DISCLAIMER: This article does not recommend treatment, but is reporting on the observations of two Ph.D. biologists who have examined the data available on Ivermectin in preventing and treating the novel coronavirus. As always, all medical decisions should be made in consultation with a doctor that you trust.
There are two prominent scientists out there that haven’t politicized science and it’s rather refreshing.
In their long-form podcast, “Professors-in-Exile” Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, both evolutionary biologists with Ph.D.s, discussed Ivermectin as a possible treatment for the virus that originated in Wuhan, China.
As an aside, you may remember Weinstein and Heying from the Evergreen College fiasco of 2017.
ClashDaily covered the fallout from the controversial 2017 “Day of Absence” here:
And, in an unusual coincidence, we reported on the same day as the above article was published that Heying was angering college leftists for stating basic facts about biology.
Now that you have that background, let’s resume the subject at hand…
On the podcast, the husband-wife team discussed the history of the very inexpensive drug Ivermectin and explain that preliminary studies show that it looks to be very promising to both prevent and treat the novel coronavirus. Yet, just saying that could have their video removed from YouTube because it violates the community guidelines on “misinformation regarding COVID-19.”
This is a real issue. ClashDaily has been hit with the “disinformation” label and has had Google Ads removed because we reported on the use of Ivermectin. Fortunately, the article on the recovery of Judith Smentkiewicz, the 80-year old woman from Buffalo, who had a “miraculous” recovery after taking Ivermectin remains, although the others linked in it had been removed from the site while Google Ads threatened to yank our revenue. (It turns out that they did it anyway, so screw those censorious thugs!)
The podcast is long, and earlier on discusses the lab-leak hypothesis of the origin of the novel coronavirus, but the incredibly interesting part is the discussion of Ivermectin. Here is what they wrote in the YouTube description box regarding the portion of the video where they discuss Ivermectin.
We then discuss ivermectin, a decades-old drug with a well-established history of efficacy against many human pathogens. What is its mechanism of action? What do Covid case rates in Africa, against a background of on-going prophylactic use of ivermectin for other conditions, suggest about its possible efficacy against Covid? Is it safe for children? Also, what does the FDA require of a new drug or treatment to grant Emergency Use Authorization? Does Merck have an opinion on the matter? How about the media?
So, why hasn’t Ivermectin been studied as a possible treatment? Simple — it would affect the emergency use authorization of the vaccines.
What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts? What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalisation?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, “there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.” The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021.
This would present a major headache for the big public health agencies led by the WHO. The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
As usual, it’s about following the money, not public health.
Ivermectin was also covered at some length on Episode 61 of the Dark Horse podcast.
Here are the links to the studies cited by Weinstein and Heying.
- The binding mechanism of ivermectin and levosalbutamol with spike protein of SARS-CoV-2
- A COVID-19 prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of ivermectin
- COVID-19: The Ivermectin African Enigma
- Dr. Pierre Kory testifies before the Senate (This was one of the articles that we had to delete, so take that, Google Ads!)
- YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate — Wall Street Journal
- No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19 — fact-checking by the AP on December 11, 2020. (This one is particularly disingenuous since the so-called “fact-check” includes the BlueAnon conspiracy about the woman who killed her husband with fish tank cleaner and blamed it on President Trump promoting hydroxychloroquine. On April 29, 2020, ClashDaily reported that the case is being investigated by homicide detectives — a full 7 months before the AP “fact-check.”)
Drugs.com also discusses the use of Ivermectin as a possible treatment for the virus:
- An in vitro trial has shown ivermectin reduces the number of cell-associated viral RNA by 99.8 % in 24 hours. An in vitro study is when they study cells in a laboratory and not in a living organism.
- More studies are now needed to be done using ivermectin on people or animals to see how well ivermectin works against COVID-19. This is in vivo testing.
Dr. Pierre Kory’s organization, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), has issued a statement saying that the opposition to Ivermectin use despite successes in both clinical trials and treatment experiences amount to a “widespread disinformation campaign” by public health agencies.
Clearly, there are more studies to be done, but the U.S. isn’t backing them. Why is that? Well, the patent has expired, and it’s not a shiny, new technology like a vaccine using mRNA to treat a shiny, new virus. And well, Big Pharma wants to make money. Before the coronavirus, both left and right remembered that.