Beyond the Headlines: A Critical Look at the Ivermectin Narrative

Few drugs have gained more publicity that Ivermectin in the last several years, with consumer interest fueled in part by its promotion by anecdotal social media posts, and alternative health practitioners, such as Dr. William Makis, a Canadian physician who has claimed to cure his patients using a combination of Ivermectin and Fenbendazole. While he has been persecuted in his country, further increasing public scrutiny of the medical establishment's restriction of cheap medications for one of the most profitable diseases, several studies have corroborated the anti-cancer effects.  Despite what you may read on mainstream websites about Dr. Makis, (some trying to emphasize he "doesn't have a medical license" without mentioning that the authorities wrongfully revoked it), he is a Canadian radiologist, oncologist, and researcher with over 100 peer-reviewed publications. 

He is far from alone, however, as many studies on cancer cell lines have uncovered the mechanisms of ivermectin's anticacncer properties. One 2020 study, titled “Ivermectin as a potential cancer therapeutic: An insight into its molecular targets and possible mechanisms of action,” reviewed the anticancer potential of Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, focusing on its molecular targets and mechanisms of action Tang et al. (2020, NCBI.).

Key findings include:

• Inhibits tumor cell proliferation by interfering with cell cycle signaling pathways.
• Induces apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells, limiting their survival and spread.
• Modulates immune response by enhancing natural killer cell activity and macrophage function, which could complement existing immunotherapies.
• Blocks angiogenesis by disrupting new blood vessel formation, thereby cutting off nutrient and oxygen supply to tumors.

While these mechanisms show promise, the study emphasizes that further research and clinical trials are necessary to confirm efficacy, optimal dosing, and potential combination treatments.

The Anti-Ivermectin Crowd

As the debate over ivermectin continues to intensify, a series of Substack articles have emerged challenging the new alternative narrative surrounding this antiparasitic drug. These pieces argue that ivermectin is far more dangerous—and politically charged—than conventional reporting acknowledges. In order to get a balanced view, and because Dr. Hulda Clark did not favor Ivermectin over her completely natural anti-parasitic protocol, we wanted to review all possible counter-arguments to its widespread use, and look at what some on the side of alterative health are saying. Below are extended summaries of each recent article arguing against the use of Ivermectin:

Substack Post #1: "The Deadly Toll of Ivermectin: Blindness, Comas & Deaths Induced by The Neurotoxic, Genotoxic Poison"

This opening salvo makes a stark claim: ivermectin is not the safe, miracle drug its proponents advertise, but rather a neurotoxic and genotoxic compound linked to severe adverse events including blindness, comas, and deaths. The author compiles case reports and adverse event databases to argue that these effects are systematically underreported. Central to the piece is the allegation that regulatory agencies—particularly the FDA and WHO—have deliberately downplayed ivermectin's safety risks under pressure from pharmaceutical interests. The article presents a timeline of known adverse effects stretching back decades, suggesting that the drug's dangers were well-documented long before COVID-19, yet were obscured during the pandemic when ivermectin became a polarizing treatment option.

The author draws particular attention to mass drug administration (MDA) programs in Africa, where ivermectin has been distributed to millions for river blindness and lymphatic filariasis. Citing published medical literature, the piece claims that neurological side effects—including dizziness, confusion, and in rare cases, coma—occur at higher rates in these populations than officially acknowledged. The article concludes by questioning whether the benefits of ivermectin's antiparasitic use outweigh its documented toxicity, especially when administered repeatedly over years.

Article #2: "Ivermectin, WHO, UN, Merck, The World Bank & Kissinger's World Population Plan of Action"

Perhaps the most controversial of the six, this article draws a direct line between ivermectin's mass distribution programs and the historical population control agenda outlined in Henry Kissinger's1974 National Security Study Memorandum200 (NSSM200). The author argues that the drug's use in developing nations—funded by the WHO, World Bank, United Nations, and pharmaceutical giant Merck—is not merely a public health initiative but part of a covert plan to reduce population growth in the Global South.

The article traces the history of NSSM200, which identified population growth in strategically important countries as a threat to U.S. national security and advocated for population reduction measures. It then connects this policy framework to the founding of organizations like the UN Population Fund and the World Bank's population control programs. The author argues that ivermectin's widespread distribution in Africa, often without robust informed consent or post-marketing surveillance, fits this historical pattern of controlling populations under the guise of disease eradication.

Specific evidence cited includes declassified documents, funding allocations, and the overlapping personnel between population control organizations and global health initiatives. The piece stops short of explicitly calling ivermectin a genocidal tool, but strongly suggests that its deployment serves demographic rather than purely therapeutic goals.

Article#3: "'CLASTOGENIC' -18 Studies Highlighting Ivermectin Induced DNA Breakage and Damage"

This article takes a deep scientific dive into ivermectin's genotoxic properties. The author claims the drug is a clastogenic agent—meaning it causes DNA breakage and chromosomal damage. Eighteen peer-reviewed studies are cited to support the assertion that ivermectin induces genetic instability through multiple mechanisms, including oxidative stress, interference with DNA replication, and direct damage to chromosomal structure.

The studies span in vitro cell line experiments and in vivo animal models, with some research dating back to the1990s. The article highlights findings showing increased micronuclei formation, sister chromatid exchange, and DNA fragmentation in cells exposed to ivermectin at concentrations comparable to those achieved in human therapy. Particular concern is raised about cumulative effects in populations receiving repeated doses, such as those in MDA programs.

The author argues that these genotoxic effects raise serious questions about long-term carcinogenic risks and the potential for heritable mutations. While acknowledging that acute toxicity is rare at standard doses, the piece contends that the chronic, low-level genetic damage may pose significant public health risks that have been inadequately studied in human populations. The article also notes that regulatory agencies have classified ivermectin as a potential genotoxin in some contexts, though this information has not been widely disseminated.

Article #4: "Chloroquine Devastates Male Rat Fertility:4 Rat Studies Show Massively Deleterious Effects"

Although focused on chloroquine rather than ivermectin, this article is included to draw parallels between related antimalarial and antiparasitic drugs. The author summarizes four rat studies examining chloroquine's effects on male fertility, with findings showing reduced sperm count, decreased sperm motility, increased sperm abnormalities, and testicular damage including atrophy and germ cell death.

The studies varied in dosing regimens and durations, but all found statistically significant reproductive toxicity at doses comparable to those used in human malaria treatment. The article uses these animal studies to question the safety profile of similar drugs being promoted for off-label use, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The author argues that if chloroquine—a drug with decades of clinical use—causes such pronounced reproductive damage in animal models, then similar scrutiny should be applied to ivermectin, which shares some pharmacological properties.

The piece acknowledges that rat studies do not always translate to human effects, but maintains that they serve as important warning signals. The author calls for comprehensive reproductive toxicity studies of ivermectin in humans, particularly given its widespread use in populations of reproductive age.

Article #5: "The Ivermectin Double Cross"

This article takes a more conspiratorial tone, alleging that both proponents and opponents of ivermectin are part of the same corrupt system. The author argues that the drug was initially suppressed not because it was ineffective or dangerous, but because it threatened the profits of patented COVID-19 treatments like Remdesivir and the mRNA vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies, according to this narrative, collaborated to discredit ivermectin to protect their financial interests.

However, the article then pivots to criticize the rush to embrace ivermectin without rigorous oversight. The author notes that the sudden demand for the drug during the pandemic led to unregulated dosing, use of veterinary formulations, and self-medication without medical supervision. This created a "double cross" scenario: the public was denied a potentially useful treatment by corrupt institutions, but those who turned to ivermectin anyway faced toxicity from improper use.

The piece suggests that the solution is not blind advocacy or opposition, but rather honest, transparent research conducted outside the influence of both pharmaceutical funding and ideological campaigns. The author calls for properly controlled trials with appropriate dosing and monitoring. The article concludes that the public loses in either scenario—whether ivermectin is suppressed or embraced without caution—because the underlying systems of profit and power remain unchallenged.

Article #6: "Is Ivermectin Really a Genocidal Tool of the Globalists?"

The final article takes a more measured, almost academic approach to the question posed in its title. The author systematically examines the evidence for and against the claim that ivermectin's mass distribution constitutes a genocidal program. On one hand, the article acknowledges circumstantial evidence linking MDA programs to historical population control rhetoric and the documented toxicity of the drug.

On the other hand, the author argues that the direct claim of genocide is unsupported by current evidence. No "smoking gun" documents have been produced showing intentional harm. The adverse effects, while real, are relatively rare at standard doses. The author suggests that the drug's dangers are better explained by a combination of factors: pharmaceutical profiteering, regulatory capture by industry, neglect of side effects in impoverished populations, and the inherent risks of mass drug administration in under-resourced settings.

The piece proposes that ivermectin's troubling history is more likely the result of bureaucratic indifference and profit-driven decision-making than an overt genocidal plot. However, the author does not dismiss the possibility that some actors within global health institutions may view population reduction as a secondary benefit. The article concludes that whether the harm is intentional or merely negligent, the outcome for affected populations is the same: exposure to a toxic drug without adequate safeguards.

Conclusion

If you are a regular reader, you may recall an article by Erin Biberston, a Dr. Clark/SHRC recommended health coach, and expert in helping patients understand their toxic heavy metal load, and nutrient levels., had written an article recommending against ivermectin, suggesting that the medication can exacerbate certain parasitic infections, and has too narrow a range of action for this purpose. Dr. Hulda Clark, only ever used Ivermectin after her patients had completed the parasite cleanse, and only in its recommended dosages, which are small and short in duration. While the recent trending Substacks we reviewed have presented some reasonable evidence and arguments against the use of ivermectin, especially long term, but we have to weigh this against the potential benefits, and continued studies and physician case histories advocating its potential in cancer treatment. Its rapid popularity might also be due to its ability to help the body overcome some of the most common parasites, and therefore boost the immune system to the point it can beat the cancer on its own. The lab research also shows that it's anti-cancer mechanisms are many, and we have to consider that the scare tactics against it from the beginning were just exactly that, designed to scare people away from an alternative to expensive chemo and other mainstream cancer therapies.