Image Credit: 

Flickr-Community Eye Health, CC BY-NC 2.0


Ivermectin: Horse Hockey Versus Truth

Shhhhh. The information I'm about to share with you is dangerous and subversive. You cannot publish it on social media platforms without risking scary labels and permanent suspensions. You and anyone you discuss this topic with will be called anti-science "kooks," "conspiracy theorists" or "quacks."

So be it. I've been called every pejorative name in the globalist elites' overworn handbook of ad hominem attacks over the past 30 years. Who cares?

The airwaves have been littered the past month with disparaging reports about ivermectin, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns should not be used to treat or prevent COVID-19. "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it," the official FDA Twitter account snidely admonished last week.

Well, you are not a sheep either. So don't be cowed by Big Pharma and their bought-off Swamp bureaucrats. Seriously, y'all. These are the performative actors who've flipped and flopped on masks, rushed experimental jabs to market, brazenly denied deadly adverse events and advocated mix-and-match booster shots as part of the most notorious junk science experiment in human history.

First things first: The government and corporate media's repeated description of ivermectin in headline after headline as a "horse de-wormer" is pure propaganda. Yes, it is used as an anti-parasitic for animals. But ivermectin has been used to treat humans for parasitic infections for more than three decades. As Wisconsin critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory and his colleagues affiliated with the Memphis VA Medical Center-University of Tennessee, University of Texas Health Science Center, Hackensack School of Medicine and Eastern Virginia Medical School noted in a recent literature review published in the peer-reviewed medical journal the American Journal of Therapeutics:

Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, (ivermectin) soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, given that it was highly effective, broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated, and could be easily administered. Although it was used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, it was most known as the essential mainstay of 2 global disease elimination campaigns that has nearly eliminated the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases.

That's right. Billions of humans around the world have taken ivermectin (approved by the FDA and considered an "essential medicine" by the World Health Organization) under mass distribution programs to eradicate onchocerciasis (river blindness) and other tropical diseases. Ivermectin has also been shown to inhibit a broad range of viruses in laboratory studies, including HIV, influenza, West Nile virus and other RNA viruses. In 2018, more than 130,000 patients in the U.S. were prescribed the drug. It is a human drug, no matter how many times the mad cows in the media try to fear-monger you into believing otherwise.

So, should ivermectin be pursued as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19?

The COVID-19 control freaks don't even want you to ask the question out loud or debate it on the internet. But unlike farm animals, you can exercise your free will and search for the evidence yourselves:

-- A study in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research reported that ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and concluded that "ivermectin is worthy of further consideration as a possible SARS-CoV-2 antiviral."

-- An analysis published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents in November 2020 found that "countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19. ... Prophylactic use of ivermectin against parasitic infections is most common in Africa and we hence show that the reported correlation is highly significant both when compared among African nations as well as in a worldwide context. ... It is suggested that ivermectin be evaluated for potential off-label prophylactic use in certain cases to help bridge the time until a safe and effective vaccine becomes available."

-- A small, pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in Spain and published in The Lancet in January didn't find statistically significant differences in COVID-19 viral loads but did find "a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower (antibody) titers which warrants assessment in larger trials."

-- A systematic review of ivermectin's antiviral effects published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found that it "could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses."

-- A study in the peer-reviewed journal Chest found statistically significant lower mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients prescribed ivermectin (along with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both) compared with patients without ivermectin in Broward County, Florida.

You can find more related studies on ivermectin and COVID-19 in PubMed, the federal scientific database, and weigh all the costs and benefits for you and your families. Remember: "Misinformation" simply means information that the powers that be want you to miss.

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the host of Sovereign Nation on Newsmax TV. She is the author of Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction? (2019), and Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best & Brightest Workers (2016). To find more from Michelle Malkin, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


Account Photo
Here is another study worth perusal: “Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multi-center, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial” — Clinical Therapeutics It is notable the Cochrane Analysis was done in 2020 and was plagued by "low-level evidence". There seems to be more of a desire to keep Ivermectin away from people as a treatment than allow its use as a safe, even if marginal, support to prevent hospitalization in various cohorts. As mRNA technology inventor, Dr. Robert Malone notes, we are given the choice to partake of a "leaky vaccine". Our only other choice, if tested positive with symptoms, is to be told to go home and wait under we have dyspnea or other catastrophic symptoms. Not a great scenario for patients to feel confident in public health decision making.


Also remember that the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015 was awarded for the discovery of ivermectin for the treatment of river blindness in humans and animals. I doubt the Nobel Prize was awarded because it was a great horse drug. How quickly they forget. Ivermectin is still widely used in Africa for the prevention and treatment of river blindness in humans. Interestingly, a recent preprint (note: not yet peer reviewed) shows a strong negative correlation between ivermectin use and death in various African countries (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.26.21254377v1.full.pdf). There are many other positive studies on ivermectin's used in treating COVID-91. At the very least, there should be a debate on the subject of ivermectin use rather than a forced monologue.


In the 1980s, I worked for a New York doctor's office which treated HIV and cancer patients. It was a horrible, tragic experience with 50% of our patients dying in 2 years. This is Dallas Buyers Club all over again. The patients gave us the HIV solution through crowd-sourcing. I don't know if Ivermectin is the final answer or not - but we have to study it with an open mind.


I notice you wrote an article warning pregnant women about the dangers of the unresearched effects of covid vaccination, Pfizer now being fully FDA approved, and yet here you are writing about the usage of ivermectin for Covid symptoms, something that has barely even begun the process of in vivo testing. Kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. Ivermectin IS safe and FDA approved, yes, for its very specific use as an anti-parasitic drug! Taking ivermectin or it's brand name equivalent Stromectol to treat Covid symptoms is extremely unsafe. While it has shown antiviral properties in vitro (outside of a living organism, like in a test tube) there is very little empirical evidence to suggest it could be beneficial to those suffering with Covid (and so I'll restate, lack of evidence is the exact reason you warned against Covid vaccination for pregnant women). In fact, there are several studies that predict the higher dosages of ivermectin required to sustain a concentration within the body that could possibly alleviate Covid symptoms would result in numerous adverse effects because of its inherent neruo- and hepatotoxicity. As a pharmacist, I love the idea of people being more active in their own health care process, but taking a drug for an experimental purpose without medical guidance is not the way to do that. For future reference, I suggest writing about topics you actually know something about. Also, it's not misinformation because it's being kept a secret, it's because you're wrong :)