Ivermectin: None Dare Call It Conspiracy

Is a hair-lice drug the wake-up call we need to a nefarious agenda behind this pandemic?

In the good old days, my downtime usually consisted of conspiracy videos. Aliens, secret societies, false flags, deep underground military bases: name me a conspiracy and I wager I could hold up one end of a 5 minute conversation about it. Heck, even flat earth videos got a run, because I don’t discriminate when it comes to conspiracies: even Flatearther Lives Matter. 

More recently, however, things have gotten a bit more serious. There is no time for such frivolous luxuries. Now I am watching interviews by people in lab-coats discussing nerdy Covid issues like virology, vaccines, and early outpatient treatment options. My aim is to now be able to hold up at least a 5 minute conversation, or robust Facebook exchange, on virtually any Covid-related issue.

I have already written about the afternoon I binged on interviews by vaccine advocate and now pseudo-whistleblower Geert Vanden Bossche, who has been very vocal over the last month of the inadvertent dangers of mass vaccination for increasing the length and severity of the pandemic.

Geert is a fascinating one. He is currently occupying an interesting position of being ‘debunked’ by those on both sides of the aisle. The mainstream are trying desperately to explain away his criticism of the current crop of Covid vaccines, fearing (rightly) that it may be bring the whole house of cards down (my original facebook post was belatedly fact-checked a few days later). On the other side, the more Covid skeptic crew are taking him to task for overplaying the seriousness of the virus itself, and particularly these new mutant variants. I am sympathetic to anyone who cops it from both sides, and — theories aside — have taken a liking to Geert (perhaps also why I find the whole Q/Qanon kerfuffle fascinating, as it is a movement ridiculed almost equally by the mainstream and old-school conspiracy worlds). 

Anyway, back to the point. What I don’t see much dispute about is the central claim of his thesis: that vaccinating young and healthy people is over-writing our generalised natural immunity that is capable of fighting off a range of viral variants, in exchange for a more powerful but ultimately highly specific form of immunity that is effective mainly on the original SARS-Covid-2 virus. How anyone can still argue that low-risk individuals should be lining up to get the jab is beyond me, especially when we now know there are alternative treatments that are both safe and effective. 

I have even since watched a follow-up interview with Geert, which doesn’t add a great deal extra, except for moving the conversation beyond simply vaccines and towards these much discussed but still largely ignored early treatment options. Which leads us, inevitably, to Ivermectin.

For anyone late to this particular pharmaceutical party, I suggest starting here (or, more specifically for Australia, here). In the Ivermectin world, we are starting to see the emergence of a few rockstars, who I assume some person with greater internet skills than me is currently inserting into those Thug Life videos in honour of their tireless work in fighting the Western Medical Cartel. Two in particular are Pierre Kory and Tess Lawrie, who together make an an interesting double act: Kory the more outspoken activist, who has been treating patients on the frontline before now taking the fight to the public; Lawrie the more detached, measured analyst painting the broader picture of where the data is pointing. 

Well, in what might be best described as the Woodstock of Ivermectin, these two recently sat down (virtually) with several other medical experts in a live-streamed press conference. There is much to take in over this 75 minutes, however these are some of the key points. 

Starting with Dr Lawrie, who contributes a summary of her own meta-analysis: which found a 68% reduction in mortality between Ivermectin and control groups across 21 studies. Responding to the query of why we shouldn’t wait for more robust studies before making a call, Dr Lawrie also makes the salient point that such a theoretical randomised control trial would be at this point both impractical and unethical. Potential trial patients must be fully informed on the current evidence available, and having been told that there are meta analyses suggesting at least a 65% improved recovery rate for Ivermectin treatment, it is unlikely that sufficient patients would agree to the potential option of being treated only with a placebo. 

Dr Kory says similar things about the overall data picture, building on his recently-accepted review paper. In his role as the most vocal proponent of Ivermectin, he reinforces the key underlying argument of the debate: that the current risk-to-benefit assessment leaves no option but to make this medicine readily available to Doctors and patients, and to do so is both unethical and immoral. He also makes a key additional point: we don’t need to just rely on academic studies to support such a decision, when we also have real world epidemiological data from countries such as Peru and India showing marked and virtually indisputable decreases in Covid-19 cases and fatalities in Ivermectin uptake areas. 

Couple this with the anecdotal evidence from other experts — for example Israeli Doctor Eli Schwartz who reports on his own early treatment success using Ivermectin, and the Argentinian Doctor Hector Carvallo who reports on his stunning success with treating health care workers with prophylactic Ivermectin — and the picture really does become overwhelmingly obvious.

Any right-minded person watching this press conference in good faith can be left in no doubt that we should be using Ivermectin to treat Covid-19 patients in every country in the world. So why aren’t we? Because we still have omniscient, all-knowing Western Scientific Supremacists, this time the European Medicines Agency, doing their best to explain away the obvious and inevitable.

Their statement is completely unremarkable and predictable, constructed using reassuringly benign, cut-and-paste academic language. Based on immediate reactions online, it will act to further reinforce the righteousness of people who have fully bought in to the official Covid narrative, and look for any possible piece of information that will allow them to dismiss the skeptics and non-believers.

I may be wrong, but I’m fairly sure the World Health Organisation will soon follow, perhaps helped by another poorly designed study from a major scientific institution showing Ivermectin has no positive benefit, just like occurred for Hydroxychloroquine. And just like Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin will be all but discredited in the undiscerning public eye, despite the fact that Ivermectin appears clearly more effective than its predecessor, and even comes without the Trump baggage.

There will, in short, likely be no escape from this anti-Ivermectin narrative — at least for those whose worldview simply does not permit the possibility that such agencies may not be as benevolent as they are presented to be. Combating it will require an ongoing counter-narrative to be forcefully forwarded to hopefully dissuade well-meaning people from being sucked in. However, the only long-term solution is for people to become awake to the nature of the propaganda that props up the official Covid story and the intentions of the institutions that put forward this propaganda.

This is the unfortunate situation I also see playing out with the vaccine: we are heading towards a schism in society, where the side one falls on is directly determined by their capacity to question establishment advice on Covid-related issues. At some point, hopefully, the penny will collectively drop that such social divisions do not occur naturally, but are constructed artificially and with intent. And the only group of people capable of creating such fundamental divisions are those that wield power over us.

Watching the aforementioned press conference closely, you see every doctor (with the possible exception of Kory) dance around the edges of the elephant in the room: that the authorities who should be objectively assessing the evidence are not just failing in their capacity to do so, but are doing it knowingly and willingly. This is the correct and proper thing to do in professional sense, as to outright allege nefarious intent would immediately alienate and discredit their claims in the eyes of many, rightly or wrongly. To quote one of the most famous books in the conspiracy theory realm: None Dare Call It Conspiracy. 

I am of course not bound by such need for political correctness. I accept that there could be a ‘boy who cried conspiracy’ effect going on here, where if you allege nefarious motives time after time such allegations eventually lose their meaning. But this is a no brainer: Ivermectin denial is a conspiracy, perhaps the most clear and indisputable evidence for conspiratorial motives behind this pandemic that we have available to us. Indeed, this may be how we end up reflecting on the whole Ivermectin debacle unfolding before us (which was prefaced by an equally diabolical situation surrounding Hydroxychloroquine): as the wake-up alarm that much of the sleeping world needed. 

It easy to get disheartened and emotional in the face of obvious injustice embedded in society, as anyone who has fought their own battle against some form of oppression can attest to. I’ve found this with HCQ/IVM, as the end point of my awakening to the corruption of Western science and medicine by the fundamentally anti-nature pharmaceutical industry. One way to remain detached and neutral is to look at this whole charade as a movie, with everyone playing their own role in the process of waking up to and exiting the old storyline and moving into the new one. I think this is the starring role of Ivermectin and those who steadfastly advocate for it: to provide an accessible, straight-forward and easy to understand pathway for rational, science-believing and morally orientated people to wake up to the corruption behind this pandemic.