Ivermectin: Horse Hockey Versus Truth

4 ¾ min

Shhhhh. The information I'm about to share with you is dangerous and subversive. You cannot publish it on social media platforms without risking scary labels and permanent suspensions. You and anyone you discuss this topic with will be called anti-science "kooks," "conspiracy theorists" or "quacks."

So be it. I've been called every pejorative name in the globalist elites' overworn handbook of ad hominem attacks over the past 30 years. Who cares?

The airwaves have been littered the past month with disparaging reports about ivermectin, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns should not be used to treat or prevent COVID-19. "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it," the official FDA Twitter account snidely admonished last week.

Well, you are not a sheep either. So don't be cowed by Big Pharma and their bought-off Swamp bureaucrats. Seriously, y'all. These are the performative actors who've flipped and flopped on masks, rushed experimental jabs to market, brazenly denied deadly adverse events and advocated mix-and-match booster shots as part of the most notorious junk science experiment in human history.

First things first: The government and corporate media's repeated description of ivermectin in headline after headline as a "horse de-wormer" is pure propaganda. Yes, it is used as an anti-parasitic for animals. But ivermectin has been used to treat humans for parasitic infections for more than three decades. As Wisconsin critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory and his colleagues affiliated with the Memphis VA Medical Center-University of Tennessee, University of Texas Health Science Center, Hackensack School of Medicine and Eastern Virginia Medical School noted in a recent literature review published in the peer-reviewed medical journal the American Journal of Therapeutics:

Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, (ivermectin) soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988. It proved ideal in many ways, given that it was highly effective, broad-spectrum, safe, well tolerated, and could be easily administered. Although it was used to treat a variety of internal nematode infections, it was most known as the essential mainstay of 2 global disease elimination campaigns that has nearly eliminated the world of two of its most disfiguring and devastating diseases.

That's right. Billions of humans around the world have taken ivermectin (approved by the FDA and considered an "essential medicine" by the World Health Organization) under mass distribution programs to eradicate onchocerciasis (river blindness) and other tropical diseases. Ivermectin has also been shown to inhibit a broad range of viruses in laboratory studies, including HIV, influenza, West Nile virus and other RNA viruses. In 2018, more than 130,000 patients in the U.S. were prescribed the drug. It is a human drug, no matter how many times the mad cows in the media try to fear-monger you into believing otherwise.

So, should ivermectin be pursued as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19?

The COVID-19 control freaks don't even want you to ask the question out loud or debate it on the internet. But unlike farm animals, you can exercise your free will and search for the evidence yourselves:

-- A study in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research reported that ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and concluded that "ivermectin is worthy of further consideration as a possible SARS-CoV-2 antiviral."

-- An analysis published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents in November 2020 found that "countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19. ... Prophylactic use of ivermectin against parasitic infections is most common in Africa and we hence show that the reported correlation is highly significant both when compared among African nations as well as in a worldwide context. ... It is suggested that ivermectin be evaluated for potential off-label prophylactic use in certain cases to help bridge the time until a safe and effective vaccine becomes available."

-- A small, pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in Spain and published in The Lancet in January didn't find statistically significant differences in COVID-19 viral loads but did find "a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower (antibody) titers which warrants assessment in larger trials."

-- A systematic review of ivermectin's antiviral effects published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found that it "could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses."

-- A study in the peer-reviewed journal Chest found statistically significant lower mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients prescribed ivermectin (along with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both) compared with patients without ivermectin in Broward County, Florida.

You can find more related studies on ivermectin and COVID-19 in PubMed, the federal scientific database, and weigh all the costs and benefits for you and your families. Remember: "Misinformation" simply means information that the powers that be want you to miss.


Dear Readers,

Big Tech is suppressing our reach, refusing to let us advertise and squelching our ability to serve up a steady diet of truth and ideas. Help us fight back by becoming a member for just $5 a month and then join the discussion on Parler @CharlemagneInstitute and Gab @CharlemagneInstitute!

Image Credit: 

Flickr-Community Eye Health, CC BY-NC 2.0

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the host of Sovereign Nation on Newsmax TV. She is the author of Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction? (2019), and Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best & Brightest Workers (2016). To find more from Michelle Malkin, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


I wish we had more articles like this that reference treatment regiments/prophylactics with actual studies to back it up. I hear too often from those on political radio talk show that I generally agree with but when discussing with others the first thing they say is “show me the studies”. When I asked my potential family doctor about Ivermectin he blew it off and sent me the FDA statement about it being dangerous and a horse pill.


Michelle is on point here. If you disagree with someone's view of irrefutable science then the ad hominem attacks begin. The media just parrots the party line. It is clear that the medical establishment wants to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible for good reason, even to the point of disparaging anything that might slow the vaccination rate regardless of how effective it might be. There is an alliance of Doctors around the world that treat people infected and hospitalized with Covid-19 in the hopes of keeping them from dying. They are all supporters of vaccinations because vaccinations increase your body’s antibodies which your immune system uses to fight off disease. The vaccines don’t cure you, your body and immune system does. If you are unfortunate enough to get infected and hospitalized (vaccinated or not) you want physicians experienced in saving lives. For real information on science, studies, hands-on treatment and results from around the world for the active treatment of Covid-19 patients, please check out the Front Line Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) at Covid19CriticalCare dot com. You can see their work, studies, trials, and results and make your own decision about “the science”.


Intellectual Takeout shows its superior arena of discussion by allowing and recognizing idiots like bcMike to express their opinions, unlike other sites, who will not allow people that disagree with bc, to voice their opinions.


What is the dosage? One click per fifty pounds? Every day? Every three days?


Account Photo
The author writes for NewsMax. Which isn't a reliable news source which puts a big question mark on everything she says NewsMax is a right wing media outlet that fllters the facts to support its viewpoint. It produces propaganda not unbiased facts. It is more right wing than Fox News and loser with facts. The quality of articles on Intellectual Takeout has gone down a great deal in the last years after it merged with Chronicles. Its slogan defending and advancing western civilization is really defending and advancing WHITENESS/ White privilege/ white superiority


Radiant Angel
Do you have any idea how tired and baseless your comment is? Grade school level name calling. Seriously, is that the best you've got? Get off your high horse and open your mind. You might learn something useful, even if it comes from an intelligent lady of "Filipino" decent.
Michael Voulgaropoulos
bcmike, what an awful comment to leave. Everything has a bias, unfortunately, but showing us conclusions from real trials is not baseless. It is source. I get your argument: Trump says water tastes good, you'd disagree. My advice to you is to try and remove politics from this story or you will be swept up in the biases which are much stronger and those shown here. Assuming you're honest, of course. If you're a shil, paid to comment like this well then you've made your bed and I hope you can slee
bcmike - every statement you make is a gratuitous assertion. In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be equally denied by a gratuitous assertion SO - "You're wrong." Please provide one example of where Michelle has put forth information that is factually incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, both Chronicles and Intellectual Takeout have been a subset of the Charlemagne Institute as far as I can remember.
Did you forget that sentences end with punctuation marks, are are you a 'stream of consciousness' sort? Seriously, your comment is pure opinion devoid of argument, and your last sentence is beneath contempt.
Account Photo
Yes, the source is not very credible, but even so, the quality of the source doesn't determine the quality of the information; it's just a sign indicating how cautious or doubtful we ought to be. It turns out that there is quite a bit of scientific evidence in favor of ivermectin use. There is also evidence (e.g., the Cochrane Protocol Literature Review completed in May 2021) that contradicts the supportive evidence. Look into Ivermectin independently with an open mind and make your own call.