A US intensive care expert has defended his beliefs around COVID-19 and Ivermectin, amid widespread scientific skepticism over the drug's effectiveness against the virus.
Ivermectin has been used to treat parasites in humans and animals since it was developed in the late 1960s; however, in recent years some studies have shown it to have anti-viral properties.
Since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic there have been calls in some quarters for it to be used for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
Agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have rejected the calls, while the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned that evidence supporting its use is “inconclusive.”
The FDA has specifically urged people not to use the drug for treating COVID-19, saying they've received "multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalisation, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock".
Here, Professor Luke O'Neill says there is still not enough evidence to support the use of the drug as a COVID treatment, with clinical trials still ongoing.
On The Pat Kenny Show this morning, Dr Pierre Kory, intensive care specialist and member of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) claimed he has no doubts about Ivermectin’s effectiveness.
“There is just a mountain of evidence supporting its use and it is being used effectively in many portions of the world but there is a lot of resistance to Ivermectin,” he said.
“In fact, there is a very strong and deep opposition in public health agencies – in the ivory towers – and that is something I have had to become an expert on.
“This is a repurposed drug. It is cheap, it is off-patent and you can’t really make a significant amount of money off of it.
“Watching what happens to a drug like that has been astonishing. It has been a lesson in life and not one that I have happily learned.”
Dr Kory claimed Ivermectin is being ‘censored and buried’ because it is a threat to, “probably the largest financial interests you can imagine.”
He said that, if its efficacy as a preventative agent and treatment were to be recognised, three major things would happen:
- The emergency use authorisations for COVID-19 vaccines would no longer be required
- Vaccine hesitancy would increase
- A range of new anti-viral drugs currently in development would not be needed.
The WHO, the EMA and the FDA have all warned that there have not been enough Ivermectin studies carried out to allow for its authorisation – noting that many of those that were carried out were flawed or too small to be considered.
Dr Kory labelled those findings ‘absurd’ – and accused the agencies of being “wilfully misleading.”
“That is a tactic that they are using to very great effect,” he said. “They complain that there is no ‘proper’ trial as they define it. So really, they are creating a system where only really large pharma-funded trials are recognised as valid.
“That is actually wrong; it departs from medicine and it actually leads to this irregular adoption of medicines.”
He said there have been 60 controlled Ivermectin COVID-19 trials – including 30 that were randomised as well as a meta-analysis carried out by physician Tess Lawrie.
“They are being wilfully misleading by demanding that trial when there are already 30 randomised control trials,” he said.
“The trials show massive reductions in mortality, hospitalisation, time to clinical recovery and also time to viral clearance. Again, I can only say this is absurd and it needs to be called out.”
It should be noted that both the meta-analysis and a number of the clinical trials into the drug’s use have yet to be peer-reviewed.
"Profound regulatory capture"
Dr Kory said Ivermectin was not a replacement for vaccination but could be used in conjunction with the jab in countries with high vaccination rates and as a cheap alternative in countries with low vaccine supplies.
“Our goal is to get the agencies to advise and guide on Ivermectin and it’s nearly impossible,” he said.
“I am sorry to have to say things like this but I have had to learn it because I have had a front-row seat to this – most of the healthcare agencies are captured.”
“We are dealing with extensive and really profound regulatory capture.”
You can listen back here: