Red Flag Ivermectin Nanoparticle Study: Safe Alternatives for Seasonal Colds Better Than Insecticide

Updated: Aug 30

Recommended companion article:


1.6 million Moderna Vaccine Contaminated by Metallic Substance, Another Scientist Finds Contaminants


On Virus Isolation Logical Questions, Credible Evidence:


Huge Red Flag with Ivermectin studies which utilize nanoparticle mechanisms to cross blood brain barrier - contraindication for use of this drug due to neurotoxicity risks:


Covid-19 has been established as a disease of attribution to other causes.

The testing is non-specific, set at cycle amplification rates which produce false positive by default, and expert panel peer review has deemed 'useless' for detection of Sars Cov2, the virus attributed to cause symptoms of Covid-19 infections. Attribution of Covid-19 infection are based on testing and symptom presentation which are NON specific to the the attributed virus. There is NO viable diagnostic method for Covid-19 infections as extensively documented through public health organization testing statements and peer review panel research of science on which the testing protocols and methods are based.


Full documentation of faulty testing and attribution standards may be viewed HERE and HERE:


In establishing effective treatment for disease, it is necessary to be able to accurately and reliably diagnosis illness. Research must have viable measures to diagnosis and assess end point outcomes.


This is NOT the case for Sars CoV-2, and all research and vaccine trials have been fatally compromised and invalidated through testing methods unsuitable for detection of the virus.


The push for alternative therapies to treat Covid-19, therefore, beg the question, what is being treated?


46% of Covid-19 attributed infections had co-existing flu or pneumonia presentation. The flu did not go away. It was reassigned to Covid-19 through faulty testing methods.


Sepsis (serious blood infection) was present in nearly 10% of Covid-19 attributed cases.


Diabetes in nearly 16% of cases.


Treatment must treat & address originating cause.


Enter Ivermectin:


There has been a consistent push for use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19. Indeed, some sources advocate prophylactic treatment with this drug which makes zero logical sense because Covid-19 attributed illness has an incredibly low symptom presentation and morbidity rate. There are far safer and healthier methods to boost immune function which do not involve preventatives with insecticides.


Ivermectin is manufactured by Merck. It is an anti-parasitic insecticide medication with neurotoxicity properties.


In researching for this article, there was a red flag study for ivermectin delivery for treatment of Covid-19 with nanoparticles designed to cross the blood brain barrier:


This would SPECIFICALLY allow neurotoxicity properties of Ivemectin to enter the brain and bypass protection of molecular reaction which provides (partial) protection against neurotoxicity with this drug. To be clear, it is completely UNDESIRABLE for this drug to bypass blood brain barrier protections:


A paper reviewing the potential benefits of Ivermectin red flagged remyelination studies with potential to cross the blood brain barrier:


REMYELINATION. IS IVERMECTIN THE NEXT GREAT THING OR SOMETHING DANGEROUS?


In review of the study the authors wrote:

"

"This study does not mention much about ivermectin except to say it is “already used as an anti‐parasitic agent in humans will facilitate challenging this drug in clinical trials in that demyelinating disease”.


However, I am not sure you want to do a trial in MS. This is because ivermectin is neurotoxic and kills nerves if it gets in the brain.

However, this effect is not a problem in most humans and animals because it is pumped out of the brain by a molecule called P-glycoprotein. So if it is actively pumped out of the brain, how is it going to target microglia in the brain? However saying that we showed that p-glycoprotein is lost in MS lesions so you will get a neurotoxic molecule into areas that you don’t want it to go"


Ivermectin use is contraindicated for use in meningitis precisely due to potential for crossing blood brain barrier theshold:


" Ivermectin is widely used in veterinary and human medicine for the treatment of parasitic infections. Although clinical safety has been proven, there are some contra-indications of the drug, e.g. meningitis, which may be associated with an impaired function of the blood – brain barrier. Earlier observations of side effects, such as central nervous system dysfunction (Vaughn et al., 1989; Paul et al., 1987) are now assumed to be related to an interaction of Ivermectin with p-glycoprotein (Lankas et al., 1997; Pouliot et al., 1997; Schinkel et al., 1994; Brown, 1998).


This is what makes the following study to deliver Ivermectin through use of nanoparticles for treatment of Covid-19 attributed infection so troubling:


Clinically Approved Antiviral Drug in an Orally Administrable Nanoparticle for COVID-19


"Ability of Ivermectin Nanoformulation to Reduce ACE2 and Spike Protein Expression


PLGA Nanoparticle-Based Formulations to Cross the Blood–Brain Barrier for Drug Delivery: From R&D to cGMP


VM-loaded PLGA-b-PEG-MAL nanoparticles (IVM-NPs) were synthesized by following a nanoprecipitation method".


What do VM-loaded PLGA nanoparticles do? They are DESIGNED to cross the blood brain barrier something SPECIFICALLY contraindicated for Ivemectin use:


VM-loaded PLGA-b-PEG-MAL nanoparticles CROSS the blood brain barrier and would deliver the neurotoxic properties DIRECTLY into brain:


"(PLGA) is a biocompatible polymer that is used in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmaceutical products and medical devices. PLGA nanoparticles (NPs) have been reported to improve drug penetration across the BBB both in vitro and in vivo. Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), and poloxamer (Pluronic) are widely used as excipients to further improve the stability and effectiveness of PLGA formulations".


Ivermectin is red flagged for inducing neurotoxic complications, even without facilitating delivery of the drug with nanoparticle technology that crosses the blood brain barrier:


Serious Neurological Adverse Events after Ivermectin-Do They Occur beyond the Indication of Onchocerciasis?


"The product label for ivermectin notes that the neurological events of dizziness (2.8%), somnolence (0.9%), vertigo (0.9%), and tremor (0.9%) were observed in human clinical trials for the treatment of strongyloidiasis and assessed as at least possibly related to ivermectin, whereas drug-related headache (0.2%) was observed in trials for onchocerciasis. The label further includes warnings for the occurrence of serious neurological adverse events in the contexts of concomitant infection of onchocerciasis and loiasis and accidental intoxication with veterinary formulations of ivermectin.1 Although some of the adverse events experienced by subjects in this case series were observed in clinical trials (dizziness, headache), there were other events of a more serious nature which are suggestive of ivermectin penetration into the brain: loss of consciousness/depressed level of consciousness, abasia, tremor, vomiting, and coma.


It is deeply concerning that medical research for Covid-19 treatment with Ivermectin is utilizing delivery mechanisms which will facilitate direct delivery of neurotoxic properties of the drug directly to the brain. This, despite, conditions resulting in compromised blood brain barrier defense as active contraindication for administration of Ivermectin.


Why are researchers attempting to develop delivery methods which will allow access to facilitate neurotoxic complications?


There are FAR better alternatives for immune system protection and facilitation of healing illness such as anti-oxidant supplements, zinc, Vitamin D, and maintaining healthy diet and exercise.


There has been a near uniform campaign across, both alternative and some MSM media outlets, to present Ivermectin as the treatment of choice for Covid-19 infections with no viable research studies (all studies invalidated through severely flawed, unsuitable testing methods). Wholesale recommendation of Covid-19 treatments need to consider true source illness before proceeding with ANY recommended therapy.


By all means, treat foundational cause with proper methods and facilitate strong immune function through healthy diet, supplementation, and exercise. But, there is NO documented benefit to use of drugs which do not target originating cause, with severe potential for neurotoxic and ocular side effect.


Full side effect warning as follows from package insert: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm


ADVERSE REACTIONS Strongyloidiasis

In four clinical studies involving a total of 109 patients given either one or two doses of 170 to 200 mcg/kg of STROMECTOL, the following adverse reactions were reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to STROMECTOL: Body as a Whole: asthenia/fatigue (0.9%), abdominal pain (0.9%) Gastrointestinal: anorexia (0.9%), constipation (0.9%), diarrhea (1.8%), nausea (1.8%), vomiting (0.9%) Nervous System/Psychiatric: dizziness (2.8%), somnolence (0.9%), vertigo (0.9%), tremor (0.9%) Skin: pruritus (2.8%), rash (0.9%), and urticaria (0.9%). In comparative trials, patients treated with STROMECTOL experienced more abdominal distention and chest discomfort than patients treated with albendazole. However, STROMECTOL was better tolerated than thiabendazole in comparative studies involving 37 patients treated with thiabendazole. The Mazzotti-type and ophthalmologic reactions associated with the treatment of onchocerciasis or the disease itself would not be expected to occur in strongyloidiasis patients treated with STROMECTOL. (See ADVERSE REACTIONS, Onchocerciasis.) Laboratory Test Findings In clinical trials involving 109 patients given either one or two doses of 170 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL, the following laboratory abnormalities were seen regardless of drug relationship: elevation in ALT and/or AST (2%), decrease in leukocyte count (3%). Leukopenia and anemia were seen in one patient. Onchocerciasis In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients treated with 100 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL, worsening of the following Mazzotti reactions during the first 4 days post-treatment were reported: arthralgia/synovitis (9.3%), axillary lymph node enlargement and tenderness (11.0% and 4.4%, respectively), cervical lymph node enlargement and tenderness (5.3% and 1.2%, respectively), inguinal lymph node enlargement and tenderness (12.6% and 13.9%, respectively), other lymph node enlargement and tenderness (3.0% and 1.9%, respectively), pruritus (27.5%), skin involvement including edema, papular and pustular or frank urticarial rash (22.7%), and fever (22.6%). (See WARNINGS.) In clinical trials, ophthalmological conditions were examined in 963 adult patients before treatment, at day 3, and months 3 and 6 after treatment with 100 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL. Changes observed were primarily deterioration from baseline 3 days post-treatment. Most changes either returned to baseline condition or improved over baseline severity at the month 3 and 6 visits. The percentages of patients with worsening of the following conditions at day 3, month 3 and 6, respectively, were: limbitis: 5.5%, 4.8%, and 3.5% and punctate opacity: 1.8%, 1.8%, and 1.4%. The corresponding percentages for patients treated with placebo were: limbitis: 6.2%, 9.9%, and 9.4% and punctate opacity: 2.0%, 6.4%, and 7.2%. (See WARNINGS.) In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients who received 100 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL, the following clinical adverse reactions were reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to the drug in ≥1% of the patients: facial edema (1.2%), peripheral edema (3.2%), orthostatic hypotension (1.1%), and tachycardia (3.5%). Drug-related headache and myalgia occurred in <1% of patients (0.2% and 0.4%, respectively). However, these were the most common adverse experiences reported overall during these trials regardless of causality (22.3% and 19.7%, respectively). A similar safety profile was observed in an open study in pediatric patients ages 6 to 13. The following ophthalmological side effects do occur due to the disease itself but have also been reported after treatment with STROMECTOL: abnormal sensation in the eyes, eyelid edema, anterior uveitis, conjunctivitis, limbitis, keratitis, and chorioretinitis or choroiditis. These have rarely been severe or associated with loss of vision and have generally resolved without corticosteroid treatment. Laboratory Test Findings In controlled clinical trials, the following laboratory adverse experiences were reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to the drug in ≥1% of the patients: eosinophilia (3%) and hemoglobin increase (1%). Post-Marketing Experience The following adverse reactions have been reported since the drug was registered overseas: Onchocerciasis Conjunctival hemorrhage All Indications Hypotension (mainly orthostatic hypotension), worsening of bronchial asthma, toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, seizures, hepatitis, elevation of liver enzymes, and elevation of bilirubin.



2,326 views13 comments