Isn’t the sign of our strange times that to debate anything questioning the mainstream narrative, one is forced to insert caveats? Thank you, Jonathan.
You may not know Jon, but determined MDs who used IVM intelligently, and more importantly their patients, all know that the Nobel Prize winning unlicensed drug (cheap) helped many avoid both potentially fatal cvd outcomes and vacks outcomes. Talk to Kory, Marek, Lawrie, countless others...
Yeah, it makes my blood boil. But not as much as that other thing you allude to, the capturing of virtually everything to service the ruling power structure. We’re educated to be spoon fed fools, our laws are legalised immorality for the wealthy and powerful, and stay in your place for the rest. The arts have generally fallen, academia, social media, technology, culture in virtually every form is now in service of the power structure. That really makes my blood boil..... this is one shoe in Imelda Marcos’ shoe cupboard.....
Big pharma doesn't just support the media, the media is outright owned by the same mega conglomerate that owns pharma.
Vanguard and BlackRock corporations have controlling stock holdings in media, pharma, weapons, food, chemicals, oil etc. They are the largest, of a block of major corporations with interlocking ownership, that own the infrastructure of the western world.
Please check this out for yourselves. This is not a conspiracy theory: go on stockzoa.com and dig into the ownership of all of these companies. Often, Vanguard and BlackRock are shown to be the owners right on top. Other times, they own the corporations that own the one you are checking out.
For some reason, people are just not noticing this. It is easily traceable by anyone who has good internet access.
Jonathan, this ownership pattern is a major factor in making things operate the way they do. It is very important. Yet, it seems unknown. Please check this out and write about it!
Superb observations as always. Given that I'm working on an NHS case study, this article couldn't have come at a better time. I shall certainly be making reference to it.
You’re just making sh*t up! Factcheck.org: “Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation.
In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions, and Google, which provided a one-time grant to support our COVID-19 coverage in 2020. Neither corporation seeks nor is given any control over our editorial decisions.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any donor who contributes $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations.
Donors have no control over our editorial decisions.
In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
“FactCheck.org is totally transparent about its funding sources — going so far as to list a detailed breakdown of financial support by every quarter, the same standard expected of political campaigns and party committees,” it wrote. “So, quite apart from its stated mission, FactCheck.org is making a contribution by exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page, which is managed on our behalf by the University of Pennsylvania. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806. The University of Pennsylvania’s tax ID number is 23-1352685.
Of course, it changed its position! Engage your critical faculties, for god's sake. Not least, it's gone from loudly declaring Ivermectin is a horse drug to quietly admitting it's a widely used and very safe medicine for humans.
The people who need most of all to read this probably won’t. It’s tragic and infuriating, especially when they’ll fall for the propaganda all over again when the next “current thing” comes along.
This piece is quite misleading and disingenuous. Ivermectin is a medication used to treat parasites. SO, as a human, if you have mites or scabies, it could be an effective treatment. However, it would have no effect on COVID 19 because COVID 19 is a virus -- a completely different and unrelated organism. It was Trump and his various medical and non-medical nutcases who somehow promoted the use of Ivermectin, which if relied upon to treat COVID 19, as many subsequently did, likely led to untold deaths because a completely useless treatment was used instead of one that could possibly treat a virus like COVID 19.
All of the other stuff here about pharma excesses and profits and conspiracies, and so forth, is irrelevant; and, again, very misleading in this context. Talk about drinking the CoolAide!
Ivermectin has demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses Jon. Look at the reference section of this paper… Formiga et al 2021
Mr. Cook says "I’m not interested in medical debates about Ivermectin. I’m interested in deconstructing the political debates around it...." And yet the medical debates are what matters. Is ivermectin effective for treating COVID? The best studies say it isn't. To get FDA approval a drug has to be proven safe and effective; ivermectin hasn't passed. Otherwise you could market it as a nutritional supplement, like horny goat weed. I think that the FDA made the correct decision. If additional studies prove otherwise, then it could reverse its decision. Most of the time the FDA gets it right, and it did so here.
You are grossly informed about the safety record of ivermectin. I’m not here to promote its efficacy (or not) but to say that an objective view of how IVM was handled should raise any logical person’s suspicions. Off-label use of an FDA approved drug should not be restricted. This is what happened with Ivm—pharmacists were essentially acting like physicians in refusing to fill prescriptions for it. Eventually the pharmacist at our local pharmacy just lied and said it was out of stock.
The FDA’s approval of Remdesivir was also especially suspect if you look into the history of the drug. The cash flow around its use tells the full story in my opinion.
The FDA gets it wrong, repeatedly, Covid, mRNA, gew-jabs being the latest FDA failure. Go put your clown mask on, and social distance your a$$ the f*ck away from here.
I'm not interested in *know-nothings* debating whether Ivermectin is a treatment for Covid. Which is why I'm not going to debate you. Obviously I care what scientists think about it. And enough serious scientists around the world think it could be effective. That's a very good reason for it to be trialled. It's also a very good reason for the FDA not to lie about it. I notice none of the FDA's defenders have any problems with those lies, even though the agency inevitably discredits itself through its constant deceptions. Then that same crowd whinge about "anti-vaxxers" voting for Trump. Hmmm...
Thanks for proving the point of my article. There are acknowledged mechanisms for how Ivermectin might work against Covid. It's why leading doctors, including the head of the notoriously conservative Japanese medical agency, have spoken in favour of using the drug for Covid on the precautionary principle and pressed for trials. The fact that you obviously know precisely nothing about the subject, apart for what the FDA has told you, should maybe encourage you to not, in this case, think out loud.
Um, well, this is not a reply to what I actually said, which I think actually further proves my point. “Leading doctors” speaking in favor of this treatment for COVID is really not journalism. It’s picking your own facts. “Leading Journalists” thinking that Donald Trump is a fine upstanding citizen who won the presidency in 2020 and whose criminal indictments are a deep state conspiracy doesn’t make it so. “Leading Scientists” who might claim that the moon is made of green cheese would not make it so. Drug development is a years long process that must eventually demonstrate effectiveness through the latest clinical trials processes. What any particular “Leading Scientist” might think about the efficacy of a particular is subject to the rigors of clinical testing across relevant cohorts of patients. In the midst of a national crisis in the form of a pandemic, it’s the height of malpractice and irresponsibility to just toss out such opinions, rather than follow longstanding and well developed scientific methods.
In the context of a national health emergency that eventually killed over a million Americans, when our own president was constantly lying about it and promoting crazy cures and claiming that it would die away in the spring when it got warmer, and encouraging opposition to public health advisories, the nonsense about Ivermectin was just one in an incredibly irresponsible series of lies promoted by Trump and the MAGA chaos cultists, and which undoubtedly led to many unnecessary deaths.
It’s hard to believe that so many people-- and apparently a few journalists -- don’t understand this.
And yet oddly, you DNS goons had little problems with the idea that Saddam could use basic medicines like penicillin and probably aspirin to create vast chemical weaponry - for the DNC/US Establishment, "Dual use" medicines it seems are fine when you can kill people, but not when they might save people....
Don't you have any popular leftwing democracy you can go overthrow in the name of US Corporate-"democracy"?
If you'd bother watching Campbell's video here you'd see how your idiotic certainties about ivermectin are nothing more than regurgitated Democratic party dogma. And since you're a "Democratic campaigner and manager" it makes sense you'd be doing just that.
No "leading scientist" has ever claimed the moon is made of green cheese, though many of them might suggest your aversion to questioning anything coming from established authority figures and institutions reveals a mind made of Swiss cheese.
If a leading scientist said the moon is made of cheese, I am convinced at this point there would be many true believers repeating it and calling out the disbelievers as anti-science, anti-cheese heretics.
At the risk of developing a health emergency that Ivermectin cannot address, this does make my blood boil. And boil and boil. The USA practices money science and money medicine. This is not about COVID and Ivermectin, but the system that cannot and will not promote prevention because prevention does not make money. That leaves us, the consumers, to take control of our health. We don't need them and their prescription pads to practice prevention and now we don't need them to give us permission to use Ivermectin.
Spot on. You put it so well.
Isn’t the sign of our strange times that to debate anything questioning the mainstream narrative, one is forced to insert caveats? Thank you, Jonathan.
You may not know Jon, but determined MDs who used IVM intelligently, and more importantly their patients, all know that the Nobel Prize winning unlicensed drug (cheap) helped many avoid both potentially fatal cvd outcomes and vacks outcomes. Talk to Kory, Marek, Lawrie, countless others...
Yeah, it makes my blood boil. But not as much as that other thing you allude to, the capturing of virtually everything to service the ruling power structure. We’re educated to be spoon fed fools, our laws are legalised immorality for the wealthy and powerful, and stay in your place for the rest. The arts have generally fallen, academia, social media, technology, culture in virtually every form is now in service of the power structure. That really makes my blood boil..... this is one shoe in Imelda Marcos’ shoe cupboard.....
Hello Jonathan,
Big pharma doesn't just support the media, the media is outright owned by the same mega conglomerate that owns pharma.
Vanguard and BlackRock corporations have controlling stock holdings in media, pharma, weapons, food, chemicals, oil etc. They are the largest, of a block of major corporations with interlocking ownership, that own the infrastructure of the western world.
Please check this out for yourselves. This is not a conspiracy theory: go on stockzoa.com and dig into the ownership of all of these companies. Often, Vanguard and BlackRock are shown to be the owners right on top. Other times, they own the corporations that own the one you are checking out.
For some reason, people are just not noticing this. It is easily traceable by anyone who has good internet access.
Jonathan, this ownership pattern is a major factor in making things operate the way they do. It is very important. Yet, it seems unknown. Please check this out and write about it!
Drake Chamberlin
Drake Chamberlin
Media & Communication Action Project
https://m-cap.org/
Superb observations as always. Given that I'm working on an NHS case study, this article couldn't have come at a better time. I shall certainly be making reference to it.
This is an excellent piece. Thank you, Jonathan.
It's all about the science.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-clinical-trials-show-ivermectin-does-not-benefit-covid-19-patients-contrary-to-social-media-claims/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fda-admit-ivermectin/ (Answer: No, the FDA doesn't prohibit off-label use of drugs)
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/largest-trial-to-date-finds-ivermectin-is-worthless-against-covid/
Factcheck.org is funded by Big Pharma https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/factcheck-org-is-a-fraud-might-be-a-criminal-organization/ The other sites are not medical sites or linked to any journals.
Armstrong Economics - that's funny
You’re just making sh*t up! Factcheck.org: “Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation.
In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions, and Google, which provided a one-time grant to support our COVID-19 coverage in 2020. Neither corporation seeks nor is given any control over our editorial decisions.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any donor who contributes $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations.
Donors have no control over our editorial decisions.
In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
“FactCheck.org is totally transparent about its funding sources — going so far as to list a detailed breakdown of financial support by every quarter, the same standard expected of political campaigns and party committees,” it wrote. “So, quite apart from its stated mission, FactCheck.org is making a contribution by exemplifying nonprofit transparency.”
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page, which is managed on our behalf by the University of Pennsylvania. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806. The University of Pennsylvania’s tax ID number is 23-1352685.
No surprises here! Of course Factcheck is going to market themselves in a positive way. No organisation is going to criticise itself.
It’s too bad nobody here cares to look at this science you’ve posted . . . I wonder why?
https://youtu.be/IhZf0of-gwE
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/11/fda-did-not-change-position-on-ivermectin-use-contrary-to-online-claims/
Of course, it changed its position! Engage your critical faculties, for god's sake. Not least, it's gone from loudly declaring Ivermectin is a horse drug to quietly admitting it's a widely used and very safe medicine for humans.
The people who need most of all to read this probably won’t. It’s tragic and infuriating, especially when they’ll fall for the propaganda all over again when the next “current thing” comes along.
aww... it's just the rules of the game called capitalism, which quite some time ago was predicted by Joel Kovel to sink the ship.
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/its-been-twenty-years
Wonderful Nobelprijs 2015 😂
This piece is quite misleading and disingenuous. Ivermectin is a medication used to treat parasites. SO, as a human, if you have mites or scabies, it could be an effective treatment. However, it would have no effect on COVID 19 because COVID 19 is a virus -- a completely different and unrelated organism. It was Trump and his various medical and non-medical nutcases who somehow promoted the use of Ivermectin, which if relied upon to treat COVID 19, as many subsequently did, likely led to untold deaths because a completely useless treatment was used instead of one that could possibly treat a virus like COVID 19.
All of the other stuff here about pharma excesses and profits and conspiracies, and so forth, is irrelevant; and, again, very misleading in this context. Talk about drinking the CoolAide!
Ivermectin has demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses Jon. Look at the reference section of this paper… Formiga et al 2021
Mr. Cook says "I’m not interested in medical debates about Ivermectin. I’m interested in deconstructing the political debates around it...." And yet the medical debates are what matters. Is ivermectin effective for treating COVID? The best studies say it isn't. To get FDA approval a drug has to be proven safe and effective; ivermectin hasn't passed. Otherwise you could market it as a nutritional supplement, like horny goat weed. I think that the FDA made the correct decision. If additional studies prove otherwise, then it could reverse its decision. Most of the time the FDA gets it right, and it did so here.
You are grossly informed about the safety record of ivermectin. I’m not here to promote its efficacy (or not) but to say that an objective view of how IVM was handled should raise any logical person’s suspicions. Off-label use of an FDA approved drug should not be restricted. This is what happened with Ivm—pharmacists were essentially acting like physicians in refusing to fill prescriptions for it. Eventually the pharmacist at our local pharmacy just lied and said it was out of stock.
The FDA’s approval of Remdesivir was also especially suspect if you look into the history of the drug. The cash flow around its use tells the full story in my opinion.
The FDA gets it wrong, repeatedly, Covid, mRNA, gew-jabs being the latest FDA failure. Go put your clown mask on, and social distance your a$$ the f*ck away from here.
I'm not interested in *know-nothings* debating whether Ivermectin is a treatment for Covid. Which is why I'm not going to debate you. Obviously I care what scientists think about it. And enough serious scientists around the world think it could be effective. That's a very good reason for it to be trialled. It's also a very good reason for the FDA not to lie about it. I notice none of the FDA's defenders have any problems with those lies, even though the agency inevitably discredits itself through its constant deceptions. Then that same crowd whinge about "anti-vaxxers" voting for Trump. Hmmm...
Thanks for proving the point of my article. There are acknowledged mechanisms for how Ivermectin might work against Covid. It's why leading doctors, including the head of the notoriously conservative Japanese medical agency, have spoken in favour of using the drug for Covid on the precautionary principle and pressed for trials. The fact that you obviously know precisely nothing about the subject, apart for what the FDA has told you, should maybe encourage you to not, in this case, think out loud.
Um, well, this is not a reply to what I actually said, which I think actually further proves my point. “Leading doctors” speaking in favor of this treatment for COVID is really not journalism. It’s picking your own facts. “Leading Journalists” thinking that Donald Trump is a fine upstanding citizen who won the presidency in 2020 and whose criminal indictments are a deep state conspiracy doesn’t make it so. “Leading Scientists” who might claim that the moon is made of green cheese would not make it so. Drug development is a years long process that must eventually demonstrate effectiveness through the latest clinical trials processes. What any particular “Leading Scientist” might think about the efficacy of a particular is subject to the rigors of clinical testing across relevant cohorts of patients. In the midst of a national crisis in the form of a pandemic, it’s the height of malpractice and irresponsibility to just toss out such opinions, rather than follow longstanding and well developed scientific methods.
In the context of a national health emergency that eventually killed over a million Americans, when our own president was constantly lying about it and promoting crazy cures and claiming that it would die away in the spring when it got warmer, and encouraging opposition to public health advisories, the nonsense about Ivermectin was just one in an incredibly irresponsible series of lies promoted by Trump and the MAGA chaos cultists, and which undoubtedly led to many unnecessary deaths.
It’s hard to believe that so many people-- and apparently a few journalists -- don’t understand this.
And yet oddly, you DNS goons had little problems with the idea that Saddam could use basic medicines like penicillin and probably aspirin to create vast chemical weaponry - for the DNC/US Establishment, "Dual use" medicines it seems are fine when you can kill people, but not when they might save people....
Don't you have any popular leftwing democracy you can go overthrow in the name of US Corporate-"democracy"?
If you'd bother watching Campbell's video here you'd see how your idiotic certainties about ivermectin are nothing more than regurgitated Democratic party dogma. And since you're a "Democratic campaigner and manager" it makes sense you'd be doing just that.
No "leading scientist" has ever claimed the moon is made of green cheese, though many of them might suggest your aversion to questioning anything coming from established authority figures and institutions reveals a mind made of Swiss cheese.
If a leading scientist said the moon is made of cheese, I am convinced at this point there would be many true believers repeating it and calling out the disbelievers as anti-science, anti-cheese heretics.
If you think Campbell is legit, I have a bridge I’d like to interest you in!
He's far more legit than you. Except maybe in your little Democratic campaigner cliques.
I could not have said that better nor with such restraint!
The article is not about the medical use of ivermectin for Covid, it’s about the political manipulation by pharma, government and media
And even now, all the people who NEED to read this article, will refuse to.
Too busy gloating about the most recent Impeachment/Indictment of Orange Man, and laughing at the idea anyone called Biden could commit a crime.
And oh yes, saying all those who do belong in 'Idiocracy'.
At least Israel's apartheid has slowly seeped through - except to Congress, Westminster...
Turns out you can make the uncritical believe nearly ANYTHING - as long as you say only the stupid believe the opposite.
The irony there is mindboggling.
At the risk of developing a health emergency that Ivermectin cannot address, this does make my blood boil. And boil and boil. The USA practices money science and money medicine. This is not about COVID and Ivermectin, but the system that cannot and will not promote prevention because prevention does not make money. That leaves us, the consumers, to take control of our health. We don't need them and their prescription pads to practice prevention and now we don't need them to give us permission to use Ivermectin.