Ivermectin Works: World’s Largest, Peer-Reviewed Research Study

Please Share This Story!
For all the Ivermectin skeptics who have retorted that “there are no peer-reviewed” studies proving it works, and who probably wouldn’t know how to read and understand a peer-reviewed study, will you please stop fighting this and come out of the propaganda fog? Holdouts will now likely attack the peers in an attempt to discredit them. ⁃ TN Editor

The results are in from the world’s largest study of ivermectin for COVID-19.

Researchers in Brazil found that regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and mortality rates.

The study was conducted in Itajaí, a port city in the state of Santa Catarina, between July and December 2020. Study authors include FLCCC physicians Dr. Flavio Cadegiani and Dr. Pierre Kory. Lead author Dr. Lucy Kerr was approached by the mayor of Itajaí, after the city began to experience a severe outbreak of COVID.

The entire population of ItajaĂ­ was invited to participate in the program, which involved a medical visit to compile baseline, personal, demographic, and medical information. In the absence of contraindications, ivermectin was offered as a preventative treatment, to be taken for two consecutive days every 15 days at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

Of the 223,128 citizens of ItajaĂ­ considered for the study, a total of 159,561 subjects elected to participate: over 70% opted to take ivermectin, and 23% chose not to.

Reduced infection and hospitalization rates

The study found a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate in favor of the group that took ivermectin (3.5% versus 8.2%).

In cases where a participating citizen of ItajaĂ­ became ill with COVID-19, they were recommended not to use ivermectin or any other medication in early outpatient treatment. Of those who did become infected, two equal-sized, highly matched groups (one that used ivermectin as a prophylaxis and one that did not) were compared. The regular use of preventative ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (0.8% versus 2.6%), and a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (1.6% versus 3.3%).

Study methods

Since vaccines were not available at the time, and few prophylactic alternatives existed in the absence of vaccines, Itajaí initiated a population-wide government program for COVID-19 prophylaxis. This was a prospective observational study that allowed subjects to self-select between treatment vs. non-treatment. The use of ivermectin was optional and based on patients’ preferences, given its benefits as a preventative agent was unproven.

To ensure the safety of the population, a computer program was developed to compile and maintain all relevant demographic and clinical data. All subjects were weighed to be able to accurately calculate the correct dose of ivermectin. In addition, a brief medical evaluation was conducted to record past medical history, comorbidities, use of medications and contraindications to drugs.

The following variables were analyzed and adjusted as confounding factors or used for balancing and matching groups for propensity score matching:

  • Age
  • Sex
  • Previous diseases (myocardial infarction and stroke)
  • Pre-existing comorbidities (type 2 diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, cancer [any type], and other pulmonary diseases)
  • Smoking

Patients who presented signs or the diagnosis of COVID-19 before July 7, 2020, were excluded from the sample. Other exclusion criteria included contraindications to ivermectin and age (subjects below 18 years of age were excluded).

During the study, subjects who were diagnosed with COVID-19 underwent a specific medical visit to assess clinical manifestations and disease severity. All subjects with symptoms were recommended not to use ivermectin, nitazoxanide, hydroxychloroquine, spironolactone, or any other drug claimed to be effective against COVID-19. The city did not provide or support any specific pharmacological outpatient treatment for subjects infected with COVID-19.

Intriguing findings

Interestingly, the group who self-selected to take ivermectin was older and had more comorbidities than the group who opted for no treatment. These results show that prophylactic ivermectin may be a mitigating factor in groups with higher risk of morbidity.

The belief that preventative and early treatment therapies would cause people to relax their caution of remaining socially distanced, leading to more COVID-19-related infections, is not supported here.

The data demonstrate that using preventative ivermectin significantly lowers the infection rate, and that benefits outweigh the speculated increased risk of changes in social behaviors.

Read full story here…

About the Editor

Patrick Wood
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It works and could be the biggest threat for the covid vaccination mafia. They need graphen inside the cyborgs – Ivermectin could destroy it.
NANO-MAN – https://odysee.com/@spacebusters:c9/Nano-Man:8

[…] >IVERMECTIN WORKS! Discover here the world’s largest, peer-reviewed research study. For all those Ivermectin skeptics who have countered that “there are no peer-reviewed” studies proving it works, and who probably wouldn’t know how to read and understand a peer-reviewed study, will you please stop fighting this and come out of the disinformation fog? Holdouts will now likely attack the peers in an attempt to discredit them. Good luck with that!  Regardless, THE results are in from the world’s largest study of Ivermectin for successfully treating “COVID-19” and here THEY ARE […]


How ironic that lack of ‘peer review’ validation is being used as a rationale for why Ivermectin should not be used. The demonisation of Hydroxychloroquine was achieved through a Lancet publication two years ago which purported to show the dangers in its use by citing a study in which those in the trial suffered severe side-effects. As it turned out, the study was later shown to be bogus .. though the Lancet, once a beacon of scientific reliability and caution, had published it with zero investigation into its veracity .. and with no peer review. The Lancet, like most aspects… Read more »


[…] antiviraler Wirkung als nĂŒtzlich gegen Omicron erwiesen hat. Forscher haben in Brasilien in der bisher grĂ¶ĂŸten Studie zu Ivermectin herausgefunden, dass die regelmĂ€ĂŸige Einnahme des PrĂ€parats prophylaktisch gegen […]