The Ivermectin Train Cannot Stop

"Ivermectin may offer a slight benefit or a slight harm to people with COVID-19, we still do not know for sure, but it is clearly not the saviour the FLCCC and other proponents of the drug want us to believe. Their obsession with ivermectin is not data-driven.

So the train keeps on moving. At the front are the people like Dr. Pierre Kory and the FLCCC, and their message trickles down to influencers, whose message makes its way to the back of the train, leading people to feel a false sense of protection against the disease, with some experiencing toxic effects from livestock-grade dewormer.

The people conducting the ivermectin train have sabotaged the brakes. The train will keep on chugging along, even as it falls apart."

1 Like

What is the issue with letting doctors prescribe one of the safest and least toxic drugs to people? Dr Joseph Varon, the “Covid Hunter” is one of the leading covid experts. He’s traveled the world and done hundreds of interviews for various media outlets about covid and he says every single one has edited out the part where he uses Ivermectin. They seek his advice, then they edit parts out before they air it. Why?

I submit that it is because virtually all mainstream media outlets are funded by big Pharma (this is hardly a secret at this point), and Ivermectin stands in their way of milking even more money out of everyone, so Pfizer et al use their media stooges to demonize the drug, and to silence doctors who do speak about it.

Whether the drug is effective, it is proven to be safe. And plenty of doctors do think it’s effective. So why are doctors pressured not to prescribe or even mention it at all? Why has it become this big issue? It couldn’t be more top-down contrived.

The only way it could be unsafe if is people are so certain it’s a wonder drug (in part thanks to the mad scramble in effect to demonize and censor all discussion of it) that they resort to using the horse medicine because the human pills have been essentially banned. They ban the safe stuff for humans, then endanger and ridicule people by forcing their hand and making them use the potentially dangerous stuff as a last resort. It’s quite evil.

“Even as it falls apart.” They seem determined not to ever let it just fall apart of its own accord. They want to stop it on its tracks before it falls apart. Why? Are they afraid it won’t actually fall apart?

Should the CDC or some other government agency not conduct its own clinical trials given that countries like Bolivia are including it in home kits? If other countries are saying it works, shouldn’t some medical organization do the clinical trials to see? Isn’t this the CDC’s job to investigate stuff like this?

But no, when the train first started chugging, YouTube was removing videos that talked about Ivermectin as a treatment. They don’t anymore, as the train is in full motion and they simply can’t keep a lid on it. But their reason then was that the CDC has said there is no evidence that it’s effective. …not that they actually did trials and determined its no good. They just never did the trials. The Center for Disease Control just didn’t care enough to check out this drug that countries are saying they use.

@S.Cheung says it is the proponents of Ivermectin who should conduct clinical trials. But in the US and other places how is some doctor or another here or there supposed to organize that while being demonized at every turn? I imagine it’s medical organizations who generally do this kind of thing. And if they want their funding from the Gates Foundation which they rely on to exist then there’s no way they’ll be able to do these trials without sinking themselves. Their funders simply won’t allow it.

I read about one study that concluded the drug was failure because it didn’t help people who were already intubated, suffering from lingering effects of the disease after the virus had already left their system. Big surprise that didn’t help when other countries preemptively issue it in home kits for early administration. It needs to be taken early on to inhibit the viral replication.


Whatever the benefits or concerns related to prescribing ivermectin for COVID, impugning the drug itself as merely horse dewormer is deeply dishonest:

Ivermectin was discovered in 1975 and came into medical use in 1981;[12][13] William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.[14] The medication is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines,[15] and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an antiparasitic agent.[16] In 2018, ivermectin was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one hundred thousand prescriptions.[17] It is available as a generic medicine.[18][19]


But it is done so often.

Quasi-Religious? I mean honestly what is more cultish behavior, talking about a drug that other countries include in distributed home covid kits and why it is so heavily suppressed over here, or continually misaligning the other through such absurd characterizations.

It may be a political marker but the Quasi-Religious bit coming from anyone who calls it a horse dewormer is pure projection. Where the politics and religion overlap, it’s the Covidians who are in more need of a quasi religion than skeptics of the COVID-19 official narrative, who seem to be generally more comfortable and aquainted with God than their hyper-conformist detractors.


Seriously LOL. You would use something that is safe and useless, simply cuz it’s safe? My oh my, you are quite the discerning consumer of medical technology.

Luckily, most people in the real world are a bit more finicky about using stuff that actually works. Hence the long wait for the ivermectin fandom to actually produce causal proof of its effectiveness. And mechanistically, it’s a “wonder drug”…you would think it would be able to show a large treatment effect, meaning that a trial would not need very many subjects, and would not need very long follow-up, to still be adequately powered to show a statistically significant benefit. And yet here we are, months into it, and the ivermectin folks are still busying themselves in circular fandomhood rather than doing the science necessary to prove what they “know” in their heart of hearts with such religious fervor.

Gosh, based on the fandom on this board alone, a trialist could show up with a link and get a bunch of readers to volunteer right from this site, I would imagine. Note also that the Together Trial already DID a study involving ivermectin (in part)…these are the folks who showed benefit with fluvoxamine. So to suggest “we can’t do a trial because it simply can’t be done” is pretty circular, and pretty sad. (just so you don’t get your knickers in a twist…I am not quoting you, but merely using air-quotes in a mocking fashion).


Indeed. There will be kooks, and a bunch of kooks who will buy the snake-oil that the more learned kooks are selling. It’s why nutraceuticals is an industry that grows money on trees. And even some actual physicians and clinicians will fall into this category.

But unless and until proper causal evidence of clinical benefit is demonstrated, it will remain a fascination only among the kook-dom.

So it may be true that the ivermectin train cannot stop, among its devotees. But for most of the rest of society, the train is also not going anywhere fast.

1 Like

As this thread so amply demonstrates, even words about ivermectin are considered laughable and verboten. Doctors who do prescribe it are ridiculed at best. How would you propose conducting trials under these circumstances?

The fact is that it suits the COVID narrative to simultaneously malign it while preventing any legitimate research into efficacy.


THe doctors who are prescribing it currently, shouldn’t be. Because there is no causal proof of benefit. The way for doctors who prescribe it to NOT BE RIDICULED is to do so when, and only after, there is proof of clinical efficacy. The whole point of doing a trial is to answer an unknown, and the clinical utility of ivermectin is very much still an unknown after all this time (and that fact itself is mind-boggling).

BTW, just so it’s clear, I am NOT in any way ASSERTING that ivermectin does NOT work.

Scientific method in a nutshell:
Hypothesis - ivermectin works.
Null - ivermectin does not work.
One accepts the null, unless and until there is evidence upon which to reject the null.
So right now, I accept that ivermectin does not work. But show me some evidence, and I would be happy to reject the null.


It’s easy. People from this board could do it overnight if we wanted. Anyone can just conduct clinical trials with patients. Its easy. If Cheung was so inclined he could do it with his eyes closed I two seconds. That it hasn’t been done by my dog already proves the drug is a failure.

Not if I knew it was useless, no. But we both know that’s what’s in question here isn’t it. If it’s safe and cheap and possibly has a chance of helping, seems it would be worth it to at least try if there’s nothing to lose. There would be no reason not to try. Unless of course it being cheap IS the reason people are not permitted to try. Esp if it happens to be effective.

They don’t know. Joe Rogan didn’t know, he just “threw everything at it.” People are willing to use themselves as test subjects and are being denied one of the safest drugs ever brought to market, all while you snarkily wonder aloud why they haven’t done it yet.

Why hasn’t the CDC or some govt health agency done a proper trial on it if all these other trials are flawed and corrupt? There’s enough evidence out of India and Mexico and Bolivia and elsewhere to test it to see if these great mechanisms actually work. I mean it seems to me this should be the CDC’s job to test these things. You already know my reasons for believing why they haven’t. What are yours? If it looks so good on paper and if other countries attest to it (mostly poorer countries that big Pharma can’t milk for very much) then why haven’t they done these clinical trials?


LOL. Dude, absence of evidence of benefit is not evidence of absence of benefit. Do you have any capacity for logic whatsoever? Oh yeah, Together Trial. Read about it and learn something.

LOL. Thankfully, YOU will NEVER be in a position to make therapeutic decisions. The public thanks you. From a scientific standpoint, it’s useless until proven otherwise. I see that you don’t like and can’t grasp science. But it is what it is. Sorry.

I’m not sure if it is the CDC’s mandate to conduct RCT of therapeutic agents. It might be. I don’t know.

Yup. Rampant and massive conspiracies.

This isn’t actually true. The moment something is proven to be X is not the moment it actually becomes X.

Indeed. At this point you’d have to be willfully blind not to see the regulatory capture and conflicts of interest going on in the pharmaceutical sector. It’s a revolving door between the makers and the approvers of these drugs.

You don’t speak for the public. Didn’t you hear? The train’s not stopping.


You are welcome to believe ivermectin to be useful, absent proof. I will accept that ivermectin is useless, pending proof otherwise. Only one of those two positions is scientifically valid. I’ll give you 2 guesses. 3, if you need it.

Indeed. Just busy going nowhere fast. LOL.

1 Like

The risk vs reward of Ivermectin is nothing you will ever hear these pharma shills talk about. They’ll call it a horse drug. They’ll say that it’s dangerous in too-high quantities (like any substance–I understand Tylenol has 10,000 times the annual OD cases as Ivermectin), but you’ll never hear them talk about risk vs reward.

The vaccines are of course totally safe for children, even as they admit they have to inject the children to find out how safe they are. But one of the proven safest nobel prize winning drugs ever made with one of the lowest adverse reaction rates? They don’t want you weighing that risk/reward. It’s for horses don’t you know.


It is very much a risk/reward prism…but on a societal rather than fanboy level.

To allow fanboys and their docs to use it willy nilly now means that society will ever know whether it is actually of any use or not. But if it is properly tested, and actually works, then it would actually be of benefit to many. The reward for doing it right is huge, if the drug actually works.

1 Like

The results of any trials would not retroactively change one way or another any effect the drug may or may not have had in those patients who were prescribed it by their doctors before such trials.

Why do you think ABC News had a guy reporting on TV that 146,000 kids have died from covid in America without providing his sources for that claim when according to the CDC the number is actually under 700? Do you believe it has nothing to do with their sponsor (take a guess who that is)? Why do all these errors always go in one direction?

Do you think that until it can be conclusively proven 100% that the sponsor influenced him to say that ridicously inflated number on television, then it is foolish to think it even possible, and that it only becomes true at the point it is revealed like Schroedinger’s statistic?

Start from around the 00:40 mark. He says 146,000


I assume you’re referring to COVID vaccines.

In case you’re curious, this is what I mean by conspiratorial thinking.

1 Like

No, these are actually the least safe vaccines of all time. Prove me wrong. Show me a more unsafe vaccine in the history of vaccination.

In any case I think people should be able to get the vaccines if they want them. I just think the people should be given informed consent. And if they aren’t told that these vaccines in the US are still under an extended Emergency Use authorization, then they aren’t being given the info to give that consent.

Do you dispute that the news media is sponsored by the drug companies, or do you dispute that this relationship sways the news media to paint a favorable picture of new and profitable drugs and/or suppress or smear any cheap competitors?

1 Like

Since you’re the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

In the meantime, this counts as evidence that you’re spreading misinformation about the vaccine.

You can run the data yourself. Here’s what I got when I tried:

I was trying to corroborate this graph I found:

The data is – inscrutably reported. Like, there are three files, one containing patient IDs and which vaccine they took, another containing the same IDs and the side-effects reported, and a third file with the IDs and the demographic info for the patients. You could link all of it together with some code, but even then my guess is that it will be a big hairball that will require manual curation and will defy any quick attempt by a casual observer to discern anything useful from it. I confirmed that red graph is correct, but I wanted to sort the deaths by vaccine. Maybe you can figure out how. I was able to sort by age.

But either some new vaccine caused vaccine deaths to spike like that from 200 the previous year up to 6000, or some existing vaccine suddenly got more dangerous. Which would you put money on?

This is a falsifiable type of statement I’m making here. Find a less safe vaccine and my claim is toast. I suspect you’ll continue to throw mud rather than attempt to dethrone.


Ray’s law of the conservation of irrationality. Folks don’t trust the government with good reason. Folks don’t trust Big Pharma, with better reason. Everyone is under strain, BS deluges us from all sides. A clearly seen enemy is looked for. A Savior is wanted. His main qualification will be that he Knows who the Enemy is and he promises swift deliverance. So, the mind takes all these toxins and parks them in/on some nutty golden calf and looks to that calf for salvation. Nothing new there. Speaking of the Bible, some folks have been sane enough to lampoon this kind of thing since forever:

All makers of idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Their witnesses fail to see or comprehend,
so they are put to shame.
Who fashions a god or casts an idol
which profits him nothing?
Behold, all his companions will be put to shame,
for the craftsmen themselves are only human.
Let them all assemble and take their stand;
they will all be brought to terror and shame.
The blacksmith takes a tool
and labors over the coals;
he fashions an idol with hammers
and forges it with his strong arms.
Yet he grows hungry and loses his strength;
he fails to drink water and grows faint.
The woodworker extends a measuring line;
he marks it out with a stylus;
he shapes it with chisels
and outlines it with a compass.
He fashions it in the likeness of man,
like man in all his glory,
that it may dwell in a shrine.
He cuts down cedars
or retrieves a cypressc or oak.
He lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest.
He plants a laurel, and the rain makes it grow.
It serves as fuel for man.
He takes some of it to warm himself,
and he kindles a fire
and bakes his bread;
he even fashions it into a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.
He burns half of it in the fire,
and he roasts meat on that half.
He eats the roast and is satisfied.
Indeed, he warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.”
From the rest he makes a god, his graven image.
He bows down to it and worships;
he prays to it and says,
“Save me, for you are my god.”
They do not comprehend or discern,
for He has shut their eyes so they cannot see
and closed their minds so they cannot understand.
And no one considers in his heart,
no one has the knowledge or insight to say,
“I burned half of it in the fire,
and I baked bread on its coals;
I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make something detestable with the rest of it?
Shall I bow down to a block of wood?”
He feeds on ashes.
His deluded heart has led him astray,
and he cannot deliver himself or say,
“Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?”

Isaiah 44

… so, in a time of stress, folks bow down to invermectin and say: “deliver me, for you are my medicine”.

1 Like