ivermectin (april 2021)

Covid: Ivermectin superior to vaccine

Translated from here

SF note: I’ve put this here to counter the whole absurdly disgusting vaccination programme; it should be obvious that I don’t agree with the ideological aspects of this text – its support for pre-Covid normality in the form of normal levels of wage labour, for instance.

Posted on March 25, 2021 by Gérard Maudrux

By agreeing to take into consideration the results of 8 meta-analyses around the world and the numerous testimonials from treatment providers, by comparing all the practical, medical and economic aspects of a massive vaccination campaign or treatment with Ivermectin, the benefit of Ivermectin would be considerable.


The situation: today we are in a pandemic phase, with a number of patients, some of whom will develop a serious form, leading to saturating hospital services, resuscitation, with a number of deaths, not to mention the collateral medical damage with all those presenting other pathologies that cannot be treated. Anticoagulants, corticosteroids, Remdesivir, Bambalaba and others are totally insufficient to stop this infernal machine, which we are trying to reduce by successive confinements, with considerable economic and social consequences.

The treatment: administer the vaccine from the first symptoms, as soon as you are hospitalized, in intensive care, will give you no results. Give Ivermectin, you improve the situation with recovery time twice as quick, and hospitalizations and deaths divided by 4 to 5. These results are found in all the meta-analyses worldwide: Kory (USA), Hill (GB), Nardelli (Italy), Guillausseau (France), Bryant/Lawrie (GB), Cobos-Campos (Spain), C19Ivermectine,  Ivmeta, etc.

All, without exception, say the same thing. What do those who refuse to read this oppose? Nothing, they just don’t talk about it. Look this week once again at the publications of Inserm, the European Agency, Costagliola: they have been blocked for 1 year on a Petri dish, refusing to discuss its effect on human beings. Professor Changeux, an eminent French specialist of world renown and nobel prizewinner for his work on acetylcholine, nevertheless informed them, directly and on several occasions over the year, that the innoculated doses used in humans are totally effective in eradicating Sars. -Cov-2  as much as they are for animals.

Advantage Ivermectin.


Vaccination is a prophylactic treatment, it is not meant to treat illnesses (with rare exceptions such as rabies, due to the long incubation of the disease, longer than the immunity that can be acquired by the vaccine). It is given to prevent people getting sick. Its efficiency ? From 60 to 90% depending on the vaccine. The 90% efficiency is starting to be considered doubtful (Doshi, Ben Cheikh) as Pfizer did not provide the raw data – the FDA also criticizes AstraZ, for its data. Let’s admit to an 85 to 90% efficiency so as not to get stuck in this controversy (I am also aware that it is accepted by everyone that vaccines are less effective in the elderly, the main targets, so 80% would be more correct).

For Ivermectin prophylaxis, 12 studies on the subject show 85 to 100% (Carvallo) efficacy. 92% for the latest French meta-analysis by Guillausseau, who was formerly a member of the AMM committees, and therefore knows how to analyze these data.

Conclusion: equality with regard to prophylaxis, with however an advantage for the vaccine, the administration of which would protect people for 6 months (to be discussed), against 4 weeks for Ivermectin. This difference will be erased, however, once the long-acting form of Ivermectin is developed by Medincell, which is currently under development.


Vigibase is the WHO database which, for 30 years, has been collecting the adverse effects of all drugs, communicated by the various pharmacovigilance agencies of more than 130 countries adhering to WHO.

We note: Ivermectin, in 30 years, 4,704 adverse effects, 16 deaths, for 4 billion prescriptions. Comirnaty (Pfizer), in 4 months, 333,818 adverse effects, 2,435 deaths, for 3-400 million prescriptions.

Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs in the world (in comparison with paracetomol, which has had 161,068 side effects, 3,690 deaths in 30 years). It has been tested at 10 times the dose, with no problem. You can imagine that many of the disputed post-vaccine accidents are not all in this database

Advantage Ivermectin.


France and Europe (and others) are counting everything on the vaccine, unsupported with early treatment, to stem the pandemic. We realize that the process takes a long time to put in place, and in addition to all the accidents that are increasing, if it takes 6 months to try to obtain sufficient collective immunity, we may, I’m afraid, have to re-vaccinate if the former lose their temporary immunity. We can see that in our country with 10% of people being vaccinated does not reduce the epidemic by 10%, which continues to grow, and that must be supplemented by confinement/lockdown in the absence of appropriate medical treatment.

However, control can be obtained more quickly with Ivermectin, without having to carry out a massive campaign as with the vaccine, and without having to treat people every 4 weeks if we want to do prophylaxis. Indeed, it suffices to treat symptomatic cases to relieve the hospitals, and to systematically treat not the entire population as for the vaccine, but only all contact cases, which, given the efficacy in prophylaxis, would prevent them from developing and dissipating transmission of the disease, so it would stop the epidemic. This cannot be done with the vaccine, which does not protect contact cases before they develop the disease, and does not prevent them from passing it on to others.

In Brazil, an agro-food company concerned with meat brought the situation under control with 12 000 employees in 1 month. Remember the frightening outbreaks in slaughterhouses.

Advantage Ivermectin


We have seen the time it takes to produce and distribute the vaccines. Logistics, given the problems associated with keeping the vaccine at a constant refrigerated temperature, are heavy, slow and expensive. None of that with Ivermectine. The production lines are there (human but also with veterinarians – it is the same molecule), and for distribution, it is no more complicated than for paracetomol.

Advantage Ivermectin.


The refusal to consider early treatment of Covid leads to the third confinement/lockdown. With its economic consequences running into the hundreds of billions, tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that will not recover, years of worsening unemployment, etc., the list goes on and on. Conversely, a campaign with Ivermectin, from the contact cases onwards [SF note: ie in relation to those who would normally have had to stop work because of having been in contact with someone who’s been diagnosed with Covid], does not require stopping people from working, and the serious forms becoming few and far between, giving no problems for hospitals and no need for confinement.

Advantage Ivermectin.


I will not dwell on the consequences on social life, disrupted human relationships. We have not finished looking at the consequences, with depression, suicides, unemployment and its effects, increasingly severe aggressivity inside and outside homes, schooling, etc. All of this is not related to Covid, but to confinement/lockdown, and is therefore not avoided with the vaccine, but could be avoided with Ivermectin.

All this, of course, supposes that we listen to, that we watch, that we read about the work done in many countries, by several hundred doctors, on tens of thousands of patients, analyzed and published by hundreds of analysts from different specialties. You still have to have the intellectual capacity to do this, which seems to be lacking for many people who think they are smarter than others. Better to have an image of intelligence than genuine intelligence, as Montaigne wrote.

SF note: The drug regulator in France – INSERM – has refused Ivermectin as a preventative medicine for Covid saying that there haven’t been enough trials. Catch 22: it has prevented such trials from being pursued.

Added 3/5/21:

DeeplTranslate of “Ivermictine – victim of sophistry”

Posted on 5 April 2021 by Gérard Maudrux

If paralogism is an unintentional error in reasoning with no intention to mislead, sophistry is a deliberately false reasoning, which, despite an appearance of truth, is deliberately designed to deceive or delude.

Sophists, the originators of the word, were thinkers who developed a rhetoric whose main purpose was to manipulate an audience. They were denounced by Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and other philosophers.

“Sophistry is defective reasoning despite the appearance of logic”

“In other words, it’s a mental trap and rather dishonorable way of convincing”

sophistry course: https://slideplayer.fr/slide/6251896/

or https://slideplayer.fr/slide/1135896/

The conclusions of the EMA, the WHO, the ANSM concerning Ivermectin, (and who know perfectly well its strong presumption of efficacy), as well as the articles that follow, are presented as rigorous and logical demonstrations, but they are only sophisms made up of a true or allegedly true premise, arranged in a seductive but deliberately erroneous reasoning, which does not respect the rules of logic. Fallacies are difficult to refute if one does not master the facts and logic.

Wikipedia describes about forty different fallacies. All our authorities already practice the argument of authority, argumentum ad verecundiam: Ivermectin is ineffective because I have decided so, and what is not necessarily a truth at the beginning, then becomes for all the press a “generally accepted truth”, moreover no need to look for or demonstrate, “since it is the WHO that says it”. This is how everyone said at the beginning that masks were useless, it was a truth because the WHO said so.

The most used fallacies are those of generalisation. When there are several dozen favourable studies and you want to show the opposite, you take only one, you take out only a part that could lead you to believe that it is ineffective, and you say that it does not work by generalising. You don’t need to look at other studies, it doesn’t work. We have seen this technique in many articles and decisions. For example, ongoing studies on Hydroxychloroquine were stopped on the basis of a single study, which was known to be flawed, and all the others were swept aside. Dame Costagliola of Inserm thus denies the efficacy of Ivermectin, generally citing only one study, which moreover has nothing to do with it, and she generalises.

There is a manipulative fallacy systematically used by agencies to ignore results: the use of a “reservation of use” as truth, when it is only a reservation of use, not a fact or a demonstration. Thus, in the current atmosphere of permanent suspicion and criticism, studies and reports end, whatever the result, with : “we see this, but perhaps it needs more study to confirm it”. So Andrew Hill says that it works at 80%, which is no mean feat, and ends with the classic “formula”. The sophist will only remember this formula: “insufficient study, more studies are needed to decide”, allowing him to ignore the very result of the study. As Tess Lawrie said in an interview: “You can argue about the bias of this or that study, you can argue about the level of efficacy between 75 and 85%, but what is not arguable is the efficacy itself”.

The logic of sophists

Thus, the ANSM uses this reservation of use to assert that Ivermectin has no action in prophylaxis. It cites only one study out of a dozen, that of Berehal (41 cases!!!). I quote the conclusion of the study available here: “Two-dose prophylaxis with ivermectin of 300 μg / kg with an interval of 72 hours, was associated with a 73% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs for the following month. Chemoprophylaxis is relevant to contain the pandemic”, and the conclusions of the ANSM: “the authors concluded that taking … was associated with a reduction in infection ….. However, they stressed the need for confirmation by longitudinal or interventional studies.”

The only thing that counts is the reserve of use, and the ANSM adds the argumentum a silentio, diversion of attention or omission (“vicious indifference” according to Mill): exit the Carvallo study on 1,200 carers with 100% effectiveness, exit the experiment on 12,000 employees at GTFoods with total eradication of the epidemic in a high-risk and permanently affected company. Then the press will pick up on this: “it’s ineffective in prophylaxis, the ANSM says so”. Argumentum ad verecundiam, quoted above, which uses the reputation of a source to validate the conclusion. Pure manipulation of a study, to demonstrate the opposite of what the study states, then taken up by the press.


However, the texts provide for the use of the drug in the case of “presumed efficacy”, without mentioning any proof or level of efficacy, which the ANSM misuses by taking into account only the reserve of use. Moreover, the sophists are unscrupulous, it’s part of their rhetoric: they gave a RTU to Baclofen for alcohol addiction without any scientific study, and other recent RTU and ATU on the strength of 2 studies without proof of effectiveness and without taking into account the reserve of use. I will detail in another post all the studies put forward by the ANSM, such as that of Médina, which is considered by many to be of the level of Mehra and Lancet, given the errors, which seem to have escaped the authors. At this level, using this is no longer sophistry, but incompetence (or taking the readers for fools).

There is also the sophism very dear to the Castafiore of Inserm, with the in vitro study that “demonstrates” that it does not work in vivo. She uses a version of the argumentum a silentio: there is a bias in the in vitro study, which allows her to assert that it doesn’t work in humans, which is completely unrelated. Yet every serious scientist knows that the absence of proof is not proof of absence. Inserm should know this too, but prefers to play it up.

Another execrable sophism widely used by the press is the reductio ad Hitlerum which Hydroxychloroquine suffered from last year: Trump and Bolsorano defended HCQ, which is true; Trump and Bolsorano are disreputable, which is true; therefore HCQ is disreputable, which is a false deduction. We’ve just done it again with Ivermectin for the last 8 days in the mainstream press: Le Pen, Dupont Aignan, Asselineau,.., defend Ivermectin, so Ivermectin is far right.

Let’s not forget the sophisms that consist in denigrating opponents by attacking people (argumentum ad personam) rather than the facts they expose (ad hominem). Thus, doctors who treat in the first instance are made to look like bad doctors who do anything, who can be dangerous and are therefore prosecuted by their Order or summoned by their ARS. Those who oppose the official doxa are nothing but conspiracy theorists and charlatans taking advantage of the distress of citizens.

To conclude, the argument that kills, argumentum ad ignorantiam: “if there was a treatment that worked, we would know about it”, an argument dear to the bewitching Karine Lacombe. We hide the truth, then we affirm that it doesn’t exist, since we can’t see it!

Yes, sophistry can kill

Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, where are you? You unmasked the sophists in your time. They are back, in force, they are everywhere, most of them trained in a school where the great oral consecration is a monument to the glory of sophistry. We have no one in our elite to defend truth and common sense as you did. Come back soon.


7 Responses to ivermectin (april 2021)
  1. This text – by the same author of the above – https://blog-gerard.maudrux.fr/2021/03/23/ivermectine-le-complotisme-de-lema/ – says, the EMA (the European Medical Agency) advised, towards the end of March, against the use of ivermictin.

    “No demonstration, no proof, no analysis supports this assertion. It cites no studies in humans, no meta-analysis bringing together the results of all the global studies. …
    Almost 60 studies around the world, and it’s not enough, we need more studies… How many studies did it take for them, the same ones, to validate Remdesivir, Bambalaba? With less evidence of effectiveness, provided only by the marketing lab and not by independent doctors without conflicts of interest? With more side effects minimized by the labs and no experience of the long-term safety of these products unlike Ivermectin? …

    Who are we kidding when we talk about the possible toxicity of Ivermectin when you just have to look at the WHO side effects database to see that it is by far one of the safest product in the world (200 times less fatal than Doliprane over 30 years of studies)? Even Merck, who denigrated its product on its possible toxicity (because it is developing 2 new products and a vaccine in partnership) forgot that in 2002 it had carried out a study with 10 times the dose without any negative effects.

    This EMA press release, in support of its claim, cites only one study: the one done in vitro, always the same. I believe I hear the speech of Lady Costagliola who always quotes her first and she alone, without ever commenting on studies such as Carvallo’s with 100% efficacy in prophylaxis in 800 exposed people, against 58% of contamination in the control group.

    While we debate studies and efficacy in humans, these people, unable to discuss it, talk about studies in petri dishes to deflect the debate! … Since yesterday the FDA accuses AstraZeneca of having used “obsolete data” for its studies, I don’t know what they are talking about, but here, the term obsolete data to distort reality is quite appropriate! …
    So why ? Why are we trying to save time when there is a clear consensus on the effectiveness of Ivermectin? I…
    P.S: I would like to point out at the end of the article the interesting link from Medynski, which can provide other explanations for the attitude of the EMA: https://questionscovid.fr/?page_id=170

  2. Various online articles say that ivermictin has not been proven to help prevent Covid – but almost all of them speak of people given ivermictin after hospitalisation. See for example this:
    It claims “The results of our target trial emulation match with previous
    findings of randomized clinical trials and observational studies, which
    showed no beneficial effects of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin,
    azithromycin, or their combinations.”

    Dr. Maudrux responded to this with:
    “Weird study. It’s not early treatment at all, the treatments
    started 2 days after hospitalization, or 8 to 15 days after the first
    trouble? Then if there is a need for oxygen, they stop and consider it a
    failure. Old and never published, probably because it’s too weird?”
    (my translation).
    But we can also see this referring only to post-hospitalsation treatment: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n747
    “In non-critical hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine decreases the number of in-hospital days, respiratory deterioration, or deaths.” (quoted from here:
    Gonzalez JLB, Gamez MG, Enciso EAM, et al – . Efficacy and safety of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. A randomized controlled trial.medRxiv2021.02.18.21252037; doi:10.1101/2021.02.18.21252037.

    Another for the most part seems to copy and paste stuff found elsehwere:
    Also only covers those post-hospitalisation. One of the authors is a student, the other seems to be an academic even though he has the letters M.D. after his name.

  3. Translation from part of this: https://www.francesoir.fr/videos-les-debriefings/au-bangladesh-livermectine-marche-aussi
    “The randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated oral administration of ivermectin alone (12 mg once daily for 5 days), single-dose ivermectin (12 mg) in combination with doxycycline (200 mg stat of doxycycline on day 1 followed by 100 mg every 12 hours for 4 days) versus placebo in 68 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The distribution of patients was 22, 23 and 23 in each group respectively. Several hospitals participated.

    The study showed that patients in the 5-day ivermectin group were 77% more likely to have a reduction in viral load at day 14 compared to those who received ivermectin and doxycycline (61%) and placebo (39%). It also showed that at day 3, 18% of patients in the ivermectin alone group started to show a reduction in viral load compared to ivermectin plus doxycycline (3%) and placebo (3%), while at day 7 it was 50%, 30% and 13% respectively. The results of the study were published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID) on 2 December 2020.

    Dr Wasif Ali Khan, Senior Medical Scientist of Enteric and Respiratory Diseases and the Principal Investigator of the study presented the results of the study. He said, “Although the study sample size was small to draw a strong conclusion, the results provide evidence of the potential benefit of early intervention with ivermectin for the treatment of adult patients diagnosed with mild COVID-19. The results are also consistent with other global studies of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. ”

    The study, conducted from July to September 2020, was funded by Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd, and the company also provided all the drugs used in the trial. “

  4. Ivermictin subject to arbitrary suppression –

    “…Social networks are not to be outdone and are participating in this desire to hide the truth about ivermectin. See this impressive regulation of YouTube on this subject. It goes beyond censorship! It is “forbidden to contradict information from local health authorities or the WHO”, “it is forbidden to recommend the use of ivermectin, to say that it is an effective treatment”…”

    Portuguese doctors supporting use of ivermictin for early treatment of Covid

    Translation of doctor’s article on benefits of Ivermectin as compared with the vaccine:

    Interesting interview in French with dissident doctor

    This doctor was for 20 years president of the “Caisse autonome de retraite des medicins de la France” (Autonomous retirement fund for physicians in France). He begins by saying the government has only recommended anti-coagulants and antibiotics and goes on to talk about a doctor who has treated 850 symptomatic Covid patients with azythromycine. Of these 850 patients 2 were hospitalised and nobody died. The French state remains silent about azythromycine and ivermictin. Andrew Hill, who has studied ivermictin [https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1] says “there was a 75% reduction in mortality” with its use, and apparently it reduces symptoms twice as rapidly as without its use. The study covered 2282 patients. India has distributed 150 million doses of ivermictin and has proportionately 3 times less deaths than France. Ivermictin is forbidden throughout Mexico apart from Chiapas, which has proportionately 4 times less deaths than the other states of the country. On top of all this, the doctor says that GPs throughout France have received an order from the government not allowing them to give sick notes to those who have Covid! Apparently, if people need sick notes they either do it themselves over the internet or they go to hospital. The government doesn’t want them to see their GPs for fear that they may give them azythromicine or ivermectin rather than paracetomol which the government recommends (paracetomol is not something one should take if one has a fever as it suppresses symptoms but also suppresses the body’s capacity to fight the virus). Prescription of ivermectin for Covid has been forbidden since the end of December, but they possibly fear that doctors may prescribe it claiming that the patient has another illness even if the patient has Covid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.