Ivermectin Could Have Saved Millions Of Lives Reply to Gary Null’s Article on Ivermectin in the Online Edition

“[Mr. Null,] You are out of your mind. I am a nurse an RN and Ivermectin is for parasitic infections worms and mites not a virus. Don’t compare doctors and nurses today with Nazi Germany and also where is your citable evidence[?] I see no cited data done in the proper form. While the COVID vaccine is not perfect it has saved lives. Ivermectin has not.”

Patricia J. Roderique

Reply by a reader to Patricia J. Roderique, RN

Hi Patricia,

Thank you for expressing your experienced opinion. I think you are missing some essential context and have unwittingly ignored some very important facts of the matter. The following is offered in good faith, but I don’t presume to persuade you any more than you are willing to change your mind. Though we don’t know one another, please accept any snark as friendly ribbing. It is a serious issue, so one that can benefit from humor and practical joking for the sake of levity.

Mr. Null has done a good job of summarizing the factual narrative put forth at greater length in RFKjr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci.” While that book admittedly suffers from the absence of an index in the printed version, it does manage to contain all of the citable evidence that any expert practitioner might require, both in the more robust body of the book’s logical argument and in its very thorough end-notes and references. As I’m sure you know, newspapers inherently request a degree of trust and never cite references as is expected of scientific literature and academic non-fiction books. The legacy institutions like NYTimes have lost a great deal of credibility in recent decades by abusing that trust with systemic regularity. In my heartfelt opinion, you would improve your professional knowledge base well to digest Kennedy’s book in earnest with an open mind, allowing for the possibility that you and your entire cohort has been rather remarkably well misled.

In fact, the renegade health-practitioners who refused throughout the pandemic lockdowns to conform to captured health agency dictate and corporate media scolding demonstrated exceptional success with their patients using IVM (in protocol with a suite of vitamins and fats) to treat Covid symptoms and cure the infection long before cytokine storms could develop, thus otherwise requiring admission to hospitals, where healthy financial disbursements were received under ….. by bursars for every Covid patient who died and a bonus if they died on a ventilator.

If you review the whole body of evidence concerning IVM you will learn that it is not merely an anti-parasitic (working in the gut), as you assert, but it also functions well as an anti-viral when it is provided with a vehicle to deliver it through the cell walls into the blood-cells. New, outsider research is also discovering that in other combinations, IVM can be reliably effective at combating a range of cancers, well beyond its anti-viral and anti-parasitic functions. It is a drug with remarkably few side-effects and it has no known lethal dose. Truly a miracle drug worthy of the Nobel Prize.

Perhaps the best public discussion of the mechanism at play in treating and defeating Covid is provided in a long-form conversation between clinician Dr. Pierre Kory (ICU & Lung specialist), evolutionary biologist Dr. Bret Weinstein, and podcast host Joe Rogan on his show #1671 found on Spotify. If those names induce in you a disgust response, I encourage you to hold your nose and endure. Because if you elect to ignore the legitimate discoveries and empirical evidence there detailed, or you simply seek to refute them with prejudice in advance, or just refuse to listen, the fact is that in doing so, you will be opting to favor ignorance over informed consent.

If “ignoring” something is not the source of “ignorance,” then your mental model of language may have bigger problems. It is exactly ignorance with its potential for treachery (intended or not) that the Nuremberg Trials sought to defeat and prevent by establishing “informed consent” as the standard of ethical medicine. Hence the analogy between Lockdown Policy and Nazi Germany is not as inappropriate and absurdist as you reflexively assert. Much work has been done to critique the historic parallels, some of it by holocaust survivors themselves. The persecution of the Jews in Germany was predicated on triggering the same psychological disgust response (based then on propaganda that Jews were carriers of disease) that was induced in 2021 in order to create the medical apartheid that possessed American populations who were historically liberal in the principled sense, rather than the merely aesthetic sense. (A syllogistic dose of Donald-Trump-Fear-Porn didn’t hurt to drive everyone into blind conformance.) The argument to persuade the German population that it was acceptable to concentrate Jews in to camps was a public-health argument and the whole willing German medical establishment participated.

I appreciate the emotional extremity of your retort, in that nobody likes to think of their expert labor under employment reduced to a process of “just following orders.” But, for most good and well-intentioned people, it is a hard fact of modern debt slavery and corporate employment that that’s what most work at base amounts to in any field. Dissent is rarely rewarded, and silent conformance with predictable regularity is. Have you found differently in your career?

I’m sure that I’m not saying anything you don’t already intuitively know, as a practicing RN, when I suggest that all of us ought to be much more skeptical of pharma and its captured mouth-pieces whenever they comment on drugs that have gone off-patent, as IVM has. In any honest evaluation, the expiration of patents should be a an opportunity for that drug’s entry into higher distribution than lower, by virtue of increased affordability. Perhaps a public drug utility (in a different political environment, after the corporate capture of regulation is broken) would be in order. At best, the priority of pharma is not to cure disease nor save lives, unless these are side-effects of increasing their market dominance and improving their bottom line. That is by law, in fact, because any for-profit corporation is required by contract to maximize profit for share-holders, such that CEO’s have been removed by Boards in many industries for opting for the ethical over the profitable thing. (Odwalla Juice comes to mind.) This is the reason why the slow take over of the Hippocratic Profession by Financialized Corporate Medicine through the 20th Century was such a tragic coup.

Recognizing the inherent conflicts of interest entailed in every aspect of modern corporate medicine is, in my estimation, the first step to being a better practitioner of the art – in even reminding yourself that it is an art. In contrast, blind respect for “Standard-of-Care,” which is in actuality Industry Standard, by Industry, for Industry (amounting to a computer program that presages your job replacement by automated tele-medicine) is not the same as good medicine, even if it does for the time being secure a steady paycheck on the back of insurance reimbursement streams that favor repeat customers, chronic treatment regimen, and an over-all unhealthy populace.

If you have not used the IVM protocol described by McCullough, Kory, et al., on yourself in treating your own Covid infection, so as to feel the symptoms abate quickly, to restore test-negative status, and to produce relief noticeably quickly, (or to find empirically that it doesn’t help you), then you frankly do not have the experience to claim authority on the matter. Appeals to the exclusive authority of peer-reviewed studies amounts to an abuse of science and misunderstanding of its principles.

Next time your vaccine doesn’t prevent you from contracting and conveying Covid, which I guarantee will happen, I encourage you to wax scientific by trying the protocol on yourself. There’s truly no downside, if done correctly. This is not medical advice and I am not a medical doctor. But neither are you. You are merely the sole, primary advocate of your own well-being, and nobody else.

Sincerely and with due respect,

From out of your mind,

Good luck to you and your patients,

M. H.

Leave a Reply