Ivermectin and Human Fertility and Safety Studies
The HUGE Gap in Research and the Lack of Human Studies
Ivermectin, a drug long used to treat parasitic infections, has recently become a topic of heated debate. Promoted by so-called freedom-fighting physicians and others, ivermectin has been touted as a miracle prophylactic or cure for COVID-19, despite ongoing debates about what COVID-19 truly is. Amidst this controversy, many people have taken matters into their own hands, self-dosing with ivermectin on a regular and continued basis. This widespread self-administration raises significant concerns, especially given the lack of comprehensive research into ivermectin's long-term effects, including its impact on fertility. What’s even more troubling is that this medication, pushed by pharmaceutical giant Merck and endorsed by organizations like the World Bank, is classified as an insecticides, pesticides and larvicide, raising further questions about its safety.
In the early 1970s, onchocerciasis, or river blindness, was supposedly rampant in 34 countries, primarily in Africa. It was the O.G. COVID-19, Monkey Pox, Avian Flu, the sky is falling scenario we see endlessly and daily contemporarily. With approximately 17.7 million people infected globally, including 270,000 blind and 500,000 severely visually impaired, the supposed “river blindness” disease of the 70s had a devastating impact on health, economic productivity, and agriculture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
By 1973, Robert McNamara, then President of the World Bank, deemed onchocerciasis as a major crisis. In 1974, the World Bank, along with other UN agencies, launched the Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP) in West Africa. The program aimed to address the disease across 1.2 million square kilometers, protecting 30 million people from river blindness. Did you catch that? The whole they sprayed stuff in the water part? Finish the job?
For over a decade, the OCP’s control efforts relied on spraying insecticides from aircraft to supposedly target blackfly larvae. The chemicals used included DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), temephos, and fenitrothion. These were largely being sprayed in water sources. Despite the program's supposed goals, the use of these chemicals and their broader impact on the environment and public health raises some serious questions.
While Merck began donating ivermectin (branded as Mectizan) in 1987 and distribution started in 1988 through the Mectizan Donation Program, the timeline and unofficial rollout of this medication to affected populations are less clear. There are discrepancies and uncertainties about when exactly ivermectin was introduced and how it was initially administered. Ivermectin was initially approved for animal use in 1981.
Ivermectin was “registered” for compassionate human use in France around 1986, despite limited research on its effects on human health. This raises questions about whether Fondation Merieux, which has connections to the controversial work of Louis Pasteur that was funded by influential Jewish banking figures and Freemasons, played a role in facilitating this medication’s approval for use in impoverished populations (more on this Foundation in a subsequent stack).
Robert McNamara’s legacy is deeply controversial (and troubling). His tenure as head of the World Bank was marked by significant and troubling actions. Beyond his role in supporting the Mectizan Donation Program, his broader policies also included support for controversial population control measures, such as forced sterilizations in poor countries, which have been heavily criticized for their ethical implications and human rights violations.
McNamara’s earlier role as U.S. Secretary of Defense saw him as a key architect of the Vietnam War, where he oversaw the use of chemical agents (pesticides) like Agent Orange and many more sprayed all over Vietnam. This resulted in severe health problems and environmental damage. It is also quite curious that when this was taking place “malaria” was also supposedly ravaging Vietnam. The symptoms of “malaria” are also identical to being exposed to the many pesticides and toxins sprayed during this time.
Robert McNamara’s involvement in Project 112-Project SHAD, a military program testing chemical and biological agents without consent on U.S. soldiers and civilians worldwide, and his support for other aggressive and harmful policies further complicate his legacy.
The Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP) was overseen by a consortium of international organizations, including the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The coordination and approval for the spraying operations were managed by the OCP's central coordinating unit, with significant involvement from these agencies.
The HUGE Gap in Research on Ivermectin and Fertility
1. Absence of Long-Term Human Studies:
Despite the claims of its proponents, there is a striking absence of long-term human studies examining ivermectin's effects on fertility and overall health. Ivermectin was originally approved based on its short-term effectiveness against parasitic infections, with little attention given to its long-term safety profile. The recent trend of people self-dosing with ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 compounds the concern, as there is no robust data on how continued and repeated use might affect reproductive health. Without such studies, we are left in the dark about the potential risks of regular ivermectin use.
2. Use as an Insecticide and Pesticide:
Ivermectin’s chemical properties have been classified as insecticides, pesticides, and larvicides. It is also effective in killing parasites, which speaks to its potency as a chemical agent. This raises serious safety questions when considering its frequent and prolonged use by humans. If it is strong enough to eliminate pests and parasites, what might it be doing to human cells, particularly those involved in reproduction? The lack of rigorous safety studies makes it impossible to dismiss the potential for harmful effects on fertility and other aspects of health. Just like we’ve been assured that vaccines rushed through Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) are safe and effective, despite lacking long-term studies on their impact on human health, it raises the question: how can anyone claim ivermectin is safe when its effects have barely been studied at all?
My dear Watson, I believe that’s what one would refer to as a significant gap in the scientific literature.
3. Lack of Reliable Data and Potential Fabrication:
The legitimacy of the data supporting ivermectin’s safety is questionable. Reports have surfaced suggesting that some safety data may have been fabricated or manipulated. If true, this represents a serious breach of trust and raises ethical concerns about the drug's promotion. The absence of independent, rigorous studies examining the long-term effects of ivermectin in humans only adds to the problem. Without accurate and trustworthy data, we risk overlooking potential long-term side effects, including impacts on fertility, by assuming ivermectin is safe based on limited or possibly unreliable information. Could “ivermectin” be causing “undetected” fertility issues deliberately? Given that the initial advocates of ivermectin were also supporters of population control, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider this possibility.
It would not be unprecedented for a medication touted as safe and effective to remain on the market while causing significant health and fertility issues, as seen with the DES (diethylstilbestrol) tragedy. DES, a synthetic estrogen, was prescribed to pregnant women from the 1940s to the 1970s to prevent miscarriages and complications. Despite its initial endorsement, it later emerged that DES caused severe health problems. Women exposed to DES experienced reproductive tract abnormalities, including clear cell adenocarcinoma, a rare form of vaginal cancer, and faced higher risks of fertility issues and pregnancy complications such as premature birth and miscarriage. Most people don’t even know what this medication is or that they may have been exposed to it by their relatives years ago.
Men who were exposed to DES in utero suffered from testicular abnormalities, decreased sperm count, and an increased risk of certain cancers. This case really emphasizes how medications can have unforeseen and damaging consequences long after they are introduced, raising concerns about potential hidden impacts of ivermectin, particularly given its initial advocates' support for population control.
Questioning the Science: Blood-Brain Barrier and Neurotoxic Effects
1. Claims About the Blood-Brain Barrier:
One of the key arguments used to support ivermectin’s safety is that it supposedly does not cross the blood-brain barrier in humans or other mammals. This barrier is supposedly a selective permeability shield that protects the brain from potentially harmful substances. Proponents argue that because ivermectin is believed not to cross this barrier, it should be safe for human use. However, this claim is not fully substantiated by extensive clinical evidence. There is also an increasing number of skeptics who doubt the existence of the blood-brain barrier, suggesting that it might be another fabricated falsehood like Germ Theory and the many other purported scientific narratives we have been fed throughout the ages.
2. Reality of Neurotoxic Symptoms:
Despite claims that ivermectin does not cross the blood-brain barrier, there are documented cases of neurotoxic symptoms associated with its use. These symptoms include seizures, dizziness, confusion, and other neurological effects. If ivermectin truly does not cross the blood-brain barrier, it is unclear why these neurotoxic symptoms occur. This discrepancy raises concerns about the validity of the blood-brain barrier argument and suggests that more research is needed to fully understand ivermectin’s safety profile. The purported mechanism by which ivermectin kills parasites and insects—by interfering with their nervous systems—could potentially have unforeseen effects on human neurology, which is not fully understood. Or is it?
Ethical Principles in the Context of Ivermectin
1. Beneficence:
The principle of beneficence involves acting in ways that promote the well-being of others. When it comes to ivermectin, this principle demands that any use of the drug be supported by thorough research demonstrating its safety and efficacy, particularly regarding long-term effects on fertility. Without such research, the promotion and widespread use of ivermectin cannot be justified under the ethical principle of beneficence, as it fails to ensure that the drug's use is genuinely beneficial and does not pose unforeseen risks to users.
2. Non-Maleficence:
Non-maleficence, or the obligation to do no harm, is another critical ethical principle. The lack of long-term studies on ivermectin's effects means that its potential to cause harm, especially to reproductive health, is unknown. Self-dosing with ivermectin, given its classification as an insecticide and pesticide, may expose individuals to risks that are not yet fully understood. The ethical principle of non-maleficence requires that we avoid actions that could cause harm, making it crucial to have comprehensive safety data before advocating for its widespread use.
3. Autonomy:
The principle of autonomy emphasizes the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their health. However, without clear and reliable information about the long-term effects of ivermectin, particularly on fertility, individuals are unable to make fully informed choices. The ethical principle of autonomy is compromised when people self-dose with ivermectin based on incomplete or potentially misleading information. Transparent and thorough research is essential to support informed decision-making and respect individuals' autonomy.
4. Justice:
Justice involves ensuring that health interventions are fairly distributed and that vulnerable populations are not exploited. The promotion of ivermectin, especially in developing regions by entities like Merck and the World Bank, raises questions about justice. Are these interventions truly aimed at improving health, or are they serving broader economic or geopolitical interests? Ensuring that health interventions are ethically sound and not disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations is a crucial aspect of justice.
Merck and the World Bank: Pushing Ivermectin on Vulnerable Populations
1. Merck's Role:
Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that developed ivermectin, has been instrumental in promoting its use worldwide. The company has presented ivermectin as a wonder drug, but its motivation likely extends beyond public health. Merck's aggressive promotion of ivermectin suggests a strong profit motive or possibly something far more nefarious, potentially overshadowing concerns about long-term safety. By framing ivermectin as a miracle cure, Merck may have contributed to the widespread self-dosing trend, despite the lack of comprehensive research on the drug’s effects over extended periods.
2. The World Bank and Mass Drug Administration:
The World Bank has also played a significant role in pushing ivermectin, particularly in “developing” regions (that have been around and have thrived for centuries) such as Africa and India, through mass drug administration (MDA) programs. These programs are often portrayed as humanitarian efforts to combat parasitic diseases, but their implementation raises questions about the true motivations behind them. The World Bank's involvement isn’t seemingly solely about improving public health; it also intersects with broader economic and geopolitical interests. Reports of the World Bank promoting the use of pesticides in water supplies before addressing river blindness in Africa further complicate the narrative, suggesting that these health interventions might be less about protecting health and more about control.
3. Questions About River Blindness, Malaria and Public Health Narratives:
The promotion of ivermectin, alongside the use of pesticides, raises broader questions about public health narratives. Are we being told the full story about diseases like river blindness or malaria, or are these narratives influenced by economic and political agendas? The alignment of pharmaceutical companies like Merck with global financial institutions like the World Bank and United Nations suggests that public health efforts may serve interests beyond those of the people they claim to help. This possibility raises ethical concerns about the real impact of these interventions on vulnerable populations.
The Question of Truth and Transparency
1. The Reality of Health Interventions:
When large-scale health interventions are driven by powerful organizations, it is essential to scrutinize their motives. Are these efforts genuinely aimed at improving health, or are they tools for control? The recent trend of individuals self-dosing with ivermectin reflects a broader issue: a lack of trust in official health narratives. But do they realize that this medication has never had sufficient research done on the impact on human health and fertility with this medication? Do people realize that ivermectin is a Merck medication that was pushed on the poor populations throughout the world by the World Bank? Merck has a history tainted with falsified trial data and harmful medications that have been pulled from the market. Do people even know what the World Bank is or their very controversial history? I don’t think so.
2. Are We Being Lied To?
The lack of transparency, the potential manipulation of safety data, and the aggressive promotion of ivermectin raise fundamental questions: Are we being lied to? The portrayal of ivermectin as a safe, effective drug relies on a narrative that may not fully align with reality. Without independent, comprehensive studies, we cannot be certain that the information we have is accurate or that the drug is safe for long-term use. The intertwining interests of pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, and government bodies create a complex environment where truth can easily be obscured.
Concluding Thoughts
The use of ivermectin, especially by those self-dosing regularly, raises serious concerns about its long-term safety, particularly regarding fertility. What is being done with the “freedom movement” and the vast number of influencers pushing this medication that has had little to no safety studies done is quite troublesome. It feels like reverse psychology at its finest. Ivermectin’s connection to insecticides and pesticides, combined with a lack of thorough research and the involvement of powerful entities like Merck and the World Bank, calls into question its safety profile. Until independent, rigorous studies are conducted, its use should be approached with caution, especially by those considering regular, continued use.
Demanding transparency, accountability, and rigorous independent research is essential to ensure that public health interventions serve the best interests of the people. Without this scrutiny, we risk allowing profit and control motives to overshadow the truth, putting public health at risk.
Call to Action
Stay informed and critical. Question the narratives pushed by powerful organizations or influencers pushing any therapeutics or ideas. Knowledge is power—you don’t need a degree, license, or white lab coat to critically think and make your own informed decisions. #Autonomy #Beneficence #Non-Malfesance #Justice
personally I’m not going to take any drug prophylaxis… if I have symptoms that don’t go away I will consider treatment for a short period.
hydroxychloroquine was also promoted as an alternative treatment for PHEIC (fayk) COVID … some are definitely less toxic than others
Thank you BB😊
For pointing out what I thought more people understood- the evidence is just not there, for it to treated like M&Ms.
Some of us hold to the precautionary principle. It used to mean caution and consideration, even so far as "first do no harm".
In the last few years particularly, it seems precautionary principle has been interpreted as wait an extra 12 months!
A serious lack of evidence for ANY drug should inspire questions and higher rigour, and free discussion. NOT census, vilification or derision.
And one should ALWAYS question those with currency incentives.😉
#precautionoverprofit #lookharder #wearemany #wearememory #wewillnotforgive #mistakeswereNOTmade #getlocalised