The freedom loving granite state is moving to allow citizens’ choice of covid treatments, including unfettered access to proven anti-covid medicine, Ivermectin. Below in italics with my bolds are excerpts from Ivermectin Bill Headed for Gov. Sununu’s Desk by Steve MacDonald writing at granitegrok. Later on, the concurrent attack on Ivermectin just published in NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine).
Ivermectin is a COVID killer and by that, I mean policy as much as pathogen.
Nothing is perfect but Ivermectin is better than anything the “experts” have proposed, cheaper, and no trillion-dollar bailouts or backroom deals are needed for it “to work.”
That’s why they hate it.
We’ve got great coverage on NH’s HB1022 back story. We’ve published testimony, interviewed a prime sponsor, and added plenty of commentary. You might even stumble over a few digs about Horse Paste, which go deeper after Democrats on social media announced this week that Misoprostol (horse ulcer medicine) could be used to induce abortion medically.
HB1022 passed the NH Senate along party lines, 14-10, with Democrats objecting to the “my body, my choice argument.” Given the timing, it doesn’t play as well as it might any other week of the year. But then, the only body involved when taking Ivermectin is yours unless you are pregnant, and Ivermectin is a lot safer than the “Dems want it to be mandatory” mRNA vaccines.
Pierre Kory explains NEJM Hit Job on Ivermectin
The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the fraudulent TOGETHER trial, designed and conducted to launch anti-ivermectin headlines across every major media outlet across the world.
Part XI- Big Pharma’s “Diversion” – The TOGETHER Trial Published in the New England Journal of Medicine
Big Pharma (Pfizer and BMGF from what it looks to me) dropped another nuclear bomb on ivermectin 3 weeks ago with their successful publication of the fraudulent Brazilian TOGETHER trial. They did it in one of the world’s top read and rated medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a journal born in the year 1812, but captured by Pharma for who knows how long now. This is an open secret as per former Editor Marcia Angell in the book Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” -Dr. Marcia Angell.
First off, the saddest part of this fraud is that the TOGETHER trial’s published conclusion brazenly contradicted the data within the manuscript as it actually showed an 81% “Bayesian” probability of the superiority of ivermectin. But media and science reporters no longer critically analyze the data or questions the abstract’s conclusion, instead they all trumpet headlines in unison that “ivermectin doesn’t work in COVID.”
The study investigators have not only carried out a series of severely biased and duplicitous actions with deliberately withheld data such that fraud at this level, in my mind, is definite. But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it is instead just a severely biased trial by severely biased and financially conflicted researchers whose careers are dependent on contracts from massively powerful agencies and corporations whose interests are decidedly anti-ivermectin – see this description of the trial by the impressively expert C19early.com group:
Possibly the largest financial conflict of interest of any trial to date. Disclosed conflicts of interest include: Pfizer, Merck, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian Government, Medicines Development for Global Health, Novaquest, Regeneron, Astrazeneca, Daichi Sankyo, Commonwealth Science and Research Organization, and Card Research. Many conflicts of interest appear unreported. For example, Unitaid is sponsor. [Harper, togethertrial.com (B)].
If that were not enough, there is the insanely incompetent peer review and publication by the NEJM. No way should this manuscript ever have been published in any purportedly credible medical journal without extensive revision and mandated reporting of critical absent data, given the litany of inconsistent, missing, and manipulated data alongside numerous unexplained design protocol changes aimed at trying to ensuring the lowest dose possible was used. The fact the NEJM reviewers allowed the manuscript to not include a standard limitations section calling attention to the “possibility” of the failure of blinding given massive evidence for this is one of the more brazen frauds I have seen in a medical journal.
Footnote: Why Pharma Can’t Allow Ivermectin Use Against Covid
“[I]f Ivermectin is what those of us who have looked at the evidence think it is … then the debate about the vaccines would be over by definition, because the vaccines that we have so far were granted emergency use authorization,” Weinstein said, noting that the coronavirus vaccines are not formally “approved” treatments by the FDA and instead administered under the rarely-delineated category of EUA.
According to the FDA’s own definition, an EUA is “is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives,” the agency said.
That last clause, Weinstein told host Tucker Carlson, is key to why it is important that Ivermectin and other established pharmaceuticals are thoroughly investigated as alternative treatments.
“So if Ivermectin is safe and effective … then there shouldn’t be vaccines that we’re administering. They should be in testing and we should be finding out whether they are or are not safe,” said Weinstein, alluding to several serious cases of vaccine side effects.
Weinstein suggested that if the anti-malarial was proven effective, it would moot the Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine.
“That emergency use authorization has as a condition that there be no safe and effective treatments available,” he said, noting that Ivermectin is old enough and established enough that it is “out of [its] patent” – meaning it can be produced generically – and has been proven safe and effective for other medical conditions.
See also An outright propaganda war against Ivermectin in two latest trials By Professor Colleen Aldous* at Biz News, South Africa.
I have clinical colleagues across the globe who are able to demonstrate more issues with the analysis of the TOGETHER trial, which is being touted as the definitive paper on Ivermectin efficacy, than I can, but here is my list:
More than half of the participants from the placebo arm of the trial did not complete the trial, whereas only 50 from the Ivermectin arm did not finish. This causes the trial to no longer be a randomised control trial. But the data can be used as observational and, as I showed above, we observe that Ivermectin has a strong signal for efficacy against death. An outcome that is meaningful to most people.
Ivermectin was given on an empty stomach, which is the protocol for its use as an antiparasitic. It has been known that for antiviral activity, Ivermectin should be given with a fatty meal to aid systemic absorption.
The dose given was below the dose that many across the globe have used successfully; it was given at too low a dose, too late for many, and stopped too early.
Giving Ivermectin as a monotherapy, when it is known it is a zinc ionophore and thus is more effective given with zinc, is poor design.
However, even with all these problems, Ivermectin still comes through as effective, particularly against mortality.