USAToday admits ivermectin did win Nobel, has been approved for human use, BUT shrieks "you must NOT take it!"

 Six days ago the Dem propaganda outlet USA Today ran a piece with this headline:

"Fact check: Precursor to ivermectin did win Nobel Prize, but it's not a proven COVID-19 treatment."

It's a complete hit-piece, full of fear and innuendo, designed to keep people from taking a drug that the FDA approved for human use 25 years ago, which is totally safe.  And the entire piece was re-published by Dem-loving outlet MSNBC.  Here's how it starts:

The claim: Ivermectin won Nobel Prize for its role in treating human disease  

Debate over potential COVID-19 treatments has been a constantly evolving saga over the last year, with drugs like hydroxychloroquine and recently ivermectin touted by many despite a lack of convincing scientific evidence.  

Demand for ivermectin reached a fever pitch as prescriptions for the anti-parasitic agent shot up by 2,400% by the middle of August compared to the weekly average prior to the pandemic, according to the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention. Ivermectin poisoning calls have also increased by 163%, according to data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Riiiight!  Sounds like that story from eastern Oklahoma that claimed *gunshot victims* were having to wait to be treated in ER's cuz supposedly all the beds were filled with victims of ivermectin poisoning.  USA Today seems to have swallowed that debunked lie completely.

Despite this, some social media users continue to support the drug, citing a high-profile award in an attempt to legitimize its controversial use against the virus.

Mid-story insertion to make readers believe the vaxes are perfectly safe:  Your brain processes this unsupported claim without even realizing it.

Fact check: Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines all passed animal testing

While a precursor of ivermectin, known as avermectin, did win its two discoverers the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, it was related to treatment of parasites. It wasn't related to anything like a coronavirus.

Now all that's missing is
   1) Has our own f'n FDA approved ivermectin for human use; and
   2) Has ivermectin been found to have ANY anti-viral effects?
If both those are true, how can the Media so totally discredit the drug?  After all, "right to try" is still U.S. law, right?

Inserted mid-story propaganda:

Fact check: There is no evidence 45,000 people died from vaccine-related complications

Avermectin was extracted from...bacteria [in Japan].  In the late 1970s a Merck researcher found that [the drug killed parasites in mice].

The ingredient [that killed] the parasites...was a [mix of molecules] they named avermectin. The most effective of these compounds was further tweaked and modified to [be better].  In 1981 Merck commercialized this derivative, called ivermectin, for veterinary use.

By the 1980s, ivermectin was the top-selling veterinary drug in the world.

 In 1980 researchers began looking at potential human applications.  They found a big one right away:

["River Blindness"] is a parasitic disease transmitted to humans through the bites of blackflies. The parasite, found in tropical climates... [causes blindness] by migrating into its host's eyes.

[In 1981] Merck tested ivermectin to treat River Blindness.  [It worked.]

The success led to ivermectin being distributed in 1988 to countries affected by river blindness and [other] parasitic diseases.

[In 1996] the FDA approved ivermectin for human use as an antiparasitic drug....

You say this amazing drug that prevented blindness was being used by humans a full EIGHT YEARS before our FDA approved it?   Not possible, citizen!  How could this drug have worked 8 full years before the FDA approved it, huh?  That's un-possible!  All the smaht people (Ivy-league grads) know that drugs can't work until they're approved by the FDA.  So duh claim dat ivermectin was working a full EIGHT YEARS before the totally non-political FDA approved it must be false, right?

In 2015 [the original discoverer and the researcher who isolated the active molecules] were awarded the Nobel Prize for "Physiology or Medicine" for the drug.  But ivermectin is not recommended for any other disease.

Note how the hit-piece immediately follows "prevents River Blindness in humans" and "approved by the FDA for use by Americans" and "Yes, it won the Nobel prize" with "But it's not recommended for any *other* disease."  Can't have people thinking this VERY effective drug--known safe and approved by our own fucking FDA for human use!--might actually be, you know, safe to try on your own, eh?

Cuz "approved for human use" only means it's safe when used to treat one approved disease, right?  If you use it to treat a different disease, somehow the same drug becomes NOT safe.  At least that's what the FDA implies.

Experts, right?  If they haven't approved the drug for use on each specific disease, they insist that you're RISKING YOUR LIFE if you take it to fight the Chyna virus, eh?  The utter horse-shit of that claim should be immediately obvious to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.  But of course....

Back to the hit-piece:    "BUT...!

Winning a Nobel Prize does not legitimize ivermectin's use for anything but parasitic infections. Despite the demand for ivermectin during the pandemic, there is no significant evidence pointing to its effectiveness against viruses like COVID-19.

Notice that VERY carefully-chosen phrase "does not legitimize."  Ever seen that phrase in a newspaper before?  Almost certainly not.  The author of the piece chose this unusual phrase carefully, knowing that 99% of reader would unconsciously translate it as "this drug does not work against the Chyna virus."

This is pure horse-shit.  At least 40 studies have found a huge benefit, and not just against "viruses LIKE Covid" but actually tested on covid patients.

The reason for the interest in ivermectin is that studies in the lab have shown it can block viruses from multiplying in experimental settings – i.e. in a petri dish –

WAIT!  Go back up to the 'graf about it winning the Nobel.  "It was NOT related to the corona virus."  The author wanted you to translate that as "ivermectin has no effect against viruses.  Yet here--a dozen 'grafs later--the author admits that the drug has been shown to "block viruses from multiplying."

... so people hoped this would mean it could help treat COVID-19 in people too," says Dr. Denise McCulloch. "Unfortunately, the few high-quality studies that have been done to date do not demonstrate a beneficial effect of ivermectin when it is used in people with COVID-19."

The last quote is utter horse-shit.  Doctor Denise can make this false claim by claiming that the studies were only single-blinded instead of double-blind (some were, some weren't) or that they didn't control for whether some of the subjects who recovered fast had also taken some other drug without admitting it to the researchers, or that the studies didn't test the drug on pregnant albino lesbians.  Or anything else.

Inserted propaganda mid-story:

Fact check: Ivermectin is not a proven treatment for COVID-19

Oh, absolutely, comrade.  Just ask Fauci.  Just like it hadn't been proven to work against River Blindness for a full EIGHT YEARS before the FDA said it worked.

The FDA has also cautioned against the use of the antiparasitic drug, stating the agency "has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals."

Note "antiparasitic drug."  But the author just admitted the drug has been shown to "block viruses from multiplying," eh?   But then a couple of sentences later, dismisses the drug as "antiparasitic."  And I hope you now see that the fact that the supposedly-expert FDA hasn't "authorized" a drug to treat X doesn't even remotely mean that drug doesn't work, just as ivermectin was successfully preventing River Blindness eight years before our f'n FDA approved it!  FDA approval is fine, but doesn't mean shit.  In fact this also works in reverse: several drugs approved by the FDA have later been banned because they caused ghastly side-effects...despite winning FDA approval!

The CDC warns [ivermectin's] use is particularly dangerous since some people are buying it without a prescription and ingesting large quantities of the more concentrated dosages intended for horses and other large animals.

And do you know WHY Americans are buying it from feed stores?  Because most pharmacies--scared to buck the FDA for fear of government prosecution--are refusing to fill prescriptions for it.  The drug is readily available--at a cost of pennies per pill--in pill form in many other countries.  But almost impossible to get from pharmacies here in the supposedly-advanced U.S.  Entirely because of FDA totalitarian RULINGS.

Say, y'know what else is "particularly dangerous"?  Wine.  Beer.  Distilled spirits.  Cuz "some people" get drunk and drive, killing several thousand people every year.  So we shouldn't let people buy alcohol, right?  Wait, does that make wine "particularly dangerous," or is it actually that a tiny fraction of people don't know how to handle wine or spirits?

USA Today says: "Our rating: Missing context"

"Based on our research, we rate the claim that ivermectin won a Nobel Prize for its role in treating human disease MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. The discovery of ivermectin's precursor, called avermectin, helped its co-discoverers win the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its use in treating parasites. This does not mean ivermectin works against viruses like COVID-19, as there are no significant studies to date pointing to its effectiveness."

Note that word "helped."  No.  The discovery of ivermectin was THE fact that won the two men the Nobel.  And as noted earlier, the claim "there are no significant studies...pointing to its effectiveness" is utterly false.

Source.  And note the sneer from the FDA, below, which they actually tweeted: