Why are they so desperate to keep little old ivermectin from you?

ER Editor: We’re linking to this right here –

How to starve cancer

Kudos to Dr. Tess Lawrie.


Unlocked: Why are they so desperate to keep little old ivermectin from you?

Useful in an ever-growing list of conditions, it’s the biggest threat to the Big Pharma behemoth

That same week, we sent similar emails to Dr Clifford Lane at the NIH and Dr Peter Stein at the FDA, all with the same urgency. Our systematic review had made it clear that ivermectin could save lives – and thus the longer this information was withheld, the more people would die.

I think you already know the response we received. Three weeks after sending the email above, I followed up with another one, again stressing the urgency. Here’s what I sent:

… and here’s the response:

Two weeks later, WHO indeed gave its recommendation

… that ivermectin should only be used to treat Covid-19 in clinical trials. On 8th March, a week before, the FDA had issued a public warning that ivermectin was a dangerous drug.

This, as you know, is a barefaced lie.

Ivermectin is safe, much safer than paracetamol, a drug available at your local supermarket.

Ivermectin is derived from nature. It has been around for four decades, administered to billions of people since the 1980’s, and is so safe that, in all its decades of use, only around 5,000 reports of adverse events have been reported to the WHO’s Vigiaccess database; compare this with the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ for which their adverse drug reports number almost 5 million.

Even if our review had found no clear benefit, there would have been no harm in giving ivermectin a go based on the experiences of doctors who did and found that it helped their patients. The call for further randomised trials of a widely used generic medicine was wholly inappropriate when the decision to use established medicines for new conditions for which they are not licensed is usually done at the physician’s discretion. Did they do a trial of paracetamol for Covid-19?

In my first email to the WHO above, I referenced the WHO guidance, ‘Developing Global Norms for Research in Emergencies’ which clearly states that “All those generating data during an emergency… have a moral obligation to share results as soon as interim findings are of sufficient quality.” That of course, is exactly what we and Dr Pierre Kory and Dr Paul Marik did.

Back then, this document was freely available on the WHO website for all to view. Shortly after we began speaking up about ivermectin’s efficacy and the need to expedite these findings in accordance with the WHO guidance, it was mysteriously removed, gone from view.

Fortunately, I downloaded a copy – which you can view here.

Global Norms For Research In Emergencies Plos

150KB ∙ PDF File


There is much to say about this document which I will save for another post, but for now, let’s just say that they hadn’t factored in the healing power of this wonder drug.

Its efficacy in preventing and treating Covid was an inconvenient surprise that threatened to derail the rollout of Covid injections and novel, barely tested, expensive drugs. I have been hearing rumours that Merck – ivermectin’s original pharma manufacturer that no longer holds the patent – has been buying up ivermectin producers in India in a bid to control production. This is not verified but given everything that has happened so far – fraudulent trials designed to rubbish ivermectin, withdrawal of papers demonstrating ivermectin’s efficacy, misinformation campaigns by the laughably named Trusted News Initiative – I would not be in the least surprised.

Bad press about ivermectin continues. I am often asked to respond to the latest hatchet job or study concluding ivermectin doesn’t work for Covid. The latest of these is this one

Like the others, most of the authors have conflicts of interest as long as my arm, receiving grants and fees from drug companies making expensive competing drugs including the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. I could go through them one by one but reader, I cannot be bothered.

Put another way, I refuse to engage in this theatre.

People need to make up their own minds. Would you rather take an experimental brand new ‘vaccine’ (or five) that has not been shown to prevent disease in animals let alone humans, or would you rather take a cheap old medicine that’s been used for decades in humans and animals and doctors swear by it? Not to mention that ivermectin works for prevention and treatment, the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ work for neither. I know what I’d choose.

To those speaking out about ivermectin, the threat is tremendous. As a reminder, yesterday Dr John Littell testified on his success in treating Covid patients (and fellow doctors) with ivermectin, only to be promptly thrown off the hospital premises.

I keep hearing from doctors and researchers around the world that ivermectin’s healing properties extend far beyond Covid. I am just back from The Philippines, where one doctor told me she had treated her own late stage cancer with six months of high dose ivermectin, and other doctors reported success with ivermectin as a cancer treatment. So do you think we need randomised trials of ivermectin for different cancers before we can start using it? If you think the answer is ‘yes’ you have not been paying attention :-).

When one is dealing with a medicine as safe as ivermectin, and a condition as lethal as cancer, it is likely that there is little to lose by trying safe repurposed alternatives under the supervision of your trusted health professional – especially considering that chemotherapy drugs are notoriously toxic and benefits of use often marginal.

Cancer survivor and patient advocate Jane McLelland shared her experience with ivermectin and re-purposed medicines for cancer with me, too – and you can view our Tess Talks conversation here.

So, two years on from that first letter to the WHO about our ivermectin review, let it be known that I am through with deflecting the many and varied attacks on this wonderful medicine.

No doubt this article will trigger the usual pushback from Big Pharma’s trolls. If people wish to swallow the line spun by corrupted journals that ivermectin is ineffective and/or dangerous, that is their choice. I would just ask that people do their research into who funds these journals and studies, and research their conflicts of interest before drawing conclusions. And do listen to the testimony of the thousands of doctors using ivermectin on the front line of Covid care and Covid ‘vaccine’ injury.

My own position on this subject has not changed and I declare no conflicts of interest. Once again,

ivermectin saves lives



Featured image, ivermectin: HJBC/Shutterstock


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.