Can Ivermectin Help Prevent COVID-19 Deaths?

BY JOSEPH MERCOLA December 18, 2021 Updated: December 18, 2021

When it comes to the treatment of COVID-19, many Western nations have been hobbled by the politicization of medicine. Throughout 2020, media and many public health experts warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine, despite the fact that many practicing doctors were praising its ability to save patients. Many of them were silenced through online censorship. Some even lost their jobs for the “sin” of publicly sharing their successes with the drug.

Another decades-old antiparasitic drug that offers great hope is ivermectin, but it too is being hushed up by mainstream media. Trial Site News1 tells the story of a 77-year-old Indian couple, both of whom became ill with COVID-19. One successfully recuperated following treatment with hydroxychloroquine. The other with ivermectin.

While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, please understand it is not my primary recommendation. You need vitamin D for a wide variety of functions in your body in addition to optimizing your immune response. Although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it is still an unnatural synthetic chemical that can have side effects. Vitamin D is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.

Inexpensive Treatment Responsible for India’s Success?

Getting back to ivermectin, Trial Site News reported2 that “Ten months into its battle with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, India is on track to become an unexpected warrior in the fight against this global pandemic. Although the densely-populated nation has four times the population of the U.S., India has less than half the U.S. COVID deaths.”

While India had a daily positive test rate of nearly 100,000 back in September 2020, by the end of December 2020, the infection rate had dropped by 75%. While this rapid decline is by and large being attributed to strict lockdowns, universal mask wearing and extensive contact tracing and testing, the availability and use of effective treatments likely plays a pivotal role.

In late March 2020, India added hydroxychloroquine to its national treatment guidelines, urging the drug be used “as early in the disease course as possible.” It was not recommended for those hospitalized with severe illness.

Then, in August 2020, India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, which has some 230 million residents, added ivermectin to its recommendations and distributed the drug for home care free of charge. The state of Bihar, which has 128 million residents, also started recommending ivermectin, and by the end of 2020, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had the lowest and second-lowest COVID-19 fatality rates in all of India.

Uttar Pradesh, however, took it a step further than Bihar. They also used ivermectin as a prophylactic, first among health care workers and then among people who had come in contact with a person who tested positive.

This drug makes far more sense in India as the vast majority of the population indeed suffer with parasites as a result of largely contaminated municipal water supplies.

Epoch Times Photo
A health worker shows a bottle of Ivermectin as part of a study of the Center for Paediatric Infectious Diseases Studies, in Cali, Colombia, on July 21, 2020. (Luis Robayo/AFP via Getty Images)

Frontline Doctors Call for Adoption of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is now calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.3 4

“The data shows the ability of the drug ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.” ~ FLCCC Alliance

December 8, 2020, FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where he reviewed the evidence supporting the use of the drug. (He resigned from St. Luke’s shortly after giving this testimony, saying the medical center wanted to restrict his freedom of speech.5) As noted on the FLCCC website:6

“The data shows the ability of the drugiIvermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

Dr. Kory testified that ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities — the NIH, CDC, and FDA — to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19.”

January 6, 2020, Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia — both are founding members of FLCCC — also presented evidence to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, which is working to update NIH guidance.7 The NIH panel is expected to update treatment guidelines by early February 2021. According to the FLCCC:8

“Numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.

Data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients … demonstrated that ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.”

A one-page summary9 of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive review10 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology. A listing of all the ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on

How Ivermectin Protects Against COVID-19

Like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug with a well-documented safety profile and “proven, highly potent, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties.”12 It’s been on the market since 1981 and is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. It’s also inexpensive, with a treatment course costing less than $2 in countries such as India and Bangladesh.13

While the U.S. FDA has not yet approved ivermectin for prevention of or treatment for SARS-CoV-2,14 studies have shown ivermectin:15

  • Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses. In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours
  • Inhibits inflammation through several pathways
  • Lowers viral load
  • Protects against organ damage
  • Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients

The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section16 where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use. While FLCCC members have been criticized for their insistence that we should not wait for randomized controlled trials before using Ivermectin more widely, the group argues that the drug has a long history of safety and clearly works, so, why wait?

“If someone … says they want to do an RCT with placebo, that’s problematic for me,” Kory told Medpage Today.17 “I could not have a patient admitted to my care and give placebo knowing what I know about ivermectin.”

One week after Kory and Marik presented their data, the National Institutes of Health updated their stand18 on use of the drug with a statement that they would not recommend for or against it. The FLCCC quickly followed up with their own statement:19

“By no longer recommending against ivermectin use, doctors should feel more open in prescribing ivermectin as another therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19. This may clear its path towards FDA emergency use approval.”

WHO’s Ivermectin Review

While a 75% reduction in mortality is impressive enough (which is the average reduction based on 18 trials according to the FLCCC20), a WHO-sponsored review21 suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%. As reported by Swiss Policy Research:22

“This result is based on in-hospital trials, so it does not yet take into account early ambulatory and prophylactic treatment. The authors of the review intend to include three more trials, due to be published sometime in January, before providing a final conclusion.”

In the video above, Dr. Andrew Hill of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool, U.K., who is leading this review, discusses the preliminary findings. At the end, he too describes ivermectin as a potentially transformative treatment against COVID-19.

Ivermectin Best as Prophylaxis

While preliminary evidence seems to suggest ivermectin can be useful at all stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection, its real strength appears to be prophylactic. December 26, 2020, Dhaka Tribune23 reported the findings of an observational study24 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers.

Fifty-eight volunteers took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months. Only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period. In comparison, 44 of 60 health care workers (73.3%) who had declined the medication were diagnosed with COVID-19.

Both groups worked with COVID-19 positive patients at the Bangladesh Medical College Hospital. Lead researcher Mohammed Tarek Alam told Dhaka Tribune that ivermectin is “apparently very effective as a preventive drug.” His team will be seeking permission to conduct a randomized control trial to validate their findings.

Other Effective Treatment Options

It’s worth noting that while the FLCCC is encouraging the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic and early at-home treatment, they also have a more comprehensive early treatment protocol available, as well as an in-hospital protocol.

The treatment protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+25 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,26 due to the addition of the drug ivermectin.

Vitamin C — which has important antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects27 — is a central component of this treatment. As noted in a recent landmark review28 on vitamin C for COVID-19, it’s common for hospitalized patients to have overt vitamin C deficiency. This is particularly true for older patients and those hospitalized for respiratory infections.

The two protocols (I-MASK+29 and I-MATH+30) are available for download on the FLCCC website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine31 in mid-December 2020.

Epoch Times Photo

Nebulized Peroxide

Nebulized peroxide is a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours.

Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide into your sinuses, throat and lungs is a simple, straightforward way to augment your body’s natural expression of hydrogen peroxide to combat infections and can be used both prophylactically after known exposure to COVID-19 and as a treatment for mild, moderate and even severe illness.

Dr. David Brownstein, who has successfully treated over 100 COVID-19 patients with nebulized peroxide, published a case paper32 about this treatment in the July 2020 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and The Law. He also reviews its benefits in “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.”

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide is extremely safe, and all you need is a desktop nebulizer and food-grade hydrogen peroxide, which you’ll need to dilute with saline to 0.1% strength. I recommend buying these items beforehand so that you have everything you need and can begin treatment at home at the first signs of a respiratory infection. In the video above, I go over the basics of this treatment.

The nebulizer I use is the Pari Trek S Compressor Aerosol System. The large battery option is unnecessary as you can simply plug in the device to run it when you need it. There are likely other nebulizers you can use instead, as long as it plugs into an electrical outlet and doesn’t use batteries, as they are low-powered and ineffective nebulizers that don’t work as well.

hydrogen peroxide dilution chart



Trial Site News January 9, 2021


Trial Site News January 9, 2021


FLCCC December 8, 2020


Medpage Today January 6, 2021


Medpage Today January 6, 2021


FLCCC December 8, 2020


FLCCC January 7, 2020 Press Release (PDF)


FLCCC January 7, 2020 Press Release (PDF)


FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)


Frontiers of Pharmacology 2020 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.643369



FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)


YouTube Ivermectin Meta-Analysis by Dr. Andrew Hill


U.S. FDA December 16, 2020


FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)


FLCCC FAQ on Ivermectin


Medpage Today January 6, 2021


NIH January 15, 2021


FLCCC January 15 Press Release


FLCCC January 7, 2020 Press Release (PDF)


Swiss Policy Research December 31, 2020


Swiss Policy Research December 31, 2020


Dhaka Tribune December 26, 2020


European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2020; 2(6)


FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol


FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol


Nutrients December 7, 2020; 12(12): 3760


Nutrients December 7, 2020; 12(12): 3760, 2. Vitamin C Deficiency in Pneumonia, Sepsis and COVID-19


FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol


FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol


Journal of Intensive Care Medicine December 15, 2020 DOI: 10.1177/0885066620973585


Science, Public Health Policy and The Law July 2020; 1: 4-22 (PDF)

Claim Alleging Injury or Death From a COVID-19 Countermeasure to Be Compensated

More than 4,000 other claims await decision by the U.S. government compensation program

By Meiling Lee December 18, 2021 Updated: December 18, 2021

For the first time amid the pandemic, the U.S. government compensation program will pay out one of the 4,751 claims alleging injuries or death arising from the administration of a covered countermeasure used to diagnose, treat, or prevent COVID-19.

Countermeasures may include emergency authorized or federally approved vaccines, drugs, and medical devices that the Food and Drug Administration allows for use during a public health emergency.

“One COVID-19 claim has been determined eligible for compensation and is pending a review of eligible expenses,” the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) reported.

No additional information on the eligible claim was available. However, David Bowman, Public Affairs Specialist at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) told The Epoch Times via email that the CICP was “working to process claims as expeditiously as possible.”

The compensation program is run by the HRSA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Established in 2010 through the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005, the CICP not only provides benefits to people who’ve suffered serious injuries or death as a result of being given a countermeasure, but it also protects individuals and companies involved in producing or administering the countermeasures from lawsuits, unless it can be shown that there was willful misconduct.

Under the CICP, people may be compensated for medical expenses not fully reimbursed or paid by insurance or government programs like Medicaid, lost wages from not being able to work for more than five days, and a death benefit for someone who has died.

The CICP, historically, has a low rate of compensating claims and some vaccine lawyers are not optimistic that many of the COVID-19 claims will be approved for payment.

A total of 5,242 claims have been filed with the CICP from 2010 to Nov. 1, 2021, of which 4,751 claims are related to injuries or death from COVID-19 countermeasures, specifically 2,297 claims are for COVID-19 vaccines and 2,454 for other countermeasures.

To be considered for benefits, people must file a claim within one year of the date they received a countermeasure, or their claim will be rejected.

But in the event that the CICP develops a COVID-19 Countermeasures Injury Table and the HHS Secretary publishes it on the Federal Register, people have one year from the effective date of the injury table to file a claim even though their previous claim was denied.

“When a countermeasure injury table is developed or amended, requesters who previously could not establish a Table injury have one year from the effective date of the Table or amendment to file a request for benefits, even if a previous request was denied,” Bowman said. “The extended filing deadline only applies if the Table amendment enables a requester who could not establish a Table injury before the amendment to establish such an injury.”

The CICP has yet to develop such an injury table, citing insufficient data to establish an injury or death was a direct result of a given countermeasure.

Bowman said an injury table for COVID-19 countermeasures “will be developed when there is sufficient data to meet the ‘compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence,’ standard indicating that the covered countermeasure directly causes a particular injury.”

“Pending establishment of COVID-19 Countermeasures Injury Table, claims may be filed as non-Table injuries and eligibility for compensation will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Program,” he added.

The Countermeasures Injury Table

Epoch Times Photo
A screenshot of the smallpox countermeasures injury table. ( via The Epoch Times)

A countermeasures injury table lists the countermeasures covered, the particular injuries caused by the administration of that countermeasure, and the occurrence of the injury within a specific time period.

If an individual filing a claim can show that their “injury is listed on the table and was sustained within the relevant time interval (and meets any other requirements set forth in the table), CICP will presume the injury was a direct result of the covered countermeasure,” according to a report (pdf) by the Congressional Research Service.

Without an injury table, the burden of proof falls on the person filing the claim to show that a certain countermeasure caused an injury or death, as “temporal association between administration or use of the covered countermeasure and onset of the injury (i.e., the injury occurs a certain time after the administration or use) is not sufficient, by itself, to prove that an injury is the direct result of a covered countermeasure.”

John Howie, a trial lawyer focused on vaccine and personal injury, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview that the compensation program is only a “feel good” program.

“I call it a ‘feel good’ program. We like to say we have it because it makes people feel better. But when you dig into it, it is a joke,” Howie said.

“There is no transparency like a true judicial process. There is no provision for attorney’s fees, thus making it difficult for any injured individual to even retain a lawyer. Any appeals are handled by [three] people hand-selected by HHS to review the claim.”

Since its establishment, the CICP has only compensated 29 claims alleging injury from the H1N1 or the smallpox vaccine, paying out a total of over $6 million.

Japan’s Compensation Program and No Vaccine Mandate

A Tokyo fire brigade staff member
A Tokyo fire brigade staff member (R) administers a dose of the COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine at Aoyama University in Tokyo on Aug. 2, 2021. (Stanislav Kogiku/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

While only one COVID-19 countermeasures claim is pending to be compensated in the United States, Japan has already paid out 29 of its 41 claims of injury from a COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021, according to a Japanese newspaper The Mainichi.

Japan has a no-fault compensation program, which is called the health damage relief system, that provides benefits to people whose health was injured from receiving a vaccine endorsed by the government, as part of the Immunization Act.

All three COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer, Takeda/Moderna, and AstraZeneca—administered in Japan are covered in the compensation program.

The Japanese government has decided to not mandate the vaccines and reminded businesses and people to “not force anyone in your workplace or those around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.” A web link to a human rights consultation was also provided on the Health Ministry, Labor and Wellbeing COVID-19 vaccine webpage.

The government has instead taken a different approach from other countries: recommending its citizens to get vaccinated only after they have received all of the information on the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

“Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information [has been] provided,” the Japanese Health Ministry, Labor, and Wellbeing wrote.

“Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent.”

Although Japan was slow in rolling out its vaccination program, it has surpassed the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel in the number of people who are fully vaccinated or received two vaccine doses, with 77.9 percent of its population fully vaccinated as of Dec. 15, compared to the 68.7 percent in the United Kingdom, 62.5 percent in Israel, and 60.7 percent in the United States.

You’re Taking Away My Right to ‘Live My Life’: San Diego Resident Says of County’s COVID-19 Restrictions

By Harry Lee August 18, 2021 Updated: August 19, 2021

Many San Diego residents attended a county board of supervisors meeting on Tuesday to express their fury and disappointment over the county’s COVID-19 restrictions, such as lockdowns, universal masking requirements, and vaccination mandates.

Mariam, a former health care worker and first-generation Afghan American, told the board that she has been left “completely disappointed” by the county’s decisions in managing public health and COVID-19—the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

“My family came here from Afghanistan. They ran away from the Taliban, from the rule that they were going to do over us,” Mariam said during the hearing. “You know what you guys are? You’re acting like terrorists.

“I want to live my life. And you guys are taking that away from me, just like they take it away from my people.”

“And I’m going to tell you, I’m a warrior—an Afghan warrior—and we’re not gonna back down because we haven’t backed down and we’re still not gonna back down,” Mariam added.

In June, San Diego County issued a health order (pdf) saying persons and entities may still be subject to California public health guidelines and standards, such as universal indoor masking—regardless of vaccination status—on public transit, in schools, or health care settings. For unvaccinated individuals, mask mandates are required in indoor public settings and businesses.

A mom also told the board that she was speaking up on behalf of her children: “What type of a mother would I be if I could not stand up for my children?”

She said it is important for her school-age children to learn proper annunciation, phonics, and smiles, through “laughter and play.”

“We need to see your smiles,” she said.

“My children and myself will no longer deal with California’s political theater of the masks … We the people have spoken. We will not back down. The silent majority is no longer silent,” the mom continued. “As a mother, I will never back down for my freedom and for the rights of my children.”

Emily Archuleta, another county resident, claimed that mandating vaccines as a condition of employment is in violation of Americans’ constitutional rights and will further hurt the economy.

“We choose what we say, we choose our religion, we choose what we eat, if we drink, if we smoke, if we drive, our sexual orientation, our choice if we choose to have an abortion, how is the choice to have a vaccine different?” Archuleta asked.

“You’re meeting with resistance because you are mandating this,” Archuleta said. “Let people choose.”

Archuleta also noted that people’s right to choose hasn’t been stripped from them in other health epidemics. “Let’s look at obesity, killing 300,000 with many other health consequences, yet we still sell junk food,” Archuleta noted. “We give people the choice to do what they want with their body.”Read MoreCDC Director Says She’s ‘Really Struggling With How to Communicate’ About COVID-1974 Percent of COVID-19 Cases From Massachusetts Outbreak Occurred in Fully Vaccinated People: Study

A sign reminds people masks are for everyone in Los Angeles, Calif. on July 19, 2021. (Frederic J.Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

One registered nurse, Heather Covell, told the board that she just resigned because of the vaccine mandate introduced for workers in health care.

“I actually resigned from my job yesterday as a registered nurse because of this state mandate to be vaccinated,” Covell told the board.

California announced on Aug. 5 that it is mandating COVID-19 vaccines for all workers in health care settings. All health care workers who won’t have access to virus testing options must be fully vaccinated by Sept. 30.

“I was no problem working in the health care system over the last 18 months without a vaccine. But now, all of a sudden, I’m a threat to public health” Covell said. “Tell me where this makes sense.”

“What you’re doing is you’re creating a health care crisis,” she added. “We already have a nursing shortage in America. So now in San Diego County, I know for a fact, there are several hospitals that are operating on an ‘all bed’ crisis.”

At least 120 people addressed the board of supervisors during the heated four and a half-hour public hearing, KUSI reported. The vast majority of speakers were opposed to the county’s mandating of COVID restrictions like masks and vaccines.

Students sit behind barriers and use tablets during an in-person English class at St. Anthony Catholic High School during the COVID-19 pandemic in Long Beach, Calif., on March 24, 2021. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

The board of supervisors and the county’s health and human services agency haven’t responded to a request from The Epoch Times for comment.

At the end of the hearing, Nathan Feltcher, the chair of the five-member board, said that he would continue to trust and rely on the advice of the state’s appointed health care experts and doctors in the face of “pressure and intimidation.”

The board approved some COVID-19-related spending (pdf), including $4.6 million in funds to “establish, expand, and sustain a public health workforce.”