Source: France Soir

The opinion of Dr. Gérard Maudrux, after having been president of the Autonomous Retirement Fund for Doctors of France (CARMF) for 18 years, this urologist continues to speak on his blog in Le Quotidien du médecins. Doctor engaged since he supported the request for the temporary payment of use for Ivermectin before the Council of State with the assistance of Me Teissedre. He finds himself today summoned before the council of the order to explain himself on his blog. In his debriefing, he explained to us that the doctors were afraid, that they were silent. With his agreement, we reproduce this forum which better reflects his commitment and his freedom of expression. 

The latest attacks against Ivermectin dramatically demonstrate the financial stakes behind the early and outpatient treatment of Covid, and the way in which the French are being manipulated.

Merck opened the ball by denigrating the molecule it produces, and its press release will be put forward by all the newspapers and the authorities (we will see for the ANSM) to justify its non-use. 

The conflict of interest is however too big, but it will not be put forward: the laboratory is developing 2 products that could bring it big, while Ivermectin, which has fallen into the public domain, no longer brings in anything. If one-day Ivermectin becomes THE drug against Sars-Cov-2, billions and billions of losses for the global pharmaceutical industry. With such sums at stake, everything will be done to prevent this from happening.

Predictably, the scenario we saw for Hydroxychloroquine happens again.


There is  “a worrying lack of safety data in the majority of studies”  according to Merck.

So I went to the WHO database,  Vigibase, which collects data from pharmacovigilance centers such as ANSM in France, from more than 130 countries. In over 50 years, 175,521 adverse effects for Aspirin, 159,895 for Paracetamol and 4,669 for Ivermectin. On more than 4 billion doses prescribed over this period, this makes 0.0001%. Since the beginning of the year if we type Comirnaty (Pfizer vaccine) we have 82400 declarations, against 87 for Ivermectin.

So I went to see the publication of our Medicines Safety Agency. In its report of January 11  on the side effects of drugs used for Covid,  the ANSM reports 0 declarations for Ivermectin, against 271 for Hydroxychloroquine. In the 15,143 specialties reimbursed in France, in the world pharmacopeia, I believe that we can say that there is no drug that has so few side effects. So why deny it when there is no risk and a presumption of effectiveness while allowing Aspirin and Paracetamol which have 30 to 50 times more side effects and without desired efficacy?

If you take 10 tablets of Doliprane, recommended by authorities, you may die of liver necrosis. On the other hand, you can take 50 tablets of Ivermectin 3 days in a row and continue to go about your daily activities without any problem.

In the literature, there are several studies that have tested this toxicity. I have mentioned several times this , 10 times the normal dose, no problem. It is not the only one of this type. Several children with leukemia have been treated at 3 times the dose multiplied by 15 days, and even 6 months, without side effects. 30 times the dose (10 mg/kg) has been tested in dogs with no problem. In this literature, we also note that most of the reported side effects are linked to the release of degradation products from the killed parasites, and for Covid to associated drugs such as Doxycycline.


Until now, detractors have mainly used the first in vitro study, claiming that the concentration used is not reproducible in humans. I will not argue on this point because as I have already explained, that an in vitro study is positive or negative does not mean that it will be positive or negative in vivo, as there are many inhibiting or facilitating factors that will intervene. These studies are only used to know if we can try in vivo, it has been done, and now we have to look at the results in humans, more in Petri dishes, without interest, if not to manipulate and distract.

There is then a technique of discrediting which is all the rage, always to manipulate: to criticize the form, to make forget the main one: the result. Thus the HUG, University Hospital of Geneva, updated its note on Ivermectin , which is very well documented. Take one of the densest studies, that of Elgazzar in Egypt, 600 patients. They thought big to compare Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, placebo. It is not easy to do things well to achieve methodological perfection with 600 patients all different and 6 cohorts. in a new tab)

Reviews: “  Results in pre-print, unread. Very low level of evidence due to the high risk of bias (randomization, measurement of outcome (outcome), absence of blind, standard control). Series including Azithromycin, paracetamol, Vit C, Zinc, Lactoferrin, anticoagulants, steroids in severe patients,… ( yes, we treat!).  No info on how the multiple endpoint was scanned. Randomization not efficient (!!!). The control group includes HCQ without placebo. General presentation not very standard. Change of care if no improvement after 7 days ( yes, we are trying to treat effectively!). Very low level of evidence. ”  That’s all for the critics, nothing, nothing, nothing about the results in this  “information” note ! The results ? For mild cases, 0/100 death under IVER against 2 under HCQ, and for severe cases, 2/100 under IVR and 20/100 under HCQ, i.e.  mortality divided by 10 . For prophylaxis, 2/100 contaminated in the IVER group, 10/100 in the group without IVER, divided by 5.

One can always criticize the form, but  “the weaknesses of a study are not the weaknesses of the treatment”  wrote a reader. It is not because it is not “published” that the results are bad! When it is not randomized, we say that it is necessary to randomize, and when it is randomized, we say that it is badly randomized when the result does not please! “  The control group includes HCQ, no placebo arm”,  well yes, the reviewer didn’t even see that it was an IVER versus HCQ study, to compare the two, and not an IVER versus placebo study! Unable to see this, unable to interpret if not published, unable to read if ”  unstandard presentation »,… In short, incompetent critic, who moreover does not seem to have seen the proven and indisputable effectiveness of Ivermectin. The current drift, we look at the editorial staff, not the patients.

Virtually all of the studies cited by the paper are 95% criticized on form and not on substance, leading to the conclusion, despite results that even a 5-year-old would find obvious, that there is insufficient evidence. Probably not as sufficient as that of Remdsivir approved everywhere!

I have already given my opinion on the publications of  AFP FactuelInserm,  SFPT  in a  previous post. This week it’s the turn of  Prescrire  (who also receives  subsidies from the Ministry of Health and the labs advertising – hello conflicts of interest) to manipulate the results of Ivermectin:  “few results, no evidence of efficacy ”,  while all the meta-analyzes all find a division by 5 in mortality and almost 100% in prophylaxis! in a new tab)

Prescrire  only identifies 11 studies out of sixty for its “demonstration”, the others should not go in the right direction. 2 articles said to be favorable to give a good conscience, and 9 demonstrating ineffectiveness.

For the only two studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, the first in Bangladesh, we criticize nonetheless:  “Clinical deteriorations were less frequent in the combination group: 8.7% versus 17.8% in the group. placebo, these data do not make it possible to estimate the specific effect of ivermectin, not associated with Doxycycline ”.  Personally I always prescribe both, and it works! It is not because they are associated that it makes it possible to make believe and to write that neither one (nor the other also I suppose) works, in spite of 2 times more result!

The second is Egyptian, for prophylaxis, 340 people in contact with confirmed cases. 7.4% of probable cases in the treated group against 58.4% in the untreated group. “No blind procedure,… which makes these clinical results very fragile”.

In addition to these two studies, they cite 9 studies which  “did not show the efficacy of ivermectin on the clinical course of covid-19 disease”,  without any details, which would prove the lack of efficacy. The studies are just cited, not detailed, and for good reason!

The first: 25 treated cases, 25 placebo. 64% were asymptomatic, average age 40 years, the youngest 28 years. It is clear that with young positive and not sick, it is difficult to show that treatment does not get better when all are well without treatment!

The second compares Iver + Doxy with HCQ + Azi and concludes that the first is slightly superior to the second. Where is the demonstration of ineffectiveness in a study that does not compare with placebo but compares the effectiveness of two treatments? 60 patients in the first group, 0 hospitalizations, 0 deaths, 56 patients in the second, 2 hospitalizations, 0 deaths. And that doesn’t work! 

The third is very bad and has no place here: bad indication, 2 × 30 patients in intensive care and not on an outpatient basis, with pulmonary problems, treated with Iver + Hcq + favipiravir + Azi. In the cocktail, which is active, which is not? The doses of Iver are insufficient, 0.2 mg / Kg instead of 0.4 mg, and despite everything, 6 deaths in the Iver group instead of 9 in the group without, or 33% of the candidates for certain death saved!

The fourth , 30 patients only, against 32 untreated. Very young population, 40 years old in the treated group, 38.4 in the untreated, dose too low (0.2 mg / kg once instead of 0.3 mg / kg D1 and D3). Give low doses of antibiotics to treat an infection, you will find that it does not work. Well here, it works anyway: 20% decrease in the duration of the troubles despite everything. The icing on the cake, the “untreated” were on Doxycycline! ! And said that this is a serious study and that the others are not!

The fifth , 72 patients, 3 groups, Iver, Iver + Doxy, placebo, randomized double blind. Authors’ conclusion, I quote:  “A 5-day course of ivermectin has been shown to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19”,  and  Prescrire  suggests the opposite to those who do not seek it. article and do not read scientific English!

The sixth , randomized, double-blind, 55 and 57 patients, mild cases. 0 deaths in the treated group, 4 deaths in the untreated group! ! Tremendous efficiency, and 4 sacrificed on the altar of randomization.

The seventh , randomized, 70 patients, 48 ​​mild, 11 severe, 11 critical, Iver + Doxy. Authors’ conclusion:  “Ivermectin with doxycycline reduced healing time and the percentage of patients who progress to a more advanced stage of the disease; in addition, Ivermectin with doxycycline reduced the death rate in severe patients from 22.72% to 0%… Overall, the earlier Ivermectin with doxycycline is administered, the higher the success rate of therapy. is high. “

The eighth , randomized, double-blind, 62 patients, 3 groups, the third is not placebo, but Lopinavir / Ritonavir, and the first two compare 6mg and 12mg (Intravenous therefore resuscitation). Conclusion: 12 mg more effective than 6 mg. No interest.

The ninth, randomized, double-blind, 2 x 12 patients, ridiculous number, median age 28, who are we kidding? So patients who don’t need treatment. However, it can be seen that Ivermectin halves the duration of taste and smell disorders, 76 days instead of 158 days. Not efficient?

Here are the  9 studies cited as demonstrating the “ineffectiveness” of Ivermectin, whereas these are 9 studies, randomized, controlled, published, showing indisputably the effectiveness of the product.  Prescribing  lies, manipulates public opinion, knowing that 99% of readers will not see scientific articles in English, articles which say otherwise. There is only one word to qualify this article:  DISHONEST . The editor and owners of the journal would do well to take a look at the work of the author of this article.

“Is there an Order of Journalists to file a complaint? “

Our Minister of Culture, well placed to judge this since the former Minister of Health, who wants to cut funding to France Soir that she accuses of Fake News, should also look into these practices and compare. As for me, others take care of it, I am summoned in 3 days to the Council of the Order to explain myself on this blog, while I am only taking information that we find everywhere, to say What do I think of it. I don’t do anything else.

“The Covid doesn’t just kill people, it also kills the freedom to think, think, express yourself, but not to lie. “


Ivermectin for Covid-19: Database of all Ivermectin COVID-19 studies – 35 trials and growing

The FLCCC Alliance— On a mission to Save Thousands & Slow the Pandemic

Melbourne doctors urge officials to consider hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin in fight against COVID-19

YouTube cancels the U.S. Senate; censors testimony from physicians on early Ivermectin treatments for Covid-19 patients

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin: The medical establishment’s war on COVID therapeutics

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

American Hero: Ralph C. Lorigo Fights for Client Rights Including Access to Ivermectin for COVID-19 Patients At Risk

Lorigo shared with TrialSite that once doctors learn of all of the studies around the world, and start doing their own homework, they become more open-minded, factoring in the risk-reward analysis. Especially if elderly high risk patients present advanced COVID-19, Lorigo has personally seen the drug potentially contribute to saving the lives of clients. Interestingly, the attorney reports that it would appear that hospital administrations are the most recalcitrant to the idea, even if the patients and the ICU doctor are in support.

Read More »

The Chloroquine Wars Part XIV – How to Rig Research: Surgisphere Part I

It was in these very moments in late May when public health officials lost all credibility—a credibility that cannot be restored without major changes taking place. Despite most evidence pointing to a likelihood of HCQ efficacy, they made their call on the back of data supposedly tucked away in a database that nobody had verified, declared it definitive, then swiftly pushed for policy changes around the world.

Read More »