Under what sort of circumstance would you approve a variant of a shot based on a study of eight mice? Well, for one, it would have to be an emergency. It would also have to be a variant of a therapeutic that already has an impeccable record of safety … you know, like ivermectin. In reality, the more the virus is becoming less of an emergency and the more the original vaccines turn out to be dangerous and ineffective beyond belief, the more the medical and government establishment lowers the standards for additional vaccines, while continuing to declare war on proven therapeutics like ivermectin.

Imagine people dying in the thousands with no treatment, and the establishment refuses to use a broad-spectrum anti-inflammatory that doctors all over the world have witnessed helping restore people’s blood oxygen level during a cytokine storm. No! This cannot be used despite winning a Nobel Prize and being designated as an essential drug because we didn’t have large randomized controlled trials vouching for its efficacy (even though its safety was already established). Well, evidently, RCTs are only for drugs already proven safe, not for gene therapies already proven unsafe. Those can be approved simply based on mice tests for a variant that is not an emergency under anyone’s definition.

Just consider what we know about the existing shots. The one-of-a-kind study of all-cause severe adverse events of interest co-written by British Medical Journal editor Peter Doshi has been published in Vaccine, and its results are as revealing as they are shocking. The authors found a straight-up negative cost-benefit analysis among the participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials. Specifically, Dr. Doshi and his colleagues found that the Pfizer shot was associated with an increased risk of serious “adverse events of special interest” of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 per 10,000 for Moderna.

An adverse event of special interest is defined as death, life-threatening injury at the time of the event, inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability/incapacity, among several other criteria. The average between the two shots works out to 1 in 800 people, which would total approximately 448,000 people in the U.S. and 10.6 million globally, based on vaccination rates. But keep in mind, the follow-up period for trial participants was short because the participants were then unblinded and vaccinated. The long-term severe adverse events and sudden deaths are likely even higher. Also, this analysis doesn’t factor in all the people who subsequently got boosters. This shot is clearly dose-dependent, increasing the risk of death or injury with every dose.

Yet, to this day, this shot is still mandated on the military, health care workers, and many others, including pregnant women and schoolchildren in some circumstances. Now, as it becomes clear the virus has attenuated and the shots don’t work and are dangerous, the establishment is approving new versions of the same technology – with the extremely pro-inflammatory lipid nanoparticles and spike protein – just based on mice studies.

In contrast, let’s take a look at two new studies that came out concerning use of ivermectin for this virus. Brazilian doctors published the second half of their massive observational study on ivermectin use in Itajaí, a city in Santa Catarina, Brazil. It is the largest study of any COVID therapeutic, involving 113,844 who used ivermectin prophylactically and 45,716 who did not. The first half of the study, published late last year, found the relative risk reduction in mortality rate among those high-risk people taking ivermectin was 71% among those with type 2 diabetes and 67% among those with hypertension. The absolute risk reduction was also even greater among older people who are most at risk. This was the most transparent study done on COVID treatment because all information about every single patient was uploaded online for researchers to scrutinize.

This week, the same researchers published part two of the same study in Cureus, which evaluated whether the regular use and the total amount of ivermectin used provided greater benefit, meaning researchers wanted to ascertain the degree of dose dependency of ivermectin in combating COVID. They divided the ivermectin group into two sub-groups: those who took a total of 60mg during the study period (defined as irregular users) and those who took a cumulative total of 180mg (defined as regular users). The results were astounding and proved a clear dose dependency.

The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001) (emphasis added).

Again, this was a massive study sample with the most transparent data and crosstabs of any study. Moreover, although it wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, the fact that it was unblinded helped researchers see that the higher-risk people actually chose to take ivermectin, and the more regular usage of it within the ivermectin cohort. “Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin,” concluded the researchers. “This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.”

One of the lead authors, endocrinologist Dr. Flavio Cadegiani, has treated thousands of patients with an ivermectin and nitazoxanide-based protocol and has not lost a single patient. Yet rather than being treated like a hero, he has been accused of crimes against humanity. TrialSiteNews reports that Dr. Cadegiani’s clinic and private residence were raided by police who were searching for documents related to research from one of his other treatment regimens.

Again, behold the contrast between the treatment of safe, off-patent drugs and novel, expensive therapies. The latter are mandated, while the former are nearly criminalized.

Even the NIH has ivermectin listed on its website as a proposed COVID treatment and notes that it is “widely used and is generally well-tolerated” and “may interfere with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein attachment to the human cell membrane,” while having “anti-inflammatory properties…beneficial in people w/COVID-19.”

Which brings us to the second ivermectin study published this week, which focuses on severely ill patients in respiratory distress. Like Dr. Cadegiani, Dr. Jackie Stone, a family medicine physician based in Harare, Zimbabwe, barreled head-first into treating COVID from day one, conducted studies on her patient outcomes, and is being punished for her work. She co-authored a paper in Biologics showing a 62% normalization rate of blood oxygen levels of 34 severely ill COVID patients within 24 hours after being treated with ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc. While 34 is not a large sample size, one cannot miss the unmistakable sudden surge in the pulse oximeter of those who took ivermectin during the critical hours of the cytokine storm eating away at the lungs.

As the authors note: “All but two of the 34 patients in this study had increases in SpO2 within the first 48 h after the first dose of IVM. This overall increase in SpO2 continued throughout the entire observation period. Because SpO2 values that are at best stable and typically decreasing for several days after onset of disease symptoms are a well-established norm for moderate and severe COVID-19 patients under standard care,…these sharp, rapid SpO2 increases for all but two of the 34 patients in this study are noteworthy.”

Dr. Stone’s reward for her devotion to her patients? She is facing criminal charges in court. So what is going on?

Even if one wants to scoff at these studies and believe the pharma-contrived studies that ivermectin has less efficacy, nobody could deny the fact that it is safe. So, what is there to lose? How could one square the mentality of rushing into a known dangerous shot even for children and pregnant women based on mice trials, but treating one of the safest drugs like poison?