News
Featured Image
 Sonis Photography/Shutterstock

This story was originally published by the WND News Center

(WND News Center) – A large study on the impact of using ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 found that regular users of the drug experienced up to a 92 percent reduction in mortality compared to those who did not.

Brazilian research scientist Dr. Flavio A. Cadegiani wrote on Twitter that his study in his home country showed a “dose-response effect,” meaning that “the more you used, the more protection you had.”

He observed that people who use ivermectin regularly every 15 days for at least six to eight weeks had up to a 92 percent reduction in mortality.

Cadegiani conducted a previous study of the drug that evaluated whether its use could impact COVID-19 infection and mortality rates.

Last fall, esteemed epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale Medical School was among scientists and physicians who said in Senate testimony that thousands of lives could have been saved if treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had not been suppressed.

In April, after noticing that the word ivermectin was trending on Twitter amid Elon Musk’s move to buy the company, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reprised its disingenuous “horse de-wormer” smear of the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

“Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19,” said a post on the FDA’s Twitter account.

The reference to horses played on the explosion last fall of media articles and social media posts mocking people who treated COVID-19 with the drug as ignorant rubes who were sneaking into farms or patronizing Tractor Supply stores in quest of “horse de-wormer.”

— Article continues below Petition —
Support Brave Ottawa Detective, Suspended for Investigating the Truth About Child COVID Vaccines
  Show Petition Text
4090 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 5000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Constable Helen Grus has twice been targeted by her own Ottawa Police Department for holding “anti-vaccine and anti-mask views” — and has now been suspended for standing for the truth about possibly fatal COVID vaccine effects on infants. 

CONST. GRUS IS BEING SILENCED FOR INVESTIGATING THE TRUTH SURROUNDING A DEAD CHILD! SEND HER SUPPORT ASAP — DO NOT LET HER BE SILENCED BY OTTAWA POLICE! 

Const. Grus has been a stalwart defender of medical freedom and transparency, serving as just one of a small handful of officers who have bravely stood up against Canada’s unrelenting enforcement of COVID vaccines and mandates. 

However, the Ottawa Police Department has now suspended Const. Grus for investigating a possible link between several infant deaths and COVID vaccines. The suspension comes despite police officers regularly asking other citizens for their vaccine status — it seems the question is verboten only when the establishment is uncomfortable.

But before Const. Grus could continue her work into this disturbing pattern, the Ottawa Police quickly banned and suspended her from discovering the vaccination statuses of additional parents who have lost infants.

THAT’S WHY WE NEED YOU TO SPREAD THE WORD — SUPPORT CONST. GRUS AND HER ATTEMPT TO REVEAL THE TRUTH ABOUT COVID VACCINE EFFECTS IN INFANTS! 

There is good reason for Const. Grus' suspicions regarding potentially fatal COVID vaccine side effects.

In fact, American-based leading COVID expert, Dr. Peter McCullough, has sounded the alarm against mass-COVID vaccinations twice — and is facing backlash from his own medical profession as well.

There is too much on the line for us to lose this fight for medical transparency. That's why more people MUST hear about Const. Grus’ attempt to uncover the mystery surrounding potentially fatal effects linked to COVID vaccines and suspicious infant deaths.

With enough Canadians spreading the truth first investigated by Const. Grus, we can overcome the mainstream narrative and government censorship surrounding COVID vaccines.

Now is the time to stand together in support of Const. Grus and condemn the Ottawa Police Department's censorship — stand with Const. Grus and her brave attempt for medical transparency and the truth about COVID vaccination!

SIGN & SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR CONST. GRUS.

SHARE THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE & SPREAD THE WORD TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

Const. Grus is a hero for medical freedom and transparency. Stand with her now! 

Thank You 

P.S. — The Ottawa Police Department is expecting to quickly silence Const. Grus without the public's knowledge. But with your help spreading this important message, Const. Grus will gain the attention she needs to sound the alarm against potentially fatal effects linked to COVID and suspicious infant deaths. Stand with Const. Grus before Ottawa Police completely silence her!

  Hide Petition Text

During the pandemic, Twitter and other social media platforms censored positive mention of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine despite the countless testimonies and dozens of studies from around the world showing the drugs to be effective in treating COVID-19.

A follow-up FDA post said: “Also, a reminder that a study showed it didn’t actually work against COVID.”

Dr. Pierre Kory, who has testified to the Senate of the effectiveness of ivermectin against COVID-19, fired back.

“You are not a horse, you are not a cow, you are Big Pharma’s ass,” he tweeted.

The FDA, he wrote, was “messaging BS” by citing “one corrupt study” while ignoring 82 trials, including 33 randomized controlled trials with 129,000 patients from 27 countries, that show “massive benefits” of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

“Stop lying man, people are dying,” he wrote, adding the hashtag “#earlytreatmentworks.”

In an article published in April for the Brownstone Institute, Kory wrote that it’s “a tried-and-true tactic with effective and dastardly results” for “Big Pharma and other well-financed interests” to sponsor purportedly impartial medical trials “aimed at discrediting cheaper generic alternatives.”

“Ignoring the flaws in the methodology, the media runs wild with the desired narrative, which is amplified by a well-orchestrated public relations effort,” he wrote.

Kory cited as an example the newly reported clinical trial from Brazil known as “TOGETHER,” which he said ostensibly aimed at studying the effectiveness of ivermectin to treat COVID.

Among the flaws was the lack of explicit exclusion criteria for trial participants on ivermectin, meaning both trial groups had access to the same drug.  Further, the treatment window was set for only three days, which didn’t allow for adequate dosing.

“The dosage of the trial was far lower than everyday Brazilian clinicians were prescribing patients at the time to match the strength of the strain,” Kory pointed out.

“In spite of these and other readily apparent shortcomings, the nation’s leading media gobbled up the results. ‘Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce COVID-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date’ blared the Wall Street Journal, while a New York Times headline announced, ‘Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of COVID Hospitalization, Large Study Finds.’”

Meanwhile, social media platforms stifled conversations while California pushed potentially precedent-setting legislation to punish doctors “who dare question phony studies,” threatening loss of a medical license.

A similar study of ivermectin “of far larger size, conducted by investigators without any conflicts of interest, found the drug led to massive reductions in COVID infection, hospitalization and mortality – yet it received virtually no media coverage.”

Kory said that ending “this cycle of perpetual disinformation requires revamping our dysfunctional drug approval process.”

“An independent board free of pharma industry conflicts must be established to oversee trials for re-purposed medicines,” he said. “Recommendations should be based on trials designed by impartial experts and actual results, not the desired ones, and policymakers or prescribers who ignore the findings should be held accountable.”

Academia and the regulatory agencies must be reminded, he said, “that observational trials data – wherein a sample of population who take a drug are compared to those who do not – is equally valid at informing policy.”

“Randomized controlled trials can yield useful information, but their complexity, costs, and delays to treatment lead to errors and effectively shut out low-cost drugs from the approval process, regardless of their efficacy,” he said.

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

20 Comments

    Loading...