treating Covid-19.

Simply put, SA’s response is now guided by the recommendations of an in-house team over a peer-reviewed, rigorously prepared meta-analysis. The NEMLC document is the guidance observed by all health department facilities and also some private hospitals.

Concerning the Ivercor-Covid-19 trial, it’s a pity all those who have stated that this study is proof that Ivermectin doesn’t work did not read the paper in its entirety. The authors themselves declare in the limitations of their research that the doses given are were low.

As the pandemic has progressed, experience on the ground has shown that Ivermectin is effective at higher doses. Initial recommended doses were low, having been informed by the dosages for anti-parasite treatment. Unfortunately, many trials that are now being run or are completed are using low doses based on earlier assumptions. Even the upcoming Oxford Principle trial of Ivermectin follows low dose regimes that may be insufficient to show effect.

The Lopez-Medina study in Colombia is also often cited as demonstrating that Ivermectin is ineffective. Yet it was so fraught with protocol violations that I would not have submitted the article for publication if I were the principal investigator.

The NEMLC has put the health of our people at risk by recommending against the use of Ivermectin even though it is legally available in SA for off-label use or in the compassionate use programme. Proper evidence-based medicine involves looking at all current evidence conscientiously, not just at a few trials.

During the latter half of the last century our ways of doing science have developed in times of stability and relative prosperity. However, we are in chaos now. We need new thinking. Those in authority are still pushing for their conventional methods for science, which insists that “reality must obey our models… otherwise reality cannot be correct”.

We need more than just a few clinical experts making decisions for our country now that we are hitting this third wave. I believe it is time to put together a multidisciplinary team to examine the arguments of those saying that the totality of evidence points to the necessity of making a Type 1 decision now, roll out Ivermectin.

Given the safety profile of Ivermectin, with nearly 4bn doses given since the 1980s, there is nothing to lose. At worst, it would be like taking an aspirin to ease pain for a bee sting. It won’t harm, but it may help.

If Ivermectin is used, there is a good possibility of saving many lives and slowing down the pandemic. But suppose we have to wait for that elusive large double-blind, randomised control trial (the Rolls-Royce) that will provide the ultimate certainty of the gold standard. In that case, there may be many thousands of unnecessary deaths still to come.

• Dr Aldous is a professor and healthcare scientist at the University of KwaZulu-Natal Medical School, where she runs the doctoral academy at the College of Health Sciences. She has published over 130 peer-reviewed articles in rated journals. Dr Parker, an international public health specialist, has worked in more than 20 countries on health and development concerns, with a focus on translating research into strategic policy.

Footnote:  The Bryant et al. meta-analysis study is discussed here:  Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor

Why Can’t They See that HCQ or Ivermectin + nutritional supplements
is the missing public health pillar?

Pillars Needed Missing

Be Afraid of Covid Variants. Be very Afraid.


This campfire ghost story has been around since last March, but is revived and promoted now to maintain public anxiety and perpetuate the medical-industrial complex. Some background and background resources are in Daniel Horowitz’s Blaze article The Delta deception: New COVID variant might be less deadly.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

“This COVID variant will be the one to really get us. No, it’s this one. Well, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma weren’t a problem, but I promise you ‘the Delta’ spells the end of civilization.”

That is essentially the panic porn dressed up as science that we have been treated to ever since the virus declined in January following the winter spread, which appears to have given us a great deal of herd immunity. Despite the advent of the British and South African variants, cases, not to mention fatalities, have continued to plummet in all of the places where those variants were supposedly common. Which is why they are now repeating the same mantra about the “Delta” variant from India.

The headlines are screaming with panic over the impending doom of the Delta variant hitting the U.S.:

“WHO says delta is the fastest and fittest Covid variant and will ‘pick off’ most vulnerable” (CNBC)
“Highly contagious Delta variant could cause next COVID-19 wave: ‘This virus will still find you'” (CBS)
“Delta Variant Gains Steam in Undervaccinated U.S. Counties” (Bloomberg)
“The Delta variant might pose the biggest threat yet to vaccinated people” (Business Insider)
And of course, no list would be complete without the headline from Dr. Fauci yesterday, stating that the “Delta variant is the greatest threat in the US.”

The implication from these headlines is that somehow this variant is truly more transmissible and deadly (as the previous variants were falsely portrayed to be), they escape natural immunity and possibly the vaccine — and therefore, paradoxically, you must get vaccinated and continue doing all the things that failed to work for the other variants!

After each city and country began getting ascribed its own “variant,” I think the panic merchants realized that the masses would catch on to the variant scam, so they decided to rename them Alpha (British), Beta (South African), Gamma (Brazilian), and Delta (Indian), which sounds more like a hierarchy of progression and severity rather than each region simply getting hit when it’s in season until the area reaches herd immunity.

However, if people would actually look at the data, they’d realize that the Delta variant is actually less deadly. These headlines are able to gain momentum only because of the absurd public perception that somehow India got hit worse than the rest of the world. In reality, India has one-seventh the death rate per capita of the U.S.; it’s just that India got the major winter wave later, when the Western countries were largely done with it, thereby giving the illusion that India somehow suffered worse. Now, the public health Nazis are transferring their first big lie about what happened in India back to the Western world.

Fortunately, the U.K. government has already exposed these headlines as a lie, for those willing to take notice. On June 18, Public Health England published its 16th report on “SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England,” this time grouping the variants by Greek letters.


As you can see, the Delta variant has a 0.1% case fatality rate (CFR) out of 31,132 Delta sequence infections confirmed by investigators. That is the same rate as the flu and is much lower than the CFR for the ancestral strain or any of the other variants. And as we know, the CFR is always higher than the infection fatality rate (IFR), because many of the mildest and asymptomatic infections go undocumented, while the confirmed cases tend to have a bias toward those who are more evidently symptomatic.

In other words, Delta is literally the flu with a CFR identical to it. This is exactly what every respiratory pandemic has done through history: morphed into more transmissible and less virulent form that forces the other mutations out since you get that one. Nothing about masks, lockdowns, or experimental shots did this. To the extent this really is more transmissible, it’s going to be less deadly, as is the case with the common cold. To the extent that there are areas below the herd immunity threshold (for example, in Scotland and the northwestern parts of the U.K.) they will likely get the Delta variant (until something else supplants it), but fatalities will continue to go down.

According to the above-mentioned report, the Delta variant represented more than 75% of all cases in the U.K. since mid-May. If it really was that deadly, it should have been wreaking havoc over the past few weeks.


You can see almost a perfect inverse relationship between hospitalization rates throughout April and May plummeting as the Delta variant became the dominant strain of the virus in England. Some areas might see a slight oscillation from time to time as herd immunity fills in, regardless of which variant is floating around. However, the death burden is well below that of a flu season and is no longer an epidemic.

Thus, the good news is that now that most countries have reached a large degree of herd immunity, there is zero threat of hospitals being overrun by any seasonal increase in various areas, no matter the variant. The bad news is that after Delta, there are Epsilon and 19 other letters of the Greek alphabet, which will enable the circuitous cycle of misinformation, fear, panic, and control to continue. And remember, as there is already a “Delta+,” the options are endless until our society finally achieves immunity to COVID panic porn.

Footnote:  The last paragraph was prescient:  Now the TV is blathering about the “lambda” variant from Peru.

Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor

Invictus Games Toronto 2017

The triumph for Ivermectin over Covid19 is reviewed in biznews Studies on Ivermectin show positive results as Covid-19 treatment.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The use of Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 has been the subject of much debate. The World Health Organisation‘s recommendation against Ivermectin as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 is shrouded in suspicion as the WHO’s second biggest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Bill Gates also founded and funds The Vaccine Alliance (GAVI). The connection and clear conflict of interest is thus astounding. This 3,000 word synopsis, done by Rubin van Niekerk, is on Bryant’s peer reviewed meta analysis published in the American Journal of Therapeutics about 60 studies on the treatment impact of Ivermectin on Covid-19. Van Niekerk notes that:

‘Ivermectin studies vary widely, which makes the consistently positive results even more remarkable.”

Ivermectin Meta Analysis Synopsis By Rubin van Niekerk*

Meta analysis of 60 studies on Ivermectin and Covid 19 by Bryant, published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. (Version 93 Updated 21/6/21)

This is a brief 3000-word synopsis of the analysis of all significant studies concerning the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Search methods, inclusion criteria, effect extraction criteria (more serious outcomes have priority), all individual study data, PRISMA answers, and statistical methods are detailed. Random effects of meta-analysis results for all studies, for studies within each treatment stage, for mortality results, for COVID-19 case results, for viral clearance results, for peer-reviewed studies, for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and after exclusions are presented.

Please read the original 18 000-word comprehensive research analysis should you need more detail and insight into the methodology on Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 61 studies 

♦ Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 76% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.24 [0.14-0.41] and 0.15 [0.09-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials.
81% and 96% lower mortality is observed for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.19 [0.07-0.54] and 0.04 [0.00-0.58]). Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. 28 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation.

Ivermectin meta analysis

•The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000045).

•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, population, effect measured, variants, and regimens. The consistency of positive results is remarkable. Heterogeneity is low in specific cases, for example early treatment mortality.

•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 27% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

Pillars Needed Missing

•Administration with food, often not specified, may significantly increase plasma and tissue concentration.

•The evidence base is much larger and has much lower conflict of interest than typically used to approve drugs.

•All data to reproduce this paper and sources are in the appendix. See [Bryant, Hariyanto, Hill, Kory, Lawrie, Nardelli] for other meta analyses, all with similar results confirming effectiveness.

Parasite Drug Analyzed as Possible Covid Treatment in U.K. Trial


Leftists Obsessed with Bogus Numbers


Lubos Motl writes with insight gained from the Czech experience with imposed Communism in his blog article CO2 emissions, “cases”, … fanatical leftists love to worship meaningless quantities as measures of well-being.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Leftists hate money and the conversion of things to money. Why is it so? In the old times, the leftists were the losers who didn’t have much money. The decision based on the “maximization of money” was a decision usually made by “some other people, e.g. the capitalists”, and those may have had different interests than the Marxist losers, and that’s why the Marxist losers generally didn’t like the decisions based on the maximization of the financial benefits. They had a low influence on the society’s decision making (because they were broke) and the interests of the capitalists weren’t always the same as the interests of the Marxist losers. (In reality, what was in the interest in the capitalists was ultimately good for the Marxist losers as well but the latter just didn’t understand it.)

That is the likely reason why the leftists always wanted to switch to some “more objective” measures of well-being. They saw all “subjective” (i.e. money-based) decisions to be dominated by evil people, the class of enemies. Where did this leftist strategy go?

Well, during the 40 years of communism in Czechoslovakia,
the communist party often mindlessly wanted to

maximize the production of coal and steel in tons.

Steel and coal are just two major examples that were used to “objectively measure the well-being”. You may see that within a limited context, there was a grain of truth in it. The more machines we make, the more hard work they may replace, and we need steel and coal for all those good things. But the range of validity of this reasoning was unavoidably very limited. They could have used the U.S. dollars (e.g. the total GDP, or in sustainable salaries) to measure the well-being (that should be maximized by the communist plans) but that would already be bad according to their ideology. Needless to say, it was a road to hell because in the long run, there is no reason why “tons of steel or coal” should be the same thing as “well-being” or “happiness”. And it’s not. We kept on producing lots of steel and coal that was already obsolete, that was helping to preserve technologies and industries that were no longer needed, helpful, or competitive, and the production of coal and steel substantially decreased after communism fell in 1989. We found out that we could get richer despite producing less steel and coal!

In 1989, communism was defeated and humiliated but almost all the communist rats survived. This collective trash has largely moved to the environmentalist movement that became a global warehouse for the Bolshevik human feces, also known as the watermelons. They are green on the surface but red (Bolsheviks) inside. They were willing to modify some details of their ideology or behavior but not the actual core substance. The detail that they modified was to “largely switch the sign” and consider the coal and steel to be evil.

Instead of maximizing steel and coal, the goal became to minimize the CO2 emissions.

The obsession with the CO2 emissions (which now carry the opposite sign: CO2 emissions are claimed to be bad!) is similar to the obsession of the Leninists and Stalinists with the maximization of the steel and coal production except that the current watermelons, the gr@tins of the world, are far more fanatical and unhinged than the Leninists and Stalinists have ever been. And one more thing has changed: these new, green Marxists promote these “objective measures of well-being” because it reduces the freedom, wealth, and power of everyone else. In that sense, they are still Marxists. However, they don’t protest against some people’s getting very rich as long as it is them. By this not so subtle change, we are facing a new class of Marxists who are still Marxists (more fanatical than the old ones) but who are often very rich, too. It is an extremely risky combination when such creatures become both powerful and rich.

Needless to say, the CO2 emissions aren’t the same thing as “evil”, the reduction of the CO2 emissions is in no way the same thing as “well-being”. Instead, if you are at least a little bit rational, you know damn too well that the CO2 emissions are totally obviously positively correlated with the well-being. The more CO2, the better. CO2 is the gas we call life. Its increase by 50% since 1750 AD has allowed the plants to have fewer pores (through which they suck CO2 from the air) which is why they are losing less water and they are better at water management (and at withstanding possible drought). Just the higher CO2 has increased the agricultural yields per squared kilometer by some 20% (greater increases were added by genetic engineering, fight against pests etc.). And the man-made CO2 has freed us from back-breaking labor etc.


The obsession to minimize the CO2 emissions is completely irrational and insane, more insane than the maximization of steel and coal has ever been – but its advocates are more fanatical than the steel and coal comrades used to be. On top of that, most of the projects proposed to lower the CO2 emissions don’t even achieve that because there are always some neglected sources or sinks of CO2 (and lots of cheating everywhere, contrived public “causes” are the ideal environment for corruption, too). Also, the price of one ton of CO2 emissions is as volatile as the Bitcoin and depends on the caps that may be basically arbitrarily chosen by the rogue politicians.

Tons of CO2 are a different quantity to be extremized than tons of coal or steel. But the obsession to “mindlessly minimize or maximize these quantites” is exactly the same and builds on the leftists’ infinite hatred (often just pretended hatred, however) to money as an invention. The hatred towards money is equivalent to the hatred towards the “subjective conversion of costs and benefits to the same unit”. Leftists hate the subjective considerations like that (which are equivalent to counting the costs and benefits in the Czech crowns) because they hate the “subjective thinking” in general. Well, they hate it because the subjective thinking is the thinking of the free people – i.e. people who aren’t politically obedient in general. They prefer “objective thinking”, i.e. an imbecile or a clique of imbeciles who are in charge, have the total power over everybody, and tell everybody “what they should want and do”! When whole nations behave as herds of obedient sheep or other useless animals, the leftists are happy.

Such a general scheme is bound to lead to a decline of the society,
regardless of the detailed choice of the quantity that is worshiped
as the “objective measure of the human well-being”.

In 2020, the epoch of Covidism, if I use the term of the Czech ex-president Václav Klaus, began. The most characteristic yet crazy quantity that the new leftist masters want to minimize (in this case, like the CO2 emissions, it “should be” minimized) are the “cases” of Covid-19, i.e. the number of positive PCR tests (or sometimes all tests, including Ag tests). From the beginning, it’s been insane because most people who are PCR tested positive for Covid-19 aren’t seriously sick. A fraction is completely asymptomatic, a great majority suffers through a very mild disease. On top of that, the number of positive tests depends on the number of people who are tested (because most positive people are unavoidably overlooked unless everyone is tested at least once a week); on the number of “magnifying” cycles in the PCR process; on the strategy to pick the candidates for testing, and lots of other things.

These are the reasons why it has been insane to be focused on the number of “cases” from 2020. But when the methodology to pick the people is constant, when the percentage of the positive tests is roughly kept constant, and when the virus doesn’t change, it becomes fair to use the number of “cases” as a measure of the total proliferation of the disease, Covid-19, in a nation or a population. However, there’s an even deeper problem, one that is related to the main topic of this essay:

Even when the testing frequency and techniques (including the selection) are constant, the number of cases may in no way be considered a measure of the well-being.

The reason is that “being PCR positive” is just a condition that increases the probability that one becomes sick; or one dies. And the number of deaths from Covid-19 is clearly a more important measure of the Covid-related losses than the number of cases – the filthy Coronazis love to obscure even elementary statements such as this one, however. The conversion factor e.g. from the “cases” to “deaths” is the case fatality rate (CFR) and that is not a universal constant. This is particularly important in the case of the Indian “delta” variant of the virus because it also belongs among the common cold viruses. It is a coronaviruses that causes a runny nose. This makes the disease much more contagious, like any common cold, and (in a totally non-immune, normally behaving urban, population). On the other hand, the nose cleans the breathing organs rather efficiently and the disease is unlikely to seriously invade the lungs where it really hurts. In fact, the runny nose indicates that this variant of the virus “likes” to play with the cosmetic problems such as the runny nose, it is not even attracted to the lungs. The same comments apply to any of the hundreds of rhinoviruses, coronaviruses… that cause common cold!

You may check the U.K. Covid graphs to see that despite the growing number of “cases” in recent weeks, the deaths are still near zero. The ratio of the two has decreased by more than one order of magnitude. A factor of 5 or so may be explained by the higher vaccination of the risk groups (older people); the remaining factor is due to the intrinsic lower case fatality rate of the delta variant. It is simply much lower than 0.1%, as every common cold virus is. That is much smaller than some 0.4% which is the expected fraction of the people in a civilized nation that die of Covid-19 (to make these estimates, I mainly use the Czech data which seem clean and I understand them extremely well: some 80% of Czechs have gone through Covid-19 and 0.3% of the population has died, so the case fatality rate must be around 0.4%).

So the conversion factor from a “case” to a “death” may have dropped by a factor of 30 or more in the U.K., relatively to the peak of the disease (the more classical variants of Covid-19). So it is just plain insane to pretend that “one case” is the same problem or “reduction of well-being” as “one case” half a year ago. The disease has turned into a common cold which is nearly harmless. But the society has been totally hijacked by the moronic, self-serving, brutally evil leftists who have simply become powerful assuming that they socially preserve the (totally false) idea that “the number of cases is an important quantity that must be minimized for the society’s well-being”. It is not important at all. The number of cases means absolutely nothing today because almost all the U.K. cases are just examples of a common cold that just happens to pass as a “Covid” through a test because this is how the test was idiotically designed. Everyone who tries to minimize the number of cases as we know them today is a dangerous deluded psychopath and must be treated on par with the war criminals, otherwise whole nations will be greatly damaged. The damage has already been grave but we face the risk of many years (like 40 years of the Czechoslovak communism) when a similar totally destructive way of thinking preserves itself by illegitimate tools that totally contradict even the most elementary Western values.

“Cases” mean nothing, especially when the character of the disease that is detected by the tests becomes vastly less serious. They mean even less than the “CO2 emissions” and even that favorite quantity of the moronic fanatical leftists hasn’t ever been a good measure of anything we should care about. Stop this insanity and treat the people “fighting to lower the cases” as war criminals right now. Thank you very much.


Coincidence, or Connected Dot?


John Green writes at American Thinker Sometimes a Coincidence isn’t a Coincidence.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

Coincidences are interesting things. They’re considered remarkable because their combined occurrence seems improbable. But sometimes, improbable occurrences really happen. Lightning really has struck the same location twice — on rare occasions.

But when coincidences start to stack up, their probability of jointly occurring becomes exceedingly low. One begins to wonder if they are not coincidences at all. Could they really be linked outcomes from the same underlying root cause?

In the past year and a half, we have witnessed a remarkable string of apparent coincidences.

Dr. Fauci sponsored “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Put simply, this work increases a virus’s ability to cause disease. It makes a virus more dangerous. Coincidentally, we’re now learning that COVID-19 originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.


The COVID-19 virus spread throughout the world in the early months of 2020. Coincidentally, this was at the same time that Donald Trump was ratcheting up sanctions against China and rallying worldwide support.

The pandemic resulting from COVID-19 was used as the rationale for fundamental changes to our election processes. These changes facilitated the most questionable election outcome in U.S. history. 51% of the population now believes that fraud affected the election outcome – and that number is growing. Coincidentally, the election of 2020 neutralized China’s biggest threat – President Donald J. Trump.


The beneficiary of the compromised election of 2020 is Joe Biden. Coincidentally, old Joe has deep and troubling financial connections to China. His son Hunter accompanied him to China when Joe was the vice president and subsequently made millions of dollars from Chinese-sponsored business ventures. Emails from Hunter’s abandoned laptop indicate that Joe was the recipient of a sizable portion of those proceeds.

In the past week, we learned that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has a high-level defector from China — whom they’re not sharing with the FBI or CIA. This defector is providing evidence that COVID-19 was not only created in the Wuhan lab but may have been deliberately leaked by the Chinese. This revelation coincidentally came at the same time the FBI was working to discredit scientists claiming the virus was created in a lab.


Representative Matt Gaetz aggressively questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray about the FBI’s behavior relative to COVID-19 scientific whistleblowers. Shortly after this questioning, the press began a series of stories insinuating that Gaetz had inappropriate relationships with underage girls — though no evidence has been presented yet. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Coincidentally, this is all happening at a time when China is making substantial investments in American property and businesses. After its behavior during the last year, is there any doubt that the NBA is beholden to China? The news media has run cover for China as well, claiming that any attempt to tie them to the pandemic is racism. There are also land purchases. China bought 180,000 acres (280 square miles) in Texas! They say they’re building a wind farm, but the property has a 5,000-foot runway which they’re expanding, and it’s adjacent to a busy U.S. military base. I’m sure the location is just coincidental.

This seems that an unbelievable number of happenstance occurrences have all benefited China. Is it possible that these events are not coincidences at all, but are rather engineered outcomes in support of a higher objective? If so, it raises a number of questions.

Are the FBI and CIA hopelessly compromised? Is it possible that the organizations which supported a coup attempt against an elected President can’t be trusted with national security? They’re certainly no longer the premier law enforcement and intelligence agencies they claim to be. They have too many failures to be a “premier” anything – except maybe a clown show. Are they incompetent, corrupt, or have they been infiltrated? It probably doesn’t matter since incompetence or corruption invites infiltration.

Where does the support for Antifa and BLM originate? They’re both doing their part to destabilize America. BLM is led by self-professed Marxists – making them useful idiots. Antifa seems to believe in nothing but anarchy – making them useful thugs. Whenever members of either group are arrested, there’s plenty of money to bail them out – from somewhere.


How beholden to China is the news and entertainment industry? I notice that those taking a knee for our National Anthem haven’t uttered a word of criticism against China’s use of slavery. News organizations called Trump a “racist” for characterizing COVID as the Chinese virus – even though naming viruses by their point of origin is common practice.

Does China have any inappropriate influence over Joe Biden? We know his family has received millions of dollars from China and there is evidence he has shared in that bounty. Is our President vulnerable to blackmail?

Have we been under attack from China and didn’t know it because our intelligence and political leadership swore to defend the United States, but really had other priorities?

Clearly, we don’t know the answers to these questions. But if China decides to act on its expansionist ambitions, our intelligence community is unlikely to provide any warning. Likewise, our current political leadership is unlikely to take any meaningful action.

But maybe this is all just crazy conspiracy thinking. Perhaps everything we’ve experienced since early last year is just an astronomically unlikely confluence of random events. But isn’t it interesting that these events have left America disengaged at the very time China is expanding its global influence? One final question: If China wanted to neutralize America, could they have done it any better by some other means?


Sweden Did It Right, No Doubt Now

Sweden fig 4

A reasonable, clearly explained analysis by Eyal Shahar   Not a shred of doubt: Sweden was right.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Counting the dead used to be the work of epidemiologists, statisticians and demographers. So was analyzing the numbers and drawing conclusions. In the past year many are counting deaths, but the numbers have no meaning without the context of a relevant time period, population and history. That is, epidemiology.

The most counted country is probably Sweden, a stubborn dissenter that refused lockdowns, mask mandates and contact tracing. By the time of this writing, 14,349 Swedes have reportedly died from the coronavirus.

Has the Swedish model failed?
Were the lockdowns justified?
Were the economic and social upheavals in most of the world an unavoidable necessity?

The answer to all is a resounding no. The first (and not the only) witness: Sweden.
To understand the testimony, we need to learn only two concepts: “flu year” and “excess mortality”.

“Flu year” versus calendar year

Many calculate mortality statistics according to the Gregorian calendar, but December 31st is not a meaningful end date for winter mortality in the northern hemisphere. The flu wave and the associated wave of mortality reach the peak at various dates, and sometimes secondary waves appear. Furthermore, the use of the Gregorian calendar combines the mortality in the first part of one winter (sometimes mild) with mortality in the second part of the previous winter (sometimes severe). There is no scientific justification for this grouping when analyzing historical trends.

The statistical alternative, which may be called “flu year”, contains a full winter season. Annual mortality is calculated from the beginning of the flu season, which is usually counted from week 40 (early October), till week 39 in the following year (end of September). Thus, the coronavirus waves in the spring and summer of 2020 belong to the 2019–2020 flu year, whereas the last winter wave belongs to the current flu year which will end in September.

Excess mortality

The concept of “excess mortality” is a little abstract. We need to compare actual mortality with “expected mortality”, but the latter is a theoretical idea that cannot be verified: what would the mortality in the 2019–2020 flu year have been, had there not been a pandemic? How do we calculate “expected mortality”?

One method uses a statistical model called linear regression. We fit a line to the mortality data from previous years, check its past performance, and use the continuation of the line to compute expected mortality. The distance between a data point of actual mortality and expected mortality on the line is excess mortality (or “mortality deficit”).

Sweden fig1

Mortality in Sweden by flu year

The graph shows the annual mortality in Sweden per million people in the last 22 flu years, where each flu year is labeled according to the calendar year in which it ends. For example, the last data point on the graph is mortality between October 2019 and September 2020: 9,234 per million people (95,365 deaths). To magnify, the vertical axis starts at 7,000.  Source: SCB.SE

It is easy to see that the points are located close to a straight line, until the flu year that ended in September 2018. The general downward trend reflects a consistent increase in life expectancy in Sweden for many years.

Experienced data analysts will attest that the fluctuations around the line are generally small and expected until 2018 (explained variation: 0.96). In contrast, both the flu year that preceded the pandemic (2018–2019) and the pandemic year (2019–2020) substantially deviate from the line: the former — in lower than expected mortality, and the latter — in higher than expected mortality.

Excess mortality in Sweden in flu year 2019–2020

Continuation of the line, which was fit by the statistical model, yields the following estimates: In 2018–2019 there was “mortality deficit” in Sweden of 300 per million people (-3.3%) whereas in 2019–2020, the pandemic year, there was excess mortality of 364 per million people (+4.1%). Excess mortality following mortality deficit, and vice versa, are well known and expected, as the main source of mortality is an elderly population with limited life expectancy. (The sequence “excess after deficit” is, of course, better than the reverse order.)

Assuming the excess mortality in 2019–2020 “fully balanced” the mortality deficit in the previous flu year, the true excess mortality in Sweden was less than 1% (about 700 deaths). And if we assume, absurdly, that the mortality in 2019–2020 was not affected at all by the mortality deficit in the previous flu year, then the excess mortality in Sweden did not exceed 4.1% (about 3,800 deaths). Excess mortality of a few percentage points, or more, has been calculated in many countries where life has been severely disrupted. Part of that excess has been attributed to lockdown and panic.

To remind us, the hysterical response to the pandemic was not due to fear of an excess annual mortality of 4% or even 10%. The apocalyptic forecasts, which caused the world to shut down, predicted about 90,000 deaths from the coronavirus in Sweden by the summer of 2020: 100% excess mortality! No wonder policy makers around the world prefer to forget those predictions.

Sweden fig 2

Mortality in Sweden in the current flu year

The final summary of the current flu year (October 2020 — September 2021) will be known in the fall, but the data accumulated more than halfway through allow for interim conclusions. As many know, the coronavirus replaced the flu viruses this year, and there was no flu in Sweden, either. Nor were there apocalyptic predictions; only warnings about the number of accumulated deaths.

I chose to compare the mortality in Sweden in the current flu year (week 40, 2020 till week 15, 2021) to the corresponding mortality in 2017–2018. Two reasons for this choice: First, Europe experienced a severe flu season in that winter, which makes it an appropriate comparison. Second, although the flu season was severe in Sweden compared to previous years, it was still substantially milder than in Europe as a whole.

The graph shows a low mortality wave at the end of 2017 and a noticeable wave in February-March 2018 (another example of why a December 31st cutoff might distort historical trends). This winter, the mortality wave coincided with the coronavirus wave and its peak in late December. (In 2020 there were 53 weeks, so the dates do not exactly match.) A secondary coronavirus wave, which appeared in mid-February, half way through the decline of the former, did not result in a secondary mortality wave.

Sweden fig 3

The all-cause death toll in Sweden in the first 29 weeks of the current flu year is 56,452 (5,441 per million people) compared to 55,967 (5,544 per million people) in the same period in 2017–2018. In that winter, the excess mortality rate in Europe attributed to the flu was at least twice as high as in Sweden.

Sweden proved right in the retest.

A colossal mistake

The pandemic has taken its death toll, ranging from large to small in different countries and within countries, and mostly affected the frail elderly. But the lockdowns and panic were unsubstantiated, prevented nothing, and caused indescribable damage to society. Sweden’s statistics tell us, unequivocally, that in much of the world lives have been lost and livelihoods have been destroyed — in vain.

Will anyone, in any country, be held accountable?

Eyal Shahar,

Professor Emeritus of Public Health (University of Arizona);
MD (Tel-Aviv University, Israel);
MPH, Epidemiology (University of Minnesota)


Corona Cover Story

The sordid story is about big pharma aided and abetted by big media and tech protecting their pandemic payday by banishing mention or acknowledgement of ivermectin’s success fighting Covid19.  H/T Jo Nova article It’s the biggest medical scandal since 1850.  Excerpt in italics:

Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. … But unfortunately most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.

That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the people of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor.

Michael Capuzzo writes at Mountain Home The Story of the Cover Story. Excerpts in italics with my bolds

When my daughter Grace, a vice president at a New York advertising agency, came down with COVID-19 recently, she was quarantined in a “COVID hotel” in Times Square with homeless people and quarantining travelers. The locks on her room door were removed. Nurses prowled the halls to keep her in her room and wake her up every night to check her vitals—not to treat her, because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19; only, if her oxygen plummeted, to move her to the hospital, where there is only a single effective approved treatment for COVID-19, steroids that may keep the lungs from failing.

The absence of treatments for COVID-19 is a global crisis, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said recently on 60 Minutes, for vaccines “are not enough.” Dangerous variants sweep the globe after mutating in the world’s poor and unvaccinated, lockdowns persist, and millions more are likely to die. The wondrous m-RNA vaccines need a cop buddy.

Fortunately, I knew of an early treatment for Grace. It’s a cheap generic drug, safer than Tylenol, FDA-approved to treat scabies and lice in children and the elderly, with many other uses that make Ivermectin a “wonder drug.” In fifty-five clinical trials with 445 scientists and 17,730 patients around the world, Ivermectin has been shown to be the most powerful drug to eradicate COVID-19 in all stages of the disease, including prevention and early treatment.

It’s what the world desperately needs now, according to Dr. Pierre Kory, a former professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison medical school, whose research group, the nonprofit Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, has developed the most effective non-vaccine treatments in the world from safe, FDA-approved generics. They have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, including eighty-year-old Judy Smentkiewicz of Buffalo, the star of this month’s cover story. Judy’s remarkable story is a “miracle,” her family says, thanks to Pierre Kory, science, and God.

Grace researched Ivermectin and was surprised that it is not FDA-approved as an anti-viral to treat COVID-19, although it is FDA-approved as an anti-parasitic agent. This would be an “off-label use,” a routine thing in medicine comprising some 20 percent of all prescriptions—aspirin to prevent heart attack or stroke, for instance, is “off label.” This is called doctoring. And it was routine until COVID-19, when a big pharma-dominated health system tried to eliminate all generic competition to protect its biggest payday of all time.

Judy had the choice to fight back or die. A worldwide revolution that will determine the future of medicine and who lives and dies from COVID-19—the battle of Ivermectin—is fighting back, fighting for life. Grace, I’m happy to say, was prescribed Ivermectin and got better fast.

If you are interested in Ivermectin, check out, and talk to your doctor. Here’s a help page on how to talk to your doctor:

I got onto this story on Mother’s Day, 2020, when my wife Teresa, who many know as the publisher and editor of Mountain Home, and I watched Dr. Kory testify to the U.S. Senate about his group’s first breakthrough, a steroid treatment that was saving 95 percent of COVID-19 patients when 80 percent were dying in New York City and the world was in panic. To our surprise, as longtime journalists—we met at The Philadelphia Inquirer—Dr. Kory was cancelled by a global news blackout. Was not a treatment that could save the world news?

While Teresa puts out the magazine, I’ve written two New York Times-bestselling books, Close to Shore and The Murder Room, featuring some of the world’s most brilliant scientists. Now I’ve spent months interviewing Kory and his colleagues, and I’ve seen unthinkable things. When professor Joe Varon, a top critical care doctor and Mexican-American hero recently honored with “Joseph Varon Day” in Houston for his COVID-19 treatments that are saving the city’s sickest poor, black, Mexican, and immigrants, invited journalists from CNN, The Associated Press, and Reuters to his COVID-19 ICU to get out the news of his life-saving treatment, all the journalists fictionalized the story to make it seem like most everyone was dying when in fact most everyone was living. The happy story, the truth, didn’t fit the official government science.

We live in a remarkable media age where a positive story on CNN, perhaps more so than a peer review in The New England Journal of Medicine, will instantly encourage doctors in two hundred countries to use a perfectly safe and legal drug and save humanity. I call on my fellow colleagues, including former colleagues and friends at The Washington Post and The New York Times, to open their hearts and minds to legitimate, unreported doctors and therapies and write about all sides of the Ivermectin story, like journalists always have. It is a historic opportunity.

For the first time in the long journey from Gutenberg to Google, journalists may be the ones to save the world.