3,300,000 of us are EXTRA DEATHS so far due to suppression of cheap, safe, authorised remedies like Ivermectin to qualify vaccines for ‘Emergency Use’.

The Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heist

That’s why safe, cheap, readily available treatments were suppressed. Finally, when demand for their expensive and dangerous vaccines is falling, we are allowed peer reviewed confirmation of what they knew all along to appear in major Scientific Journals.

*note> we now know that 70% of Covid deaths may really have been hospitalised for ‘co-morbidities’, so the official numbers of Covid deaths are one more lying fraud, most died of other things, and our calculation that over 3 million could have bee saved by Ivermectin is now incorrect) see Jan 2022 Battalions of COVID Lies all Falling Apart


Confirmation, for example that cheap, safe proven ivermectin treatment would probably have ” reduced deaths by an average 83%” .

With 3,980,348 deaths so far (3rd July 2021 figures/) 83% is over 3,300,000 of us have died so far just to assure their obscene multi-billion dollar profits. And that’s only for ivermectin.

Is this a coverup conspiracy?...YES.. there is plentiful evidence of coordinated suppression of alternative treatments. Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy …

How could they do that? The ‘Big Pharma’ Corporations, the US mass media and Blackrock basically own each other and the WHO and government comply to protect the ’emergency use’ vaccine qualification.

Also we should mention the casualties, suffering with Covid and vaccine sequels can be worse than dying. Just ivermectin ”used preventatively would have reduced COVID-19 infection by a average of 86%”. That would have been 158,126,549 less victims of Covid (86% of 183,868,081 total. 3rd July 2021 figures


Undeniable Proof at Last: Ivermectin works for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection.


While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin.

This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”

According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%

Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance

Scandal of the suppressed case for ivermectin

By Edmund Fordham | The Conservative Woman | June 29, 2021

‘We don’t doubt this is an important paper,’ wrote the senior editor of Lancet Respiratory Medicine on March 9 in response to our paper ‘Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, the brainchild of Dr Tess Lawrie and the world’s first Cochrane-standards ‘meta-analysis’ of clinical trials of the long-established anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, for treating, and preventing, Covid-19.

Four expert reviewers were satisfied by revisions already made. ‘The effort of the authors is praiseworthy in this pandemic situation,’ one said.

Their critiques had been technical: some of the statistical methods break down when there are no ‘events’ (in this case, deaths) in both ‘arms’ of a clinical trial.

Our lead statistician ran more checks; we fixed the criticisms. This is what ‘peer review’ is supposed to do. It’s normal.One might take such a comment from the senior editor as the preamble to acceptance for publication.

But no, this was the editors’ reason for not publishing the paper. This isn’t normal. What was the problem?‘We don’t doubt this is an important paper, and would likely be widely taken up.’

Hang on, Lancet Respiratory Medicine wants to avoid printing something it recognises as an important paper, that four of their own experts have passed, because it might be ‘widely taken up’?

This is what they usually want.Of course, the Lancet has a lot to live down, having moved into the business of publishing fake news, as with the notorious hydroxychloroquine fraud which I reported on for TCW last year.  ( The drug was declared false and dangerous worldwide on false evidence from a US medical scammer

Not only did the Lancet publish an obvious fake, it did so with hostile editorial commentary and briefing to BBC Radio 4 Today for maximum impact.

So media briefing for planted fake news, but a Lancet specialist title won’t touch an ‘important paper’.

I was told in January, by a senior clinical researcher who knows him personally, that Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet, was ‘very ashamed’ at having let through the fake news.

Horton, whose Twitter bio reads ‘welcome to a permanent attack on the present’, wrote in 2015:

‘Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness . . .

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours . . .

Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations . . . 

And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.’

Therapeutic Advance: PDF Only

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection

A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Bryant, Andrew MSc1,*; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD2; Dowswell, Therese PhD2; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD2; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS3; Hill, Sarah R. PhD1; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP4Author Information American Journal of Therapeutics: June 17, 2021 – Volume Publish Ahead of Print – Issue – doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402



Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

Areas of uncertainty: 

We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

Data sources: 

We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Embedded Image

Therapeutic Advances: 

Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.


Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Ivermectin prophylactic study from India

497,193 views6 May 2021 15K395ShareSaveDr. John Campbell 1.01M subscribers

Ivermectin in India, Prophylactic role of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers https://www.aiims.edu/en.htmlhttps://assets.researchsquare.com/fil…https://www.researchsquare.com/articl…

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to getting infected withSARS-CoV-2 Preventing HCWs from getting infected is a priority to maintain healthcare services The therapeutic and preventive role of ivermectin in COVID-19 is being investigated Based on promising results of in vitro studies of oral ivermectin, this study to look at prophylactic role of oral ivermectin


Prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar Two-doses of oral ivermectin, 300 μg/kg at a gap of 72 hours Primary outcome, COVID-19 infection in the month following Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study Ivermectin uptake n = 2, 384 (67.5%) Non uptake, n = 1147 (32.5%)


Development of symptomatic infection 331 participants, developed symptoms 131 in takers 200 from non takers Ivermectin takers, 6% Non takers, 15% Testing positive, 201 Ivermectin takers, 2% Non takers, 11.7%

Implications for transmission

HCWs who had taken two-doses (Single dose did not reach significance) Significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease during the following month was 0.18 Adjusted Relative Risk 0.17 1.8% reported adverse events, mild and self-limiting

Conclusion and relevance

Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month.

Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology…

AIIMS Director, Gitanjali Batmanabane

Earlier, at least 20 to 25 HCWs were getting infected with the virus daily. After the workers started taking ivermectin, the number of infection has come down to one or two per day


The safety of the drug has been established by its large-scale use in the last four decades for various indications such as onchocerciasis, scabies, head lice, and other parasitic infestations https://www.facebook.com/john.l.campb…https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevie…

Author: thefreeonline

The Free is a book and a blog. Download free E/book ...”the most detailed fictional treatment of the movement from a world recognizably like our own to an anarchist society that I have read...

16 thoughts on “3,300,000 of us are EXTRA DEATHS so far due to suppression of cheap, safe, authorised remedies like Ivermectin to qualify vaccines for ‘Emergency Use’.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: