Ivermectin safety and efficacy versus COVID vaccines

Those who choose to defend corrupt government officials, paid celebrity experts, and pharmaceutical companies from criticism have had several mantras they repeat to "debunk" claims about the disastrous COVID vaccines and policy. Many of these matras have now been so discredited as to be ineffective, but several still are being parroted here on ATS in an effort to shut down or derail discussion.

Those that use these mantras expect that you will accept their slogans as maxims, rather than the trite pharmaceutical PR it is. They expect that you will view these slogans in a vacuum. They erroneously believe they can extrapolate from those maxims other "facts" to dispute claims unfavorable to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Their ignorance has been cultivated, rewarded, and weaponized.

My sincere thanks to vaccine enthusiasts, the volunteer PR arm, that spend their personal time ensuring these slogans don't escape my attention. Your tireless efforts to lie and deflect, while being ignorant of the topic of which you speak, is the only motivation I have left to drag me out to post threads.

Let's shed some light on these attempts to deceive the readers of ATS, provide the full context in which their lies are told, and give convenient reference threads (like this one) to direct vaccine enthusiasts to when they chant these pharma slogans or provide convoluted excuses for deviations from common sense. They're fond of endless circular arguments to bury threads, don't you know. They will fail in this one.

Readers should keep in mind that those that are still actively propagating these lies are often the very same people that have expressed support and defense of governments illegally colluding with industry to stop legally protected speech, violate basic human rights to force compliance with harmful policies, violating medical ethics, and engaging in psychological campaigns targeting citizens who dissent with harassment.

It has recently been stated on ATS that COVID vaccines are certainly less harmful than Ivermectin (along with other preposterous things). This is not just false, but a transparently false interpretation of the existing data with a total disregard for the lack of long term risk analysis on mRNA vaccines. Ivermectin is incredibly safe, broadly effective, and continues to be considering promising for a range of disease conditions beyond parasitic infections.

This article from 2011 covers some history of Ivermectin, a "wonder drug" with significant benefits to global population health. link

One of the claims that is made about Ivermectin is that it can cause organ damage. Most alarming is significant neurological damage. What they fail to include in this scary claim is that these adverse events almost exclusively occur in people with existing systemic infections. The systemic effects of mass parasite die-off are not unknown. It is not Ivermectin that is the primary cause of these adverse events, but systemic shock from the rapid death of parasites.

This retrospective study looked at severe adverse events in Democratic Republic of Congo.

"Our study aimed at estimating the frequency of post-CDTI SAE and factors associated with their occurrence. During the 15 cycle-period, i.e. between 2003 and 2017, 945 cases of SAE were recorded, among which 631 (66.8%) developed NSAE. Loaisis was confirmed in 90.7% of patients and onchocerciasis suspected in 99.1% of them. Furthermore, loiasis infection increased by 3 times the risk of SAE occurrence."

There are other studies. I encourage people to read some and get a broader perspective on the topic.

The FAERS data base covers drugs the same way VAERS covers vaccines. Federal agencies use slow and difficult to export proprietary systems so you'll have to go to the site if you wish to explore the records in detail. Since 1996 a total of 442 deaths associated with Ivermectin were reported out of 4,297 total and 2,648 serious adverse events.

If you seek to dispute the safety record of Ivermectin I would encourage that you critically review whatever studies you wish to cite. Pharmaceutical studies citing Ivermectin harms after 2019, or those sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, are highly likely to use statistical or qualitative criteria that is misleading. I will take them apart, so be ready to defend them.

A fact that never seems to get mention about the emergency authorization of new drugs, from the vaccines to the oral treatments, is that they depended on Ivermectin being deemed unsuitable for treatment. This determination was made by inflating the risks of Ivermectin in public messaging (lying) and designing studies to use less than optimal treatment windows or other subtle sabotage techniques (fraud).

One such study was funded by the notorious Sam Bankman-Fried's stolen FTX funds, of which many tens of millions were donated to Democrat politicians. Notably his brother is the founder of a Pharmaceutical proxy company, his parents are bundlers for Elizabeth Warren, and partisan SEC chair Gary Gensler met with him extensively during the time in which he was stealing customer funds. Gensler is also the man that signed off on the Clinton campaign payments for the fake Steele dossier. Other recipients of FTX money were Republican leaders like McCarthy and MCConnell, who I'm willing to bet also enjoy substantial pharmaceutical industry support.

For Ivermectin efficacy there are a number of studies and plenty of information found here. I have not reviewed every single document, but will read specific titles if needed in order to respond. I have confidence that the preponderance of data supports the assertion that it's part of an effective treatment protocol for COVID. Denying safe treatment options in order to push profits, to create false urgency for rushed trials of a technology with a history of failing to meet safety standards, is nothing less than criminal.

A vaccine that fails to meet any threshold for benefit in multiple demographics is also not "effective" by any previous definition. The approval process was confounded by fraud and regulating agencies exercised gross negligence in their failure to investigate reported adverse events. Lies feature heavily, as we have come to expect.

The key facts here:
Ivermectin is a very safe drug with many decades of global use.

Paid campaigns to demonize Ivermectin never provided evidence that it was harmful and instead focused on associating it with livestock.

Ivermectin was already being investigated for a much broader range of treatment than just parasites and the claims otherwise were lies.

Anybody that called it horse paste was a useful idiot at best.

Maybe the next thread should deal with the current popular lie that there were no excess deaths or that the excess deaths were caused by COVID, both complete nonsense propagated by the same people that have been wrong and lying since 2020.

a reply to: ksihkahe

Those that use these mantras expect that you will accept their slogans as maxims, rather than the trite pharmaceutical PR it is. They expect that you will view these slogans in a vacuum. They erroneously believe they can extrapolate from those maxims other "facts" to dispute claims unfavorable to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Their ignorance has been cultivated, rewarded, and weaponized.

This. This right here encapsulates a much wider agenda that would be off topic to discuss any further in this thread.


Hoping this draws in the discussion it deserves.

They had to demonize ivermectin to justify pushing their clot shot to make hundreds of billions which has so far killed 17 million conservatively.

a reply to: ksihkahe
I really hope enough help bring all this to justice. I left my job because of forced jabs if you worked in certain areas. Worked all through the pandemic meeting people face to face still as had to because of job and never got it once. Then they try and mandate it and i said goodbye. I even got told to do the world a favour because I wouldn’t take the jab.
I hope these people redeem themselves by helping bring all the ones involved to justice.

a reply to: G1111B1234

My job tried to mandate the experimental vax back in 2021. It was the owner's choice as our company has less than 25 employees.

I love the job and the salary is excellent therefore I forged a PAPER INDEX CARD which was somehow the fail-safe method to verify vax status even though getting vaccinated in 2021 was THE MOST IMPORTANT THING A HUMAN COULD DO TO SERVICE MANKIND.....a paper index card with some numbers and letters written with a ballpoint pen served just fine as verification.

Fast forward to February of 2024. I still work the same job. Got promoted. Got a raise. Never injected the experimental vax into my sacred body. Also I've never once called in sick since 2021 while many co-workers average 4 or 5 sick days per month in winter ( we don't get paid sick days.)

The hype is done. All the hand sanitizer dispensers are empty and have been for months. Boss hasn't required vaccinations for new hires since summer of 2022.

Im not saying this to brag. Im demonstrating the anatomy of a modern subverted American society with the morals and the memory of an insect.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Nice to hear you’re still doing the job you like. My new job has been an improvement for me but shame to leave an area I’ve worked for 20 + years.
It’s sad some people still believe in it all but fear the fact all vaccine will be MRNA next or end of this year. I never had the flu jab anyway but people will be doing of sick even more.

a reply to: ksihkahe

Wasn't Iver Mectin that Czechoslovakian Hockey-player, who scored a hat-trick in the 1964 Olympic bronze-medal game ?

I'm just joshin, because I have developed an allergy to narratives.

Please consider it no more than a word-sneeze.

More power to ya Ksihkahe to push-back against the boot-lickers :
but am personally not interested in defending any Biggy-Harmy products.

Even tho Ivermectin is a legacy drug :
how sure can we be that they haven't tweaked the formula, to add a little, you know : compliance ?

Would it be wise to keep some in the emergency kit, with Benadryl, Tylenol, and those OTC antibiotic ointments ?
Perhaps: but I'm not sure at all.

I'm more interested in natural alternatives, as were discussed in parallel all along.

Do you really want to argue with those narrative-pushers, and agenda-influencers ?
They're not real.
They're just hired-guns, doing what they are paid to do.

a reply to: ksihkahe

The key facts here: Ivermectin is a very safe drug with many decades of global use.

Paid campaigns to demonize Ivermectin never provided evidence that it was harmful and instead focused on associating it with livestock.

Ivermectin was already being investigated for a much broader range of treatment than just parasites and the claims otherwise were lies.

Anybody that called it horse paste was a useful idiot at best.

Yep, and DARPA knew that ivermectin was a curative for all phases of covid as early as April of 2020.

My personal experience with Ivermectin is it worked very well. Caught the covid and had a positive home test so with no other options I went to the farm supply store and bought a tube. Had a experience 10 minutes after the first dose like the hand of God reached down and touched me. Or a soggy wet gray day and suddenly the clouds break open and the sun pours through. Rapidly improved after that.

Highly recommend if you catch it.

The psychological operation against treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin is a crime against humanity. The people behind the gain of function research to develop covid and the forced genetic therapy experimentation upon the population are heavily implicated in these criminal actions.

With the way things are going, it is going to take time to hold those to account. In the mean time, more and more people are learning the hard way the fraud and disregard for human health that was done against the population. The international backlash against the WHO proposed pandemic treaty is a good start, hopefully there is enough support to shut down this attempted power grab.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: ksihkahe
Even tho Ivermectin is a legacy drug :
how sure can we be that they haven't tweaked the formula, to add a little, you know : compliance ?

They did. Then they called it Paxlovid, got it jammed through approval, and charge far more for it.

I'm more interested in natural alternatives, as were discussed in parallel all along.

Ivermectin is derived from a microbe that's a natural soil constituent discovered in Japan. Like Aspirin, drugs that are derived from natural compounds we have had exposure to through our evolutionary chain are typically less prone to adverse events.

Naturally, use of herbs and wild medicinals directly is the method with the least likelihood adverse reactions. Ivermectin is one step removed, having had no traditional human use but ample opportunity for environmental exposure.

They are all far safer than any failed gene therapy platform with a history of significant harm in trials and documented end-product contamination.

Do you really want to argue with those narrative-pushers, and agenda-influencers ?
They're not real.
They're just hired-guns, doing what they are paid to do.

I'm merely sharing factual information that hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent on suppressing.

It appears, as of yet, there's no argument.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I never got the jab nor did anyone in my family. My employer gave $175 to those who got the various shots and people were gushing over getting paid to do something that would protect them. The vaxxes made people sick when they got them and they still got Covid again anyway. People abused the paid two week leave and I laugh about how they were taking the two week leaves right when it started hoping to stay home and bunker up and ride the pandemic out. And they got the shot to get a paid two days off The only people dumber than those afraid of getting Covid were the medicos and authority figures in government who pushed the mandates, the lockdowns, the masks, the vaxxes , the social distancing. Everyone was retarded back then. But there was real evil behind those at the top giving the orders. They wanted people dead, they wanted lives ruined, they wanted families shattered with financial ruin. I think people just want to forget how dumb they were listening to the feds and hopefully some of the less dumb will now be more skeptical next time around. I was at the rehab and i cringed when i heard a new patient being asked her vaxx status. She had the first two shots but never got the boosters. Another patient never got the flu shots. Maybe vaxxes have been exposed as being dangerous or at least as potential weapons used against the population.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ksihkahe

Those that use these mantras expect that you will accept their slogans as maxims, rather than the trite pharmaceutical PR it is. They expect that you will view these slogans in a vacuum. They erroneously believe they can extrapolate from those maxims other "facts" to dispute claims unfavorable to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Their ignorance has been cultivated, rewarded, and weaponized.

This. This right here encapsulates a much wider agenda that would be off topic to discuss any further in this thread.


Hoping this draws in the discussion it deserves.

I think the debate is actually larger than that and circles around "What are reliable sources?"

It's fairly clear that most on the right don't believe certain sources that the left promotes as accurate and credible. It's also fairly clear that most on the left don't believe certain sources that the right promotes as accurate and credible. Take a look when someone on here pulls something from bitchute/rumble/etc. It's immediatley not even considered to be worth reading by those on the left. And vice versa for the right and other sites.

So that leaves us with going to the raw data itself. Problem is most of us (myself included) do not have a doctorate in whatever study we're reading, nor are we statisticians. So more often than not we "skew" the raw data to be in line with what we believe to be true.

What I'm most interested in data/facts/reality/science. So how do we get past all of this, and use a source to determine what does the science say so that at the very least we're all on the same page and can have honest open debates about this stuff. Because until that happens I feel it's always game of "well my side doesn't consider that as a credible source, use this site/study instead" Both sides do it, I'm guilty of it as well.

How do we get to a place where everyone can agree on the source and just debate topics on the merits of the study rather than it always turning political??

originally posted by: VoiceofReality

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ksihkahe

Those that use these mantras expect that you will accept their slogans as maxims, rather than the trite pharmaceutical PR it is. They expect that you will view these slogans in a vacuum. They erroneously believe they can extrapolate from those maxims other "facts" to dispute claims unfavorable to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. Their ignorance has been cultivated, rewarded, and weaponized.

This. This right here encapsulates a much wider agenda that would be off topic to discuss any further in this thread.


Hoping this draws in the discussion it deserves.

What I'm most interested in data/facts/reality/science. So how do we get past all of this, and use a source to determine what does the science say so that at the very least we're all on the same page and can have honest open debates about this stuff. Because until that happens I feel it's always game of "well my side doesn't consider that as a credible source, use this site/study instead" Both sides do it, I'm guilty of it as well.

How do we get to a place where everyone can agree on the source and just debate topics on the merits of the study rather than it always turning political??

The first step would be to understand that science doesn't "say" anything. "The Science" makes declarative statements. Science is a methodology.

Some of the most telling things that distinguish science from "The Science" is that science requires open debate to be effective, is resilient to questions, and it doesn't exclude things just because it can't explain them. Science is never settled and it never stops adjusting to information contradictory to its premise. It doesn't ignore contradictory information or criticize the source of that data, but seeks to explain it using the same scientific process.

If you want to know public health science as it relates to COVID then you should start by examining pre-2020 policy regarding use of masks, quarantines, lockdowns, and social distancing. Then you should ask where the evidence is that caused these new things to become "The Science" with "overwhelming consensus". Another thing that is a great indicator that something isn't science is when the decisions were made before the science was rigorously debated using the data. COVID policies were mostly in total contradiction to decades of scientific study with ample debate. It was done by inflating the numbers of people with serious illness or mortality, not disclosing the real risks to those not severely compromised by their individual demographic group, and inciting a generalized existential panic among the citizens.

Currently there is one side of the COVID argument that has worked tirelessly to hide data, censor critics, ruin the lives of those that dissent through the power of government, violate medical ethics in the name of safety, and impose gross human rights violations on those that refuse experimental drugs or irrational mandates about PPE.

While our resident pharma sycophants are elsewhere debunking the super serious 5G zombies and MAC addresses in the vaccinated, they've failed to address this lie that they've promoted for going on three years. This lie was a key lynchpin to the fraudulent approval of an EUA for vaccines and billions in profits for pharmaceutical companies and those that do their bidding. Their absence here speaks volumes about their knowledge of the topic and their ability to defend their positions.

Some of the departed sycophants had to resort to crowd sourcing their replies on other sites because they didn't understand the science they were debating me about. They are probably still lurking under a new sock, having become tired of running from their lies.

I am ready, willing, and able, to defend the premise of my OP because it uses the principals of science. Those that parrot "The Science" are unwilling to engage me on the front page. There's a reason for that. They'd prefer to engage endless cycles of deflection buried in threads where their credibility doesn't take a hit in front of the entire audience of the site.

It would be easier to maintain their integrity if they stopped lying or stopped talking about science they've never bothered to research objectively.

If you have anything from the OP to dispute or have authentic questions about it, I'm more than happy to explain it. I will explain in terms that are not merely buzz words, do not rely on your emotions, and I will never tell you it's too complicated for you to understand.

You will not find that policy among the pharma fans here because they don't understand the nonsense they parrot and are not able to explain it. In early 2020 it was entirely reasonable that even with expertise and the data available, one might offer arguments supporting the official narratives. That hasn't been the case for at least two years and those remaining to defend that narrative are little more than useful idiots for their jackboot political cults and the globalist-approved corporations that fund them.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: ksihkahe

The key facts here: Ivermectin is a very safe drug with many decades of global use.

Paid campaigns to demonize Ivermectin never provided evidence that it was harmful and instead focused on associating it with livestock.

Ivermectin was already being investigated for a much broader range of treatment than just parasites and the claims otherwise were lies.

Anybody that called it horse paste was a useful idiot at best.

Yep, and DARPA knew that ivermectin was a curative for all phases of covid as early as April of 2020.

This made me so angry when it just so happened that scientists in India prescribed ivermectin at the height of the covid waves in Delhi in 2021. Delhi’s cases went down 97% from 28,395 on April 20 to just 956 on May 29. Meanwhile all you could see in America was the media calling it 'horse de-wormer', as if it has never been used for anything else. Over 1 billion ivermectin doses had been administered to humans by that point and all you could hear or see any where was "hurr durr durr ivermectin is horse de-wormer". As if India doesn't have some of the top medical scientists in the world, as if they would just prescribe ivermectin to an entire city with no scientific reasons??

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: ksihkahe

The key facts here: Ivermectin is a very safe drug with many decades of global use.

Paid campaigns to demonize Ivermectin never provided evidence that it was harmful and instead focused on associating it with livestock.

Ivermectin was already being investigated for a much broader range of treatment than just parasites and the claims otherwise were lies.

Anybody that called it horse paste was a useful idiot at best.

Yep, and DARPA knew that ivermectin was a curative for all phases of covid as early as April of 2020.

This made me so angry when it just so happened that scientists in India prescribed ivermectin at the height of the covid waves in Delhi in 2021. Delhi’s cases went down 97% from 28,395 on April 20 to just 956 on May 29. Meanwhile all you could see in America was the media calling it 'horse de-wormer', as if it has never been used for anything else. Over 1 billion ivermectin doses had been administered to humans by that point and all you could hear or see any where was "hurr durr durr ivermectin is horse de-wormer". As if India doesn't have some of the top medical scientists in the world, as if they would just prescribe ivermectin to an entire city with no scientific reasons??

Yep, I believe it was 1cc per 100lbs of body weight once a day for 3 days. I took Ivermectin when I caught covid and I was feeling 100% before the 3rd dose. But the problem was that Trump told America that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquin would rid the symptoms quickly. Democrats didn't want that, and they sure as hell didn't want America to see that Trump was right. They needed everything to stay shut down to push fear in the low hanging fruit.

originally posted by: LSU2018

Yep, I believe it was 1cc per 100lbs of body weight once a day for 3 days. I took Ivermectin when I caught covid and I was feeling 100% before the 3rd dose. But the problem was that Trump told America that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquin would rid the symptoms quickly. Democrats didn't want that, and they sure as hell didn't want America to see that Trump was right. They needed everything to stay shut down to push fear in the low hanging fruit.

It had nothing to do with trump- trump and biden work for the same people bush and obama worked for in case you haven't cared to notice. They needed to enforce the idea that there were absolutely no alternatives to the vaccine in order to accomplish mandates across entire countries.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: ksihkahe

The key facts here: Ivermectin is a very safe drug with many decades of global use.

Paid campaigns to demonize Ivermectin never provided evidence that it was harmful and instead focused on associating it with livestock.

Ivermectin was already being investigated for a much broader range of treatment than just parasites and the claims otherwise were lies.

Anybody that called it horse paste was a useful idiot at best.

Yep, and DARPA knew that ivermectin was a curative for all phases of covid as early as April of 2020.

Do you mind providing a link for the above image please? I was doing my own research and could find NOTHING that DARPA wrote any report that looks remotely like the one above.

a reply to: VoiceofReality

DARPA Covid Document