US Military Documents: Ivermectin “Works Throughout All Phases of Illness”

Within these documents there appears to be a damning section in support of ivermectin as a Covid treatment, see timestamp 4:23 of Project Veritas video.

Major Joseph Murphy’s report, Page 4, states that many of the early treatment protocols ignored by authorities work because they inhibit viral replication or modulate the immune response to the spike proteins.

“Some of these also inhibit the action of the engineered spike protein. For instance, Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response,” Major Murphy wrote.

Dr. Tess Lawrie has been a champion for the use of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid. But she has faced systemic bias, some might say corruption, towards ivermectin initiatives and in corporate media coverage, as well as being subjected to unethical censorship.

In an interview with Dana Loesch, Dr. Lawrie discussed the effectiveness of ivermectin which has a unique ability to detox the body from the spike protein’s adverse reactions. It is an affordable, effective and safe treatment for Covid. She says we could have ended this pandemic a long time ago if we had treated patients with these effective medicines.

Dr. Hill is affiliated with Liverpool University and advisor to several groups, including the Clinton Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He is also affiliated with the WHO and advisor to Unitaid, Covid Strategies wrote, his research would have a profound influence on whether WHO would accept ivermectin as a treatment for Covid.

During a Zoom call with Lawrie, Hill shared his predicament over his study, disclosing that he found himself in a “tricky situation.” Apparently, his funders were going to enforce changes to the manuscript outcomes—whether he liked it or not.

While the original Hill manuscript was obviously favourable to ivermectin, that changed when the paper was modified during the final stages. Hill acknowledged Unitaid, who helped support the study, was influencing the final conclusions. Those final changes made the ultimate findings not strong enough for the WHO to make any decision other than that more clinical trials were needed.

I found it depressing to read.

All of us would like to think we would act differently. That we would do the right thing. To have that courage to do the right thing.

I pray that if and when I am given that test, I can pass it, in whatever form it comes to me in.

I feel pity for that man. He had his test, and he found his price. He knows where he stands. He may even realize there is blood on his hands, but he still made the choice for the money.

He possibly didn’t think he would be found out, but Dr. Lawrie had a real sense that people were dying unnecessarily and could (and should) be saved. She was living with the knowledge that there was something that could help, and that if she didn’t push as hard as she could, then she would have to live with herself.

The man she spoke with knows the score. And he will have to live the rest of his days knowing it. If that test comes to me and I fail it, I hope my life to follow is short. I don’t envy him.

Thank you-I want to tell you how much I appreciate the rational discussion on this. It is clear that you and I differ, but that doesn’t mean we cannot discuss this.

I just want to be clear on my stance (and I want to keep it civil and have discussion because it doesn’t always happen that way) that I have no full opinion on the efficacy of HCQ, but I do believe IVM has a degree of effectiveness.

Dr. Tess Lawrie has taken the results of 27 different studies on the effectiveness of IVM taken from countries around the world (these are clinician run independent studies, not from pharmaceutical companies and performed a meta analysis on them using tools like Review Manager and Cochrane Collaboration Tool and she has found the IVM does indeed provide a benefit. She has been out front with her professional reputation on this as has Dr. Peter McCullough.

They have invited anyone to debate this issue. And that fact that people are fighting anonymously against them using silent smear campaigns, or fighting proxy campaigns against them through the media tells me people like Lawrie and McCullough have the power of truth behind them.

I have long experience in healthcare in clinical as well as medical informatics, I am not a doctor (and have never claimed to be) but I have two STEM degrees and can (and have) read journal papers and understand for the most part the core of what they are saying, if not detailed information. I have been extracting and collating data for years and presenting it to clinicians and administrators for decision making so I have a fundamental understanding of statistics.

The point I am trying to make is that there are people who say that Ivermectin has no effect, and I disagree with that.

I base my disagreement on at least two people (Dr. McCullough and Dr. Lawrie) who have uncompromisingly put their own careers and reputations on the line because their primary focus is on the welfare of the patient, and they feel strongly that a horrible wrong is being done, and I agree with them on this. They have taken the time to do the analysis across a broader spectrum to obtain the overall picture, and to implement and treat COVID patients in their practices with their own or derived protocols, achieving great success in this that correlates with what they have seen in the papers they have performed the meta analysis on.

I don’t see support for IVM (and again, I have not explored HCQ in the same fashion so I cannot speak to that) as a weak-minded straw that someone grabbed from the watery depths of a conspiracy theory.

Quite the contrary. I see more evidence of an orchestrated whitewash of the effectiveness and use of IVM (as seen in a recorded conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie and a researcher Dr. Andrew Hill whose IVM study she (and Dr. Hill) had planned to use in her meta analysis. They had discussed using his study in her meta analysis some weeks before the paper was published, and both parties were quite enthusiastic as something that would help IVM eventual get into the hands of patients.

However, when the study was published, the conclusions had been radically changed (the underlying data was unchanged) and he admitted that the sponsor had final say on the findings, and changed it themselves to be unfavorable.

And the company was Unitaid, a global “vaccine at all costs” type of organization.

So, I see far more evidence that IVM may be effective, and that this narrative has been deliberately crushed, than evidence that those who differ from the official narrative are conspiracy theorists and on the whole, unable to parse the data.

For me, the key phrase I disagree with you on is:

"...If they had worked as hoped everyone would be using them..."

I don't see that as a given, and it is an important one. I simply don't believe that everyone hoped that. I believe there were front line physicians who hoped that, but those people had their hands tied. If their institutions discouraged the use of IVM, then it wasn't going to get used.

I believe that the "anti-anti viral" effort started at the top in the governmental agencies (who are fully in bed with the Pharmaceutical companies, this cannot even be in question when it is openly admitted that some of those agencies get up to 45% of their funding from the companies they are supposed to regulate, taken from them in "fees".

I see that as an unbelievable and un-excusable conflict of interest, and makes the ENTIRE healthcare branch of government vulnerable to graft and corruption, and I believe it has been heavily leveraged.

I get the feeling that we both agree on what a snake Fauci and Birx are. (Birx does not get the "credit" she deserves for her part in this debacle, something Scott Atlas described in detail in his book that referenced his dealings with her.

Wow, the Q thing is living in your head, rent free. Probably a good choice since it seems very roomy in there.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH Q

Let that sink in to your little brain. You try to use that as a cudgel, similar to how weak minded people play the race card. Pro tip: it doesn’t work on me

This is about my side following the evidence and researching. We are finding the Biden and Fauci narrative to be deceptive and dishonest. On your side, you bobble heads simply nod along, ignoring the evidence contrary to your pre-determined views, and shilling for your literal or effective masters.

The vaccines don’t work.
Without the sneaky redefinition, they wouldn’t even be called vaccines
Your masters are setting you up to accept never ending boosters into infinity.
The evidence that the jabs actual HARM you is strong and growing, both in the observed short term, and unknown long term
Adverse effects are through the roof
There are proven therapeutics that are being suppressed
I could go on…

Thinking people are questioning the narrative, but here you are defending it. Defending Biden. Defending Fauci. Defending Pfizer.

Sorry cupcake, you’re on the wrong side of history. Sucks to be you, little mind and all…

At least you’re oblivious so your gullibility so I guess that makes it better for you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.