Covid chart for India

Delhi Cases Drop After Ivermectin Added

Just three weeks after adding Ivermectin, Delhi now leads India out of the deadly second surge of the COVID pandemic. Cases that had peaked at 28,395 on April 20 plummeted nearly 80% to just 6,430 on May 15. Deaths peaked May 4, and now they are also down 25%.

On May 10, the Indian State of Goa adopted an even more ambitious policy of preemptive Ivermectin for all adults in the state. The Chief Minister of Goa is Dr. Pramod Sawant, a progressive 49-year-old physician persuaded by science. In particular, he read Dr. Pierre Kory's and Dr. Andrew Hill's robust meta-analyses. As a direct result, Goa has seen a drop in cases from 3,124 the day after the announcement to 1,314 five days later.

Meanwhile, three other Indian states have followed Goa's lead in adding Ivermectin: Uttarkhand, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh. And, as expected, they have seen a drop in new daily cases as well, with Uttar Pradesh down nearly 75% from a peak of 37,944 just four days after they began following the April 20 AIIMS guidance to just 10,505 on May 16. 

The tragic story in all this is that the Indian state of Tamil Nadu installed a new leader on May 7, 2021. He suddenly reversed their state's decision to adopt Ivermectin. Readers of my book all know about Peruvian President Sagasti's fateful decision to outlaw Ivermectin. Before taking power, the COVID deaths had dropped 14 fold to almost nothing with Ivermectin use. However after Sagasti was elected, Ivermectin was stopped, and deaths roared back at 13 fold.

Peru paid the price in skyrocketing cases and 78,000 preventable deaths. Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister, MK Stalin, also chose to forgo Ivermectin. Instead, he ordered tens of thousands of doses of Remdesivir, a drug that sells for 3,000 dollars per dose. So now Tamil Nadu's cases are rocketing as well.

In contrast to Goa's young physician Chief Minister who had read the latest science on Ivermectin's dramatic effect on reducing COVID death, MK Stalin is a 68-year-old non-physician socialist and atheist who is towing the party line by forbidding Ivermectin.

Stalin now requests allocations for some 20,000 daily doses of Remdesivir for the Tamil Nadu citizens despite the science that shows no reduction in COVID death with this drug. Remdesivir is an anti-viral agent given late in the disease, only after hospitalization when the Cytokine storm has set in and when anti-virals have lost their effectiveness. 

At that later stage, steroids, anticoagulants, and oxygen are crucially important. Also, Ivermectin has shown a remarkable ability to reduce inflammation at that stage, with some being liberated from the ventilator with just one dose. 

Tamil Nadu cases have continued to rise from April 20 to May 15. During the same time, Delhi's cases eased 78% while Tamil Nadu's cases tripled. 

Twenty thousand doses of Remdesivir cost 60 million dollars, while 20,000 doses of Ivermectin go for a few hundred. Where is a developing country getting the 60 million dollars a day to purchase the Remdesivir? Why is their leader throwing away a cheap drug, Ivermectin, that has saved lives in other countries?

Why would Stalin choose money over lives?

As a humanitarian and a board-certified practicing physician, I know we can influence other Indian states to adopt Ivermectin. With the help of groups like C19, the FLCCC, and the EBMC led by scientists of the caliber of Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Tess Lawrie, let us all join together to get the word out. Ivermectin must be instituted globally to end not just the carnage in India but for the rest of the world. 

This is life-saving information that everyone must learn now about how this Nobel Prize-winning drug, Ivermectin, can immediately bring an end to the pandemic. Tamil Nadu citizens have a right to know the truth. It is everyone’s human right to access it, and it is a drug for all of humanity. So help us fight the corruption and censorship. Please share the book, Ivermectin for the World.

(13) comments

David H

Dr. Hope,

Sorry to keep coming back to you on this string. I don't know of another way to contact you but would appreciate your feedback on something that has puzzled me for many months.

When I heard media reports that the data that Pfizer and Moderna submitted to the FDA to get their emergency use authorizations for their mRNA vaccines showed that they were 95% effective against Covid, I wondered how they came to that figure. 95% effective as compared to what? What is the baseline that they used to come to that figure?

Recently I've come across an explanation via TrialSite News that skated close to this answer but didn't quite address my question –

It appears that the data that was submitted to the FDA generated two risk assessment figures, relative risk and absolute risk.

Relative risk, if I understand it correctly, means that once you have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the risk of developing severe disease between the vaccinated group and the placebo group. The figures touted by Pfizer and Moderna for relative risk hover around 95%. At first glance that's an impressive achievement but again, 95% risk reduction as compared to the risk of severe disease in the general population or 95% risk reduction as compared to those who were prone to severe illness in the first place. Clarification of that point would go a long way to better understanding this data in context.

The figures submitted to the FDA for absolute risk of getting infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus range from 0.7% for the Pfizer mRNA vaccine and 1.1% for the Moderna mRNA vaccine. That is to say these vaccines have no noticeable effect whatsoever in preventing infection from contact with this virus.

While I understood that to be true quite a while ago, I've never understood what percentage of people are asymptomatic when infected with this virus vs percentage of people who contract mild disease vs the percentage of people who contract severe disease vs the percentage of people who die from it. And of course there doesn't seem to be any nuanced to break down these figures by age or general health condition to be better able to determine real risk that real people face in the real world. Until we have continuous universal testing of an entire population I don't see how we can have reliable figures on this question.

If you have insight on this question I would appreciate hearing from you. If you know where I can turn to gain insight on this question I would appreciate the opportunity to look into it myself.

Sorry to be a pest. It's so hard to get solid well vetted properly contextualized information these days, at least in regards to Covid-19.

David Hill



Let me answer it by pointing you to my sources. Dr. Ron Brown seems to explain it best. Like you, I like TrialSite News, and they conducted an interview with Dr. Brown that goes into detail on this topic.

I will soon be addressing this topic on my Blog Site:

Best regards, JR Hope

David H

Dr. Hope, thank you so much for the Ron Brown link. I started listening to it but need to break away at the moment, seems exactly to be the information I have been looking for since the first talk of EUA for mRNA vaccines. "95% effective"..., as compared to what? Very hard to get that detail clarified from any official sources but I have a hunch I'll have the detail clarified now. Also absolute risk..., the factor that matters most for public health policy considerations is conveniently not mentioned in our media reports. [sigh]

What world are we living in where obvious misdirection by omission goes unnoticed by the great bulk of our population?

I have that link pinned to my homepage so I won't loose it. Thanks.

Also thank you for the link to your blog. I'll look into this in more detail as time allows.

I appreciate your dedication and the value of your work. I find myself increasingly isolated, almost a minority of one, in these times of swirling infostorms (just coined that one). Trying to keep my head clear and to think critically, logically, and independently does NOT put me in league the most of my friends and communities. It is so helpful to know that there are others out there who are somehow managing to do what I would aspire to do if my professional training had gone towards medical practice.

But then again, as one who stands outside the fray, perhaps that gives me a certain advantage as well.

I would like to stay in contact as time allows.

Take care,



Hi, Dr. Hope, I’m a med student that’s been following the ivermectin stories since last summer and I have to say I’m so thankful for these articles. I’ve been able to help my friends and family advocate to get on it and get on it myself. I don’t understand how they can refute the data at this point. There’s no reason to keep the world from going back to normal. If this isn’t a massive money grab move then I wouldn’t know one if it mugged me for my wallet.

David H

Dr. Justus Hope,

I've been following the Ivermectin story for the past eight or nine months. What you report here is very much in line with what I've read elsewhere. Ivermectin is proving itself as a safe inexpensive easily available antiviral that can stop this pandemic in short order.

The few stories I have read that advise against Ivermectin say that there are no well reviewed studies to confirm the effectiveness of Ivermectin for treatment or prophylaxis against Covid.

I find the reports of "no well reviewed studies" disturbing when it seems that many dozens of studies have been conducted around the world over the past year but somehow the results of those studies never seem to make it to our general media outlets.

That your story got published here in The Desert Review speaks strongly to the ability of the editors of The Desert Review to stake out an independent path through this media morass.

While I admire both The Desert Review for publishing your article and you for writing it, I wonder what it will take for the rest of our media outlets to publish stories from outside our country, stories that contradict the standard narratives that we have shoved down our throats regularly, stories that most of us have come to believe are absolute truth but in fact are at best only partial truth stories meant to keep us in line without the information needed to ask salient questions or think critically.

Your thoughts, or those of the editors or The Desert Review, would be appreciated.


David H

My thoughts about your query "what it will take for the rest of our media outlets to publish" the truth about Ivermectin.

First, allow me to quote Dr. Tess Lawrie, "We as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts."

Also in my answer, allow me to update you and the readers on the numbers in those areas which employ Ivermectin:

Delhi: Down 94% [1,649 was 28,395]

Uttar Pradesh Down 88% [4,715 was 37,944]

Mexico Down 94% [1,274 was 22,339]

Slovakia Down 97% [116 was 3,547]

Czech Republic Down 98% [335 was 16,816]

The answer IMO now is widespread sharing of the book "Ivermectin for the World" as there is a media blackout on anything positive about Ivermectin. Recognizing Ivermectin would endanger the hugely profitable vaccine drive. The media are run by Big Pharma, Big Regulators and Big Media. They will never voluntarily give this up. It is as pernicious as Big Tobacco and they fooled the public for decades.

The answer is grassroots spread of this information. Possibly protests like South Africa did. Share in your emails and social media, your churches, local newspapers, anything to get the word out. The poor citizens in Tamil Nadu still have not heard about Ivermectin. Ask the Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr to tell them. Tamil Nadu has already asked him for vaccines. They cannot help as quickly as Ivermectin.

David H

Dr. Hope,

Thank you so much for this reply and for your original post.

I've now shared this post with several of my friends and also with one particularly astute commentator on Children's Health Defense who seems to have good insights and good common sense.

What you are doing is invaluable work. I am grateful that you, and so many others, are sticking your neck out to help us understand that there are effective approaches to Covid beyond the ones that are being promoted by our media, much more effective.

Shifts in perceptual paradigms never come easy. It takes courageous dedicated leaders who are willing to stand up to power and stick with truth to move us off high dead center.

Thank you again for what you are doing.

David H

Dr. Hope,

I finally looked up "Ivermectin for the World" on Amazon - kindle version only available. I will break down and get kindle and then order the book. Thanks for the recommendation. Also ordered the book "Emperor of All Maladies". Sounds like a difficult read and quite a few pages. My time is limited now but will skim through it as I can find time..., along with about 50 other books I need to read now. Geez!

Thanks for your input and valuable information. It is not often that I can find people resources of your caliber and integrity. I appreciate the contact.


US and Canada it's not very easy to get. Prozac or Fluvoxamine and Pepcid (Famotidine), Melatonin, Vitamin D, zinc, are helpful and available.

David H

Tetech, I've not looked into getting Ivermectin yet. I believe my brother did look into this at one point. I will check with him and see what he found out.

I agree, Vitamin D3, Vitamin C, Zinc, and other supplements that are helpful for boosting and regulating immune responses help to avoid Covid altogether, thus obviating the need for treatment protocols. Why effective safe cheap prevention isn't the primary focus for our medical authorities rather than these "vaccines" they want to push on us I'll never understand..., or rather I understand all too well and am just severely disappointed in our medical authorities.


I got the Phizer shot #1 at Kaiser Vista 5-4, my 2nd is next week. I didn't feel like going in but the next day I had some soreness and sleepiness. The shot doesn't change your DNA but viruses do. The RNA in the shot instructs some of your nearby muscle cells to produce the spike protein. If that bothers you then you can get the Johnson & Johnson this more conventional it's a protein subunit that looks like the spike protein but doesn't recruit any of your cells to make this fight protein


I am also very disappointed. As a med student I’d been much more hopeful, when I started my studies, that those in charge would put public health and safety first but that isn’t what we’ve seen. Unfortunately money has been the focus of the pandemic. It’s very disheartening but stories such as what’s going on in India keep giving me some of my optimism back.


One can get a prescription for Ivermectin online - your insurance may not pay for it tho ( A lot of people are using the stuff for horses because (1) it's cheap; (2) no prescription needed; (3) convenient - same dosage per pound body weight used for horses to fight parasites, is used by doctors in humans to prevent covid; each notch on the plunger = 50 pounds body weight. I'm not recommending, just providing information.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.