Will the Rapture Be Before or After the Tribulation? - Part 3

Dennis Edwards

To go back to Part 1 or Part 2

If we look at Revelation 15 and 16 we see we are talking about the Wrath of God. We can distinguish the Bowls or Vials of the Wrath from the Trumpets of Tribulation because the bowls or vials bring a more complete destruction on the earth. God's children have been raptured away and now He can justly bring the big guns on the wicked and unbelieving.

Revelation 15:1 Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. 

The Seven Bowls or Vials

Revelation 16:1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out the bowls of the wrath of God on the earth.”

First Bowl: Loathsome Sores

2 So the first went and poured out his bowl upon the earth, and a foul and loathsome sore came upon the men who had the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.

Second Bowl: The Sea Turns to Blood

3 Then the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living creature in the sea died.

Third Bowl: The Waters Turn to Blood

4 Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying:

“You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. 6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”

7 And I heard another from the altar saying, “Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”

As they have tribulated the saints and prophets during that 3 & 1/2 years of Great Tribulation, God in righteousness is tribulating them in hope they come to repentance and faith.

Fourth Bowl: Men Are Scorched

8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory.

Fifth Bowl: Darkness and Pain

10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain. 11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.

Sixth Bowl: Euphrates Dried Up

12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”

16 And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.

Our garment is the cloak of salvation, the righteousness of Christ, which we receive when we confess we are sinners and ask forgiveness and accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Prince of Peace into our life. Jesus is warning us to hold onto our faith, to remain steadfast and unmoveable in the hope of the Gospel, less we end up like these who receive the Wrath of God.

Seventh Bowl: The Earth Utterly Shaken

17 Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth. 19 Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. 20 Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.

We see that the Wrath of God is decidedly more intense and destructive than the Trumpets of Tribulation have been. God had promised to not give us over to His wrath and He kept His promise. 

Revelation 3:10. "Because thou has kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." 

That hour of temptation denotes a very short period. We don't have time to get into a deep study of the length of the Tribulation and the Wrath of God, which I have done in another post. I can say assuredly that the Tribulation period is the second half of the last seven years mentioned in the Daniel 9:27 prophecy. 

"And he (the Antichrist) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week (a seven year period): and in the midst of the week (at the three and a half year mark) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

In Matthew 24, Jesus made reference to the prophecy noting that "when we shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place" [Matthew 24:15], that then would begin the great tribulation period [Matthew 24:21].  The Tribulation will be three and a half years, or 1,260 days, or 42 months, or time, times, and half a time, as the Bible often puts it.

The Wrath of God is a shorter period approximately 30 to 75 days and is in between the rapture and beginning of the Millennium kingdom. How we arrive at the length of the Wrath of God, I have written about in another post.

My Pre-Tribulation Friend: A few verses later, in 1 Thessalonians 5:9, we can see that the Apostle Paul says, "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." The Book of Revelation, which deals primarily with the Tribulation period, is a prophetic message of how God will pour out His wrath on the earth during the Tribulation. It would seem inconsistent for God to promise believers that they would not suffer wrath and then leave them on earth during the Tribulation.

Dennis Edwards: As we have seen from the above careful study of the scriptures, there is, in fact, a difference between the Tribulation Trumpets and the Wrath of God. God will remove the true believers at the end of the Tribulation in the Rapture event. He will then pour out His wrath upon the wicked and unbelieving. God has promised to keep us from His wrath and He will keep that promise. However, we shall go through tribulation under His protection. Perhaps, it is His in immense love for the lost that He keeps us here to be further witnesses of His love and truth during those dire days.

During the Great Plagues of Rome in the 3rd and 4th centuries many of the Christians stayed behind to care for the Romans rather than fleeing to safety. Their sacrificial love brought the Romans to faith and Christianity became the recognized church of Rome. God said we are to be a light to the world. We are to be salt to the world. In His love and mercy for the lost He doesn't just rapture us away when we get saved, but He keeps us here. He refines us through the fire that we may be brighter lights, that our love may be purer, that more may know Him for He would that all be saved and be brought to the knowledge of the King of Kings.

We do not need to fear the tribulation. God has promised to seal His own and keep us under His protection. In Daniel we read: "But the people who know their God will be strong and do exploits. And those who understand among the people will instruct many." [Daniel 11:32b-33a.] 

God promises us in Isaiah 43:2 that, "When thou passes through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walks through the fire, thou shall not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." Jesus also told us, "And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."[Matthew 28:20] Amen.

As we can see, how we interpret Scripture depends on what initial assumptions we believe to be true. We need to look back to those assumptions to see their veracity. The big question then is, Can we disregard the beliefs of the early disciples of the Apostles who all with one voice affirmed that the Church would pass through the tribulation period under the Antichrist persecution? [See following post.] Should we accept Darby's revelation? Should we accept Scofield's dividing of the promises of God between the Jews and the Christian Church? 

Yes, the Pre-Tribulation doctrine is the most accepted within the Protestant churches today, but does that mean it's right? Jesus Himself warned: "Take heed that no one deceives you." [Matthew 24:4] "And many false prophets will arise, and will deceive many." [Matthew 24:11] Just because something is widely believed doesn't mean it's true. Jesus said, "Enter in through the straight gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets." [Matthew 7:13-15a]

The Proverbs remind us to "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set up." [Proverbs 22:28 & 23:10] In Jeremiah 6:16 we read, "Thus says the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and seek, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." I don't think we should so easily abandon the assumptions that the Fathers of the faith had. It's like removing the ancient landmarks that they have set up. We shouldn't remove the theological landmarks or guideposts of how Bible prophecy should be interpreted.

That's why we see so much repetition in the Bible. Moses repeats and repeats. Apostle Paul repeats and repeats. Jesus in His prophecies to Apostle John repeats and repeats. Daniel also repeats and repeats. In Hebrews 2:1 we read, "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip."

It seems to me that with the "Secret Rapture" before the tribulation trumpets, we have accepted a doctrine that tickles our ears as Apostle Paul warned: "For the time will come when they shall not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts (or desires) shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." [2 Timothy 4:3-4] Wikipedia defines "itching ears" as "a term used in the Bible to describe individuals who seek out messages and doctrines that condone their own lifestyle, as opposed to adhering to the teachings of the apostles."

No one likes persecution. Having an interpretation of prophecy that gives the Church an escape hatch seems to me is a desire of our own hearts and not what Jesus, the early apostles, their followers, and the rest of Scripture teaches. For example, Jeremiah, speaking by the word of the Lord, predicted the destruction on Jerusalem if the people did not repent and surrender to the King of Babylon. The false prophets prophesied falsely and predicted God would protect Jerusalem and the Babylonians would retreat. The people didn't like the words of the Lord through Jeremiah. They believed the words that tickled their ears, or that appealed to their pride and desires. The Babylonians came and destroyed the city and the temple as a result. Could the Pre-Tribulation doctrine be a deception we desire?

The Lord also said that there shall be no private interpretation of the Scriptures. [1 Peter 1:20] But "precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." [Isaiah 28:9-10] That means we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. We use the greater predominance of the Scripture. We do not use some isolated item with no or very little Biblical support and or is contrary to the overall Biblical narrative. We make sure we start with Biblical assumptions that are in line with the Biblical narrative and worldview. We should be dubious of accepting assumptions that are extraneous from the Bible or contrary to the general predominance of Scripture.

Speaking to the church in Thessalonica Apostle Paul wrote, "We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all toward each other abounds; so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure: which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." [2 Thessalonians 2:3-8]

We will suffer tribulation, but God will trouble those that trouble us even during the tribulation trumpets of Revelation 8-10. Then, after our rapture at the end of the tribulation, He will pour out His wrath on the wicked in His righteousness. "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." [Psalm 19:9b] Tribulation-Rapture-Wrath-Millennium is God's chronology. To read another study on the coming of Christ click here. 

Read More

The Truth About Ivermectin

 Medical miracle or notorious lynchpin of misinformation?

MEDICINE

Marina Zhang

Nov 21 2022

biggersmaller

A healthcare worker holds a bottle of ivermectin in Colombia on July 21, 2020. (Luis Robayo/AFP via Getty Images)

0:0021:31

Ivermectin has been hailed as a “wonder drug” and, according to the UNESCO World Science Report, a critical component of “one of the most triumphant public health campaigns ever waged in the developing world.”

However, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and affiliated health authorities have vociferously recommended against ivermectin as a potential treatment for the virus.

Though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ivermectin for human use in treating conditions caused by parasites, it has also insisted that ivermectin “has not been shown to be safe or effective” when it comes to treating COVID-19.

In a social media message that has gone viral, the FDA labeled it as a drug for horses and not fit for human consumption: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

The post made headlines and was one of the FDA’s most successful social media campaigns. Yet, research findings seem to contradict the public health organization’s recommendations.

A growing body of research shows that ivermectin is an essential treatment for COVID-19. Many doctors have praised the drug for its broad yet effective antiparasitic, antiviral, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, and autophagic properties.

Ivermectin: Antiparasitic Beginnings

Ivermectin made its name through its significant benefits in treating parasitic infections.

In 1973, Satoshi Omura and William C. Campbell, working with the Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, found an unusual type of Streptomyces bacteria in Japanese soil near a golf course.

In laboratory studies, Omura and Campbell discovered that this Streptomyces bacteria could cure mice infected with the roundworm Heligmosomoides polygyrus. Campbell isolated the bacteria’s active compounds, naming them avermectins, and the bacteria was thus called S. avermitilis.

Despite decades of searching worldwide, researchers have yet to find another microorganism that can produce avermectin.

It was changing one of the bonds of avermectin through a chemical process that produced ivermectin, which was proven successful in treating onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, both of which are debilitating diseases common in the developing world.

A portrait of William Campbell and an illustration describing his work displayed on a screen during a press conference of the 2015 Nobel Medicine Prize. William Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the Nobel Medicine Prize for their discoveries of treatments against parasites—Avermectin, which was modified to Ivermectin. (JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP via Getty Images)

Though its broad antiparasitic functions are not well understood, it is known that ivermectin penetrates parasites’ nervous systems, turning off their neurons’ actions, possibly deactivating and killing them.

As part of a donation campaign launched in 1988 by Merck & Co., Inc., the manufacturer of ivermectin, the drug was used in Africa to treat river blindness. Also called onchocerciasis, river blindness is a tropical disease caused by Onchocerca volvulus worms. It is the second-most common cause worldwide of infectious blindness.

The Onchocerca worms mature in the skin of an infected individual (“the host”). After mating, female worms can release into the host’s skin up to 1,000 microfilariae a day; the female worms live for 10 to 14 years. The presence of these worms can lead to scarring in the tissues and, when microfilariae invade the eye, can cause visual impairment or complete loss of vision.

The World Health Organization estimates that 18 million people are infected globally, and 270,000 have been blinded by onchocerciasis.

When Merck distributed ivermectin in areas hardest hit by the disease, treatment benefited the residents’ overall health and led to economic recovery. Ivermectin replaced previous drugs that had devastating side effects.

“Ivermectin proved to be virtually purpose-built to combat Onchocerciasis,” Omura wrote in a study he co-authored in 2011.

Ivermectin has also proven effective against lymphatic filariasis, known as elephantiasis. Parasitic worms transmitted through the bite of an infected mosquito can grow and develop in lymphatic vessels, which regulate the body’s water balance. When certain vessels are blocked, the areas—typically the legs and genitals—can swell, with the legs enlarging to elephant-like stumps.

Worldwide, more than 120 million people are infected, 40 million of whom are seriously incapacitated and disfigured.

The World Health Organization listed ivermectin as an essential drug and has advised many countries to run annual campaigns to rid people of these parasites. Such recommendations are a solid testament to ivermectin’s safety.

For their work, including the discovery of avermectin, in 2015, Omura and Campbell were among three recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

It is an indispensable drug for the underdeveloped world, with about 3.7 billion doses administered as part of global campaigns during the past 30 years. To this day, ivermectin remains a staple drug of tropical areas and an essential drug in treating onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, strongyloidiasis, and scabies.

Ivermectin and COVID-19

Analyses of studies on ivermectin have found it effective as a prevention, a treatment for acute COVID-19, and in advanced stages of infection by the virus.

1. Ivermectin as a Prophylaxis

Prophylaxis intervenes in the first phases of COVID-19 infection, which is mainly asymptomatic, when the virus replicates to increase its viral load—symptom onset occurs after the viral load peaks.

Ivermectin can be effective in the early stages of infection. Outside the cells, ivermectin can attach to parts of the virus, immobilizing it and preventing it from entering and infecting human cells.

Ivermectin can also enter the cell to prevent the virus from replicating. SARS-CoV-2 needs cell replication machinery to make more of the virus; ivermectin attaches and blocks a protein critical to this process, preventing viral production.

Additionally, ivermectin can be absorbed from the skin and stored in fat cells for a long time.

“Because it’s lipid soluble, it is stored and slowly released, [so] once you’ve taken a prophylactic dose, and I think it’s like the cumulative dose of about 400mg, that your risk of getting COVID is close to zero and you can actually stop it for a while,” said Dr. Paul Marik, a widely published critical care specialist with 500 peer-reviewed papers to his name, in an interview with The Epoch Times.

Dr. Paul Marik in Kissimmee, Fla. on Oct. 14, 2022. (The Epoch Times)

Marik co-founded the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of physicians formed in the early days of the pandemic and dedicated to treating COVID-19. According to interviews, many of the group’s doctors have successfully treated COVID-19 with ivermectin. The organization’s other co-founder, Dr. Pierre Kory, has written a book about ivermectin’s use and controversy during the pandemic.

Dr. Sabine Hazan, a gastroenterologist with 22 years of experience in clinical research, told The Epoch Times that she would advise ivermectin use for only a short time in critical patients rather than recommending the use of it as a prophylaxis.

Continuous use of ivermectin—as with all drugs—can make the body dependent on the drug rather than working to fix itself.

2. Ivermectin for Early and Acute COVID

Many peer-reviewed studies have found that ivermectin, when used by itself or in conjunction with other therapies in symptomatic patients, reduces ventilation time, time for recovery, and the risk of progressing to severe disease. (pdf 1, pdf 2, pdf 3)

This is likely due to ivermectin’s anti-inflammatory role in multiple pathways, achieved by clearing out the viral particles by immobilizing them, reducing inflammation, and improving mitochondrial action.

Suppose the early viral replication is not controlled and cleared out soon enough by the body’s immune system. In that case, the infection can become severe or even hyperinflammatory, possibly leading to systemic organ failures.

Ivermectin can also directly interact with immune pathways, suppressing inflammation and reducing the chances of developing a cytokine storm. A cytokine storm occurs when the immune system is hyperactive and hyperinflammatory. Though ivermectin can help to clear out the virus and its particles, the inflammatory state of the tissues and the organs can often cause more damage than the virus itself.

Ivermectin also likely improves gut health, which plays an essential role in immunity by preventing bacteria and viruses from infecting people via the gut.

In a published study, Hazan hypothesized that ivermectin helps COVID-19 patients by increasing the levels of Bifidobacteria—a beneficial bacteria—in the gut.

As the CEO and founder of her own genetic sequencing research laboratory, ProgenaBiome, Hazan noticed that the Bifidobacteria levels in her stools would increase after she took ivermectin. Critical COVID patients would have “zero Bifidobacteria,” which can often be a sign of poor health.  

In her peer-reviewed study on hypoxic patients, she observed that COVID patients with low oxygen levels from the cytokine storms in their lungs would improve within hours of administering ivermectin.

“When people die of COVID, they die from the cytokines—they couldn’t breathe anymore. It’s almost like an anaphylactic reaction. So when you give them ivermectin at the moment they’re about to crash, you’re boosting the Bifidobacteria [and increasing their oxygen],” Hazan said.

She explained that ivermectin is a fermented product of Streptomyces bacteria. Streptomyces are within the same group Bifidobacteria are from, which may explain why ivermectin temporarily boosts Bifidobacteria.

Ivermectin also helps with mitochondrial function. During severe COVID-19, patients often experience pulmonary dysfunctions due to lung inflammation, reducing oxygen flow. This can cause stress to the mitochondria, leading to fatigue, and, when severe, may cause cell and tissue death. Ivermectin has been shown to increase energy production, indicating that it is beneficial to the mitochondria.

Furthermore, ivermectin can bind to the spike protein—a distinctive structural feature of the COVID virus which has a crucial role in its pathogenesis. In systemic disease, the spike protein can enter the bloodstream and bind to red blood cells to form blood clots. Ivermectin can prevent blood clots from forming in the body.

3. Ivermectin for Long COVID and Post-Vaccine Symptoms

The number of studies supporting ivermectin to treat long COVID and post-COVID-19 vaccine symptoms is limited. However, doctors treating these conditions have observed successful results with ivermectin.

An Argentinian study published in March 2021 is the only peer-reviewed study evaluating ivermectin for long COVID.

Researchers found that in patients reporting long COVID symptoms—including coughing, brain fog, headaches, and fatigue—ivermectin alleviated their symptoms.

Mechanistically, ivermectin can improve autophagy. This process is usually switched off during COVID-19 infections. By switching autophagy back on, ivermectin can help cells clear remnant viral proteins out, returning stability to the cell.

Like acute and severe COVID-19, chronic spike protein triggers inflammation, and ivermectin can reduce such responses by suppressing inflammatory pathways and lessening the damage to tissues and blood vessels.

The Changing Public Health Messaging on Ivermectin

The NIH’s stance on ivermectin has changed several times.

Early in the pandemic, there was little information on ivermectin as a potential treatment for the virus.

The first study that mentioned ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment came from Australia in April 2020. Researchers administered ivermectin to SARS-CoV-2-infected monkey kidney cells in the laboratory and found the drug beneficial in very high doses. However, the researchers concluded that further study was needed. Many health agencies, including the NIH, the CDC, and other global health regulators concluded that ivermectin could kill the virus only at toxic levels.

Even now, NIH’s statement on ivermectin for COVID-19 reads: “Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.”

In October 2020, the first clinical study showing the benefits of ivermectin was published by the journal CHEST. The study found ivermectin to reduce mortality rates in COVID-19 patients and garnered immediate attention.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, is a critical care doctor specializing in pulmonary medicine.

Rajter gave a testimony (pdf) of his findings to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs in December 2020.

The day after he saw the Australian study, one of his COVID patients dramatically deteriorated from breathing normally at room oxygen levels to requiring intubation. The patient’s son pleaded with Rajter to save his mother using whatever options available. Rajter recognized that  hydroxychloroquine would be ineffective in the advanced stages of COVID. After much deliberation, he tried ivermectin.

“The patient deteriorated as expected for about 12 more hours but stabilized by 24 hours and improved by 48 hours. After this, two more patients had similar issues and were treated with the ivermectin-based protocol. Based on experience, these patients should have done poorly, yet they all survived,” the testimony read.

More clinical studies were published, showing the benefits of ivermectin as a prophylactic treatment. (pdf 1, pdf 2).

The findings encouraged the use of ivermectin among doctors desperate to find a cure.

Meanwhile, by October 2020, research into COVID-19 vaccines and the use of remdesivir to treat the virus was already in full swing.

According to the FDA, specific criteria should be met for the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) to be granted for vaccines and medications, including that there are “no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”

Some doctors say that if ivermectin’s use for COVID had been approved, it would have made the EUAs for vaccines and remdesivir null and void.

Following the Australian study, the FDA published a statement, “FAQ: COVID-19 and Ivermectin Intended for Animals,” highlighting the use of ivermectin in animals and advising against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19.

The NIH also discouraged the use of ivermectin, albeit briefly. On Jan. 14, 2021, the NIH changed its statement, writing that there was no evidence to recommend or disapprove the use of ivermectin. However, in April 2022, the statement changed to strongly disapproving of using ivermectin.

“We [Marik, Kory, and Dr. Andrew Hill, a virologist and consultant to the WHO] had a conference with NIH in January of 2021. We presented our data, and Andrew Hill presented the data he had done…there were a number of studies at that point, which were very positive,” said Marik.

Health Authority Overreach

Despite the NIH’s neutral statement on ivermectin for most of 2021, the FDA actively campaigned against using ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. On Aug. 26,  2021, the CDC sent an emergency warning against using ivermectin; a few weeks later, the American Medical Association and affiliated associations called for an end to ivermectin use.

Many doctors were thus discouraged from using ivermectin, and pharmacies refused to prescribe it. State health agencies warned against using ivermectin, and medical boards removed the medical licenses of doctors who prescribed ivermectin, alleging misinformation.

Yet using the FDA’s statement against ivermectin to ban its use in COVID-19 cases would be considered an overreach. Since the FDA approved ivermectin in 1996, this made the drug acceptable for off-label use.

“The fact that it’s not FDA approved for COVID is irrelevant because the FDA endorses the use of off-label drugs at the clinician’s discretion,” said Marik.

As an ironic side effect of the messaging on ivermectin, people suddenly found themselves unable to access ivermectin, and some turned to veterinary-grade ivermectin.

Though veterinary ivermectin is the same product as medicinal ivermectin, the manufacturing standard is not the same as it is for human-grade pharmaceuticals.

Contradictory Research and Campaigns

Though the initial research in 2020 showed promising results for ivermectin, published studies reported conflicting findings by the following year.

The NIH has funded many studies on the effectiveness of ivermectin, the most recent being ACTIV-6.

Individuals can participate in the study once they develop COVID by selecting ivermectin from four other drugs. The drug was sent to them via mail. This method means that some people in the study could have recovered by the time they received the ivermectin.

There are some controversies regarding this study.

The first is that the authors changed the primary endpoints during the study, which is heavily frowned upon as it can affect the validity and reliability of the outcome.

Initially, the primary endpoint was the number of deaths, hospitalizations, and symptoms reported at day 14.

This was changed to the number of deaths, hospitalizations, and symptoms by day 28. In the actual published study, there was another change, with the endpoint being duration of COVID-19 symptoms.

A rapid review published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) implied that the endpoints were changed because, by the time the study commenced, there were far fewer events of death and hospitalizations; as a result, there would not be enough data for a reliable comparison.

Indeed, the data at the ACTIV-6 livestream showed that the ivermectin group reported only one death; this death would not be considered relevant to the research because the patient was hospitalized and died before he took ivermectin.

There were also further implementations in the study that could impact the observed effectiveness of the drug.

On average, this study’s participants received treatment six days after first reporting symptoms. Patients needed to report eligible symptoms and test positive for COVID-19 before receiving drugs. Due to this added time, about seven percent of the participants had no symptoms by the time ivermectin arrived.

Despite these negative findings for ivermectin, there is still some evidence that may demonstrate that ivermectin can be useful in treating COVID-19.

In the abstract, the authors concluded that taking ivermectin had “a posterior probability of benefit of .91,” this is another way of writing that ivermectin had a 91 percent probability of being more beneficial than placebo.

The percent of probability is below 95 percent, making the benefit of ivermectin insignificant.

 

Slides from the ACTIV-6 presentation on a statistically significant secondary endpoint findings.

Another secondary endpoint showed that by day 14, ivermectin already had a statistically significant 27 percent benefit with 98 percent probability of efficacy.

The FDA and NIH did not respond for comments by press time.

 

Marina Zhang

Marina Zhang is based in New York and covers health and science. Contact her at marina.zhang@epochtimes.com.

Read More