IVERMECTIN

The Cover-up Continues And So Does The Potential Harm

Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (1493 - 1541) aka Paracelsus

A friend recently posted this article on her Facebook page. It is an article published in the journal, EMBO Molecular Medicine titled: P2X4 receptor controls microglia activation and favors remyelination in autoimmune encephalitis. According to the Encyclopedia of the Human Brain, “Microglia are small cells found in gray and white matter that serve as the phagocytes of the brain, migrating as necessary to damaged areas where they consume pathogens and neuronal debris.”

In Multiple Sclerosis (MS), the P2X4 receptor is blocked, preventing the activation of microglia and subsequent repair of damaged areas of the brain. In MS that damage is known as “demyelination”. Myelin is the sheathing around every nerve cell it is the biological equivalent to the insulation around electrical wires and it serves the same purpose — it prevents your nervous system from “short circuiting”. MS is typically found in the brain and brain stem. Short circuits are debilitating but to various degrees none of which are good.

As in all cases with diseases such as MS the government and, therefore, pharmaceutical dollars are directed primarily toward finding treatments for the symptoms of MS. Occasionally, a study will explore things that can effect re-myelination; the restoration of the damaged myelin sheath that surrounds nerves in the brain and spinal column.

The paper about P2X4 receptors explains how the investigators from Spain funded by Merck explored Ivermectin as an activator of the P2X4 receptor. Once that receptor was unblocked and reactivated in mice with MS they observed re-myelination, the repair of the damaged Central Nervous System. Why they chose Ivermectin is a mystery but they did and it appears to work.

In a perfect world or just a rational world, clinical trials of Ivermectin would be immediately established with just one group —- MS patients.

MS like cancer is binary, you either have it or you don’t. It is a 1 or a 0. And, therefore, the results of potential treatments are also binary; they either work or they don’t. Either patients improve or they don’t. All of which means that the much touted Randomized Double Blind Control study is a waste of time and money — and lives.

‘But Larry what about adverse effects? what if the cure is worse than the treatment.’

Apart from the caution of Paracelsus that the poison is in the dose, the needed study is simple: Find the minimum dose in humans that results in re-myelination without causing any adverse effects.

As many of you know, Ivermectin has been used to treat humans for decades with no known serious adverse effects. Except of course for these, noted by the World Health Organization (WHO):

The uncertainty in some of the ivermectin trials for COVID-19 is due to

• serious risk of bias

• serious risk of imprecision.

And these noted by the National Institute of Health (parent of the Fauci led, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases):

“The NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines: Ivermectin

The NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines is the National Institutes of Health (NIH) most up-to-date recommendations of treatments of COVID-19.

The NHI panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in clinical trials.

The panel reviewed a number of key studies before making this recommendation. The studies show a range of results after using ivermectin from no benefits or worsening of disease, to shorter time to resolve symptoms of COVID-19 and lower mortality rates. The panel noted most of these studies had:

• incomplete information

• significant methodological limitations (small sample size, inconsistent dosing and dose schedules, open label studies, other medications taken at the same time, severity of COVID-19 not described, and outcome measures not clearly defined).

There have been more recent clinical trials (TOGETHER trial, I-TECH trial and EPIC trial) that addressed the limitations of earlier ivermectin studies. These more recent studies have failed to show clear evidence that ivermectin reduces time to recovery or prevents COVID-19 disease progression.

The NIH also noted that there were now several medications available that have demonstrated clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19.”

Just to be clear, the only problems noted by the WHO and the NIH with using Ivermectin to treat Covid-19 are that the “studies” ( a word on those later) suffer from: serious risk of bias, serious risk of imprecision, incomplete information and and methodological limitations. BUT none of the “studies” reviewed by the WHO and NIH revealed that those taking Ivermectin suffered from any of these conditions: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, chronic kidney disease (e.g. Remdesivir), cardiovascular effects, neurological effects, or even dandruff.

As for the “studies” referred to by the WHO and the NIH, the people India, Brazil, Peru and hundreds of other cities and nations as well as any of us who have taken Ivermectin as prescribed by doctors in the US who have been persecuted for even suggesting that it was helpful — all disagree. Further, the analysis by NIH and others has been shown to be flawed, intentionally biased, and lacking in information about the relationship between the NIH funded investigators ad the pharmaceutical industry and government public health organizations.

And, of course, no adverse effects have been reported following Ivermectins routine use for treating a number of parasitic diseases in either humans or animals.

Here is a potential “cure” for MS and it will be slow walked by the pharmaceutical industry and our public health governmental watch dogs. Why? Because Ivermectin is a natural product and, therefore, it can not be patented and if it can’t be patented it can’t be sold at an exorbitant price by a sole patent holding pharmaceutical company. Finally, just like aspirin it is cheap to produce. But unlike aspirin it is difficult to purchase in the U.S.

Amazon, the worlds largest catalog, appears to offer Ivermectin but a price that is prohibitive since it is not covered by any health insurance program. Just ten pills, 12mg each are offered for $65.00. IF the dosing used in the study described above is used (1mg/Kg body weight/day) a 130 pound woman (most MS patients) would need 60mg/day — half of the ten pill offering. Once you do the math that works out to be about $975/mo +/-. For people like the friend I mentioned at the beginning of this Newsletter and a very close family member $1,000.00/month is unsustainable.

There are three primary questions that need to answered immediately: 1) Is Ivermectin as effective in humans as it appears to be in mice? 2) What is the proper human dose? 3) Is the repair permanent after one or a few doses or must Ivermectin be taken for life?

Those are simple questions that are easily answered and I am certain that the serious investigator will have no trouble finding an adequate number of clinical trial participants.

Union, KY

25 August 2023