Update: October 29
Vaccine opposition leadership is now touting another Bill Gates funded drug for the treatment of Covid-19 - Fluvoxamine. This drug is included in the funding program for Ivermectin research by the Gates foundation (see link below). This drug is listed among FDA drugs known to impair sperm production:
Fluvoxamine carries a black box warning (most serious FDA warning label) for increased suicidal thoughts in children and adolescents) as well as potential for other serious listed side effects such as abnormal bleeding and seizures. Independent media are again misrepresenting the actual research literature on a drug proposed for treatment of Covid-19 attributed infection. This is especially troubling as a very cursory review of existing data flags potential for serious side effects.
Note: Recommend companion blog on SEVERE contamination issues & recalls occurring with Covid-19 testing plus surge of Class 1 medical device and drug recalls by FDA: CLICK HERE
None of this is new.
Pesticide use as medicine in Africa began with DDT in the 1940s. Bill Gates announced funding of global ivermectin trial for Covid 19 in February 2021. (link includes Fluvoxamine funding by Gates per update above). The trial combines Ivermectin with Fluvoxamine, an agent implicated in impairing male fertility. The drug is toxic in pregnancy & for breast feeding mothers.
Recommended Companion Reading - Book:
Video:
Foundations of Western Medical System: A Tool for Social Control - Rockefeller Contrived System:
Recommended companion article:
Exposure of Covid-19 Medical Fraud Must Also Direct Vaccine Mandate & Passport Fight, Criminal Act (report on monoclonal antibodies included)
Update:
September 20, 2021
Additional research on Ivermectin revealed the following:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding studies for Ivermectin use to treat Covid-19
This was announced last February, before the mass alternative media push for the drug began in earnest.
Ivermectin is one of four drugs which have been employed to treat River Blindness in Africa over the past eighty years. The use of the drugs began shortly after mass spraying in Western Africa with DDT under the guise of treating Onchocerciasis
DDT was touted as a miracle cure from everything to polio to Onchocerciasis - in reality, it is a toxic poison which induces the symptoms of the diseases it is touted to cure. DDT induced polio-myelitis in the mass spraying programs of the 50s. The discontinued use of the chemical spraying coincided with disappearance of polio, not vaccines.
A 'scientist' sprays African tribe's porridge with DDT: YUM!
Despite the banning of DDT in 1972, Bill Gates continues to advocate for the spraying of the chemical in indoor settings under the guise of stopping malaria:
Although Onchocerciasis was discovered in the 1800s and labeled Craw Craw, a skin itching disorder, it was only AFTER mass spraying with DDT and administration of pharmaceuticals the parasites was linked to blindness in Africa in the mid 1940s.
Problem. Reaction. Solution:
"1921. Ouzilleau and colleagues made the first mention of African patients with onchocercal elephantiasis and eye disease, but did not draw any specific connection, and the role of onchocerciasis as a significant cause of blindness in Africa was not recognised until the mid-1940s"
This is a red flag because ALL of the pesticide drugs used in the River Blindness program induce side effects including loss of vision and skin rashes associated with the disease (including DDT). It is likely the pesticides and pharmaceutical treatments were the actual cause of the physical injuries, not a pre-existing disease which never was correlated to blindness until introduction of these chemicals. ALL of these drugs have side effects mirroring the symptoms implemented to treat with research implicating the drugs as causal agents of infertility.
1952: Term, River Blindness was created as a propaganda term to sell need for policy interventions by World Bank in Africa:
"Lady Wilson coined the term ‘river blindness’ to help raise awareness about the disease and how it spreads among vulnerable people. The new name was a step forward for both the advocacy and the painstaking coordination that would be needed to check its transmission in Africa".
It was Western interests and entities who correlated a disease formerly unrelated to loss of vision to blindness.
This all happened in a period when Ghana was targeted by billionaire wealth interests for exploitation for its extensive natural resources including diamonds, gold, minerals, and aluminum, and control of agriculture and central water resources. Over the next decades wealth interests will seize Ghana agriculture and enact policies of starvation as lands are seized for mass agriculture & mining:
History here:
The sponsors of the pesticide as medicine program:
40-year partnership between the WHO, the World Bank, African governments, pharmaceutical firms and over 30 development partners protects 100 million people a year from river blindness in 31 African countries.
Full history HERE:
The drugs employed under the guise of treating River Blindness include:
1947: Suramin: Drug induces blindness & skin rash, and in 1996 the chemical was researched as a lead ingredient for anti-fertility drug:
DIethylcarbamazine is also introduced this year with toxic side effects. The drug may induce blindness, skin rash, and other severe effects. Effects are not lasting and require repeated administration. This drug is still employed currently as second tier choice to Ivermectin. Research studies correlate use of the drug with 50% decrease in fertility in male mice.
Enter Ivermectin: 1975, Mass Implemented as a treatment for attributed in River Blindness in 1986. The drug treatment does not kill adult worms which remarkably are attributed to live 15 years (usual life cycle is only year to year and a half), only attributed to kill the larvae.
This life cycle is extremely unusual (and suspect):
Repeated doses are required over a decade and a half period. Ivermectin has ocular and skin rash side effects and the drug has been documented to have severe neurotoxicity properties in mass administration programs in Africa:
The treatments do not actually WORK against the worm with the long life cycle providing the rationale for REPEATED treatments:
CDC Treatment for River Blindness per CDC:
"People who are found to be infected with O. volvulus should be treated in order to prevent long-term skin damage and blindness. The recommended treatment is ivermectin, which will need to be given every 6 months for the life span of the adult worms (i.e., 10–15 years) or for as long as the infected person has evidence of skin or eye infection. Ivermectin kills the larvae and prevents them from causing damage but it does not kill the adults".
Ivermectin is classified in the avermectin family, a documented repressor of SIN3, shown as essential for normal sperm development in animal research studies.
Studies in perinatal male mice showed repression of SIN3 resulted in sterility in post natal mice with avermectin administration, and studies in male bulls.
Additionally, Ivermectin is being studied with administration of other drugs which ENHANCE infertility effects of the drug:
Meanwhile, the combined treatment of ivermectin and verapamil induced stronger effects on germ cells, increased frequency of meiotic structural chromosomal aberrations and increased X–Y chromosomal dissociation, raising the attention to the genetic quality of mature sperm. We concluded that ivermectin has slighter effects on male fertility, but when taken with verapamil induced adverse effects on meiosis and fertility.
Veramapamil studied as a drug POTENTIATOR (increase the effects) in conjunction with Ivermectin. (in this case, it also potentiates male infertility, as noted in study above).
Verapamil is also being studied separately for treatment of Covid-19 attributed infection, in this study with amiodorone:
Amiodorone is a established drug with VERY serious known listed side effects INCLUDING inducing male and female infertility:
Infertility
Based on animal fertility studies, Amiodarone hydrochloride may reduce female and male fertility. It is not known if this effect is reversible. [see Nonclinical Toxicology (13.1)].
To summarize:
River Blindness was not attributed to cause blindness in Africa until AFTER the introduction of the pesticides and pharmaceuticals into the African population. The pesticide and spray treatments utilized under the rationale of treating 'River Blindness' induce the very symptoms the chemicals are purported to treat, not actually effective at destroying attributed parasitic infections, and present with severe neurotoxic consequences. The drugs are associated with inducing infertility in research studies in animals. The coordinated funding of these drug programs by agencies with long established histories of exploiting poorer countries to extract wealth and control of natural resource must be considered.
Note: *This article will not delve deeply into the subject, but for those interested, trace the history of malaria with discovery by French military doctors and quinine treatment. The drug mimics the symptoms of attributed malaria which as was given in mass quantities to treat civil war soldiers. The strategy to attribute disease induced by the pharmaceutical treatments appears to be a very old tactic which goes back centuries. It is interesting to note the medications implemented in these early parasitic attributed drug programs are now being studied for use in treatment of attributed Covid-19 infection including quinine and hydroxychloroquine. Logically, the use of anti-parasitic attributed medications (which actually do not work as advertised for stated use) are all being recycled for Covid-19 attributed infections, with some experts pushing for PROPHYLACTIC use of these drugs despite attributed Covid infections presenting overwhelmingly as asymptomatic or mild (for those who ascribe to the official narrative). The serious side effects of the drugs are also being downplayed by their champions.
Original Article Begins:
Huge Red Flag with Ivermectin studies which utilize nanoparticle mechanisms to cross blood brain barrier - contraindication for use of drug due to neurotoxicity risks:
Summary:
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.
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. Company has significant history of criminal charges and felonies.
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:
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:
"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:
"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.
