A number of people have contacted us in recent weeks asking about alternative COVID-19 treatments, preventative or otherwise. This is a very positive development given that an ethical vaccine is still some months away and non-vaccine protocols should be part of one’s considerations when forming one’s conscience. If the danger and need are not grave, treatments that boost the immune system make a great deal of sense.
I have heard from a number of medical professionals that the protocols developed and supported by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance are medically sound and very low-risk approaches to treating a COVID-19 infection or boosting the immune system’s ability to fend off viral infections as a preventative measure. Stacy and I recently did a webinar with Dr. Lisa Van Bramer, a Pediatric Emergency Medicine specialist, and she spoke highly of the FLCCC and their treatment approaches. Math+ is an ethically uncompromised early onset treatment protocol, most effective if started as soon as symptoms emerge. iMASK+ is both a preventative and outpatient treatment, also ethically uncompromised, that uses Ivermectin along with Vitamin D3, Vitamin C, Quercetin, Zinc, Melatonin and Aspirin (for outpatient treatment). Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that has been in use for over forty years, with billions of doses prescribed, and has been shown to enhance the immune system’s ability to resist viral infections and, in this specific application, inhibiting replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Here is a link to the FLCCC’s COVID-19 Protocols page on their website: COVID-19 Protocols | FLCCC | Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Their website is very informative and easy to navigate.
Those of us that are not at grave risk and are waiting for an ethically-derived vaccine to reach the market should consider what the FLCCC has to offer.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I’m perplexed by your last paragraph: “Those of us that are not at grave risk… should consider…”
EVERYONE should consider. The FLCCC protocols have a virtually 100 percent rate of effectiveness. Indeed, I cannot find a single case of anyone dying from Covid who has been treated with these protocols. Ivermectin is also effective at preventing Covid — EVEN IN HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS. All of this has been proven, but our corrupt media have covered it up. Why? Because the law prohibits the FDA from granting any product (such as the Covid vaccine) an emergency use authorization (EUA) if any other effective treatment exists. So, if the FDA were to admit that ivermectin cures Covid, they could not have given the Covid vaccines the EUA under which this massive vaccination push has been taking place. The NIH and FDA are so corrupt it’s mind-boggling.
I am high-risk myself — age 64 plus two co-morbidities — but there is no way you could get me to accept an abortion-tainted vaccine. I’d rather die of Covid than participate in abortion. But thanks to the FLCCC prevention protocol, I don’t even have to take that risk. Ivermectin makes it a very easy choice. I simply follow the protocol, and I have no fear of Covid-19.
Kathryn, individual circumstances differ. The closing paragraph intends to be respectful of these different circumstances. My apologies if it appears inconsistent or confusing.
Completely agree with you! Well said !
Everyone needs to quit panicking due to the lies and the media.
Thank you
Completely agree with Kathryn
Can I share your comment in social media. I LOVE how you stated it with great clarity and I applaud your outlook and approach!
Thank God for cogforlife where the TRUTH OVER Fear prevails. If only more catholics would research what is said here. God bless you all for your work.
Many thanks x however, my understanding is that these are not “vaccines” but rather drug therapy that alters your genetics x unlike the old vaccine therapies that had a small amount of the illness to trigger your body’s response to produce antibodies to kill off illness, this drug therapy enters your body and remains there permanently x this technology is an abomination because of the genetic material from aborted fetal kidney used in the development – and no doubt inclusion x God our creator and His begotten Lord Jesus made us in Their image and therefore I cannot be part of that x we are in the end times, as in the days of Noe, my faith is in Them always and for everything and I thank Them for allowing us to see the rife deception all around us x check out Dr Sam Bailey Virus Mania and The Great Controversy by Ellen White x much love from the UK and God Bless you all xx
Thank you for reporting on this important and life saving information. It is disheartening, to say the least, that the USA has not readily adopted this treatment. Many studies have been done and are being done. I have been following the updates on the FLCCC site and am very encouraged at all the good they have done and are doing. Please pray for ivermectin to be used more widely and may God continue to bless the work of these wonderful physicians!
Perhaps you should also interview doctors from the Catholic Medical Association regarding what the studies have shown regarding these treatments. For example, the cellular studies they cite use Ivermectin at 100 times the dose typically prescribed. The human studies have been of poor quality that do not represent sufficient “medical evidence” of its efficacy to make the claims they do. The NIH has detailed information about it here: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
While it may do something, we simply do not know, and it may not be anything more than placebo. Should we be prescribing drugs because maybe they might do something? Perhaps a proper bioethical analysis is warranted to such an approach.
Kris, there are bodies of data and opinion on both sides of this issue. That seems to be in keeping with everything else having to do with COVID-19. I have looked at the NIH information on Ivermectin. I have also read studies from other nations that report more positively on the use of this drug as a prophylactic and a recuperative treatment.
You say that we simply do not know. That can be applied to the vaccines that are approved for use under the EUA. The trade off of unknown long-term effects of mRNA vaccines v. the uncertain efficacy of an antiparasitic – some may view that as a coin flip, and the approved vaccines have a connection to abortion. That abbreviated tale of the tape seems to favor the alternative protocols. Ivermectin would not be the first antiparasitic to demonstrate antiviral properties, it has been in use for almost 50 years and has been shown to be safe. It is also ethically uncompromised with respect to aborted fetal cell lines or tissue.
From an ethical standpoint, there is nothing unethical about the placebo effect. A benign substance that strengthens the mind and body to real positive effect is a good thing. To be clear, I am not saying that Ivermectin is a placebo in this case – there is a great deal more than wishful speculation that it has a prophylactic and recuperative benefits.
It’s an alternative, a choice. Some may find that it is right for them, at least worth a try, while they wait for an ethically-derived vaccine.
I appreciate your patient perspective. Remember, however, that your construct involves a prescriber to carry out your treatment. As a prescriber, I am not one to prescribe medications without good reason. The studies have not provided that. My question is, “Simply because a medication is safe and might work, should we prescribe it because it might do something?” Maybe so! But we must be careful. This was medicine prior to evidence-based approaches, which was preceded by quackery. I am not implying these approaches are quackery; I am saying is that it is a good idea but the evidence is not bearing it out. And these doctors are benefitting in some ways from their website, though I believe them to be sincere and concerned.
This is more than simply saying, “We do not know”; I am also saying we do not have any evidence to warrant it. Clearly I am not going to prescribe 100 times the usual dose of Ivermectin. And why are these doctors not tracking those who are taking their cocktails? Dr. Delgado is exemplary in how one man used a website and a network of providers like myself to collect evidence regarding the use of progesterone to prevent a chemical abortion after mifepristone.
As you know, First Do No Harm. This ties in with the principle of moral certitude. While mRNA vaccines are a wildcard regarding long-term effects, its does has proven efficacy as well as short-term safety. You can certainly see that the long-term safety of ANY new drug or biological intervention cannot be known. Thus we proceed with moral certitude. This is why I strongly resist any mandate or coercion (as in the form of passports) to get these vaccines–people have a right to refuse any therapy.
Ivermectin is certainly a safe drug, but based on the clinical research, Skittles might perform as well in a head-to-head trial. From an ethical standpoint, then, are you suggesting that we initiate placebo prescribing in medicine?
These were the same people promoting hydroxychloroquine and now it has disappeared.
I am a physician. I have thoroughly evaluated the data presented by the FLCCC. As they themselves acknowledge, the multiple studies evaluating ivermectin are are varying quality, some poor, but many are either observational controlled or randomized controlled, and taken in aggregate as a meta analysis provide positive evidence of efficacy (and as mentioned safety is already well established). I do not agree with your assessment that the data is of such poor quality as to represent zero evidence of efficacy.
Regarding hydroxychloroquine, the FLCCC doctors state that having reviewed the evidence they found it lacking and therefore do not recommend this drug. It is wrong to discredit their expertise by associating them with its promotion.
I would also ask you to consider the potential conflict of interest within the government agencies that have been slow to recommend the ivermectin protocol. If we are going to cast aspersions at the FLCCC for possible conflict of interest due to purported benefits from their website, then let’s at least be fair in acknowledging the strong tie between Moderna and the NIH, and the constant revolving door from Big Pharma corporate leadership and health related government agencies (NIH, CDC, FDA), especially when billions of dollars in vaccine related revenue is at stake. The statements from the NIH and FDA regarding alternative therapies may or may not be completely factual and trustworthy, but we as health care professionals have the responsibility to do our own homework and not assume that because information comes from a government agency, it is therefore more trustworthy than information presented by a group of highly respected and highly published critical care doctors.
There are many in the pro life community who, as matter of conscience, cannot receive a vaccine that was tested, developed, or produced on cells extracted from a murdered baby, a state sanctioned and big business promoted genocide victim. In our present moment with currently available data, ivermectin represents a safe and ethical alternative.
Burton, you and Jose and others on this thread have certainly brought up many good points. I have been very frustrated as well by this whole vaccine situation and the inability to get decent studies done because no one wants to fund them if they involve cheap drugs.
I can’t say ivermectin works as well as is often claimed. It may have some benefit, and so it may be worth prescribing for a select population early on in the course of infection. But I don’t want to give false hope, either, to patients many of whom are filled with anxiety.
I hope researchers continue to carry out small trials using similar endpoints so the data can be compiled into a high quality meta-analysis. Even more, I hope lives are saved and a human cell line that can be used for vaccines and is free from immoral entanglements of any kind is soon developed.
Thank you Kris. I know we are fighting for the same thing. I am frustrated by the double standard that seems to exist when evaluating the reliability of data. Vaccine trial data was not peer reviewed, thus they also may not work as well as some claim (i.e. the manufacturers who have the quintessential conflict of interest).
Regarding ivermectin, I am impressed that all 31 studies evaluated by the FLCCC analysis showed at least some degree of efficacy. As you know, when there are multiple studies it is easy to cherry pick the ones that support a particular conclusion, but in this case they ALL support the same conclusion, so statistically extremely unlikely for ivermectin to have no or limited efficacy. Some of the studies show truly impressive efficacy, especially the prophylactic study out of Argentina. Reduction in mortality was also impressive.
Thinking hypothetically, let’s fast forward one year and assume that by that point the data shows that the vaccines are very effective and safe, and that ivermectin also prevents infection and transmission, but not quite as well. If we both agree to the premise that currently available vaccines, because of the moral compromise they represent, are only acceptable if a viable alternative does not exist, then how do we define viable alternative? Does efficacy have to be identical? Do we demand 100% certainty in the data? Given the gravity and scale of the crime against humanity upon which these vaccines depend, for me that question is quite easy to answer. I will more than happily accept a small degree of additional risk by taking ivermectin if it allows me to avoid contributing to the perpetuation of a pharmaceutical and scientific research complex fueled by the victims of genocide. I purposefully choose strong language. “Abortion” just doesn’t convey reality.
Well, it appears that the Gates Foundation sponsored Together Trials COVID 19, which is seeing cheap treatment for low and middle income countries where vaccines will not be made available for several years, is looking into ivermectin.
“‘There is particularly keen interest in our trial for its evaluation of ivermectin,’ adds Dr. Reis. ivermectin is a cheap drug (less than $5 per treatment) and is on the list of essential medicines published by the World Health Organization. Ivermectin is typically used to treat parasitic infections, however emerging evidence from cell studies and small clinical trials may indicate a benefit for COVID-19 patients with early disease.”
As I continue to try and sort out the evidence amidst the spin, this seems to be a positive indicator for the use of IVM.
And in other news, J&J’s vaccine is on “hold” because it is causing lethal clotting. I am glad that morally reprehensible vaccine is unavailable.
Thanks for all info.
Does anyone know who specifically is working on an ethical treatment? Are they in need of support to help make it happen?
and is it expected that those currently who seem to be making all the decisions on what therapies are being allowed will stand in the way of an eventual ethical vaccine?
It has.been a scandal that health authoriries give so little emphasis on preventive protocols treating early symptoms of Covid-19.Doctors were treating symptoms long before vaccines were being pushed as the only remedy.Now these treatments are being shut down or discouraged .Never has an illness been so deprived of preventive attention worldwide. Re a new vaccine option to follow , now in phase 3 , is Novavax .It has let it be known that has no fetal cell testing or composite. I hope has more and.better testing time than those presently used under emergency auspices with the abortion tainted connections.
Cecilia, unfortunately Novavax was tested in aborted fetal cell lines. Right before initiation of clinical trials, the research team devised a test to more closely examine observed multimerization in the late stages of development. The test plan used a variant of the HEK-293 cell line. This news was enormously disappointing as Novavax looked like it would be the first ethically derived vaccine to make it to market.
Our COVID-19 vaccine information document was updated some time ago to reflect this. The journal article in Science may be found here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.06.234674v1.full
Can anybody attest to the fact that ivermectin is ethically derived? A friend asserted to several of us who are holding out on vaccinations yesterday that, in his research, a doctor has asserted that ivermectin is derived from/tested on fetal tissue as well. His argument was that, in order to remain consistent, we cannot then reject the vaccinations on religious grounds without also rejecting the use of ivermectin. Is there any truth to this??
Ivermectin was discovered and developed through extensive use of animal models. You can read the discovery history here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/bk-1984-0255.ch001
I have read several articles in peer-reviewed journals and have found only one (published this year) that described using aborted fetal cell lines in testing Ivermectin against COVID-19 infection. The others I reviewed all used Vero-6 cells (non-human primate). In any event, a subsequent immoral act, unrelated to the discovery and development of a drug does not retroactively compromise the development of the drug.
Your friend’s research was faulty.
Great info. Thank you very much!!
I very much appreciate this thread. May I ask about another alternative covid treatment to vaccines…are the monoclonal antibodies treatments that are being offered ethically made?
I am just an average joe doing my due diligence, but a quick google search found this, and its enough for me to stay away from the monoclonal antibodies: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152237