Powerful Evidence Supports Ivermectin Passing Scientific Scrutiny With Flying Colors

Understanding “Temporality” in Medical Research

In medicine, “temporality” is a way to ask: does the effect follow the cause? When it comes to Ivermectin and COVID-19, multiple studies show that as soon as patients were given ivermectin, especially in strong, early regimens, their blood oxygen levels rose.

This consistent pattern across studies in different countries and contexts is an important key. Temporality is not just about timing; it’s about seeing a cause lead directly to an effect.

Researchers such as Hazan, Stone, and Babalola did’t collaborate at first, but their results lined up neatly—oxygen saturation improved shortly after ivermectin was administered. That’s temporality at work.

The Bigger Picture: Bradford Hill Criteria and Its Modern Use

The conversation about ivermectin fits into a broader framework of medical reasoning known as the Bradford Hill criteria, developed in 1965. These nine principles help scientists judge whether a relationship between treatment and effect is causal or just coincidence.

But it’s not a checklist. Bradford Hill envisioned it as a flexible, multi-angle way of reasoning—what he called an “inference to the best explanation.” In more recent times, this has been expanded by groups like Howick’s in 2009 to include tools like randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which didn’t even exist in the 1960s.

Repeatability and International Confirmation

One of the hallmarks of sound science is repeatability. In the case of ivermectin, different studies from across the globe—using slightly different methods—showed consistent results: patients improved after taking Ivermectin.

Whether it was a study in Zimbabwe or observational data from frontline doctors, the pattern held. This gives more confidence that the result wasn’t a fluke. Even doctors like Dr. Pierre Kory presented these findings to U.S. officials, only to have the information censored.

Videos reaching millions were taken down, while the use of Ivermectin quietly continued among physicians desperate to help their patients during an unfolding crisis.

Strength of Association: Mathematical Proof of Efficacy

The “strength of association” refers to how strongly a treatment can be tied to a result. In the case of ivermectin, a mathematical approach was used instead of a classic RCT.

A brilliant mathematician named Eleftherios worked early on with Dr. Zelenko and others to show that using multiple repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin, led to significantly better patient outcomes. His work demonstrated that the improvements seen in survival rates and reduced hospitalizations weren’t likely due to chance. Instead, the mathematical models made it almost certain that ivermectin was the key factor.

Biological Gradient: The Dose Makes the Difference

A biological gradient, also called a dose-response relationship, shows that more of a treatment leads to a stronger effect. That’s exactly what the Ivermectin studies revealed.

High doses in the most severe stages of COVID-19 led to rapid improvement, while lower doses took longer. A heartbreaking example was shared of a patient who improved dramatically after three doses—but tragically died after being denied further treatment.

The connection between the amount of Ivermectin given and the degree of patient improvement was clear and powerful.

Mechanistic Evidence: How Ivermectin Works in the Body

Mechanistic evidence asks whether there’s a logical way a treatment could work. In this case, lab studies provided plenty of support. Ivermectin works in several ways: it allows zinc into cells, which stops viral replication; it reduces inflammation during the cytokine storm; and it prevents blood clots by blocking spike proteins from sticking to red blood cells.

One elegant study even showed Ivermectin preventing the sticky clots that form in infected blood samples. This isn’t magic—it’s good biology and pharmacology. Ivermectin acts like a shield, letting red blood cells carry oxygen again by stopping them from clumping together.

Coherence Across All Levels of Evidence

Coherence means that findings at the bench (lab), bedside (clinical), and community levels all tell the same story. That’s what happened with Ivermectin. From petri dishes to patients in hospital beds to entire populations using it for prophylaxis, the results consistently aligned.

The so-called “ivermectin wheel” visualized how the drug’s effects were supported by lab science, clinical outcomes, and observational data. While RCTs were rare due to the urgent nature of the pandemic, there was enough coherence to make a compelling case for Ivermectin’s value.

Ethics and the Absence of Randomized Controlled Trials

Some critics argue that ivermectin’s supporters didn’t provide enough RCT evidence. But during a pandemic, asking severely ill patients to risk getting a placebo instead of a potentially lifesaving drug is ethically questionable.

As one expert pointed out, dividing patients into treatment and placebo groups when there is already strong evidence of benefit could be considered morally unacceptable. This is especially true when a repurposed drug like ivermectin offers hope and has a well-established safety record.

Why Was the Evidence Suppressed?

Despite loads of scientific evidence, Ivermectin faced fierce global resistance from the deep state and their social media lackies.. Videos were censored. Good doctors were ruined. Studies were deliberately ignored. Why? It was simply a coordinated campaign to push newer, more profitable drugs instead.

One of the big lies was that acknowledging Ivermectin’s scientific success would have undermined vaccine-only strategies.  What a shame. Who cares how many die, right? As long as the big-pharma research machine rolls on, all is well. The evidence for its effectiveness is overwhelming, and now anyone with a functioning brain sees the suppression of ivermectin as one of the most dastardly aspects of the Plandemic.

Conclusion: Inference to the Best Explanation

In science, causation isn’t always proved by a single test. Instead, researchers often look for the best explanation among all the evidence. Just like a person leaving a movie theater and being hit with a baseball bat doesn’t blame the popcorn, we don’t need perfect proof to recognize Ivermectin’s positive impact.

Temporality, strength of association, biological gradient, plausible mechanisms, and coherence all point to the same conclusion: Ivermectin worked.

Most of all, it worked because good doctors applied sound science, even under tremendous pressure, and were willing to think critically and act bravely despite the deep state’s attacks.

Source: https://www.offthegridnews.com/what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/powerful-evidence-supports-ivermectin-passing-scientific-scrutiny-with-flying-colors/