The May 9 AP article in the FNP on the use of Pfizer’s Paxlovid noted that the current administration spent $10 billion to treat 20 million people. That’s $500 per person. But to treat with ivermectin would cost about $80 for 30 pills, and you would still have some left over.

The article mentioned that people still get COVID after its use, so there you have government spending (wasting) money to benefit the pharmaceutical industry (again) with little to no benefit to the patient. There are 82 studies that show the benefit of ivermectin (, but Merck (or Pfizer) won’t make much profit from its use since it’s now a generic.

A previous article by Michael Hiltzik (from the Los Angeles Times, April 4 in the FNP) about the Together Trial was a recent takedown attempt at ivermectin. But the author of that study even noted that if more patients were included, ivermectin would have been able to show benefit. And indeed it actually did show a benefit of reduction of length of stay even though the dosage of ivermectin was too low (See, response to the study). That study was set up to fail. Paxlovid side effects are not mentioned in Tuesday's article. But its lack of efficacy is evident enough that patients are declining to take it.

(19) comments


Depend on what Xiden's Ministry of Truth to set the record straight. After all, just a couple of days ago the WH released a statement that there were no vaccines for Covid when Xiden took office. Remain calm. All is well.


Ridiculous. Progenitorivox has been around since before Obama.


But can you get it from a veterinarian?


It is about time that the Frederick News-Post saw fit to publish a letter like this. Thank you, Mr. Szarnicki. Naturally, there are on-line commentators determined to vindicate the current system that selects Big Pharma profits over public health.

See for links to 160 ivermectin COVID-19 studies, 110 peer reviewed, 82 comparing treatment and control groups. Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 22 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).

A recent investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server on January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs including Paxlovid. Here, the researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant.

A peer-reviewed study also published in January 2022 found the prophylactic use of ivermectin reduced COVID mortality by 90% among more than 223,000 study participants in a town in Southern Brazil. The study, published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, also found a 44% reduction in COVID cases among those who took the re-purposed drug. Between July 7, 2020, and Dec. 2, 2020, all residents of Itajaí were offered ivermectin. Approximately 3.7% of ivermectin users contracted COVID during the trial period, compared with 6.6% of residents who didn’t take the drug. Dr. Pierre Kory said the results of this study “should convince any naysayer. What they found was astounding … You would think this would lead to major headlines everywhere. And yet, nothing. And this is not new, this censorship of this highly effective science and evidence around repurposed drugs. The censoring of it, it’s not new, it’s just getting more and more absurd. And it has to stop … It’s about the pharmaceutical industry’s capture of our agencies and how our policies are all directed at suppressing and avoiding use of re-purposed drugs” in favor of high-profit medicines.

In Oct., 2021, Dr. Kory tweeted: “"Between 100-200 United States Congress Members (plus many of their staffers & family members) with COVID...were treated by a colleague over the past 15 months with Ivermectin … None have gone to hospital."

In April, 2022, Tennessee's legislature made ivermectin essentially an over-the-counter drug. In March, 2022, New Hampshire's House voted in favor of this as well. On May 5, 2022, the NH Senate passed a bill to make ivermectin available through standing order at pharmacies. Kansas and several other states have given healthcare providers an immunity guarantee for the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID.

On Oct. 15, 2021, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that Nebraska healthcare providers can legally prescribe ivermectin for the treatment of COVID, so long as they obtain informed consent from the patient.

On May 20, 2021, a circle of leading doctors in Jamaica published an open letter to Jamaica’s Minister of Health and Wellness which asserted that “[w]hile Ivermectin[‘s] efficacy has been demonstrated in the management of all stages of Covid, we draw particular attention to its use in the early stage of the disease … In our carefully considered opinion, the available data on Ivermectin is quite adequate. There is no need to await the outcome of further trials.”

On July 28, 2021, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed titled “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.”

As I have reported previously, there are several physicians in Frederick County who were SUCCESSFULLY prescribing ivermectin for early treatment of COVID. Since I last so reported, I have discovered that physicians employed by Frederick Health now evidently feel compelled to prescribe Pfizer’s Paxlovid instead.


Barry, I was about to congratulate you on finding a good study supporting ivermectin. That is until I found an article pointing out flaws in that study. No wonder it was published in a joural I never heard of.


Interestingly, the study referred to in the LTE was also conducted in Brazil, but it was published in a well-respected journal - NEJM - and it was a much better controlled study, and it showed no statistically significant protection by ivermectin.

Mr. Kissin

Perceptions.....It's all about your perception of facts I suppose?

Why do the physicians employed by Frederick Health feel compelled to prescribe Pfizer's Paxlovid instead, if there are several physicians in Frederick County who were SUCCESSFULLY prescribing Ivermectin for the early treatment of COVID?

Did you fully explain why, because I am curious as to why two different drugs are being prescribed for the treatment of Covid?

No you did never explained why...notice you never explained why...? You just shared your perceptions of the never explained why? Did you mean not to explain why ??? Can I explain why? Maybe because they are both perceived to be effective, depending on who is doing the perceiving?????

Speaking of perceptions I have been watching Under the Banner of Heaven on Hulu. It's based on real life facts and perceptions of real life facts..sometimes it's hard to tell...word of warning...this is a horror story.

I just finished the 4th episode-Church and State-and it is all about perceptions of facts and who has the power, the Church or the State...word of warning this is set in Utah...think of power dynamics between church state in Utah...this is why you need to be able to know the differences between your perceptions of facts and perceptions.......because they are both depending on who is doing the perceiving.....I trust perceptions from people that know the difference between their perceptions and their perceptions of far you haven't given me any facts as to why I should trust your perceptions....


LOL, speaking of folks that like to spread misinformation, [lol][lol][lol] Learn how to read and interpret scientific data "Agent Mulder". Everything you have posted to date on this subject is conspiracy theory BS. If Ivermectin was truly the panacea that you (in your ignorance) believe, then someone could have made a killing selling it for this purpose because it is off patent. They could have gotten the active ingredient, made their own dosage form, run the prerequisite clinical trials, and sold it for what the market would bear. This was Martin "Pharma Bro" Skrelli's approach too. The plain fact is that it was shown to be statistically ineffective. Just stop.


I had never heard of the "Curius Journal..." so I looked it up. Here's what Wikipedia said: "Under its system, after an article is published, anyone can review it, but the reviews of experts will be given a higher score. Its peer-review process involves asking experts to review a given article in a few days, which results in its peer reviews taking much less time than those of most other journals do."

Sounds like they reverse the usual process (peer review, correct, then publish) and publish first and then ask (cherry picked???) people to review it. Although it says "anyone can review it" and who (?) decides a reviewer is an "expert"? Sounds pretty fishy to me.

And Barry, I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that if I gave a certain number of people a sugar cube and told them it would prevent Covid, that would show similar results to Ivermectin.

Yes, I'm no fan of pharmaceutical companies but reports of massive conspiracies don't really persuade me. About anything. Silly me, I like evidence.


Great analysis of the sketchy methods employed on the website the LTE mentions, highly recommended.


Yes, interesting web site! A bit more than I'm prepared to absorb at the moment, but I get his drift. Multiple errors in method and fact.

Here's a question for Barry and others pushing Ivermectin: If you think there is a giant conspiracy to push Paxlovid (made by Pfizer), why don't you think there's a giant conspiracy pushing Ivermectin (which is made by Merck, hardly a minor player in pharma)? Does Pfizer simply have better lobbyists? Or a better drug? Or do we think that Pfizer has paid off the CDC, etc.?

The thing that continues to amaze me is that the same group of people who loudly proclaim gov. corruption and incompetence simultaneously accuse them of operating world-wide secret conspiracies of impossible complexity. I would think their heads would explode from the contradiction, but I guess not.


No, no, no. Progenitorivox is the drug you need.

"The Drugs I Need" by the Austin Lounge Lizards

You've got a headache

And I've got some strange disease

Don't worry about it

This pill will set your mind at ease

It's called Progenitorivox

It's made by SquabbMerlCo

It's a life enhancing miracle

But there are some things you should know

It may cause agitation


Excessive salivation


Male lactation

Rust colored urination


Bad vibrations

Mild electric shock sensations

But it's worth it

For the drugs I need

My disease may not be fatal

But I can ease my fears

By taking two twelve dollar pills

Each day for fifty years

They've spent billions to convince me

So now I realize


Beats diet and exercise!

I've got insurance

At least for now I do

And if I buy generic

It would cut my cost in two

But I want Progenitorivox!

‘cause I saw it on TV

Those families look so functional

That paisley pill's for me

But it may cause



Debtor's prison and deportation

Dark depictions

Dire predictions

Life as seen in Dickens fiction

Empty pocket

Court dockets

May cause eyes to pop from sockets

But it's worth it

For the drugs I need

But it's worth it…

In Canada, they get this for a song!

But it's worth it

For the drugs I need

The opinions expressed in this song are not necessarily those of SquabbMerlCo or its subsidiaries. Progenitorivox is not available, anywhere. Offer void in Wisconsin. Any resemblance to actual drugs, living or dead, is purely coincidental. Any unauthorized use of your judgment in the application of Progenitorivox is strictly prohibited. Progenitorivox may not be reproduced without the expressed written consent of Major League Baseball. Progenitorivox may cause drowsiness or restlessness in lab animals. Do not resume sexual activity while operating heavy machinery without consulting your physician. For erections lasting longer than four hours, insert your own joke here. If you experience psychotic episodes, you're crazy. If death occurs, discontinue use of Progenitorivox immediately. If symptoms persist, consult your physician. All sales final. Batteries not included.


Here we go again. More misinformation, more nonsense.

May 5, 2022, New England Journal of Medicine [note that I actually give sources and links!] Here is their conclusion: "Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19."

This is the study cited by Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times (oh, look! another link!!!). There is no "admission" from Hiltzik or others that the study was too small, etc. That HAS been a criticism of some of the studies, and you can see why the studies don't involve tens or hundreds of thousands--you are giving people a placebo and a drug that you don't think works. In other words, you're gambling with their lives.

The cost argument is not just nonsense, it utter nonsense. Would you pay $25,000 for a car that works or $1,000 for a car that doesn't run and can't be fixed?

Why do people persist in spouting nonsense? I'm baffled.


In the study where 679 patients with early Covid were treated with ivermectin and 679 similar Covid patients receive placebo. 14.7% of the ivermectin group were hospitalized and 3.1% died, while 16.3% of the placebo group was hospitalized and 3.4% died. No statistical difference.


Regarding dosage, the LTE author stated this study was set up to fail by using low ivermectin dosage. Here is a quote from the paper, "When we began this trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive a 1-day dose of ivermectin, as is most commonly used for the treatment of parasitic diseases. We responded to feedback from advocacy groups regarding this administration schedule and adapted the duration of ivermectin administration to 3 days at a relatively high dose (400 mcg/kg body weight each day) as compared with most other trials of this drug.


You beat me to it Mamlukman. Some folks delight in spreading misinformation, or are just to gullible to realize what they are saying simply is not true. As you noted, the LTE writer provides no references. Very telling.


The author of this LTE said the study he cited showed a decreased length of hospitalization for ivermectin treated Covid patients. I challenge him to actually read the paper and find that. I am looking at table 3 from the paper which shows identical median length of stay and recovery times whether patients were treated with ivermectin or placebo.


Invective does not, I repeat, does not prevent or cure Covid-19. Please read reliable sources, not the drivel you cite.



Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.