From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health authorities and government officials lied. They spread false or misleading information—including about ivermectin. Officials claimed masks were critical for stopping viral spread. Later, evidence showed they were far less effective than promised. Cloth masks, in particular, offered minimal protection against an airborne virus.The CDC and WHO changed their stance on masks. First, they discouraged them. Then, they mandated them. Yet they never admitted masks had limited real-world effectiveness.
Similarly, officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines as near-perfect shields against infection. They promised a “return to normal” after mass vaccination. But when boosters rolled out, a troubling pattern emerged. The more boosters people received, the more likely they were to catch COVID-19. Studies called this “negative efficacy.” Health authorities ignored it. Instead, they pushed more boosters. Amid these contradictions, officials dismissed it. Despite widespread reports that it helped prevent and treat COVID-19, government agencies and media mocked it. They called it a “horse dewormer” and claimed it had no role against the virus. But this narrative relied on misrepresentations. Studies only tested ivermectin’s ability to cure severe COVID-19—not its potential to prevent infection.
The Mask and Booster Lies: A Prelude to Ivermectin’s Suppression
Before examining ivermectin, we must understand the broader COVID-19 misinformation. Early on, officials promoted masks as a simple solution. But the science was unclear. N95 respirators helped somewhat, but cloth masks—the most common—did almost nothing against an airborne virus. A 2022 randomized controlled trial in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2022 found no significant difference in infection rates between masked and unmasked groups. Yet, mandates persisted, revealing a pattern of prioritizing political narratives over scientific rigor.The same pattern emerged with vaccines. Initially, they were hailed as the ultimate solution, with claims that they would prevent transmission entirely.
However, as breakthrough infections surged, the narrative shifted—vaccines were now said to merely reduce severe outcomes. Worse, data from Denmark and the UK showed that individuals who received multiple boosters were more likely to get infected than those with fewer doses. This phenomenon, ignored by mainstream health agencies, suggested that repeated immune stimulation might actually weaken protection over time. This backdrop of shifting narratives and obscured truths set the stage for ivermectin’s suppression. If masks and boosters—cornerstones of the official COVID-19 response—were far less effective than claimed, why should the public trust the same authorities when they dismissed ivermectin?
Ivermectin: Did It Prevent COVID-19? The Studies Tell Only Half the Story
Critics argued ivermectin did not cure severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. But this missed the real question: Could it prevent infection if taken early? No major study tested this. Why? Because doing so would require giving healthy people ivermectin and then exposing them to COVID-19. Regulators called this “unethical.” Instead, researchers studied hospitalized patients, where ivermectin predictably had little effect. Yet real-world data told a different story. Regions using it, like parts of India and Peru, saw lower infection and death rates. Doctors reported success with it as prevention and early treatment. Health agencies ignored this. The NIH and WHO dismissed ivermectin, citing irrelevant studies.
Anecdotal Evidence vs. Institutional Denial: Why Ivermectin Was Ignored
Despite the lack of formal studies, many people claimed ivermectin helped them avoid COVID-19. Doctors in groups like the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) documented cases where it seemed to block infection. Yet media and government agencies ridiculed ivermectin users. They falsely claimed it was only for animals. In truth, it has been safely used in humans for decades. It even won a Nobel Prize for fighting parasitic diseases. Officials suppressed ivermectin not because of science, but control. A cheap, widely available preventative would have undermined the vaccine and booster push. The same institutions that lied about masks and boosters had a reason to keep ivermectin marginalized.
Conclusion: The Need for Honest Science
The pandemic showed how easily politics can distort science. Officials misled the public about masks, boosters, and ivermectin—but only ivermectin faced active suppression. No definitive study proves it prevents COVID-19. Yet countless success stories demand investigation. Instead, authorities worked to discredit it. Until we confront these lies, we risk repeating the same mistakes. Those in power may never admit the truth about ivermectin. But for millions who used it, the evidence speaks for itself.
