As new Covid cases in the U.S. continue to fall, mirrored by a thirty percent drop in cases worldwide since late August, some experts say the pandemic is slowly receding.
Deaths from the virus, which in the early summer reached a shocking plateau of 2000 a day, have fallen 10 percent since Sept. 20, a New York Times article reported.
Yet others note the pandemic’s pattern of waxing and waning in mysterious two-months cycles, driven by variants, regardless of the season.
Despite the cautious hope that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, fierce debate over methods of prevention and early treatment for Covid continues to rage.
With the acknowledgment by the country’s top medical experts that vaccines alone will probably not end the pandemic, drug companies have been racing to produce expensive new anti-viral meds.
Advocates of early treatment with repurposed drugs that have been shown to wipe out Covid, and are cheap, safe and readily available, have been fighting to reach the public with this message. In the face of mounting government censorship supported by mainstream and social media, however, it’s a David-Goliath struggle.
A New Definition of ‘Effective’?
Eighteen months ago, experts thought they could contain all forms of the virus with lockdowns, masks and ultimately, vaccines. They assured the public that the vaccine, developed for the first wave, known as the Alpha strain, was also effective against Delta.
That turned out to be true only if one accepted the quietly revised definition of “effective.”
When the vaccines were put on the market, “effective” implied they would prevent almost all Covid infections as well as the spread of the disease. Now it turns out that was never the goal.
“Effective” now means the shot may not prevent infection or spread, but it does lower mortality; it gives an infected person a better chance of surviving or not having to be hospitalized.
Yet, as the CDC has admitted, vaccine efficacy is fading faster than expected, with “breakthrough infections” –including a full range of asymptomatic, mild and full-blown Covid cases of vaccinated people—clearly rising and causing deaths.
One of the emerging flashpoints of debate is whether partially effective (“leaky”) vaccines may not only fail to prevent infection but may create more vaccine-resistant Covid mutations, or even a “superbug.”
Just as inadequate doses, or overuse of antibiotics are known to create antibiotic- resistant bacteria, might it be the case that “leaky” vaccines (as well as over-vaccinating entire populations), could possibly generate vaccine-resistant strains?
Another question: The principal mutation in the Delta strain is a change in the corona “spike protein,” the virus feature that vaccines stimulate the immune system to target. Did the mutation of the spike protein in Delta make the immune system less able to identify and eliminate the “enemy”?
“The answer to these burning questions is we don’t know,” said Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, in a recent interview on American Thought.
Preventing Hospitalization and Death
Dr. Malone and many scientists and physicians, foreseeing a continuation of the pandemic-cycle on some level via emerging variants, have been pooling their knowledge and clinical experience in an effort to create updated early treatment protocols for Covid 19 that would prevent the two worst outcomes: hospitalization and death.
A widely supported treatment regimen includes 4-6 drugs taken in a specific time frame, starting with monoclonal antibodies, followed by anti-virals, then anti-inflammatories, and then anticoagulants.
The experts recommend that anyone over 50 with at least one comorbidity begin this course of treatment immediately. Reduction of viral replication at the forefront of infection is considered critical to recovery.
More than 18 months into the pandemic, there are zero trials of multidrug therapies to treat non-hospitalized Covid patients. There is no national or global panel of doctors in charge of early treatment protocol. What can explain this void? Is it because the early treatment approach conflicts with the advice of the FDA, CDC and NIH?
These government agencies still urge people to isolate at home with no treatment except Tylenol, until they either get better, or sharply deteriorate. Only when the person can’t breathe or “turns blue” will most hospitals, heeding these agencies’ bizarre guidelines, admit the patient and begin treatment.
[The CDC’s “Treatment Guidelines” lists the following criteria that would qualify a Covid patient to seek treatment: “Trouble breathing; Persistent pain or pressure in the chest; New confusion; Inability to wake or stay awake; Pale, gray, or blue-colored skin, lips, or nail beds, depending on skin tone.” Absent these medical crises, hospitals can send a Covid patient home.]
Delaying Treatment Can Be Lethal
Leading pulmonologists and critical care specialists note that delaying treatment until viral replication is allowed to take place, which can trigger life-threatening inflammation and complications, runs counter to the fundamentals of medicine practiced by every civilized society.
Prominent among a growing cohort of doctors advocating for early intervention, Drs. Robert Malone, Ryan Cole, Pierre Kory, Peter Mcculough and Jean-Jacques Ratjer have collaborated on early treatment protocols using repurposed drugs such as ivermectin, which they say have helped thousands of Covid patients overcome the disease.
Drs. Rajter, Kory and Mcculough testified in December 2020 before the United States Senate about the drug’s dramatic success in preventing viral replication in a person’s organs, shortening time to Covid recovery, and avoiding hospitalization and death.
Their testimony later influenced the NIH to change its recommendation against using ivermectin for Covid to a position of neutrality, similar to the NIH’s position on monoclonal antibodies, an effective front line treatment for early Covid.
The FDA and CDC remain opposed to the use of ivermectin for Covid; each has issued recent warnings about the drug’s risks and side effects, without offering a single alternative treatment for early Covid infection.
For a wealth of information about Covid-19, including videos, tutorials and updates about treatment protocols, and how to obtain ivermectin and other Covid-related drugs, the reader is encouraged to visit the following site: https://covid19criticalcare.com
Dr. Rajter Speaks to Yated
In a rare interview with the press, pulmonologist Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter of Broward County, Florida spoke with Yated about his experience with administering ivermectin to Covid patients, strong pushback from the medical establishment, and some of the vaccine’s benefits and drawbacks.
He and his wife, Dr. Juliana Cepelowicz Rajter, also a pulmonologist, are in private practice with a Broward County company, Pulmonary and Sleep Consultants.
In a phone conversation with Yated, Dr. Rajter described how his early success in treating severely ill patients with ivermectin led to the drug being widely used by several colleagues, and then to its being adopted last year by the medical departments of several Broward hospitals as a key element in Covid 19 treatment protocols.
In response to various political pressures, much of the treatment landscape in Broward hospitals has changed since then, he said, and the ivermectin-focused protocol is no longer deployed as the standard of care for Covid patients.
Dr. Rajter and other doctors, however, continue to use an updated version of the protocol in their medical practices.
The drug’s efficacy is “undeniable,” Dr. Rajter told Yated. “I’ve witnessed a 99 percent success rate in keeping patients alive, avoiding intubation and enabling recovery.”
He added that the success rate of today’s ivermectin-based protocol which is a sequenced, multi-pronged treatment, “is far superior than that used in the early days,” when doctors were caught blindsided by a disease that no one knew how to treat.
“Back in April 2020,” he reminisced, “we were faced with the rapidly deteriorating patient population with no effective treatment. …I saw more people die in six months than I had seen in my entire medical career. Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures…. My team was able to develop and implement a protocol that showed tremendous success in treating Covid 19.”
The protocol laid the foundation for the later peer-reviewed “ICON” study, which assessed the impact of ivermectin in the treatment of Covid.” These findings were published in a major medical journal “Chest,” in October 2020 under the title, Use of Ivermectin Associated with Lower Morality in Patients with Coronavirus Disease.
Pleading With The Senate For Drug-Trial Funding
A passionate advocate of early intervention, Dr. Rajter used his appearance before the Senate to plead for funding for drug trials for ivermectin and other therapeutics that, delivered early enough in the disease process, could stem the tide of hospitalization and death.
“As is the case with any infection, early intervention has been proven time and again to be of critical importance. The same is true of Covid,” he told the Senate committee, stressing that early intervention “increases survival, and decreases viral shedding and viral transmission into the home setting which is believed to be a major site of transmission.”
His presentation also noted, in a foreshadowing of today’s most recent discoveries, that vaccines are not 100 percent effective, nor has their long-term immunity been documented.
He added that many people may be unable to take the vaccines for health care reasons or because they opt not to do so. For these people, Dr. Rajter told Yated, ivermectin can act as an “emergency brake,” inasmuch as the first-line defense—the vaccine—is not available to them.
Whether vaccinated or not, once someone tests positive for the virus, he observed, “it’s imperative to provide aggressive early treatment,” to prevent viral replication and inflammatory disease.
Noting the drug’s “20 mechanisms of action against the virus,” including the Delta strain, he said ivermectin has been effective in all stages of Covid, especially in shielding people post-exposure from developing symptoms.
‘The Vaccines Are Not Geared For Mutations’
The Pfizer, Moderna, J&J vaccines and booster shots were designed to combat the original “Alpha” strain of Covid 19, Dr. Rajter pointed out. But in recent months, the Delta variant, not Alpha, has been causing the vast majority of Covid infections.
“The vaccines and boosters are not geared for these mutations” which may account for why there are so many “breakthrough” infections, he said. “Just as the flu vaccine has to be redesigned each year to target the new flu strain, the same is true of the Covid shot.”
Asked about the prevalence of Covid “re-infection,” the pulmonologist said he’s been seeing a fair amount of re-infection in people who have already had an earlier bout of Covid. Thanks to whatever antibody response or natural immunity they still have, or due to Delta’s lesser virulence, “people are fortunately not becoming deathly ill, but are often very symptomatic.”
Will media censorship or pressure from the medical establishment persuade him to drop his advocacy of ivermectin? “I follow the evidence,” Dr. Rajter said firmly. “My clinical experience and dozens of studies prove it works. Show me the evidence that it doesn’t. I’m open to looking at all sides.”
The writer would like to thank Rabbi Schneur and Devorah Kaplan of the Downtown Jewish Center Chabad in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for facilitating the interview with Dr. Rajter, a member of the shul.
Orchestrated Media Circus
The media in recent weeks has launched a bizarre assault against ivermectin, churning out exaggerated reports of calls to poison control centers; false reports of people overdosing on ivermectin meant for animals, and allegations that ivermectin causes serious adverse effects in men.
One story lamented that ER rooms are so jammed with cases of ivermectin overdosing, all others patients are being neglected.
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Stop it, y’all,” tweeted the FDA, leading the charge against people who are brainlessly overdosing on an “animal” medication for Covid.
This propaganda blitz was followed by the CDC issuing a bulletin emphasizing ivermectin is not approved for Covid; State Departments of Health issuing warnings to licensed doctors; and pharmacies refusing to fill valid early treatment prescriptions.
Some of these stories about the evils of taking ivermectin were so obviously distorted and fabricated, news outlets that carried them were forced to issue corrections and retractions, as in the examples below.
KTSM 9 News Ivermectin story correction
FOR THE RECORD: A national story regarding Ivermectin and a study regarding its effect on men’s reproductive health that KTSM published, has been removed from our website.
Concerns over the scientific research methods, the veracity of the original, peer-reviewed report and public statements by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saying that infertility is not a known side effect of Ivermectin, all led to our editorial decision to remove the story.
NY Times Admits Publishing Misinformation (By Mistake)
In late August, the New York Times reported the following alarming statistic:
“Calls to poison control centers about ivermectin have risen dramatically… Mississippi’s health department said earlier this month that 70 percent of recent calls to the state poison control center had come from people who ingested ivermectin from livestock supply stores.”
Seventy percent of all recent calls to Mississippi’s poison control center have been for ingestion of animal ivermectin? How shocking.
What’s more shocking, however, is that this news item was false.
When the story was “fact-checked,” the Mississippi State Department of Health, which is responsible for putting out the original “70 percent statistic,” clarified that ivermectin-related calls actually represented only two percent of the total calls to the state poison control center.
Put another way, only 1.4 percent of all calls were from people who ingested livestock ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.
In spite of this mathematical clarification, the New York Times article remained unchanged for weeks.
Journalist and author Mary Beth Pfeiffer claimed she contacted the paper to dispute its false reporting. The New York Times finally corrected its story. The story now carries an editor’s note which reads: “An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center related to ivermectin. It was 2 percent, not 70 percent.”
IVM Prescriptions Skyrocketing
Despite the concerted media and government campaign against the drug, prescriptions for ivermectin for Covid treatment in the United States continue to “skyrocket,” according to the FLCCC (Frontline Critical Covid Care).
The NY Times (take with a grain of salt?) reports that prescriptions have jumped to more than 88,000 per week. The article cited Dr. Gregory Yu, an emergency physician in San Antonio, who has received the same daily requests from his patients, some vaccinated for Covid-19 and others unvaccinated: “They all ask him for ivermectin,” the article said.
The fact is that ivermectin, a cheap, widely available drug, has been safely used for over forty years. Several researchers won a Nobel Prize in 2015 for establishing its efficacy in humans. It is most often used to treat head lice, onchocerciasis (river blindness) and other diseases in mostly tropical regions, where millions of doses are taken every day.
Aside from the formula manufactured for people, ivermectin is also formulated as a veterinary medication to kill worms and other parasites.
The drug became trashed by government, pharmaceutical and media organs only after its anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties were discovered and found to be dramatically effective in fighting Covid.
In an interview with American Thought, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, suggested that behind the “witch hunt” against ivermectin lies the government’s real fear that people will choose to take it for Covid in lieu of a vaccine.
Why Would A Normal Person Take Animal Medication?
What normal person would ingest animal drugs? What’s really going on, said Dr. Malone, is that “people are seeking out ivermectin to treat themselves early in the course of infection”—even resorting in some instances to the animal product—because they’re falling sick and want to avoid hospitalization, but there is no recourse.
“You have physicians not being allowed to prescribe ivermectin, pharmacies not filling doctors’ prescriptions…” he said. “Folks with respiratory distress being sent away from the ER because they’re not sick enough to be admitted, and no therapies are offered. And so they’re a little desperate!”
Malone cited the current meta-analysis of worldwide ivermectin data performed by Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, internationally respected leaders in the field of meta-analysis. “The data keeps getting stronger and stronger in favor of ivermectin as having protective activity within a safe dosing range,” the vaccinologist said.
“Emerging economies [i.e. poorer countries] such as India, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, Australia, Italy and Czechoslovakia that don’t have access to vaccines are using ivermectin, and it’s impacting the rate of severe COVID disease and death,” he said.
Pharmaceutical Giant Eliminates Competition
Dr. Malone called out the pharmaceutical giant, Merck, for hypocritically maligning ivermectin as “toxic,” when it was Merck that not only manufactured the drug and held the patent on it for decades, “but has been giving ivermectin free for river blindness to Africa for years and years and years.”
“Ivermectin is listed as a WHO-endorsed “essential medicine,” (as is hydroxychloroquine), has been widely used throughout the world for thirty plus years,” said Malone, “and is generally known as one of the safest drugs in the pharmacopeia! So what would motivate Merck to suddenly come out with a clear unambiguous statement that ivermectin is toxic? It doesn’t make sense.”
It actually makes a lot of sense if one looks at the issue from a purely mercenary angle.
Merck just this week announced final-stage testing for its new anti-viral Covid pill, claiming “it will cut hospitalization and death from Covid by fifty percent.”
Eyeing billion dollar profits, can Merck afford to have a cheap, safe, readily available rival drug like ivermectin on the market?
The same question can be posed to Pfizer, which has also announced its readiness to test a new anti-viral pill. The drug has been cynically dubbed “Pfizermectin” by critics who quip that is little more than ivermectin repackaged.
It will be several months before the drug trials for these new medications are concluded, and the public can benefit from them.
Meanwhile, the Covid death toll for Americans is said to have passed 700,000.
As Covid waxes and wanes, snatching victims even as it makes a dubious retreat, the assault on early treatment in this country –which is fundamentally an assault on the respect for human life—continues.
New Israeli Study Proves Miraculous Healing Power of the Human Body
A recent study out of Israel sheds new light on the debate over whether natural immunity acquired after Covid 19 infection is inferior or superior –or perhaps equal to—protection offered by Covid vaccination.
The public was first told that vaccine protection is far better, then that it was just as good as natural immunity. Now, thanks to a massive Israeli study, a new truth has emerged: natural immunity in people who have recovered from Covid is up to 27 times stronger than vaccine “immunity.”
The study by Maccabi Healthcare drew its findings from almost a hundred thousand medical records, said the Times of Israel. It compared 46,035 Maccabi members who caught Covid 19 at some point during the pandemic, and the same number of double-vaccinated people who had never been infected.
The study found unvaccinated people who had survived a Covid-19 infection were significantly less likely than vaccinated people to become severely ill from the virus, including the Delta variant.
These findings are consistent with the belief of many scientists that natural immunity provides broader and more lasting protection than vaccination (specifically the two-shot Pfizer vaccine administered in Israel.)
Nevertheless, many experts, though not all, continue to recommend vaccine (plus booster shots) as the best, safest path even in the Covid-recovered population.
Some scientists such as Dr. Robert Malone, have raised the concern that the two-dose vaccine in people who already have immunity can trigger a hyper immune reaction, and that a third shot might “quench” the vital antibodies already present.
Natural Immunity Holds Up Against Delta
The Israeli study covered a period from June into mid-August, showing “natural” immunity from prior infection held up against the newer and more contagious Delta variant that swept the world during the summer months.
Specifically, it found that people vaccinated in January and February were 6 to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who had a recent prior COVID-19 infection. The risk of hospitalization for vaccinated people was eight times higher, signaling that vaccine’s immunity had significantly waned in this group.
Put another way, people who recovered from Covid 19 were much less likely than vaccinated people to contract the Delta variant, develop serious symptoms and or become hospitalized.
In the two groups, there were 748 cases of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections, 640 of which were in the vaccinated group and 108 in the previously infected group, which was relying on natural immunity alone.
In addition, a sample of 16,215 who were infected during Israel’s third wave in January-February 2021 was compared to an equal number of people vaccinated during that period, reported the Washington Times.
The contrast for these two groups was even starker: It showed that Delta had a 27-fold higher chance of breaking through vaccine protection from January and February and causing symptoms than breaking through natural immunity acquired in the same period and causing symptoms.
The authors, led by Dr. Sivan Gazit, deputy head of Maccabi’s research arm, noted that their study is significant for taking a wide time-frame and using a large data sample.
In July, reporter Alex Berenson began noting emerging data from Israel suggesting a rise in cases and, potentially, even hospitalizations and deaths.
It made no sense. Israel was perhaps the earliest and most widely vaccinated nation in the world. Were these tragic statistics signaling the vaccine’s failure to block transmission and its lack of durability?
For asking this question on a social media platform, Twitter suspended Berenson for a week.
Yet Berenson had stumbled onto a painful truth. Over the next few months, Covid cases in Israeli continued to surge, and deaths rose as well.
Of the 607 Israelis who died of Covid-19 in the month of August, 375 (61.8%) had received either two or three doses of the Pfizer vaccine, while 232 (38.2%) had either zero or one dose.
The rationale for universal vaccination, for vaccine mandates and passports, and for the vaccination of young people had imploded. And there was no fall back plan.
If, in addition to the vaccines, the country’s leaders had focused more on early treatment with monoclonal antibodies and inexpensive and safe drugs such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and others known to Israeli doctors, who knows how many thousands of lives could have been saved?
Politics, and the suppression of information there, as here in the United States, has had catastrophic consequences.