The Medico-Pharmaceutical Complex Is A Subversive Organization

Ivermectin Is Just One Of The Latest Targets

When I graduated from university in 1969 and entered chiropractic college, I had no idea the world I would enter. The concept of chiropractic was interesting. My mother's health was helped by a chiropractor, and since it wasn't conventional medicine, that attracted me.

After I graduated and started practising and attending seminars, I found a troubled history between medicine and chiropractic. In fact, the medical profession tried to destroy chiropractic almost from its inception in 1895. I met chiropractors in the 1970s who went to jail for practising in American states without licensure.

The medical profession did everything that it could to prevent chiropractors from surviving. They lobbied legislatures stating that chiropractic was unscientific and had no basis, so many states had no licensure for chiropractors. Then, those chiropractors practising would be charged with "practising medicine without a license". It was like a circular firing squad. However, one thing the medical profession couldn't stop was the patients.

Many thousands of patients initially attended chiropractic offices in the U.S. and Canada and got results, whereas medicine didn't. So, as time went on, pressure from the public gradually enticed more government officials to pass laws licensing chiropractors. However, old habits die hard.

In my first practice in Canada, I had a medical doctor on the same floor as my practice. While he was very polite when I met him, he told his patients not to see me––as related to me by several of my patients. 

During the 60s and 70s, Big Pharma was starting to wield enormous power, and it was instrumental, along with the American Medical Association (AMA), in acting against the chiropractic profession. Medical plants were going into chiropractic offices attempting to entrap chiropractors to get them prosecuted for doing something the AMA considered unethical.

Finally, in 1987, chiropractor Chester Wilk and his group won an antitrust suit against the AMA, and the judge's conclusion was that the AMA had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession." (Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 671 F. Supp. 1465, N.D. Ill. 1987)

So, all along, the AMA and its supporters had been engaged in subversive activities against the chiropractic profession. Then, it shifted its focus to another group, the Natural Health and supplement industry. People were starting to wake up to the fact that supplements were essential in assisting people with health issues rather than always relying on prescription medication.

In fact, a national U.S. survey showed the number of people using alternative therapies in the previous year went from 33.8% in 1990 to 42.1% in 1997. So, the more people went to things like herbs and vitamins, the less they went to prescription medications.

Big Pharma saw this as a threat to its profits, so they pressured groups like the FDA to try limiting vitamin sales. At the same time, pharmacists were getting into the new profitable industry. The U.S. dietary supplement market's value in 2022 was $50 billion. It's not going away; people are voting with their feet.

Then came Covid and the case of Ivermectin.

It's one thing to trash other professions that you see as competition; it's another to subvert a safe drug and one that doctors are expounding as a valuable product in the strategy against an illness such as COVID-19. Well, when it comes to money, nothing will stop Big Pharma. No lie, no censorship or attacking individual doctors is too much in subverting a product like Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. So the major players such as Pfizer, Moderna, the CDC, the FDA and the professional medical bodies did everything they could to suppress Ivermectin. This was not because it wasn't valuable, but because once people saw it was effective, why take an ineffective, unsafe vaccine?

Origin of Ivermectin

It is preposterous when you think about it: a cheap, extremely safe product used billions of times is being suppressed and maligned. The origin of the Ivermectin story started with discovering a microorganism that produced Avermectin in Japanese soil. Below is an image of a colony grown on a petri dish.

Avermectin was modified slightly to make it entirely safe for animals initially and then for human use. It has been tremendously beneficial in treating parasitic diseases such as Onchocerciasis (River Blindness) in Third World Countries. The drug was distributed free of charge and has been used billions of times. While no product––even natural––is 100% safe, Ivermectin is as close as it comes. 

The War on Ivermectin

The start of the War On Ivermectin, as described by Dr Pierre Kory in his book, was when doctors dared to prescribe it for COVID-19. You see, doctors who thought outside the box and looked at the research discovered that Ivermectin was not only an anti-parasitic but also antiviral properties.

Antiviral Properties

Ivermectin as a Broad-Spectrum Host-Directed Antiviral: The Real Deal?

What was discovered in the lab was that Ivermectin had a much broader influence, that its action inhibited and cleared viruses at a greater rate for a whole host of diseases. This is from the Journal Cells in 2020.

"Consistent with the fact that many viruses are known to rely on IMPα/β1-dependent nuclear import of specific viral proteins for robust infection, ivermectin has been confirmed in a body of in vitro studies to be active in limiting infection by a range of different RNA viruses, including HIV-1, DENV (all four serotypes) and related flaviviruses, influenza, and alphaviruses such as Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) and chikungunya; it is also active against DNA viruses. Recent studies indicate it is a potent inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2."

It made sense for doctors to start using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. But, no, it couldn't be allowed. This was definitely a coordinated suppression which took place not only in the U.S. but also in other countries such as Canada and Australia.

When podcaster Joe Rogan went live saying that he was using Ivermectin to help treat his COVID-19, he was mocked relentlessly, as were others. However, doctors who used it found that it had dramatic effects in many cases if used in the correct dosage. These doctors were using Ivermectin as a repurposed drug. Doctors are free to use a drug for another purpose than its original intent if the doctor determines there is a rationale for doing so.

Anticancer Properties

This must be having some of the heads of Big Pharma going ballistic. Imagine if a drug such as Ivermectin could reduce the need for as much chemotherapy with its more severe side effects. Pharma would lose profits now, wouldn't they?

Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug

Imagine this headline from the Pharmacological Research Journal. This is pretty recent research from January 2021. Have you heard anyone speaking of such an anticancer effect?

The research is a lengthy read, but it gives little doubt to the fact that Ivermectin can inhibit a variety of tumours.

"IVM selectively inhibits the proliferation of tumors at a dose that is not toxic to normal cells and can reverse the MDR of tumors. Importantly, IVM is an established drug used for the treatment of parasitic diseases such as river blindness and elephantiasis. It has been widely used in humans for many years, and its various pharmacological properties, including long- and short-term toxicological effects and drug metabolism characteristics are very clear."

"…a large number of research results indicate that IVM affects multiple signaling pathways in tumor cells and inhibits proliferation, IVM may cause antitumor activity in tumor cells through specific targets."

More evidence from the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, May 2020:

Ivermectin suppresses tumour growth and metastasis through degradation of PAK1 in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

One of the concluding paragraphs in their discussion stated the following:

"In this study, we found that ivermectin was effective in suppressing ESCC cell growth, migration and invasion. More importantly, our data also showed that ivermectin had a high antitumour activity against tumour growth and metastasis in nude mouse models. Additionally, ivermectin‐induced apoptosis and enhanced the cell growth inhibition induced by CDDP or 5‐FU. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the antitumour activity of ivermectin against ESCC in vitro and in vivo." (ESCC stands for Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma). 

Would it be helpful if people were provided with some of this information rather than having authorities mocking the use of Ivermectin?

There are many more studies, but I'll mention one more relating to bowel cancer.

Ivermectin has New Application in Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell Growth

"In conclusion, we have demonstrated that ivermectin may regulate the expression of crucial molecules Caspase-3, Bax, Bcl-2, PARP, and Cleaved-PARP in the apoptosis pathway by increasing ROS production and inhibiting the cell cycle in the S phase to inhibit colorectal cancer cells."

Basically, the word salad in this conclusion states that Ivermectin enhances cell death (apoptosis) and produces chemicals inhibiting the development of tumour cells.

Some doctors, including oncologists like Dr Kathleen Ruddy, are using Ivermectin for observational studies on breast cancer patients.

Meanwhile, we have politicians who appear to be in bed with Big Pharma. A good example is the state of Ohio. The House of Representatives there passed Bill HB73, protecting doctors who want to use repurposed drugs. Unfortunately, the state senate would not even consider the bill for a vote. Do I smell subversion? 

Suppose we stop and look at the pharmaceutical industry's success in America other than the huge profits. How successful are they in getting results concerning the population's health? We know that America is number one in the world in drug consumption. 

In virtually every health parameter, infant mortality, life expectancy and level of illness, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of the most advanced economies. So you have a country—supposedly the wealthiest—that spends the most on drugs and is very sick indeed. While some medication is necessary, perhaps there is a direct correlation between the amount of drugs taken and the level of sickness in society.

So, a question comes to mind. With all the hullabaloo of RICO charges against Donald Trump in Georgia, which is a real stretch, I see a true example of RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations). Why does suppressing Ivermectin and the coordinated attack on a licensed product not constitute a RICO violation? To prove RICO, you must confirm that a group of people worked together for a common criminal purpose.

How many people died with Covid because they were denied the use of Ivermectin? We know that Ivermectin saved lives, so how many more lives could have been saved? The great Covid pandemic could have been relegated to just another flu outbreak. How many died because they were mandated and coerced to take the Covid-19 jabs? These are questions that some high-powered prosecutors need to really focus on, not the nonsense with Donald Trump.