Mexican government testing program on early treatment of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Virus (COVID-19) using Ivermectin has witnessed a drastic reduction in hospitalizations. The research was jointly released by the Mexican Digital Agency for Public Innovation (DAPI), Mexico’s Ministry of Health, and the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS).
Following an increase in CCP Virus cases, local officials produced a home-treatment kit, which included ivermectin for the city’s 22 million residents on December 28, 2020.
In early January, the Director of Mexico City’s Ministry of Health, Oliva López, declared that doctors treat COVID-19 using Ivermectin and Azithromycin.
“The Ministry of Health has identified that there is enough evidence to use in people positive for SARS-CoV-2, even without symptoms, some drugs such as ivermectin and azithromycin,” López spoke in a news conference.
Data gathered on the tracking system shows that the group that received ivermectin had a considerable decrease in hospitalizations than the group that did not. Ivermectin was found to be 52% to 76% effective at preventing hospitalization.
Dr. Juan J. Chamie-Quintero, a senior data analyst at EAFIT, a private Colombian university, studied hospitalization and death rates in Mexico City before and after the government’s ivermectin treatment program was launched.
The success of ivermectin in Mexico City is a real-life example of a peer-reviewed study on the drug’s anti-CCP Virus advantages.
Since the middle of 2020, worldwide ivermectin cases have been increasing. Many highly qualified doctors and research organizations claim that it can significantly reduce illness frequencies, durations, and severity in low-risk individuals, even before vaccination is considered.
The use of ivermectin-based treatment for the CCP Virus has been thoroughly researched by leading specialists and physicians from The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), along with many such groups.
The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) published a study in Feb. 2021 suggesting that “Ivermectin, a verifiably safe and widely available oral medicine, be immediately deployed early and globally.”
The BIRD group’s advice was based in part on multiple well-documented research showing that ivermectin treatment reduces the chance of developing CCP Virus by over 90% and mortality by 68% to 91%.
An increasing number of expert groups from the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, the U.S., and a group from Japan led by Professor Satoshi Omura, the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of ivermectin, have come to the same conclusion.
The FLCCC established a real-time analysis of all studies regarding the use of ivermectin for the CCP Virus, which can be found here.
(“Prophylaxis refers to regularly taking medication before becoming sick, in order to prevent or minimize infection. Early Treatment refers to treatment immediately or soon after symptoms appear, while Late Treatment refers to more delayed treatment,” explanation provided by c19ivermectin.com)
Despite ivermectin’s long-standing safety record, low cost, and widespread availability, as well as consistent, reproducible, large-scale findings on transmission rates, the need for hospitalization, and mortality, multiple national and international health agencies—including but not limited to the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and the regulatory health agencies of—have expressed reservations about the drug.
National Institutes of Health (NIH), which responsible for issuing treatment guidelines for the CCP Virus, updated their recommendation on Feb. 11, 2021, that “there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against ivermectin in COVID-19.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved ivermectin for use against the CCP Virus in treatment and warns that the version and dose for animals and humans are not the same.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced on March 2021 that they recommend: “against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomized clinical trials.”
The FLCCC has recently released a rebuttal in which they thoroughly answered any raised concern by the Public Health Agencies (PIH) as a response to PIH’s “unprecedented, highly irregular, and poorly defended” decision to turn down ivermectin as a “life-saving therapy.”
The FLCCC also accused the PIH of suppressing and distorting scientific data “in order to meet non-scientific (financial and other) objectives.”
Two other factors are mentioned in the statement as evidence showing why people could not access the real source of information about ivermectin.
The research team referred to “Big Science” and “Active Political-Economic “Disinformation” Campaign.”
It began before the CCP Virus pandemic and has since swiftly grown into the current system. It tightly integrates “Big Pharma,” “Big PHA’s/Academic Health Centers” (AMC), “Big Journals,” “Big Media,” and “Big Social Media” into the public health system’s attempts to guide patient treatment, research, and policy.
Ivermectin is labeled “unproven” because it lacks “sufficient evidence.” It is consequently heavily blocked from public discussion and knowledge, first by Big PHAs, then Big Media, and Big Social Media.
A popular Facebook group with 10,000 followers was terminated (“Ivermectin MD Team”) due to ivermectin mentions on Big Social Media. In addition, all YouTube videos referencing ivermectin for CCP Virus treatment have been removed or demonetized, and Twitter sites have been locked.
Furthermore, even the most reputable independent and professional organizations who recommend ivermectin based on a substantial body of indisputable facts are characterized as “controversial” and providers of “medical disinformation” by Big Media.
This act from Big Science has led to numerous physicians wanting to treat their patients with ivermectin-based therapy being constrained by their employers issuing edicts “from above.” Instead, they are made to adhere to protocols that primarily rely on pharmaceutically engineered therapeutics, despite their professional interpretation of the existing evidence.
In terms of the “disinformation” Campaign, the FLCCC listed a few examples from Big Pharma and Big PHA’s statements that “clearly represents a disinformation tactic with an intent to distort and diminish the reporting of a large magnitude benefit on mortality among many hundreds of patients.”
At the end of the announcement, the FLCCC called for global citizens and scientists to take action against those disinformation tactics by correcting false assertions and becoming a UCS Network Watchdog.