During the COVID-19 pandemic every country was in a panic to work out treatment protocols using existing drugs that could save lives when the hysteria machine of mainstream media was saying that new illness could kill anyone at any time.

India in particular had a very large population and were fearful that they would have millions dying in the streets, which received a great deal of publicity.

The Uttar Pradesh province of India found a solution and was ultimately able to reign in the Covid pandemic. They used a drug that was discovered almost five decades ago, has been used billions of times since the late 1980's, has been listed as one of the WHO's "essential medicines" and the person who discovered it won a Nobel Prize for their efforts.

When it came to treating COVID-19 with this drug, several doctors in the US pushed for its use early on after they found it was highly effective as part of the treatment protocols they devised, with ICU doctors finding its used halved the number of deaths in their departments.

After much pushing by doctors to use it as a part of the treatment protocol used worldwide, in October 2020 the WHO hired Dr Andrew Hill to research the drug. Other doctors, including previous WHO consultant Dr Tess Laurie, got in contact with Dr Hill and the two (Drs Hill and Laurie) agreed to work together on a report they hoped could be published by the Cochrane Review group, who were known for doing high quality, detailed analysis reports.

Dr Andrew Hill tweeted on 2020-12-29 12:20pm:

[the drug] is showing effects on viral clearance, hospitalization and survival across a wide range of randomised trials in different countries. Difficult to see how bian assement could change such consistent treatment effects. Excluding studies with any bias is too extreme.

Without any communication with Dr Laurie, in January 2021 Dr Hill published a report on a preprint server, not with Cochrane Review as originally planned, that contained the following:

Results: [the drug] was associated with reduced inflammatory markers (C-Reactive Protein, d-dimer and ferritin) and faster viral clearance by PCR. Viral clearance was treatment dose- and duration-dependent. [The drug] showed significant shorter duration of hospitalization compared to control. In six RCTs of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk=0.25 [95% CI 0.12-0.52]; p=0.0002); 14/650 (2.1%) deaths on ivermectin; 59/597 (9.5%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization.

Furthermore:

At 24 h, there was a 93% reduced in viral RNA present in the supernatant (indicative of released virions) of samples treated with [the drug] compared to the vehicle DMSO. Similarly a 99.8% reduction in cell-associated viral RNA (indicative of unreleased and unpackaged virions) was observed with [the drug] treatment. By 48 h this effect increased to a ~5000-fold reduction of viral RNA in [the drug]-treated compared to control samples, indicating that [the drug] treatment resulted in the effective loss of essentially all viral material by 48 h. Consistent with this idea, no further reduction in viral RNA was observed at 72 h. As we have observed previously (Lundberg et al., 2013; Tay et al., 2013; Wagsaff et al., 2012), no toxicity of [the drug] was observed at any of the timepoints tested, in either the sample wells or in parallel testing drug alone samples.

Relatedly, Dr Hill gave a lecture in late January of 2021 which followed up the report by saying:

Now, we have data in December [2020] from 1452 patients, 11 trials showing an 84% survival benefit. Now, in January, we have 18 trials and 2294 patients show a 75% survival benefit. In February, we'll have data from 23 trials and 4100 patients and so on going up to April where we get 10,000 patients.

What was this miracle drug?

Ivermectin.

Yes, the "horse dewormer".

The problem with the report was that its conclusions included the following sentence:

Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.

So despite the fact that Dr Hill agreed in December that ivermectin was showing its benefit in trials world-over with "consistent treatment effects" and there were reports showing upwards of 75% to 84% improved outcomes using it, his reports conclusions said differently.

After discovering the preprint study Dr Laurie got in contact with Dr Hill who was apologetic of writing the report without her. He indicated that he was being pressured to publish it and also indicated that other people had written the conclusions, specifically UNITAID who had funded the research for the WHO. Dr Hill said he hoped he could get his report out and that Dr Laurie's report would be able to come out six weeks later to counter the damage his report would do, but that for now the report was out of his hands, he had no power to fix the mistake. Don't believe me? Watch the video, see with your own eyes.

And so in January 2021 when Dr Hills report was published it put the nail in the coffin of the efforts by many to use a cheap, effective drug to reduce deaths and harm from the Covid pandemic. This was followed up in the summer of 2021 by the FDA's "horse dewormer" propaganda campaign, which was repeated throughout mainstream media, despite the reality that it could have saved millions of lives.

Dr Laurie published a portion of the video call as part of a plea to Dr Hill to undo the injustice he was a party to, but sadly nothing came of it.

When there was a Cochrane Review of the ivermectin the report was so corrupted that three quarters of the patients they included went against their own stated protocols, so unfortunately they dropped their own standards.

So yes, Uttar Pradesh used Ivermectin to all-but eradicate Covid.

In the US doctors who promoted the use of Ivermectin were smeared and had their licenses pulled, despite their patients surviving and recovery at higher rates than their peers. One of the doctors who's career was destroyed wrote a series of articles about how the top-down medical industry destroyed the name of ivermectin, it's grim reading for those who believed the medical industry had its patients' care as its primary concern; the doctor went on to write a book about it, and it was turned into a 12 minute documentary for anyone who prefers to learn from watching instead of reading.

Despite Dr Hill's paper, and the FDA's propaganda campaign, to date there have been 100 studies showing ivermectin was useful against COVID-19. Don't believe me, go read the studies yourself, I encourage you to do so.

So why do people point to scientific studies that denounce ivermectin? Because these scientists were paid to do bad studies. It turns out it's remarkably easy to design a study to fail, all you have to do is delay treatment until the patient is extremely ill so the drug shows less effectiveness, or give too much of the drug (and risk overdosing the patients, which is what happened with hydroxychloroquine), or give too little of it either by body weight or by cutting off the treatment early, or maybe devise an endpoint that shows the patient hadn't recovered in time. And in the world of Buzzfeed attention spans, all that matters is the story title, so "Gates funded study shows ivermectin is ineffective" sells more than "Another study shows scientists can rig data to make you believe their funders' agenda; whither ethics?".

Yes, the people saying ivermectin wasn't effective against COVID-19 were lying.

In summary: the propaganda campaign against ivermectin cost millions of lives, and the people who pushed against it should be charged with crimes against humanity. And if you thought ivermectin was too dangerous to take to treat COVID-19 then you had internalized the propaganda campaign.

Update March 11th: The last of the major "official" studies on Ivermectin was just published, and it's the worst of the lot. In the study they waited up to fourteen days after initial symptoms were visible before starting the treatment, so of course there's no notable difference between the test group and the control group. They also changed the trial audience after starting it, to look at healthy adults who weren't at risk from Covid in the first place. Maybe we should do a similar study for advil - wait until the headache is gone and then see if taking advil makes any difference, given the incompetence shown by the medical research industry these days I'm sure that someone would be able to get a lot of funding for a study like that!