When COVID-19 first erupted in early 2020, the world rushed into panic-mode. Hospitals overflowed, governments tightened control, and the public looked desperately for medical solutions. But buried beneath the chaos, two old, inexpensive medications suddenly found themselves thrust into the global spotlight:
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a decades-old antimalarial & autoimmune drug
Ivermectin — a widely used antiparasitic for humans (and yes, animals too)
Both had early scientific data suggesting antiviral activity, and both were widely available, cheap, and already FDA-approved for other uses.
.... and then the controversy exploded.
At the very beginning of the pandemic, several laboratory studies identified that hydroxychloroquine inhibited SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, as well as at least one observational study proved a "rapid clearance of viral load."
This was quickly followed by a small but influential clinical study from France (the famous Raoult group), which claimed that HCQ — especially when combined with azithromycin — led to faster viral clearance in COVID-19 patients.
Although the study was later criticized and even retracted, its initial results swept through international news, social media, talk shows, and political press briefings, creating the perception that a breakthrough had been found.
Just weeks later, Australian researchers published a paper showing that ivermectin caused a 5,000-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in vitro. Later, an observational study reinforced the claim.
This finding was amplified online as potential evidence of a major therapeutic discovery — after all, ivermectin was widely accessible and safely used for decades.
Supporters framed it as: “Why aren’t we trying this NOW?”
Meanwhile critics argued concentrations used in the lab were too high to replicate in humans — and the battle lines began to form.
In March 2020, the U.S. FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized COVID patients.
Suddenly, HCQ wasn’t just a drug — it was a political lightning rod.
TV segments labeled it “unproven” or “dangerous.”
Commentators accused each other of promoting pseudoscience.
Supporters claimed the government was dragging its feet.
Critics worried about heart arrhythmias and misuse.
Ivermectin became even more polarized a year later, after high-profile personalities — including Joe Rogan — publicly said they used it during COVID infection.
Mainstream outlets repeatedly referred to ivermectin as a “horse dewormer,” even though millions of people worldwide take the human version safely every year. This framing enraged proponents, who insisted the media intentionally blurred the distinction.
The issue morphed from a medical debate into a cultural war zone.
Between 2020–2021, several observational studies and small randomized trials appeared to support hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin:
Chinese randomized trial (62 patients) showed faster symptom resolution with HCQ.
Multiple hospital cohorts reported lower mortality among HCQ-treated patients compared to other regimens.
Raoult’s Marseille database later claimed HCQ + azithromycin was associated with dramatically reduced mortality (over 30,000 patients analyzed).
The ICON Study (Florida) showed lower mortality in ivermectin-treated hospitalized patients.
Bangladesh cohort reported better outcomes with ivermectin therapy.
Several early meta-analyses suggested large relative risk reductions, especially when ivermectin was given early in the disease course.
Observational prophylaxis studies (e.g., Itajai, Brazil) reported substantial reductions in infection and death among regular ivermectin users.
For supporters, this was “proof” that cheap therapeutics were being ignored.
For critics, it was bad data, weak methodology, and wishful interpretation.
And thus the controversy deepened.
By mid-to-late 2020, powerful global institutions — the WHO, NIH, FDA, and various national public health agencies — began releasing results from large randomized controlled trials on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
These trials included:
RECOVERY Trial (UK) – showed no mortality benefit for HCQ
Horby et al. (2020). Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(21), 2030–2040.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
SOLIDARITY Trial (WHO) – found HCQ did not improve outcomes
WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium. (2021). Repurposed antiviral drugs for Covid-19 — Interim WHO Solidarity trial results. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(6), 497–511.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2023184
TOGETHER Trial (Brazil/Canada) – found ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization
Reis et al. (2022). Effect of early treatment with ivermectin among patients with Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 386(18), 1721–1731.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
ACTIV-6 Trial (U.S.) – large trial reporting minimal or no improvement
Naggie et al. & ACTIV-6 Study Group. (2022). Effect of ivermectin vs placebo on time to sustained recovery in outpatients with mild to moderate Covid-19: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 328(16), 1595–1603.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.18590
IVERCOR Trial (Argentina) – found no significant improvement for ivermectin
Vallejos, J., Zoni, R., Bangher, M., Villamandos, S., Bobadilla, A., Plano, F., ... & Orellana, J. (2021). Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with Covid-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Infectious Diseases, 21(1), 635.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5
These data were published in respected journals and quickly became the scientific “consensus.”
BUT HERE’S WHERE OUR STORY GETS INTERESTING…
From the viewpoint of “The Establishment,” these trials were the nail in the coffin.
From the viewpoint of us, the Alternative Thinkers…
…these trials were exactly what the deep state needed to bury two cheap, off-patent drugs forever.
How convenient that:
The new blockbuster antivirals (Paxlovid, molnupiravir) were about to launch
Billions in pharmaceutical profits were at stake
HCQ and ivermectin cost pennies per dose
Many early positive studies came from small independent teams
Media messaging immediately switched from “promising” to “dangerous misinformation”
Even though the trials are real and publicly documented, we ask the forbidden question:
(A question we can’t “officially” answer, but certainly can explore.)
We still present the study results honestly — but we also point out:
Who funded the trials
Who designed the protocols
Which dosing regimens were used (some argue too low, too late, or wrong duration)
What outcomes were prioritized (mortality? symptoms? hospitalization?)
Whether any early-treatment data were excluded
Whether the trial populations matched real-world use
Supporters argue these design choices guaranteed the drugs would fail on paper.
Critics say this is a conspiracy theory.
Either way:
This is where the controversy peaks.
As the “negative” trial results went mainstream, something unexpected happened:
Instead of disappearing, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin became symbols.
To medical institutions, they were:
Proof of misinformation
Examples of pseudoscientific hype
Evidence of why social media needed censorship controls
But to conspiracy-leaning communities (our website persona):
They were heroes defeated by the deep state.
Social media platforms:
Flagged content
Deleted posts
Shadow-banned pro-HCQ/IVM groups
Removed entire accounts
Supporters took this as confirmation:
If HCQ and ivermectin were truly useless, why censor people talking about them?
Podcasts, YouTube channels, and independent researchers produced counter-analyses, accusing the medical system of:
Manipulating study design
Selecting inappropriate patient populations
Setting dosing regimens too late in the disease
Ignoring early-treatment data
De-platforming any dissent
This era became a battleground not just for medicine — but for truth itself.
In this environment, HCQ and ivermectin became more than drugs.
They became:
Symbols of medical freedom
Icons of independent research
Talking points on podcasts
Memes
And yes — rallying cries for communities skeptical of institutional authority
Whether one sees this as heroic resistance or dangerous pseudoscience depends entirely on the lens.
Our website?
We’re embracing the “alternative to the deep state propaganda” persona — while still grounding every claim in real citations.