Ivermectin and Supplements Vs. Tick-Borne Diseases

Prophylactic Efficacy of Ivermectin and Commercial Patriot Nutraceuticals Against Confirmed, Suspected, and Hypothetical Tick-Borne Disease

Background

Lyme disease is a real infectious disease caused by Borrelia bacteria transmitted through the bite of infected blacklegged ticks. Conventional medicine, however, continues to insist on burdensome procedural formalities such as identifying pathogens, validating diagnostic tests, comparing treatments, and distinguishing one disease from another.

The authors considered these requirements unnecessarily restrictive. Recent advances in citizen epidemiology suggest a more inclusive diagnostic framework in which infection may be inferred from fatigue, headache, joint discomfort, unexplained irritability, having recently walked near vegetation, knowing somebody who owns hiking boots, or possessing a sufficiently durable intuition that something is medically wrong.

We therefore hypothesized that a sufficiently broad therapeutic regimen might prevent not merely known tick-borne diseases but the entire theoretical disease space surrounding ticks, including diseases that medicine has not yet recognized, diseases laboratory testing stubbornly refuses to find, and diseases whose principal evidence consists of somebody selling a treatment for them.

Methods

A total of 412 adults were recruited from supplement mailing lists, outdoor sporting-goods parking lots, wellness livestream chats, and the comments section beneath a 94-minute video entitled What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About Arachnids.

Subjects were randomized into four study arms:

• Conventional Prevention Group: insect repellent, protective clothing, tick checks, prompt tick removal, and evidence-based medical care.
• Ivermectin Group: ivermectin administered according to a dosage calculated by a retired chiropractor using body weight, lunar position, and what he described as “a conservative vibe.”
• Patriot Nutraceutical Group: a proprietary mixture of zinc, selenium, turmeric, powdered organ material, colloidal optimism, trace minerals, and two capsules labeled simply IMMUNE.
• Freedom Protocol Group: ivermectin plus all available supplements taken simultaneously until symptoms disappeared or gastrointestinal distress made the original complaint seem less important.

Investigators screened subjects for 37 recognized tick-borne diseases and an additional 83 conditions proposed during the study. Newly proposed diagnoses included Chronic Migratory Tick Fatigue, Latent Constitutional Babesiosis, Deep-State Ehrlichiosis, Alpha-Gal Adjacent Syndrome, Subclinical Rocky Mountain Spotted Something, Persistent Vector-Associated Brain Fog, Morgellons-With-Ticks, Tick-Borne Electromagnetic Sensitivity, Undiagnosed Lyme Despite Negative Lyme Testing, and Disease X-Tick, whose defining characteristic is the inability of conventional medicine to detect it.

A positive diagnosis required any two of the following: symptoms; absence of symptoms; previous tick exposure; possible future tick exposure; distrust of a laboratory result; improvement after treatment; or failure to improve after treatment.

Selected Findings

Diagnostic Escape Phenomenon

Several subjects tested negative for every recognized tick-borne pathogen. Rather than excluding these individuals, investigators classified them as suffering from Diagnostic Escape Phenomenon, an advanced state in which infection conceals itself from laboratory testing with increasing sophistication.

“When every available test says the patient doesn’t have it, eventually you have to consider the possibility that the disease has become exceptionally good at hiding.”
— Dr. Thaddeus P. Borreli, fictional principal investigator

Discussion

The principal limitation of evidence-based medicine is its persistent fixation on detecting things. Under the conventional model, a pathogen is identified, a disease is diagnosed, a treatment is tested, and outcomes are compared. Such sequencing severely limits the number of successful treatments available for conditions that cannot be demonstrated.

The revised model offers important methodological efficiencies. Improvement validates treatment. Failure to improve demonstrates that the underlying illness was more severe than originally suspected. Negative testing demonstrates diagnostic escape. Positive testing confirms infection. Side effects demonstrate biological activity. No side effects demonstrate tolerability. Consequently, every observable outcome independently supports the original hypothesis.

Attempts to reproduce the findings were unsuccessful. The authors interpret this not as a weakness but as evidence that replication itself may have been compromised by institutional bias. Under the resulting framework, failed replication justifies bypassing peer review, after which sufficiently enthusiastic consumer testimonials may be treated as post-publication surveillance.

Expanded Spectrum Protection

The regimen’s most important feature may be pathogen-independent efficacy. Because treatment successfully prevented conditions that were never observed, there is no obvious scientific reason to confine prophylaxis to diseases caused by existing organisms.

Future trials should therefore evaluate efficacy against pathogens that have not yet been discovered, have not yet evolved, cannot infect humans, exist only theoretically, were misunderstood during a podcast, or were created accidentally while drafting the Methods section.

This represents a substantial advance over conventional pharmaceuticals, which generally suffer from the limitation of treating specific things.

Conclusion

Combined ivermectin and commercial patriot nutraceutical therapy demonstrated complete protection against every nonexistent tick-borne disease examined. Researchers therefore recommend immediate investigation into its prophylactic use against vaccine magnetism, chemtrail sinusitis, 5G-induced zinc depletion, and several disorders currently known only to people selling treatments for them.

The authors propose a revised evidentiary standard: If a treatment prevents a disease nobody gets, it works perfectly.

And if the disease does not exist, the number needed to treat approaches everyone.

References