Making Sense of the Issue of Animal Ivermectin Versus Ivermectin Human Uses

Executive Summary

• An essential topic regarding Ivermectin is human Ivermectin versus animal Ivermectin.

Introduction

The pharmaceutical-controlled MSM made a significant issue about animal Ivermectin. This article covers this topic in detail, explaining how much of these differences are accurate or exaggerated for monetary or political reasons.

Animal Versus Human Ivermectin

The media made a huge issue of humans taking animal Ivermectin. An excellent example of this is found in this warning from the FDA.

Ivermectin is not approved for use against COVID-19 — however, it is effective against COVID-19. Curiously, antidepressants are used for many conditions for which they have never been shown effective — which is called off-label prescribing — however, the FDA does not issue warnings against this usage. Furthermore, this Twitter share tries to instill the idea that Ivermectin is generally only for horses or livestock when Ivermectin has been approved for humans for over 40 years.

The question should be whether the FDA thinks Ivermectin is not approved for humans. If it knows this is false, why did it communicate that Ivermectin is only for animals?

There are many drugs used for animals and humans — will the FDA be creating similar shares on Twitter warning people that they are not dogs, cats, mice, or other animals — for drugs approved for people? Many medical websites copied this false information; this quote from Haywood Regional Medical Center’s website is a good example.

Ivermectin is a drug that is often used in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. Ivermectin tablets are sometimes used at very specific doses to treat some parasitic worms in humans, and there are also topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. It is NOT intended for use as an anti-viral drug in either humans or animals.

It is not “sometimes used” and is often used for these purposes. Haywood Regional Medical Center has no problem with off-label prescriptions for the drugs that the medical establishment makes a lot of money off of — even if those drugs are ineffective — as is the case with antidepressants. See the effectiveness of antidepressants in the article How the Establishment Media Promotes Taking SSRIs While Admitting the Low Serotonin Hypothesis is False.

Why Haywood Regional Medical Center Seeks to Limit the Discussion to the US

What is the point of limiting the conversation to the use in the US?

The reason is simple — Ivermectin is widely used in Africa and other countries near the equator where tropical parasites are prevalent. In Africa, Ivermectin is called the “Sunday Sunday” drug. This quote deliberately excludes other countries because the author could hide this fact and that Ivermectin has been prescribed billions of times and is on the WHO’s Essential Medicines List. Remember that this is not a list of essential medicines for animals but for humans. 

What is a drug only meant for horses (according to the FDA) doing on this essential list?

Haywood Regional then proposed something odd in the following quote.

If you have a prescription for an FDA-approved use of this drug, be sure to get it from a legitimate source in the appropriate formulation and dosage, and take it exactly as prescribed and only for the specific condition(s) being treated.

You can’t take Ivermectin “only for the specific condition” being treated; it will affect the entire body, which is good. This is because Ivermectin has many benefits, from cancer protection to anti-inflammation. But this seems to imply that you can’t use it for anything but as an antiparasitic. However, I cover at this website the large number of ailments for which Ivermectin is effective. I cover this in the article Why is Ivermectin Effective for So Many Different Things?

Secondly, as I wrote earlier, antidepressants are prescribed off-label and, therefore, not for what they are approved for. However, I could find no such warning against antidepressants on the Haywood Regional Medical Center website, even though Ivermectin has a vastly superior safety record compared to antidepressants.

Also, if this animal/human dichotomy will be maintained, why was a recent covid vaccine booster approved after being tested on only eight rats?

Using Mice

This video explains why mice are used in medical research. 

A logical extension of the FDA’s communication would go something like this.

You are not a mouse; you are not a rat; seriously, y’all, stop taking covid vaccines.

Or perhaps this one is directed toward medical researchers.

A humans is not a mouse; they are not rats; seriously, y’all, stop submitting studies to us that use rat and mice to get approval for drugs used in humans.

Furthermore, has the FDA considered that it and the overall medical establishment have made it difficult to get prescriptions for Ivermectin? They are responsible for pushing people to animal Ivermectin.

Naturally, no. (and they don’t care)

Did the FDA disclose in this share that the reason they created this and rail against Ivermectin is that they are remotely controlled by pharmaceutical companies that were about to introduce their therapeutics like Paxlovid (Pfizer) and Molnupiravir (Merck) and that these companies pressured the FDA to do a hit campaign on Ivermectin to pave the way for them to make billions on these two competing drugs?

Again no. (And they do not want anyone to know this information.)

Getting Into the Real Differences Between Human Versus Animal Ivermectin

• Ivermectin packaged to be given to animals is the same drug and works the same way as when Ivermectin is packaged for use by humans.
• Animal Ivermectin is the same drug and molecule as human Ivermectin. Because this can’t be disputed, the media and health authorities have chosen to focus on the dosage.

This is found in the following quotation from the FDA.

For one thing, animal drugs are often highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, which weigh a lot more than we do— up to a ton or more. Such high doses can be highly toxic in humans. Moreover, the FDA reviews drugs not just for safety and effectiveness of the active ingredients, but also for the inactive ingredients.

Again — you can measure the appropriate amount for a smaller person. This is an illogical claim by the FDA.

Many inactive ingredients found in products for animals aren’t evaluated for use in people. Or they are included in much greater quantity than those used in people. In some cases, we don’t know how those inactive ingredients will affect how ivermectin is absorbed in the human body.

Yes, if massive doses of Ivermectin are taken, livestock doses, it is a problem for humans — although there are few reports of humans becoming ill from animal Ivermectin.

So few that all the FDA could define is the term “multiple.”

However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.

Is the FDA warning the world of “multiple” reports of people being hospitalized? And again, what is multiple? The FDA has been very silent about this. Before the pandemic, the FDA never said anything about people requiring medical attention from Ivermectin.

Is a few two? Is that ten? Is that what goes out on the bulletin? Multiple?

How unscientific to state that the number is more than one, but perhaps not much more than one.

Fake Stories About Animal Ivermectin Created and Promoted by the Establishment Media

Throughout the pandemic, Rachel Maddow was a principal and high-profile provider of whatever the medical establishment wanted her to tell her audience. Maddow also provided false information about Russiagate as she lacks independence from either the pharmaceutical industry or from the DNC.

Rachel Maddow tweeted a fake story about an epidemic of overdosing on animal Ivermectin.

Maddow never corrected this, and the tweet is still up. With a show strongly supported by pharmaceutical companies, Rachel Maddow repeats whatever they tell her is true.

Rolling Stone Provides False Information

All of this is part of the culture war; when people in the Blue States hear about a fake story like this, some will reflexively share the story without checking into it, as it feels good to think that rural people are very backward (and their political enemies) and make themselves ill with veterinary medicines.
This photo purports to show gunshot victims waiting patiently and very calmly outside a supposed hospital, but without apparent gunshots, and wearing winter clothes for September. Furthermore, do this many people show up with gunshots to hospitals in Oklahoma at one time? If that were true, Oklahoma has a much bigger gunshot problem than the animal Ivermectin overdose issue!

This quote reinforces my observations. It is from the article What Happens to Doctors Who Innovate?

What was so amazing about this story was that despite its patent absurdity (e.g., all of it was fake—including the above picture), it was nonetheless taken up by media outlets around the world, and to this day most people are still unaware it was made up. The NPR article cited by the ABIM cited made a few important points:

First, it restated Rolling Stone’s position that ivermectin overdoses were flooding ERs.

And the question that should come to mind is why. Why was this story picked up worldwide by the establishment media without investigating the story to see if it was true? The answer is most likely that these media outlets found this story appealing. It fits with their biases in that rural people are stupid and likely to overdose on animal products (nearly all media is concentrated in the coastal cities where the “smart and sophisticated people live.”

Secondly, these media outlets knew their advertisers would love it if they ran with this story. Once you have a story the media wants to think is true that they know will make their advertisers happy — their interest in discovering if the story is true dramatically declines. This story was media catnip.

Something else to note is after they published the false story, they did not later retract their stories or otherwise take accountability for providing this false information to the public.

Hiding Side Effects of the Vaccine from the Public

Meanwhile, the FDA has hidden the side effects of vaccines from the public, and there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths from the covid vaccines. (Take the number of deaths reported in VAERS right after being vaccinated, over 30,000 last time I checked, and multiply by 50 to 100 to account for the underreporting in the adverse reaction reporting system.)

However, the FDA has not issued a single Twitter share on these deaths—hundreds of thousands of deaths for the covid vaccines versus “multiple” adverse reactions for Ivermectin.

A History of Using Very Large Doses to Discredit Effective Drugs

The Gates Foundation also used this deceptive technique in funding studies on Hydroxychloroquine that tested overdoses of HCQ, all to prove that the cheap and effective drug against covid was ineffective.

This was also done against saccharine, the safest of the artificial sweeteners when mega doses of saccharine caused bladder cancer in rats.

Virtually any substance, in enormous doses, will cause harm. Water, if too much is consumed, will also cause death. However, it would be false to claim that water is dangerous. With the COVID-19 vaccines, you don’t need a megadose, and a regular mRNA COVID-19 vaccine harms human health.

Medical Establishment Policy: Scaring People Away from Ivermectin by Any Means Necessary

Media and health authorities needed to do something to scare people away from Ivermectin, so they went the route of fabricating/exaggerating the number of humans overdosing on large quantities of animal Ivermectin, but without ever explaining that there is no difference between human and animal Ivermectin.

Health authorities could also take Ivermectin off of prescription (consistent with its risk profile) or allow the medication to treat covid.

Many countries have succeeded in using Ivermectin versus covid, and it would seem a clinical trial would be a moot point. But again, Big Pharma controls Western health authorities, and Big Pharma does not want people using such an effective treatment if that treatment is generic.

North Dakota Health on Ivermectin

Here is an excellent example of the attempt to block Ivermectin from a health authority, North Dakota Health.gov — although this seems to be a copy from the FDA.

The quote continues…

Ivermectin is a medication available for both animals and humans. However, Ivermectin preparation for animals is very different from those approved for humans.

No, it is not. If it is very different — why is it called Ivermectin for both? And why does the same-named medication work the same way in humans and livestock?

Now, notice the claim.

The quote continues…

Ivermectin for animals and humans is very different. Humans should not take Ivermectin formulated for animals. Animal drugs are highly concentrated because they are used for large animals like horses and cows, who weigh a lot more than humans. Such high doses can be highly toxic for humans.

This same false claim was made across many websites, including the MIT Technology Review.

The CDC confirmed that the increased interest in ivermectin as a covid “treatment” coincided with a bump in calls to poison control centers for adverse effects of consuming the drug. Those callers included people who ate a topical cream and those who consumed veterinary formulations meant for large animals.

It’s become incredibly complicated, and even talking about it is tricky right now because the conversation is so easily weaponized: when I tweeted in late August that it kind of sucked to see the treatment you use for a skin condition go viral as a “livestock drug,” I was quoted by someone promoting ivermectin as a covid treatment. The argument was that because some people take the drug legitimately for completely unrelated conditions, it must also be safe for covid (it’s … not: the FDA says that “taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous”).

People who use Soolantra or the generic version of ivermectin topically are, as of right now, unlikely to be encountering shortages, says Friedman. There are reports of farm supply stores running short on horse paste, however.

I checked Amazon for animal Ivermectin and never found any shortages. Also, don’t animals use large quantities of Ivermectin versus humans? The establishment media wanted to present two stories — that people were taking animal doses of Ivermectin, but this usage was driving shortages of human Ivermectin. The very assertion of widespread massive doses of Ivermectin does not make sense.

It says on the animal Ivermectin packaging how much the dose is for animals. But it is also determined by body weight. So it will say an ML per 22 lbs of body weight. This quote makes it appear that the person’s only choice is to take enormous or cow quantities of Ivermectin.

Why would a human decide to do that when it states the volume per body weight?

What is a Formulation?

It also appears that the term “formulation” is being used deceptively. It is the same drug; the difference is quantity or concentration. However, this is accounted for in the instructions for how much to take — your body weight again calculates that.

It is scornworthy that the FDA would approve pretty much any drug, no matter how ineffective or toxic, and then get very particular about humans taking a medication that is the same but is sold in a different dose. Given how the FDA has approved such dangerous drugs in the past and continues to do so, how is the FDA on such a pedestal of safety? If the FDA is so careful about what it supports, why have so many lawsuits against drugs that got through their approval process?

However, because of their intent to make animal Ivermectin appear unsafe, they try to frame animal Ivermectin as being entirely different.

This is another negative to the US medical system — and opens up the potential of traveling to other countries to obtain the treatments that are disallowed in the US due to pharmaceutical companies control over the system.

However, notice what they call “very different.”

The quote continues…

The FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical
support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with Ivermectin intended for horses.

Yes, the number reported is exceedingly low, so the FDA won’t say how many. It is so embarrassingly low that it renders the claim absurd and is more lying on the part of the FDA. Again — how many reports of death has the FDA received from the covid vaccines? Last I checked, it was over 30,000. But the FDA will never write an article or discuss those deaths. How many people died from an Ivermectin overdose? Is that number zero?

Our Testing of Ivermectin

We have tested several types of Ivermectin, human and animal, using ourselves as test subjects. While we were told animal Ivermectin would lead to overdoses, we tried cattle Ivermectin and multiple times the recommended dosage that we recommend in the article The Ivermectin Dosage Guide.

We found no ill effects. I could do this because I read the research on Ivermectin toxicity covered in the article Answering the Question of Side Ivermectin Effects in Humans.

If I had found adverse effects, I would have been the first to fly to Oklahoma to take the bed of a gunshot victim — but it just did not happen. I did this as a test because I knew the health authorities were lying. However, I use and recommend human Ivermectin. Our recommended source for bioequivalent Ivermectin is human Ivermectin.

This should not be surprising, as Ivermectin is a very safe drug. This is very well explained when comparing the data from VAERS, as is covered in the article, The Medical Establishment Resents People Checking Covid Adverse Reactions in AERS.

However, the FDA and overall medical establishment do not want you referring to the actual adverse events database and prefer to arbitrarily tell the public which drugs are dangerous and safe based on the financial incentives of the pharmaceutical industry.

Conclusion

Health authorities and the establishment media have greatly exaggerated animal and human Ivermectin differences.

These entities have used the term “formulation” to make it seem like there is a significant difference. However, what formulation means is how potent the drug is. However the primary difference is the dosage offered by the same volume of the drug.

The medical authorities have made it sound like one can’t simply follow the instructions to measure the Ivermectin by body weight. In supporting this false claim, the establishment media has helped the medical establishment and made the rather idiotic proposition that humans are taking the dosage designed for large animals like cattle or horses. However, the dosage is by body weight, categorized as a false claim and a scare tactic.

The health authorities and pharmaceutical companies do not want people taking Ivermectin as it is highly effective and a generic drug as it came off patent several decades ago.

This false information illustrates the seriousness of the pharmaceutical industry pushing people away from highly effective, safe, and well-tested drugs if they can’t make money.

Addressing the Damage

One of the best ways to address the damage caused by the covid vaccines is with Ivermectin. This is the reason I began taking Ivermectin -- before investigating all the other health benefits of the drug. Now, I take Ivermectin for many reasons.

• We have Ivermectin dosage calculators based on research studies and for all the different uses of Ivermectin.
• We are the only web source offering an Ivermectin dosage calculator in addition to different dosage estimates for different cancer types.
• All of our calculators are easy to use (see our dosage calculator listing). Each person enters their personalized information into the calculator and receives our recommended extensively researched dosage estimate automatically and immediately calculated.
• We also cover the broader problems with dosage calculation in medicine at the article The Problem With Dosage Calculation in Medicine, as this is an issue much larger than for one drug. 

About Our Ivermecting Testing Program and Recommended Ivermectin Source of Supply

• We performed pharmaceutical testing on Ivermectin to find a lower-cost version that also matched Merck's original Ivermectin in bioequivalence.
• You can read about the details of our Ivermectin testing in this article, Our Ivermectin Bioequivalence Testing.
• We got Summit Products to carry this version of Ivermectin, which passed our bioequivalence testing.