Ivermectin is safe and effective, Merck’s New Pill is Dangerous

A previous post discussed how Merck debunked its own drug Ivermectin as a Covid fighter to clear the way for a new Merck patent pill costing 40 times the generic Ivermectin.  Now comes a revelation that the PR about the new drug Molnupiravir’s trial being cut short, was not because it was so successful, but because it didn’t work on moderate Covid cases, and is capable of dangerous long-term side effects (which won’t appear for months or years, long after the trial period). See Why Merck Dissed Its Own Invention Ivermectin

Leo Goldstein provides the analytics in his essay Merck Ignores Molnupiravir’s Cytotoxicity,  His report was also referenced at Trial Site News Is Molnupiravir a Global Catastrophic Threat? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview from Trial Site News:

Merck’s Molnupiravir (also known as EIDD-2801 and MK-4482) is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue [1]. It introduces errors in the SARS-COV-2 RNA at the time of replication after proofreading, and causes lethal mutagenesis [2]. This threatens to accelerate the evolution of the coronavirus.

Any major variant of the coronavirus represents local optimum (in mutations space), maximizing coronavirus’ fitness. One- or two-point mutations cannot accomplish this. A new variant can only rise through the change of the virus-host-conditions systems, or through larger mutations set. Even a moderate increase in the point mutations frequency causes a big increase in the frequency of multi-point mutations and dangerous recombinations. Such events are too rare to be caught in small trials, but inevitable in large populations, and might lead to catastrophic consequences.

The authorization and broad use of Molnupiravir is likely to breed very dangerous SARS-COV-2 variants.

Leo Goldstein:

Merck has just applied to the FDA for an emergency use authorization of Molnupiravir for early treatment of COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a mutagenic nucleotide analogue. It increases the rate of mutations in the coronavirus’ RNA and in human DNA.

The application is based on alleged interim results of an unfinished trial, where this drug was given to 385 patients in 173 sites all over the world, and the patients were then observed for 29 days since recruitment and randomization.

Molnupiravir is mutagenic and toxic for human cells. Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics have flatly denied this and proceeded with human trials. The consequences of Molnupiravir’s DNA mutagenesis, such as cancer or birth defects, take months or years to develop. The 24 days of patient observation after 5 days treatment is obviously not enough to detect anything.

The broad use of Molnupiravir is a global catastrophic risk because the increased rate of coronavirus mutations is likely to create more dangerous variants.

All Molnupiravir trials were conducted by Merck or its partners. No results have been published in peer reviewed journals. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci gave it a nod of approval. The US government has already purchased 1.7 million “treatment courses” from Merck, and it is on the course to manufacture and ship 10 million of them by the end of 2021. The relevant parties act as if the EUA approval is just a formality and are proceeding as if it were already granted.

Cytotoxicity

Molnupiravir is a mutagenic [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] nucleotide analogue, and its potential cytotoxicity and genotoxicity are not in doubt [7]. Its use for some categories of patients could be justified if benefits were exceeding harm and risk. Instead, Merck elected to deny existence of these risks. Molnupiravir’s metabolites cause mutations in human DNA [4], just like they do in viral RNA. This is not in question. If the rate of mutations at therapeutic doses were sufficiently low, Merck should have shown that. Merck’s researchers dismissed this danger by alleging that they had conducted tests showing an absence of cytotoxicity [8], without showing any data. Their response was rebutted [7 [9] and laughed at by other scientists [9]
.
The therapeutic dosage — 800 mg, twice daily, for 5 days — is at the upper limit of the investigated range 50 – 800 mg [10], suggesting it is higher than what was initially expected.  Molnupiravir was initially developed to treat Equine Encephalitis virus diseases, and its most valuable property was its ability to cross brain-body barrier and achieve high concentration in the brain and very high concentrations in spleen [11] . Its concentration in the spleen is higher than in lungs [3]
.
[3]showed that meaningful inhibition of SARS-COV-2 without cytotoxicity is impossible in Vero cells (Fig.1B) . The data for human epithelial cells is inconsistent but does suggest cytotoxicity (Supplementary Materials, the data for Fig. S1).

More Mercky Business

[9] Merck researchers admitted to the necessity of in-vivo mutagenicity studies for this drug before proceeding to human trials. They therefore claimed that such studies (Pig-a and the Big Blue® (cII Locus)) have been conducted and that no danger of mutagenicity was found even at higher doses [12]. This is highly unlikely. Moreover, other scientists argued that these studies had significant limitations and do not allow Merck to make such claims [9]. To make matters worse, Merck failed to publish any data from these studies, making it impossible to peer review or replicate them.

This raises suspicions not only about the toxicity of Molnupiravir, but also about Merck’s conduct before and during clinical trials.

No data about concentrations and effects of Molnupiravir’s metabolites in the most vulnerable tissues, such as bone marrow, can be found.

Dubious Results from Animal Trials

Animal trials also failed to provide evidence of Molnupiravir’s effectiveness, at the manufacturer’s recommended dose – 800 mg (equivalent of 10 mg/kg or 370 mg/m2) twice daily. The mass of the drug per body area of the human or animal is the preferred quick approximation for comparison between human and animal doses [13].

The “Phase 3” Trial

In this trial, Merck gave patients in the treatment group 800 mg x 2/day x 5 days. After observing 775 participants (including 385 in the treatment group) for 24 (= 29-5) days after that, Merck published a press release [17] claiming that the trial was successful.

It is not true. A formally registered clinical trial should be conducted according to the plan until the end to provide statistically valid results. It was registered to enroll, randomize, and observe 1550 participants, and Merck had to spend another month to do that. Its October 1 press-release stated that the recruitment was more than 90% complete at the time it was stopped, between September 5 and September 30.

After 20 months of the pandemic, making decisions one month before completion of the single Phase 3 trial looks fishy.

If we combine this trial with a few dozen patients who received the same dose of Molnupiravir in other trials, there are less than 500 patients in total, who were treated with this drug and observed for 29 days. Should a drug be authorized for tens of millions of people, based on a trial involving less than 500 patients?

This trial was conducted in 173 sites all over the world. Such a wide range of sites cannot be properly controlled. This trial looks like a reality show, in which the organizers control the outcome. Gilead used a similar methodology to push Remdesivir, with deadly results. Merck’s Molnupiravir gambit is even more dangerous, because it can be administered to millions, with catastrophic global risks [18]
.
Finally, no study plan or protocol of the trial has been published and of course, no results. The only morsels of information to be found on this trial comes from Merck’s press release and ClinicalTrials.gov [16], which does not contain even the protocol ID.

Two Indian companies also started clinical trials for Molnupiravir but decided to stop, apparently because of futility [19], but another Indian company Hetero applied for an EUA in India.  See Aurobindo Pharma, MSN Seek CDSCO Panel Nod To Cease Molnupiravir Trial On Moderate COVID Patients

Conflicts of Interest and Hidden Motives

The conflict of interest is unusually high. Merck has been manufacturing Molnupiravir at risk [17] Payment is conditional on EUA:

“In anticipation of the results from MOVe-OUT, Merck has been producing molnupiravir at risk. Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of 2021, with more doses expected to be produced in 2022.”

The US and other governments, who ordered Molnupiravir [20], carry an even bigger risk. They have created expectations that would go unfulfilled if Molnupiravir is properly rejected. Such an evident alignment of interests between government bureaucracies and Merck is very dangerous and requires extreme scrutiny.

Conclusion

With the current limited information about Molnupiravir, one might compare its effects, at the “therapeutic dosage”, to a medium dose of radiation. There might be acute sickness, temporary immune-suppression, and long-term consequences including cancer and birth defects. The specific dosage may have been selected to be just below the threshold of acute sickness. We will not know until the results are published.

Footnote: In a separate article, another researcher drew this analogy.  Suppose that your body has four doors by which SARS-CV2 can enter.  Molnupiravir can close one door, while Ivermectin closes them all. There is no reason for this new Merck pill except for obscene profits to be gained.

For Ivermectin Background, see Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor

 

 

Covid Data Are Tortured to Scare Us, How to Fix That

Early on I did a lot of digging into the reported Covid data in Canada and Quebec where I live. (Example at the end)  I finally gave up because the authorities made it difficult (data dumps, retroactive adjustments, etc.) to sort out realistic risk factors comparable to other diseases. This post from statisticians who had a similar experience provides advice on how to empower individuals with information rather than confuse them.  Leslie Bienen, Eric Happel, and Tracy Beth Høeg write How to Fix Our Broken Relationship With COVID Math.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Four rules to improve reporting about risk.

It is essential that we use better, more thoughtful COVID-19 math so we can get an accurate idea of the real risks of COVID-19, and of the potential downsides of interventions. Nearly two years into this pandemic, we are still estimating risk as though it were March 2020. We are failing to acknowledge that we have a sizable amount of data telling us what the actual risks are and who is least and most at risk—if we would just do the math. For example, quarantine policies have removed thousands of “exposed” children and staff from school, even though very few—63 out of 30,000 quarantined, in recent data from Los Angeles United School District—subsequently tested positive. This is not a good way to balance harms and benefits.

An underlying cause of confusion is the fact that local data—essential for decision-making around COVID-19 risks—are not easily accessible or understandable to the public, including the media. If hospitals are full in Missouri, that does not mean the health system in Massachusetts is teetering on the brink of collapse.

In Oregon, for example, it is difficult, if not impossible (depending on what you are looking for) to access data from weeks prior on the Oregon Health Authority website. Important data are not updated in a timely fashion and, in the case of hospitalizations, are extremely difficult to interpret. Meanwhile, not enough states release data showing who is hospitalized in terms of age and vaccination status.

Age, as we show below, is the most important influence on COVID-19 risk, both as a stand-alone risk factor and as it compounds other risk factors.

The problem of inadequate and inaccessible local data could be remedied relatively easily. Every state should promptly release hospitalization and mortality data—the two most important outcomes when it comes to COVID-19—in the form of simple tables and graphs. These should be stratified by vaccination status, age, race and ethnicity, local employment categories, and important comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes status, and heart disease.

Data presented in an easy-to-use way, so people can see precisely which risk category they and their loved ones fit into, would be enormously useful. Getting an accurate sense of the risk involved in normal activities such as going to school, a doctor’s office, or dinner at a friend’s house would allow individuals to more promptly return to doing things that are important to them at a level of risk they are comfortable with.

The media also play a crucial role in informing Americans’ perceptions of COVID-19 risk. A recent article in The Washington Post provides an excellent example of Americans’ statistical confusion. The article linked to, but did not adequately discuss, data on the very low risk of a serious COVID-19 outcome for unvaccinated children (who, the story fails to clarify, have, on average, a similar risk of severe disease and a lower risk of death from COVID-19 than their vaccinated parents).

Reporters often fail to integrate and contextualize pertinent data even when they are available.

With this in mind, we have devised four rules to help identify and prevent common mistakes in reporting about COVID risks. We hope these guidelines can provide an important toolkit for improving everyone’s COVID math.

1. One size fits none: Don’t frame risk in terms of a generic person.

Specific demographic factors such as race and ethnicity, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities make an enormous difference in determining risk of a bad COVID-19 outcome. But the single most important risk factor, age, is often relegated to a few short lines in too much news coverage. Downplaying the huge decreased risk of mortality in children compared with mortality risk in the elderly is simply not factual reporting.

It can be tempting to frame risk using a generic person who is ageless and has no particular health status—but this makes accurate discussion of risk impossible. As The New York Times reported, in response to the question, “What are the chances somebody with COVID-19 must be hospitalized?” 41% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans surveyed answered that the risk was “over 50%.” Not only did answers differ widely by political affiliation, but a large swath of respondents was not even close to a correct answer.

Part of the misunderstanding on display here is that none of us identify as a generic “somebody.” The correct answer to this question depends greatly on age, and other risk factors, of the individual. The actual risk of COVID-19 hospitalization for a child under 18 who has COVID-19 is less than 0.2% per infection, or less than 1% per diagnosed case by current estimates; but it is 23% for an adult 65 or older, and even higher for those over 65 with comorbidities. Respondents to The New York Times poll entirely missed this distinction.

2. Place risk assessment in the context of other risks.

This rule has two parts. The first is that discussions of COVID-19 risk need context. A number such as 2/100,000—the approximate current hospitalization rate for children in Oregon due to COVID-19—means nothing to most people. Road accidents and drowning kill many more children between 4 and 14 than COVID-19, yet we still let them get in cars and go to pools. Another example is that children are around 20 times more likely to contract COVID outside of school than in school. The media need to put COVID-19 numbers into perspective instead of quoting a stand-alone number that readers cannot adequately assess compared to other risks they are willing to accept.

Second, it’s important to remember that policies designed to mitigate against COVID often cause other risks to increase. Depression, obesity, eating disorders, opioid overdoses, and suicidality have all gone up markedly during the pandemic. The CDC’s own research showed recently that children who were already struggling with weight gain more than doubled their weight increase during the pandemic. The report pointed to school and sports closures as an important cause. This is one of many tragic consequences of our failure to take into account all harms, not just those caused by COVID-19, during this pandemic.

3. Report raw numbers instead of percentages.

We often read that cases in children now make up over 20% of new infections. But news outlets often fail to point out that, as vaccination rates climb in older age groups and new infections fall in those groups, new cases in children will logically make up a greater proportion of all new infections.

Similarly, although the number of cases has gone up due to the increased transmissibility of the Delta variant, hospitalization rates per infection in children, an indicator of the severity of disease, have not. Using raw numbers instead of relative percentages when describing rises and declines in COVID-19 data is essential, as is correcting for proportions in the population of different age groups by using numbers per 100,000 of population. Presenting COVID-19 data without taking these two steps can badly distort reporting on surges—or declines, for that matter—and make them look more dramatic than they are. It obscures important information, such as the fact that Delta is not significantly more harmful to children than previous variants.

4. Break down data by age category to avoid confounding variables.

While our first rule was to stop framing risk in general terms, our final rule relates to a specific problem that occurs when data are not broken down by risk factors.

Since May, when the Delta variant spread worldwide, much attention has been paid to the question of whether vaccines work against this new variant as well as they did against earlier variants. The data show that vaccine protection has certainly decreased, at least against mild or asymptomatic infection. But the degree to which vaccines still offer protection to the general population from severe disease requiring hospitalization is being underestimated—or at least, the full complexity of the picture risks being obscured—largely due to a statistical phenomenon called Simpson’s paradox.

Simpson’s paradox refers to a situation where, when you look at a single group of data, you draw one conclusion, but when you look at the same data after separating it into subgroups, you end up drawing the opposite or a different conclusion.

In this case, Simpson’s paradox is making our vaccines appear less effective overall than they are in each individual age group.

This is because the vaccinated group has a lot of older people in it who are at high risk for hospitalization if they fall ill, and the unvaccinated group has a lot of younger people in it who are at low risk for hospitalization. This “lurking” variable of a much higher vaccination rate among the highest-risk group distorts the apparent protectiveness of vaccination against hospitalization.

When we separate the vaccinated and unvaccinated by age, this distortion is effectively removed. Take Oregon, where data relating to vaccination status of hospitalized people recently became available statewide. Oregon has the 11th highest proportion of older people in the U.S. As in every state, older people make up a high proportion of its vaccinated cohort. In addition, younger, healthier people make up a large share of the unvaccinated cohort.

Table 1 (below) shows how immensely protective vaccination is against hospitalization with COVID-19, including against the Delta variant, when you stratify by age group. Using a dataset that lumps Oregon’s data across ages, if you are unvaccinated, you have a 7.8 times greater chance of being hospitalized with COVID-19 than if you are vaccinated. This is still a high level of protection, but 7.8 times is significantly lower than the protection level that vaccination offers in every individual age group under 60.

Table 1

In 20-59 year-olds, vaccination is protective for hospitalization by a factor of 28. Breaking that group down further, vaccination protects people aged 30-39 by a factor of 38. If you are over 60, by contrast, vaccination protects from hospitalization by a factor of 8.0. This last number is much smaller than in younger groups, but still higher than the total effectiveness when you lump all ages together.

Math—specifically, accurate and transparent epidemiological analyses—should have been a major ally in minimizing overall harm from COVID-19. Sadly, it was not.

The fact that the vast majority of children have multiple greater threats to their health and well-being than COVID-19, and that those threats to health worsened as we tried to shelter children from any risk of COVID, should have been quickly integrated into our public health plans. Instead, school and sports closure policies in many cases aggravated these threats, while failing to have any major impact on controlling COVID-19 spread. The fact that vaccines are incredibly effective—way more so than is often reported—at preventing hospitalizations and severe disease should have been constantly and consistently emphasized and re-emphasized.

Research has shown that people will make rational decisions when they have the right information. Cutting through the barrage of misinformation around vaccination, and understanding clearly who is and is not at high risk from COVID-19, will remain difficult unless we can do a better job at helping people get a handle on COVID math.

Leslie Bienen is a veterinarian, scientific editor, and professor of public health at the OHSU-Portland State School of Public Health.

Tracy Beth Høeg is a private practice physician in Northern California with a PhD in epidemiology and public health researching COVID-19-related topics in children.

Eric Happel is director of global strategy, capabilities, and excellence for Nike value stores.

Footnote:  A previous post illustrates the difficulties to get a realistic risk profile from the publicly reported data.

Covid Burnout in Canada August 28

The map shows that in Canada 9108 deaths have been attributed to Covid19, meaning people who died having tested positive for SARS CV2 virus.  This number accumulated over a period of 210 days starting January 31. The daily death rate reached a peak of 177 on May 6, 2020, and is down to 6 as of yesterday.  More details on this below, but first the summary picture. (Note: 2019 is the latest demographic report)

Canada Pop Ann Deaths Daily Deaths Risk per
Person
2019 37589262 330786 906 0.8800%
Covid 2020 37589262 9108 43 0.0242%

Over the epidemic months, the average Covid daily death rate amounted to 5% of the All Causes death rate. During this time a Canadian had an average risk of 1 in 5000 of dying with SARS CV2 versus a 1 in 114 chance of dying regardless of that infection. As shown later below the risk varied greatly with age, much lower for younger, healthier people.

It is really quite difficult to find cases and deaths broken down by age groups.  For Canadian national statistics, I resorted to a report from Ontario to get the age distributions, since that province provides 69% of the cases outside of Quebec and 87% of the deaths.  Applying those proportions across Canada results in this table. For Canada as a whole nation:

Age  Risk of Test +  Risk of Death Population
per 1 CV death
<20 0.05% None NA
20-39 0.20% 0.000% 431817
40-59 0.25% 0.002% 42273
60-79 0.20% 0.020% 4984
80+ 0.76% 0.251% 398

In the worst case, if you are a Canadian aged more than 80 years, you have a 1 in 400 chance of dying from Covid19.  If you are 60 to 80 years old, your odds are 1 in 5000.  Younger than that, it’s only slightly higher than winning (or in this case, losing the lottery).

As noted above Quebec provides the bulk of cases and deaths in Canada, and also reports age distribution more precisely,  The numbers in the table below show risks for Quebecers.

Age  Risk of Test +  Risk of Death Population
per 1 CV death
0-9 yrs 0.13% 0 NA
10-19 yrs 0.21% 0 NA
20-29 yrs 0.50% 0.000% 289,647
30-39 0.51% 0.001% 152,009
40-49 years 0.63% 0.001% 73,342
50-59 years 0.53% 0.005% 21,087
60-69 years 0.37% 0.021% 4,778
70-79 years 0.52% 0.094% 1,069
80-89 1.78% 0.469% 213
90  + 5.19% 1.608% 62

While some of the risk factors are higher in the viral hotspot of Quebec, it is still the case that under 80 years of age, your chances of dying from Covid 19 are better than 1 in 1000, and much better the younger you are.

Summary

I and others published this information, but media and official sources in Canada and Quebec provided no such perspective lest the public question the regime of social distancing, masking, quarantines, vax passports, etc. which are still in effect.

Alberta Hurting from Biased Covid Policy

Two Sides of the Same Tyranny Coin

The Canadian province of Alberta has seen a coronavirus surge in recent weeks, and medical practitioners are calling into question the one-dimensional public health policy there.  Two things are striking about this report.  Firstly, as an oil producing province, most Albertans have seen through the climate crisis, anti-fossil fuel crusade.  But their officials have implemented an unskeptical tyrannical covid regime.  Secondly, in order to speak out against the suppression of alternative views and facts, doctors are forced to use a law firm as a shield against retaliation.

At Palmer Foundation is this article Canada: Alberta Failing on COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatment.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds. H\T Trial Site News

On October 4, attorneys Rath & Company sent a stinging letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) regarding letters from CPSA’s Council to both doctors and the public in Alberta province. The lawyers note that they represent both vaccinated and unvaccinated doctors who are anonymous based on veiled threats from CPSA.

Key issues in the letter include interference with patient autonomy and “colluding in the coercion” of patients into taking experimental vaccines. The other concern raised is discouragement of doctors using their own judgement for “alternative treatments” like ivermectin.

Rath & Company also raises concern about an Open Letter from CPSA’s panel of experts from October 1. Misinformation in the Open Letter includes the claim that “there is 1 in 20 risk of hospitalization with documented COVID-19 infections in Alberta,” while ignoring the government’s own position that at any given time, there are four times as many folks infected as the number of reported cases. Thus, the correct ratio would be one in 80.

And a problem with scaremongering is that we can lose sight of key facts; the bulk of hospitalizations and death are in folks over 70, and “the average age of death of someone from COVID-19 is higher than the average age of provincial life expectancy.”

So, to mandate vaccination upon young and healthy doctors, nurses, etc., violates their rights under generally accepted medical ethics. CPSA’s Open Letter also suggests that 12-year-olds should be able to consent on their own to vaccination.

Recommended Consent Language

Government of Ontario data shows that the Moderna vaccine leads to myocarditis in about 1-in-5,000 of 18–24-year old’s; the comparable figure for Pfizer is 1 in 28,000. And Canada’s vaccine rollout was experimental from the outset; Astra-Zeneca’s product was pulled when it was shown to corollate with thrombosis in 1 out of 58,000 persons over 80. Then that same product was “mixed and matched with Pfizer and Moderna injections without adequate research having been done as to possible adverse effects.”

There is also evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 are at an increased risk from the mRNA products. And especially as to young folks, the “government of Ontario’s data demonstrates that this is likely more harmful to that group than AstraZeneca‘s product] was to people over 80.”

Citing Canada’s definition of assault along with the voluntary consent requirements of the Nuremburg principles, the lawyers argue that the threat of losing one’s livelihood vitiates any consent thereby obtained.

The Rath law firm goes on to list items that should be included in advising potential vaccinees:

• That this mRNA therapy program does not provide immunity for COVID-19 and only provides an unknown amount of protection from the virus for a limited time;

• that people who receive injections can, in fact, get infected with COVID themselves and pass the virus on to other members of their family, including their aging parents;

• that there is insufficient data over a multi-year period to advise that the injection is safe and that serious life-threatening conditions, including permanent damage to the heart muscle (myocarditis) and DEATH, may occur in healthy people under the age of 50 as a result of taking the injection;

• that if you are under the age of 50, with no comorbidities, you are at a greater risk of a serious illness or adverse event, including COVID-like sickness, including fever, and DEATH from the vaccine than you are in actually suffering permanent harm from COVID itself;

• that the incidence of COVID-19 “vaccines” causing death or seriously adverse outcomes in children is greater than the potential for children to have any serious outcome from actually contracting COVID-19; and

• that pregnant women should be advised that the effects of the Pfizer and Moderna injections on fetal health are in fact unknown and that vaccine side effects may, in fact, include spontaneous miscarriage and fetal abnormalities.

New Mutation, Old Vaccine

Next, the Rath letter notes that the CPSA has effectively threatened doctors about granting vaccine exemptions while at the same time denying the science from Israel, showing that natural immunity is over 10 times as effective as an mRNA product. And at this point, the vaccinated are now dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated in the UK.

The attorneys note that their “clients are extremely concerned that we have now reached a stage in the course of the mutation of the virus that using a vaccine developed for an extinct pathogen in regard to viruses that have mutated is dangerous. It now appears that the virus has mutated specifically to avoid the original ‘vaccine’ in a manner that will cause further widespread transmission of the virus and death amongst those fully-vaccinated.” And the clients think that the vaccinated need to be more fully aware that they can spread this disease.

Ivermectin Saves Lives

Rath’s clients also fault CPSA for its position on ivermectin. Having banned this drug’s use for COVID-19 patients, the group is ignoring the fact that,

“Physicians of good conscience in the Province of Alberta, having read studies indicating that Ivermectin is effective in the earliest stages of COVID in lessening viral replication within the patient, have properly prescribed Ivermectin to their patients in this province.

Numerous studies and clinical observation of thousands of patients has indicated that Ivermectin is highly effective in this regard. Even low dose studies that were designed to reach the conclusion that ivermectin was not effective found a signal that indicated that Ivermectin effectively interacted with the COVID virus molecule to prevent or lessen replication of the virus.”

And even poorer nations have used this drug to achieve dramatic reductions in morbidity.

 

Covid/Climate Tyranny: Two sides of same Ideology

Two Sides of the Same Tyranny Coin

Today I saw this tweet:

 I askеd KD about his view on all of this, he said ‘It’s an individual dеcision.’ That’s the antithеsis of what a pandеmic is. You do not havе the privilеge of just looking at yoursеlf. You havе to look at the pеople nеxt to you. That’s how we got to this bеing the most dеadly pandеmic.

Sound familiar? Climatists want to cancel individual satisfactions in order to save the human race. Covid Nazis make the same demand: Give up your individual opinions and choices for humanity.

There are many posts here and elsewhere debunking the climate crisis hoax, but it may be new to realize that covid is neither a pandemic nor as deadly as claimed.  Dr. Ted Noel explains in his American Thinker article Why Is the COVID Case Count So High? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The CDC used to define a “case” as a patient whose characteristic signs, symptoms, and physical examination matched a disease. Labs were only done if clinically needed. Since the “pandemic,” however, the move to boost case numbers is everywhere.

Instantly, a “positive” RT-PCR test in an asymptomatic person after a drive-through tonsillectomy became a “case.” The CARES Act gives thousands extra to hospitals for every “positive,” with a big bonus if the patient’s shadow is seen in an ICU. It’s a classic “one hand washes the other scenario” between outside labs and hospitals. “If you give me more positive results, I get more money, so I’ll send more tests to you.”

My hospital’s Medical Staff President flatly denied any CARES Act benefits at our 2020 Medical Staff Extravaganza, but the incentives can’t be denied. My hospital still sends “coders” out to demand that staff order COVID tests to get more payments. Put bluntly, there’s no way to know what any test means medically if the patient isn’t sick. But “positives” definitely mean money!

MIQE standards list eighty-five parameters that must be met in RT-PCR testing. Does every lab meet them all every time? Around the world, celebrities who test “positive” one day and “negative” the next strongly suggest that a lot of mistakes are being made. This is unsurprising since as early as 2017, the technique was well known for “lack of reproducibility.”

The inventor of the test stated that RT-PCR was never intended to be a diagnostic test and using it as one was scientifically illegitimate. “[It’s] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”

Proper testing requires checking three genetic elements, widely separated in the genome. For CDC counts and CARES Act payments, only two segments get tested, automatically increasing the number of positive tests – by a lot. The lab starts the RT-PCR by doubling genetic material multiple times to make it easier to identify. In research, if it’s not positive by thirty-five “amplification cycles,”, it’s not positive. FDA guidance indicates that anything found up to 40 cycles is considered “positive.” At forty cycles a glass of water may test positive. Stopping at thirty-five would show that COVID-19 wasn’t any worse than flu, if it was that bad.

There is no pandemic. There never was.

Since only 6% of “COVID deaths” were from only the bug, there have only been about 40,000 total, roughly equal to seasonal flu. In the early days, we didn’t know how to treat it and rationally feared that the new Black Death had arrived. But by May of last year, we already knew that HCQ was probably effective in early cases. Early treatment would cause a (non)crisis to go to waste, and that could not be allowed. So very effective treatments and excellent prophylactic measures were suppressed.

Ineffective masks, social distancing, vaccine passports, lockdowns, and the like were mandated. They became part of an “Orange Man Bad” publicity campaign. Anthony Fauci gave President Trump awful advice following that game plan. Trump’s flair for publicity boomeranged in news conferences where he trumpeted his successes, but all anyone really heard was panic porn.

Certainly, the prospect of centralizing power is intoxicating to the elect. But is that it? Are hospitals the only recipients of largess?

For about twenty years, Fauci’s NIAID used taxpayer money to do “invisible” research on deadly viruses. It received unlawful patents related to a certain virus that might become worth a king’s ransom. Such filthy lucre could become very attractive.

Before you start throwing rotten tomatoes and soiled work boots, please watch David Martin Ph.D. and Reiner Fuellmich tell why they believe Anthony Fauci and his cohorts were neck-deep in the COVID gain-of-function and patent process for at least the last twenty-two years. Among the key patents are some that, if they are for a naturally occurring virus, are illegal according to the Supreme Court. If they’re for an engineered virus, they’re contrary to the Biological Weapons Convention, which became effective in 1975. Martin and Fuellmich allege that the parties to this corrupt process include Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak, Dr. Shi Zhengli (the Wuhan Bat Lady), and—drum roll, please—none other than Bill Gates. Dr. Martin has made available a long list of documents he contends support this claim.

These alleged conspirators have spent a considerable amount of time and effort to set themselves up to profit from a vaccine industry that would likely be given huge subsidies and immunities to respond to a “coronavirus pandemic.” Yes, that’s what they literally war-gamed along the way. Martin and Fuellmich present strong evidence of collusion between the virus creators and vaccine manufacturers. Is it any surprise that an mRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” was ready for early testing within four months of the announcement of the virus?

We cannot leave this subject without asking if the vaccines actually stop infection.

No vaccine can prevent infection. That’s because you must be infected before your T-cells and antibodies (humoral immunity) can crank up.

In COVID-19, the problem is more complicated. Even if you’re vaccinated, COVID aerosols still enter your lungs, where the virus attaches to pneumocytes in your air sacs (alveoli). It multiplies inside those cells, and they shed a lot of virus back into the alveoli, where you can now share it with the next person as effectively as someone who’s sick. Voila! Asymptomatic transmission!

You’ll also be a “case” at your next drive-through impalement. But you aren’t sick and don’t get sick. You don’t have a clinical “case” of COVID, but you’ll be one for the next Panic Porn Live at 6:30! Your vaccination status won’t matter. “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days.”

If you are immune, some of that virus will still find its way across the alveolar basement membrane into your bloodstream. That’s where your humoral immunity will mop it up and keep you from getting sick. But you are a “case!” And your house cat may be as well. Big cats in the National Zoo have been treated for the Wuhan Flu. Fido can get it, too.

There is nothing we can do to slow down COVID-19. It rapidly spread through society because it was “in the wild.” Vaccinated and unvaccinated can spread the virus equally. Even if every person gets vaccinated, we still won’t have perfect protection because the virus mutates, leaving older vaccine-induced immunity less effective. That’s why two of the most vaccinated regions in the world, Israel and Gibraltar, are having huge spikes in the bug.

The CDC definition of a “COVID case” is a political construct designed to funnel taxpayer money to favored individuals and institutions.

It has nothing to do with the course of the disease. Only 6% of “COVID deaths” were exclusively from COVID. The other 94% would likely have died of their other diseases without the virus. Many of those who died would still be alive if the Feds weren’t suppressing HCQ and Ivermectin early treatment protocols…which our “betters” in Congress are themselves reported to be using.

 

 

Vaccine Cult Strikes Again: No Pills Allowed

Matt Taibbi reports at substack The Cult of the Vaccine NeuroticExcerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Yesterday, I ran a story that had nothing to do with vaccines, about the seeming delay of the development of a drug called molnupiravir (see the above segment with the gracious hosts of The Hill: Rising for more). In the time it took to report and write that piece, conventional wisdom turned against the drug, which is now suspected of ivermectinism and other deviationist, anti-vax tendencies, in the latest iteration of our most recent collective national mania — the Cult of the Vaccine.

The speed of the change was incredible. Just a week ago, on October 1st, the pharmaceutical giant Merck issued a terse announcement that quickly became big news. Molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral drug, “reduced the risk of hospitalization or death” of Covid-19 patients by as much as 50%, according to a study.

[For Background see Why Merck Dissed Its Own Invention Ivermectin]

The stories that rushed out in the ensuing minutes and hours were almost uniformly positive. AP called the news a “potentially major advance in efforts to fight the pandemic,” while National Geographic quoted a Yale specialist saying, “Having a pill that would be easy for people to take at home would be terrific.” 

This is what news looks like before propagandists get their hands on it. Time writer Alice Park’s lede was sensible and clear. If molnupiravir works — a big if, incidentally — it’s good news for everyone, since not everyone is immunized, and the vaccines aren’t 100% effective anyway. As even Vox put it initially, molnupiravir could “help compensate for persistent gaps in Covid-19 vaccination coverage.”

Within a day, though, the tone of coverage turned. Writers began stressing a Yeah, but approach, as in, “Any new treatment is of course good, but get your fucking shot.” A CNN lede read, “A pill that could potentially treat Covid-19 is a ‘game-changer,’ but experts are emphasizing that it’s not an alternative to vaccinations.” The New York Times went with, “Health officials said the drug could provide an effective way to treat Covid-19, but stressed that vaccines remained the best tool.”

If you’re thinking it was only a matter of time before the mere fact of molnupiravir’s existence would be pitched in headlines as actual bad news, you’re not wrong: Marketwatch came out with “‘It’s not a magic pill’: What Merck’s antiviral pill could mean for vaccine hesitancy” the same day Merck issued its release. The piece came out before we knew much of anything concrete about the drug’s effectiveness, let alone whether it was “magic.”

Bloomberg’s morose “No, the Merck pill won’t end the pandemic” was released on October 2nd, i.e. one whole day after the first encouraging news of a possible auxiliary treatment whose most ardent supporters never claimed would end the pandemic. This article said the pill might be cause to celebrate, but warned its emergence “shouldn’t be cause for complacency when it comes to the most effective tool to end this pandemic: vaccines.” Bloomberg randomly went on to remind readers that the unrelated drug ivermectin is a “horse de-worming agent,” before adding that if molnupiravir ends up “being viewed as a solution for those who refuse to vaccinate,” the “Covid virus will continue to persist.”

In other words, it took less than 24 hours for the drug — barely tested, let alone released yet — to be accused of prolonging the pandemic.

By the third day, mentions of molnupiravir in news reports nearly all came affixed to stern reminders of its place beneath vaccines in the medical hierarchy, as in the New York Times explaining that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who initially told reporters the new drug was “impressive,” now “warned that Americans should not wait to be vaccinated because they believe they can take the pill.”

[Comment:  Pills are not second to vaccines in some medical hierarchy; they are equally essential and paramount for those who get sick, vaccinated or not.]

Since the start of the Trump years, we’ve been introduced to a new kind of news story, which assumes adults can’t handle multiple ideas at once, and has reporters frantically wrapping facts deemed dangerous, unorthodox, or even just insufficiently obvious in layers of disclaimers. The fear of uncontrolled audience brain-drift is now so great that even offhand references must come swaddled in these journalistic Surgeon General’s warnings, which is why whenever we read anything now, we almost always end up fighting through nests of phrases like “the debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab” in order to get to whatever the author’s main point might be.

As a student in the Soviet Union I noticed subscribers to what Russians called the sovok mindset talked in interminable strings of pogovorki, i.e goofball proverbs or aphorisms you’d heard a million times before (“He who takes no risk, drinks no champagne,” or “Work isn’t a wolf, it won’t run off into the woods,” etc). This was a learned defense mechanism, adopted by a people who’d found out the hard way that anyone caught not speaking nonstop nonsense could be suspected of harboring original thoughts. Voluble stupidity is a great disguise in a society where silence is suspect.

We’re similarly becoming a nation of totalitarian nitwits, speaking in a borrowed lexicon of mandatory phrases and smelling heresy in anyone who doesn’t.

This cult reflex was bad during the Russiagate years, but it’s gone into overdrive since the arrival of COVID. The CNN writer who thinks it’s necessary to put a disclaimer in the lede of a story about molnupiravir, of all things, is basically claiming he or she is afraid a theoretical unvaccinated person might otherwise read the story and be encouraged to not take the vaccine.

Except, if that theoretical unvaccinated person could be convinced by anything CNN said or did, they’d have already gotten the shot, because the network runs ten million stories a day directly imploring people to get vaccinated or die. News flash: the instinct to armor-plate even unrelated news subjects with layer after layer of insistent vaccine dogma is not for the non-immunized, who mostly don’t watch outlets like CNN or read the New York Times.

Outlets apply that neurotic messaging for their own target audiences, who’ve been trained to live in terror of un-contextualized content, which everyone knows leads to Trump, fascism, and death.

I’d be the last person to claim there aren’t dumb people out there in America, but at least the audiences of channels like Fox and OAN know that content has been designed for them. The people gobbling down these pieces by Bloomberg and the Times that have the journalistic equivalent of child-proof caps on every paragraph that even parenthetically mentions COVID really believe that content has been dumbed down for some other person. They think it’s someone else who can’t handle news that vaccines work and that there also might be a pill that treats the disease, without freaking out or coming to politically unsafe conclusions. So they put up with being talked to like children — demand it, even. Which is nuts. Right? It is nuts, isn’t it?

 

Dr. Richard Urso: End the Pandemic with Early Treatment

Drug Inventor Urso: Are We Underutilizing Early Treatment?

We cannot use a one-size fits all approach to fighting Covid

Dr. Richard Urso is a scientist, sole inventor of an FDA-approved wound healing drug, and the Former Director of Orbital Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center. He believes we cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting Covid.

“We are not going to vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. “There’s no reason to not use anti-inflammatories against inflammatory disease. I used steroids in March and people were saying, ‘Why are you using steroids for inflammatory for this viral disease?’ And I said, ‘Because it’s not a viral disease.’”

Urso says mass lockdowns and waiting for a vaccine never made a lot of sense to him. He calls for a multi-pronged strategy includes targeted vaccination programs, but also early treatment and prevention measures.

“Early treatment should have been part of the equation. I’m not against all those other things. Contagion control is important. Washing our hands. Things like that. They’re all important. Do we need vaccination programs? Absolutely. Do we need early treatment programs? Absolutely. So we have basically put the cart before the horse. The tail is wagging the dog. Early treatment should be a mainstay for everything.”

Background from previous post 3000+ Doctors Declaration for Medical Rights and Freedoms

Update October 7, 2021 Presently 10,000+ medical practitioners have signed the declaration

By Debra Heine writes at American Greatness Over 3,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign Declaration Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

More resources are available at Global Climate Summit

A group of physicians and scientists met in Rome, Italy earlier this month for a three day Global Covid Summit to speak “truth to power about Covid pandemic research and treatment.”

The summit, which was held from September 12 to September 14, gave the medical professionals an opportunity to compare studies, and assess the efficacy of the various treatments that have been developed in hospitals, doctors offices and research labs throughout the world.

The Physicians’ Declaration was first read at the Rome Covid Summit, catalyzing an explosion of active support from medical scientists and physicians around the globe. These professionals were not expecting career threats, character assassination, papers and research censored, social accounts blocked, search results manipulated, clinical trials and patient observations banned, and their professional history and accomplishments altered or omitted in academic and mainstream media.

The document, reprinted below in its entirety, sprang from that conference.

Thousands have died from Covid as a result of being denied life-saving early treatment. The Declaration is a battle cry from physicians who are daily fighting for the right to treat their patients, and the right of patients to receive those treatments – without fear of interference, retribution or censorship by government, pharmacies, pharmaceutical corporations, and big tech. We demand that these groups step aside and honor the sanctity and integrity of the patient-physician relationship, the fundamental maxim “First Do No Harm”, and the freedom of patients and physicians to make informed medical decisions. Lives depend on it.

We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;

WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;

WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;

WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;

WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;

WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;

WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease. Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;

WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:

RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care.

RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.

RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.

RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.

RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.

RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.

 

Why Merck Dissed Its Own Invention Ivermectin

Update: Oct. 2  The Dr. Yo video has been blocked.
“This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”

The video Is New COVID Drug Molnupiravir Better than Ivermectin? can be seen here:

https://odysee.com/@yodoctoryo:d/is-new-covid-drug-molnupiravir-better:9

Reuters reports October 1, 2021 Merck pill seen as ‘a huge advance’, raises hope of preventing COVID-19 deathsExcerpts in italics with my bolds.

  • Co will seek U.S. approval for pill as soon as possible
  • If approved, would be 1st oral antiviral COVID-19 drug
  • Merck shares rally, some vaccine makers fall
  • U.S govt agreed to buy 1.7 mln courses at $700 each

An antiviral pill developed by U.S. drugmaker Merck & Co (MRK.N) could half the chances of dying or being hospitalized for those most at risk of contracting severe COVID-19, with experts hailing it as a potential breakthrough in how the virus is treated.

If it gets authorization, molnupiravir, which is designed to introduce errors into the genetic code of the virus, would be the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19.

“An oral antiviral that can impact hospitalization risk to such a degree would be game changing,” said Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“This is going to change the dialogue around how to manage COVID-19,” Merck Chief Executive Robert Davis told Reuters.

Existing treatments are “cumbersome and logistically challenging to administer. A simple oral pill would be the opposite of that,” Adalja added.

The results from the Phase III trial, which sent Merck shares up more than 9%, were so strong that the study is being stopped early at the recommendation of outside monitors.
(considered unethical to withhold it from placebo group)

Merck says it can deliver 10MM doses of the new drug, called Molnupiravir, by the end of the year, by which it should be approved by the FDA and possibly foreign regulators as well (the wheels of bureaucracy are reportedly turning as quickly as they can). Merck is submitting an emergency application for authorization of the drug, and we may see it in use during the next two weeks. The regimen is 2 pills a day for 5 days, and it’s most helpful within 5 days of infection.

[Comment:  Does that pill and regimen sound familiar?   It should, it’s called Ivermectin.]

The back story comes from Blaze Media Merck rejects ivermectin for COVID treatment after getting $1.2 billion gov’t contract for expensive, unproven drug.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On Feb. 4, 2021 Merck came out with a shocking statement warning against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID. The statement claimed there was “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies” and that there was “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

This was quite a bizarre assertion given that 59 studies, including 30 randomized controlled trials, have shown the drug to be extremely effective at all stages of the virus.

The statement regarding safety concerns was even more ludicrous given that nearly 4 billion doses of this drug have been dispensed for parasitic ailments, it won the Nobel prize, and it is listed among the WHO’s most essential drugs. There is no logical reason why someone would somehow begin experiencing dangerous side effects if he happens to use ivermectin for COVID instead of for scabies or river blindness.

Nonetheless, Merck’s statement served as a strong blow to the use of ivermectin, because Merck was a large dispenser of this drug. After all, why would the company dump on its own drug?

Well, now we have an answer. On June 9, Merck announced that it had entered into a procurement agreement. Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government. Molnupiravir is a new drug Merck is currently evaluating in a Phase 3 clinical trials to serve as the wonder drug to treat COVID. The estimated cost of the drug per treatment is $700!

So now we can understand why the company would swap out its own drug that has already been proven safe and effective for something new and experimental. Without the government sending a penny to Merck, I can buy a lifesaving dose of ivermectin for just $26 through GoodRX.

Comparing Molnupiravir and Ivermectin

What is particularly disturbing is that it appears that molnupiravir contains some of the same molecular qualities as ivermectin, which makes you wonder if Merck knows that ivermectin is effective and just sought a more expensive drug that could be marketed as exclusive and new for COVID, thereby justifying another budget blowout by Washington policymakers.

One of several antiviral qualities to ivermectin is that it disrupts viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzymes. Two Italian doctors in a study published in Nature described the process as follows:

The RdRP residing in nsp12 is the centerpiece of the coronavirus replication and transcription complex and has been suggested as a promising drug target as it is a crucial enzyme in the virus life cycle both for replication of the viral genome but also for transcription of subgenomic mRNAs (sgRNAs) [34]. Ivermectin binds to the viral rdrp and disrupts it. The highly efficient binding of ivermectin to nsp14 confirms its role in inhibiting viral replication and assembly. It is well known that nsp14 is essential in transcription and replication.

Dr. Pierre Kory, the president of Frontline Covid19 Critical Care Alliance and one of the most prominent advocates of ivermectin, believes that the new drug developed by Merck acts in a similar way.

Dr. Syed Mobeen, who hosts a daily medical show and often hosts Dr. Kory for discussions about COVID treatment, told me that “it seems that molnupiravir is a copy of one of Ivermectin’s mechanisms.”

“This mechanism is to disrupt the SARS-COV-2 virus’ RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme,” said Dr. Mobeen, who runs a medical education center. “Copying this mechanism will give Merck a way to earn from an existing cheap drug’s action by relabeling it; however, I believe that molnupiravir will continue to be less effective as studies show that ivermectin has more mechanisms to disrupt the SARS-COV-2 replication and spread.

Hence, ivermectin will continue to be a superior choice over molnupirivir or other RdRp disrupters.”

Summary:

Thus, with ivermectin,  a non-invasive, cheap, and safe drug that doesn’t require one to lock down or wear a mask, we could largely solve the problem. Why would the medical establishment not take yes for an answer?

Now we know, in the case of Merck, there are 1.2 billion reasons why not. For some of the larger special interests, that number is exponentially higher and is all backed by the Fed’s printing press and guaranteed by the media they have paid and influenced. Welcome to science and medicine.

 

Japan PM Ends COVID-19 Emergency Restrictions

From Yahoo News:  Japan to lift all coronavirus emergency steps nationwide  Excerpts in italics with my bolds,

Japan’s government announced Tuesday that the coronavirus state of emergency will end this week to help rejuvenate the economy as infections slow.

Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said the emergency will end Thursday and virus restrictions will be eased gradually “in order to resume daily lives despite the presence of the virus.” He said the government will create more temporary COVID-19 treatment facilities and continue vaccinations to prepare for any future resurgence.

“Our fight against the coronavirus is now entering a new phase,” Suga said. “Finally, we can see social and economic activities starting to normalize.”

When the measures end on Thursday, it will be the first time since April 4 that none of the country’s 47 prefectures have been under a state of emergency or quasi-state of emergency. While the state of emergency measures are wrapping up, there will be some restrictions still in place for another month, with restaurants and bars expected to close by 8pm local time or those with stricter Covid-19 safety measures by 9pm.

Comment:  The article misses the significance of this ruling for physicians applying home treatment protocols for their patients. From the previous post below, a public statement came from another prominent Japanese physician, Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, who appeared on Japanese television proposing that COVID-19 should be treated as a Class 5 illness as opposed to its current classification as a Class 2. In Japan, illnesses are categorized by a classification system; approaching COVID as a Class 5 illness would mean that it could be treated like a seasonal flu.

Normalization may provide a basis to reconsider how the infection is treated.  Japan Times explains COVID-19’s classification in Japan is limiting treatment. Now doctors want it changed. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

With a rise in COVID-19 cases this summer having led to the deaths of patients who were isolating at home without medical support due to a lack of hospital capacity, some doctors have begun to call more aggressively for a downgrading of the disease’s classification — to one on par with influenza — to enable the prompt treatment of suspected patients without them having to go through cumbersome procedures just to get a doctor’s attention.

The debate on whether to downgrade the disease, which is currently classified alongside some of the most serious infectious diseases, to a less-threatening Class V disease has been gaining momentum as the government mulls its pandemic exit strategy. Health minister Norihisa Tamura signaled in July that the government would actively look into the issue, taking into account progress in the vaccine rollout, new infection figures and the number of hospital beds.

The proposed change to a Class V disease would not mean that the coronavirus has become less threatening. Rather, the revision would allow suspected patients to get treatment at any hospital using health insurance at their own cost, rather than having all the medical fees paid at the public expense. Tens of thousands of people now isolating at home could receive treatment there from a doctor, instead of going without medical support from doctors and having to rely only on remote monitoring by health centers, as existing rules limit who can receive medical care and where.

In addition, current tough measures taken by the government and health centers would no longer be in place and restraints on social activities would be lifted.

Advocates of the change cite difficulties in accessing the health care system in a timely manner as one reason behind increased cases of serious disease or even death.

One of the most vocal proponents for the change is Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, head of Nagao Clinic in Hyogo Prefecture. He has argued on his website that 90% of medical institutions are refusing to see patients with a fever, as they’re afraid of getting a two-week business suspension order from a public health center for causing a cluster of infections. The change would allow hospitals to promptly provide medical services to COVID-19 patients, reducing the number of severe cases and deaths, he says.

Background from previous post:  Japanese Medical Chairman Doubles Down on IVM

In February 2021, Dr. Ozaki Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association declared that Japan’s physicians should get a greenlight to prescribe IVM (Ivermectin) at the first sign of SARS CV infections.

Now in August, Tokyo Medical Association chairman Haruo Ozaki reiterated that ivermectin should be widely used and said that his early recommendations have not been heeded in Japan.  See Lifesite article August 30, 2021 Japanese medical chairman doubles down on ivermectin support after early calls went ignored.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds

In an interview with the The Yomiuri Shimbun on August 5, Ozaki spoke in detail about his opinion that ivermectin should be used in Japan and said that his early calls for usage have seemingly not been heeded.

He stated that there is evidence from multiple countries that ivermectin has proven effective for patients diagnosed with COVID: “I am aware that there are many papers that ivermectin is effective in the prevention and treatment of [coronavirus], mainly in Central and South America and Asia.”

Chairman Ozaki stated that despite evidence suggesting the efficacy of ivermectin, it is difficult to obtain the medication. He added that while ivermectin’s established effectiveness is increasingly clear, the U.S. company that manufactures the drug, Merck & Co., Inc., have currently limited distribution because they claim that the drug is ineffective at treating COVID.

“With the view that it is not effective for the treatment and prevention of sickness, there is an intention that it should not be used for anything other than skin diseases such as psoriasis.”

This has led to a situation where, according to Ozaki, “Even if a doctor writes a prescription for ivermectin, there is no drug in the pharmacy.” He said that this has rendered the drug practically “unusable.”

He contends that the fact that supply has been stopped by Merck & Co. is evidence that it does in fact work at treating COVID: “But (Merck) says that ivermectin doesn’t work, so there shouldn’t be any need to limit supply. If it doesn’t work, there’s no demand. I believe it works, so block supply. It looks like you are.”

He said that he “also told the Japan Olympic Committee that ivermectin should be used effectively when holding the Tokyo Olympics. But the government didn’t do anything.”

He addressed the reluctance on behalf of the medical establishment in using ivermectin to treat COVID. He said “there are problems for researchers in academia and professors in universities. Many do not do anything by themselves, but they are of the opinion of international organizations such as the WHO and large health organizations in the United States and Europe that ‘it is not yet certain whether ivermectin will work for the [coronavirus].’”

“We don’t do it on our own initiative, but only on the opinions of others. Why don’t we try to see for ourselves why ivermectin works? It is deplorable that there are critics, researchers, and scholars who are constantly criticizing without doing anything. I hope that Japanese academics will contribute more actively.”

Evidence that ivermectin is effective in treating COVID has been well attested in developing nations where vaccines are not widely distributed. Another study in France also suggested that ivermectin ought to be used as a remedy for COVID.

On May 25, the Indian Bar Association served a legal notice to Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, a Chief Scientist for the World Health Organization (WHO), relating to the harm she allegedly caused the people of India by campaigning against the use of ivermectin.

In Mexico city, a home-treatment-kit, including ivermectin was created, for its 22 million-strong population on December 28, 2020, following a spike in cases of COVID-19. Also, doctors were encouraged to use Ivermectin and other therapeutic drugs in their practice when dealing with COVID-positive patients. The effort resulted in a 52–76 percent reduction in hospitalizations, according to research by the Mexican Digital Agency for Public Innovation (DAPI), Mexico’s Ministry of Health, and the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS).

Following that came a public statement by another prominent Japanese physician, Dr. Kazuhiro Nagao, who appeared on Japanese television proposing that COVID-19 should be treated as a Class 5 illness as opposed to its current classification as a Class 2. In Japan, illnesses are categorized by a classification system; approaching COVID as a Class 5 illness would mean that it could be treated like a seasonal flu.

Dr. Nagao said he has used Ivermectin as an early treatment for over 500 COVID patients with practically a 100% success rate, and that it should be used nationwide.

About the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating COVID patients, he said: “It starts being effective the very next day… My patients can reach me by message 24/7 and they tell me they feel better the next day.”

Nagao was asked by the TV anchor when patients should take Ivermectin if diagnosed with COVID-19. He replied: “The same day, I mean if you are infected today, you take it today… It is a medication that should be given for mildly ill patients. If you give it to hospital patients, it’s too late. This is also the case for the majority of drugs… So you have to give Ivermectin. I am asking our Prime Minister Suga to distribute this drug ‘made in Japan’ on a large scale in the country.

He added that four pills should be distributed to everyone in the country, so that people can take them “as soon as you are infected.”

Footnote: 

As Dr. Ozaki suggests Big Pharma wants to banish any treatments that are cheap and effective. Doing the math:

An Ivermectin course for COVID is less than twenty dollars.

A course of REMDESEVIR is currently right at $8800 dollars. (and often doesn’t work)

An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at $23,000 – 25,000 dollars with all the infusion costs added.

That’s not to mention obscene vaccine profits.

Covid Absurdies Madebyjimbob

This post was triggered by an article by Mike Solana at American Thinker Aborting reason. Some excerpts in italics with my bolds before jimbob takes over.

This month, as fate would have it, a controversial Texas abortion ban, shouted down from coast to coast with cries of “my body, my choice,” coursed a horrified media landscape just days before Biden introduced the concept of a national vaccine mandate. This is a very polite way of saying “forced medical procedures for almost everyone.” Across the ideological spectrum roles and rhetoric were promptly reversed.

Demands that a person’s right to their own body be honored were ridiculed and rebuffed by many of the same people who had in some cases just hours prior made impassioned arguments on behalf of a person’s right to their own body. It was an almost perfect cognitive dissonance, and it should have been enough, once illustrated, to jar even the most ardent partisan hack from their bullshit.Long story short, approximately zero partisan hacks were jarred from their bullshit. My body, my choice? Depends on who’s asking, and for what reason. But setting aside the committed idiocy of our loudest talking heads, the question at the heart of Biden’s mandatory vaccination is as old as the concepts of society and liberty: when personal freedom and social good enter conflict, what the hell do we do?

A subversion of liberty so significant as forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure they don’t want can potentially—if regrettably, and rarely—be justified. . . In addition, Americans are reluctant to trust what our institutional leaders have to say about the vaccine because Americans no longer trust our institutions. We especially don’t trust our political leaders or media. After the last few years, why would we?

Provided the vaccine hesitant aren’t literally crazy (they mostly aren’t), and the rest of us are pretty much safe (we are), there is no ethical justification for forcing anyone to undergo a medical procedure they don’t want. And until there is?

My body, my choice.

Forced vaccination at the scale of our entire country is presently an unjustifiable grab for power, and the thing about power? Sure, once a man gets a taste of it there’s never enough, and we should all expect more authoritarianism from this administration.

 

 

 

Dr. Richard Urso: End the Pandemic with Early Covid Treatment

Drug Inventor Urso: Are We Underutilizing Early Treatment?

We cannot use a one-size fits all approach to fighting Covid

Dr. Richard Urso is a scientist, sole inventor of an FDA-approved wound healing drug, and the Former Director of Orbital Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center. He believes we cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting Covid.

“We are not going to vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. “There’s no reason to not use anti-inflammatories against inflammatory disease. I used steroids in March and people were saying, ‘Why are you using steroids for inflammatory for this viral disease?’ And I said, ‘Because it’s not a viral disease.’”

Urso says mass lockdowns and waiting for a vaccine never made a lot of sense to him. He calls for a multi-pronged strategy includes targeted vaccination programs, but also early treatment and prevention measures.

“Early treatment should have been part of the equation. I’m not against all those other things. Contagion control is important. Washing our hands. Things like that. They’re all important. Do we need vaccination programs? Absolutely. Do we need early treatment programs? Absolutely. So we have basically put the cart before the horse. The tail is wagging the dog. Early treatment should be a mainstay for everything.”

Background previous post 3000+ Doctors Declaration for Medical Rights and Freedoms

Update October 7:  Presently 10,000+ Medical Practitioners have signed this declaration, as well as providing additional resources at Global Covid Summit

By Debra Heine writes at American Greatness Over 3,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign Declaration Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

A group of physicians and scientists met in Rome, Italy earlier this month for a three day Global Covid Summit to speak “truth to power about Covid pandemic research and treatment.”

The summit, which was held from September 12 to September 14, gave the medical professionals an opportunity to compare studies, and assess the efficacy of the various treatments that have been developed in hospitals, doctors offices and research labs throughout the world.

The Physicians’ Declaration was first read at the Rome Covid Summit, catalyzing an explosion of active support from medical scientists and physicians around the globe. These professionals were not expecting career threats, character assassination, papers and research censored, social accounts blocked, search results manipulated, clinical trials and patient observations banned, and their professional history and accomplishments altered or omitted in academic and mainstream media.

The document, reprinted below in its entirety, sprang from that conference.

Thousands have died from Covid as a result of being denied life-saving early treatment. The Declaration is a battle cry from physicians who are daily fighting for the right to treat their patients, and the right of patients to receive those treatments – without fear of interference, retribution or censorship by government, pharmacies, pharmaceutical corporations, and big tech. We demand that these groups step aside and honor the sanctity and integrity of the patient-physician relationship, the fundamental maxim “First Do No Harm”, and the freedom of patients and physicians to make informed medical decisions. Lives depend on it.

We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following;

WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine;

WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients;

WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective;

WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments;

WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients;

WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease. Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat;

WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS:

RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care.

RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected.

RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments.

RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine.

RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods.

RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.