I recently wrote about claims that Ivermectin shows great promise as a cure for COVID-19 and how we don’t seem to be hearing about it. I want to make sure I am being fair and accurate in my claims, so I decided to do dig a little deeper.
What some experts are telling us…
On December 4th a group of doctors called the FLCCC Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance issued a press announcement detailing the effectiveness of an Ivermectin-based prevention and early out-patient treatment with a call to action to authorities to pay it urgent attention . They described the Ivermectin-based treatments as having “high activity” against Covid-19 and they are proposing them as the “potential solution to the unprecedented global surge of the COVID-19 pandemic”. They state that “over the last four decades, Ivermectin has been used safely by 3.7 billion people” and it is “inexpensive, off-patent, and widely available around the globe”. They point out that vaccines “are coming very soon, but not soon enough to save the tens of thousands who are projected to die before the widespread distribution of the vaccines can be completed”.
At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on December 8th, Dr. Pierre Kory, who along with Dr. Paul Marik is one of the founding members of the FLCCC, made a passionate plea for authorities to urgently review Ivermectin treatments .
There has been interest in Ivermectin through much of the year, going back to April and March with some promising early results from Monash University in Australia. In June, Ivermectin was shown in laboratory testing to inhibit the replication of the Covid-19 virus. In August, the world-renowned Professor Thomas Borody claimed that Ivermectin is “amazingly effective” when combined with zinc and Doxycycline .
What the mainstream media are telling us…
Here is a quick survey of what the mainstream media are currently saying about Ivermectin.
In the New York Times web site, in a search for “Covid-19 Ivermectin” the top result is August 19th about Venezuela deploying security forces to crack down on coronavirus, and then after that “A Senate hearing promoted unproven drugs and dubious claims about the coronavirus” (December 8th).
The latest search result for “Ivermectin” on the CNN web site is “Inside Brazil’s cult of hydroxychloroquine” from July.
On the BBC web site, a search for “Covid-19 Ivermectin” or “Coronavirus Ivermectin” returned nothing. The top search result for “Ivermectin” is an article from July titled “Coronavirus: Fake cures in Latin America’s deadly outbreak”.
On the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp) web site the most recent article when you search “Covid-19 Ivermectin” is “What’s the latest on coronavirus treatments?” (November 2nd) which comprises an interview with a scientist who seems quite optimistic about Ivermectin but the interview ends with a very underwhelming “we will follow this up with interest” – that was nearly 2 months ago.
In the New Zealand Herald web site (since I live in New Zealand) there is no mention of Ivermectin in the top 10 results for “Covid” . Next I searched for “Covid-19 Ivermectin” and the top result was “Not real news: A look at what didn’t happen this week” (12th Dec) which included a section headed “No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against Covid-19”  – more on this later.
This is not an exhaustive survey, but here are some impressions it gave me. Mainstream media focus is on testing, travel and other restrictions, rising case numbers and deaths, and of course vaccines. Ivermectin seems to be encountering the same peculiar resistance as Hydroxychloroquine. Let’s dig deeper.
A closer look at some media criticism…
On December 8th, Washington-based “fact-check reporter” Linda Qiu wrote in the New York Times about the same Senate Hearing at which Dr. Pierre Kory had appeared, in which she said “For about two and a half hours, the participants continuously challenged public health consensus, sometimes advancing inaccurate and previously debunked claims” . I will let you make up your own mind but it appears to me that Ms Qiu, who apparently has a degree in environmental studies and creative writing, was more interested in attacking the Republican Senator who organised the hearing than in learning from those experts who spoke, and there is no indication that she looked at the FLCCC press announcement or has any awareness of the work of Professor Thomas Borody.
On December 12th in the New Zealand herald, in the search results for “Covid” there was a discussion about pre-departure testing, a report on a crematorium in Germany overflowing, increasing restrictions in Sydney over New Year, a report warning that New Zealanders might be reluctant to get vaccinated, a story about how COVID-19 apparently has contributed to slowing US population growth, and a report on how New Zealand plans to step up testing from certain countries. The only mention of Ivermectin was in an article titled “Not real news: A look at what didn’t happen this week” (12th Dec)  which says “None of these [false and misleading claims] are legitimate, even though they were shared widely on social media”. The article appears to be a patchwork of contributions from different sources and includes a section “No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against Covid-19” in which New York based Associated Press writer Beatrice Dupuy wrote that “There is no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against Covid-19” . The writer mentions the June laboratory study but doesn’t seem aware of the more recent evidence referenced by the FLCCC, Professor Thomas Borody, and others.
Today, the second to top search result on Bing for “Ivermectin and zinc” is an August article titled “Insufficient evidence to support ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment” . The article briefly mentions the work of Professor Borody, yet a far greater proportion of the article is devoted to the opinions (plus photo) of Associate Professor Steven Tong who apparently said “At this stage I’m not aware of that data” and then after several more very general comments that suggested he hadn’t really looked at Professor Borody’s claims in detail, he apparently concluded that “there is currently insufficient evidence to show ivermectin can be used as therapy for COVID-19” – which in turn becomes the title of the article. I encourage you to read the article for yourself. One thing I would like to know is why the opinions of Associate Professor Steven Tong – who admitted he didn’t know the details of Professor Borody’s work – were given more weight then those of Professor Borody himself.
Why are the mainstream media ignoring or dismissing Ivermectin?
It is very difficult to understand what is going on here. In my previous article I suggested that there seemed to be an “anti-cure” mind-set, but it is difficult to take seriously the idea that someone would not want there to be a cure unless they are particularly evil or have a huge financial interest in not finding a cure – and I don’t think the writers that I have sampled fall into that category. I’m also not quite ready to buy into speculation about “globalist” political or big business interests pulling the mainstream media strings.
In recent years, the major mainstream media organisations and big tech companies have appointed themselves as “authoritative sources” and granted themselves the power to decide what should be considered an authoritative source. One theme that seems to run through the mainstream media articles is that they seem to view medical organisations such as the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA, etc., as the ultimate and only sources of truth in relation to COVID-19. Consequently, doctors and researchers who make claims contrary to or not approved by those authorities seem to be automatically viewed as purveyors of false, misleading, and harmful information and thus not worthy of consideration except to “fact-check” and “de-bunk” or worse yet censor. This belief that certain authorities represent settled scientific consensus and the associated “we are following the science” mantra demonstrate a misunderstanding of how science works.
There is also a peculiar obsession with the need for trials which doesn’t seem in proportion with what the mainstream media are telling us about the rising death count from COVID-19. There is already evidence that Ivermectin treatments dramatically reduce hospitalisation and Ivermectin is widely used and safe – so if COVID-19 really is on the rise, and we are concerned about not overwhelming health systems (not to mention reducing deaths) then authorities should be assessing Ivermectin with extreme urgency.
However I think probably the major factor here is the political angle. The New York Times article I mentioned earlier begins not with a discussion of Ivermectin, but with a political attack on the Senator who organised the hearing – “Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, spent much of this year promoting investigations into Hunter Biden, trying fruitlessly to show corruption on the part of Joseph R. Biden Jr.” . In my opinion it is quite appalling that a journalist in a position of influence would allow their personal political bias to overshadow important discussion about a virus which has done so much damage.
Also, you can almost guarantee that any article critical of Ivermectin will at some point mention Donald Trump and make claims that there is “a majority of evidence showing hydroxychloroquine is not an effective COVID-19 treatment”  – in spite of the fact that there is actually evidence to the contrary. In August, a team lead by Dr. Chadwick Prodromos did a review of the many hydroxychloroquine studies and they concluded that hydroxychloroquine was effective and safe once they eliminated studies which were either flawed or not relevant to the conditions under which the drug was claimed to be effective . Mainstream media “fact-checkers” also conveniently overlook the fact that one of the studies which was particularly influential in discrediting hydroxychloroquine was later withdrawn amid suspicion of data fabrication . There have also been accusations that some of trials of critical of hydroxychloroquine administered lethal doses of the drug and were intentionally designed to fail . I could say a lot more about hydroxychloroquine but this article is supposed to be about Ivermectin.
One final factor worth mentioning is that some of the mainstream media articles seem concerned about the potential bad consequences of allowing people to know about potentially successful treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin – for example the risk of self-medication or supplies of the drugs running out. These are certainly issues worthy of consideration, but they aren’t at all relevant to whether or not these treatments are safe and effective and they should not be used as excuses to suppress information. In fact suppressing information or putting out false or misleading information about these treatments – which is what these mainstream media sources are effectively doing – is likely to cause exactly those problems in addition to much worse ones.
I think there is a lot more analysis to be done here into the mind-set behind these mainstream media writers and “fact-checkers”. I think there is a political and ideological divide here and I think the mainstream media is largely on one side of that divide, which creates a “mainstream echo chamber”. It also calls into question what the media believe their primary role to be and what their role should be – especially when it comes to situations like this involving science and public policy. Whatever the reasons, the mainstream media seem to be acting as the gate-keepers for information about COVID-19 and view themselves as the sole arbiters of truth. Collectively they wield great power not just over what people find out about but over the attitudes and actions of people in charge of public policy and medical research and approval, and consequently their actions to ignore or discredit potential treatments may be causing thousands of avoidable deaths.
NOTE: While I have made every effort to reference credible sources, this is an opinion piece not medical advice. Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin treatments for COVID-19 include other drugs. Always seek advice from a medical professional.
 December 4th. FLCCC News Conference on Dec. 4 – Power Point Presentation (covid19criticalcare.com) and FLCCC Alliance – Call-for-Action News Release/Press Conference Follow-Up (covid19criticalcare.com)
 December 8th. Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center, delivers passionate testimony during the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” https://youtu.be/Tq8SXOBy-4w
 August 9th. Sky News Australia. Professor Thomas Borody on effectiveness of Ivermectin treatment – he says “curative within 6-8 days”, but met with “very negative reaction” from Australian federal government. https://youtu.be/93jI7Gl3yic
 August 15th. NewsGP – “Insufficient evidence to support ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment”
 December 8th, New York Times. A Senate hearing promoted unproven drugs and dubious claims about the coronavirus – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
 December 12th, NZ Herald. Fake news corrected: AP fact check looks at what didn’t happen this week – NZ Herald
 Prodromos et. al., “Hydroxychloroquine is Effective and Safe for the Treatment of COVID-19, and May be Universally Effective When Used Early Before Hospitalization” https://www.theforem.org/hydroxychloroquine-is-effective-safe-treatment.html
 Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis – The Lancet
 WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose-according to WHO consultant – The Palmer Foundation