Dr, Pierre Kory tweets: Tokyo in particular is kicking COVID’s ass with IVM – fewest hospitalized since before pandemic. Come on world, wake up wake up wake up

Background from  Previous Post 

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 $8800.00 dollars. (and often doesn’t work)

An outpatient treatment with monoclonal antibodies is right at $23,000.00 – 25,000.00 dollars with all the infusion costs added.

That’s not to mention obscene vaccine profits.

Hypothetical model illustrating the inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication by ivermectin mediated through the blocking of α/β1-importin (imp) as well as 3CLpro enzymatic activity. Mody et al (2021)

John Campbell explains in the video below how the new Pfizer pill copies one trick from Ivermectin, without IVM’s other anti-viral mechanisms, resulting in an inferior and dangerous medicine.  I have transcribed the basic message along with excerpts and links to several papers to which he refers. Excerpts are in italics with my bolds.

Pfizer’s new antiviral drug PAXLOVID™ shows very high levels of efficacy in preventing serious disease hospitalization and people dying.  And that drug works in a particular way, what we call a pharmacodynamic action.

But there’s another generic drug called Ivermectin that you might have heard of that works in exactly the same way as that. Now no one’s saying that information has been deliberately suppressed for years while millions of people have died but what we are going to show on this video is conclusive proof from the literature that this modality of action is the same.

How Coronavirus Infects Its Host

Before we crack into that we need to look at what’s happening so when a virus, in this case coronavirus2 gets into a cell. What happens is it makes lots of proteins. It starts off making  these long proteins, out of hundreds of amino acids sometimes. A few thousand amino acids all strung together.

The problem is they’re too long for the job that’s required. So it’s a bit like a building site and when a big log of wood arrives it needs to be trimmed down into bits that fit in your door frames and your window frames. So these proteins need to be trimmed down and it has to be done in a biochemical way.

In the case of coronavirus two, there’s an enzyme called 3CL protease which breaks
down protein into smaller pieces. it’s what we call proteolytic and it will take these long proteins and it will chop them into shorter proteins it’s what we call an endopeptidase. So now instead of having one long protein we’ve got two short ones and these fit together just nicely for the new virus that we’re we’re trying to make.

These new drugs are what we call protease inhibitors because they stop the protease from working. If the protease is like this scissor, the inhibitor is like this tape stopping the cutting up of long proteins.

When there’s another long protein that needs to be processed the 3CL protease comes along ready to chop this up. But now these drugs have bounded up the active site of the protease and they stop the protease from chopping up the big proteins into smaller strings of amino acids. Since they can’t build the virus, it inhibits viral replication.

This is the new Pfizer drug which is designed to block the activity of the sars coronavirus2 3CL, so that 3CL protease now won’t work. It won’t open so i can’t chop my proteins into the correct length to build a nice new virus.   And of course a 3CL protease inhibitor will stop it from making sars coronavirus2 and is therefore anti-viral.

Everyone in human biology has heard of chymotryptin. It’s an enzyme released by the pancreas to digest protein. It’s a protein chopping up enzyme so this chymotryptin-like protease inside the virus is working in a very similar way to the chimbotryptin that your pancreas produces to digest your proteins.

Evidence from Pfizer News Release

Pfizer’s novel COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 89% in interim analysis of phase 2/3 EPIC-HR study.

• PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332; ritonavir) was found to reduce the risk of hospitalization or death by 89% compared to placebo in non-hospitalized high-risk adults with COVID-19
• In the overall study population through Day 28, no deaths were reported in patients who received PAXLOVID™ as compared to 10 deaths in patients who received placebo
• Pfizer plans to submit the data as part of its ongoing rolling submission to the U.S. FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) as soon as possible.

If approved or authorized, PAXLOVID™, which originated in Pfizer’s laboratories, would be the first oral antiviral of its kind, a specifically designed SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease inhibitor. Upon successful completion of the remainder of the EPIC clinical development program and subject to approval or authorization, it could be prescribed more broadly as an at-home treatment to help reduce illness severity, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as reduce the probability of infection following exposure, among adults. It has demonstrated potent antiviral in vitro activity against circulating variants of concern, as well as other known coronaviruses, suggesting its potential as a therapeutic for multiple types of coronavirus infections.

Evidence for 3CL protease inhibitors from September 2020

Identification of SARS-CoV-2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening Zhu et al. (Sept 3, 2020)

Viral protease is a valid antiviral drug target for RNA viruses including coronaviruses. (13) In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, great efforts have been made to evaluate the possibility of repurposing approved viral protease inhibitor drugs for the clinical treatment of the disease. Unfortunately, the combination of lopinavir and ritonavir, both approved HIV protease inhibitors, failed in a clinical trial without showing benefit compared to the standard of care. (14) To address this unmet need, several virtual screens and a drug repurposing screen were performed to identify SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro inhibitors.

In conclusion, this study employed an enzymatic assay for qHTS that identified 23 SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro inhibitors from a collection of approved drugs, drug candidates, and bioactive compounds. These 3CLpro inhibitors can be combined with drugs of different targets to evaluate their potential in drug cocktails for the treatment of COVID-19. In addition, they can also serve as starting points for medicinal chemistry optimization to improve potency and drug-like properties.

Ivermectin Emerges as Top Antiviral Candidate for CV2

Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents Mody et al. (2021), source of diagram at top. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Fig. 4: Ivermectin exhibited complete inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro enzymatic activity whereas micafungin partially inhibited the enzyme.

The off-target drugs that are being used to treat non-viral ailments selected by in silico studies were screened for their inhibitory activity against SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro enzyme.

Interestingly, one of the OTD (Off Target Drugs), ivermectin was able to inhibit more than 85% (almost completely) of 3CLpro activity in our in vitro enzymatic assay with an IC50 value of 21 µM. These findings suggest the potential of ivermectin to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 replication. In support of this, a recent finding suggested that ivermectin (5 µM) inhibited the replication of live SARS-CoV-2 isolated from Australia (VIo1/2020) in Vero/hSLAM cells23. They found that >5000-fold viral counts were reduced in 48 hr in both culture supernatant (release of new virion: 93%) as well as inside the cells (unreleased and unassembled virion: 99.8%) when compared to DMSO treated infected cells.

Earlier studies have demonstrated that the possible anti-viral mechanism of ivermectin was through the blockage of viral-protein transportation to the nucleus by inhibiting the interaction between viral protein and α/β1 importin heterodimer, a known transporter of viral proteins to the nucleus especially for RNA viruses19,20,21,22,23. However, in this study, we have reported that ivermectin inhibits the enzymatic activity of SARS-CoV-2 3CLpro and thus may potentially inhibit the replication of RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-2. These studies suggest that ivermectin could be a potential drug candidate to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 replication and the proposed anti-viral mechanism of ivermectin presented in Fig. 8 and in vivo efficacy of ivermectin towards COVID-19 is currently been evaluated in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04438850).

Ivermectin Strong Against Multiple Targets

Inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Double-click on image to enlarge.

In conclusion, both ivermectin and remdesivir could be considered potential drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin efficiently binds to the viral S protein as well as the human cell surface receptors ACE-2 and TMPRSS2; therefore, it might be involved in inhibiting the entry of the virus into the host cell. It also binds to Mpro and PLpro of SARS-CoV-2; therefore, it might play a role in preventing the post-translational processing of viral polyproteins. The highly efficient binding of ivermectin to the viral N phosphoprotein and nsp14 is suggestive of its role in inhibiting viral replication and assembly. Remdesivir may be involved in inhibiting post-entry mechanisms as it shows high binding affinity to N and M proteins, PLpro, Mpro, RdRp, and nsp14. Although the results of clinical trials for remdesivir are promising (Beigel et al., 2020; Wang Y. et al., 2020), similar clinical trials for ivermectin are recommended. Both these drugs exhibit multidisciplinary inhibitory effects at both viral entry and post-entry stages. Source: Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2

Conclusion from John Campbell

So whereas the Pfizer drug is only working as far as we’ve been told in the proviso press release against one biochemical modality of viral replication, the Ivermectin mechanism is working at many different levels. The fact that the the the Pfizer medicine is only working against one particular biochemical pathway means to me that the virus could learn to avoid that. It could evolve to be drug resistant as indeed the early antiretrovirals did with HIV.

With ivermectin, because it’s working on so many different levels, it is improbable, to put it mildly,that a virus would mutate in a dozen different ways to avoid all those different mechanisms. We’ve talked about six mechanisms today. It’s very unlikely that we get six mutations that could dodge all of those all at the same time.

So I’ve a brief message to world leaders, people that are making the decisions about this. Come on you all, you’re not a horse and you’re not a cow. You’ve got a human intellect. Let’s use it to follow the scientific evidence to save human pain, suffering and death.

Footnote:  This video focused on Pfizer’s pill, but Merck’s Molnupiravir pill is also a one-trick-pony.  See Why Merck Dissed Its Own Invention Ivermectin

The issue is discussed by Brian C. Joondeph, M.D. in his American Thinker article If the Vaccines Work, Why Aren’t They Working? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

In the movie Moneyball, Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane queries his team of scouts when discussing a prospective player, “If he’s a good hitter, why doesn’t he hit good?” The scouts all have solid explanations, at least in their minds, of why a prospect might be a good hitter, from the sound of the crack of the bat when they hit the ball to the player’s good looks.

These explain why the player should be a good hitter, but what if the numbers, from batting average to on-base percentage, tell a different story? The question Billy poses is obvious in its simplicity, good hitters should hit good. And if they don’t, then perhaps they are not really good hitters.

What if we ask the same question about COVID vaccines, rephrased as “If the vaccines work, why aren’t they working?”

This is the time when I must add the necessary disclaimer that I am not anti-vaccine, having been personally fully vaccinated almost a year ago. Nor am I offering medical advice, only an analysis of current news of COVID cases rising in many highly vaccinated locales, seemingly against common sense.

Some readers have asked why such a disclaimer is necessary. I am a practicing physician, although I don’t treat COVID patients, administer vaccines, or offer medical advice regarding COVID to my retina patients. But today, just having an opinion can be hazardous to one’s livelihood.

The American Federation of Medical Specialists makes it clear, “Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license.”

Hopefully asking thoughtful questions and observing how the medical authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci have changed their own positions on vaccines is not considered “misinformation.” Or that citing the CDC and major news organizations won’t be considered “disinformation.” In the 1950s, x-raying pregnant women was standard practice, and questioning that harmful procedure, were such a thing to be done in the 1950s with today’s climate now might be considered mis- or disinformation.

If you think such medical censorship is all conspiracy theory, ask Dr. Mary Bowden, a Houston ear, nose, and throat specialist suspended from her Houston hospital for tweeting about vaccine mandates and ivermectin.

Back to COVID vaccines: “Safe, Effective and Free”

The CDC website states, “COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and free.” Those three words are all relative. Let’s quickly unpack them.

CV Vaccine Safety

VAERS is the “Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.” From their website, one can compare adverse events from COVID vaccines from the past 11 months they have been available to adverse events from all vaccines for the past 30 years, 1990 and onward.

Graph shows VAERS data up to Nov. 12, 2021. Source: https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/11/19/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-11-12-2021/

Note this is 11 months versus 30 years of side effects and in most categories, the cumulative cases are similar between the two groups, despite a 30-fold time difference of data recording. Of note, hospitalizations, deaths, permanent disabilities, and birth defects were greater for 11 months of COVID vaccines than they were for 30 years of all other types of vaccines – such as shingles, influenza, measles, mumps, hepatitis, and so on.

VAERS is voluntary reporting. For a variety of reasons, all cases do not make it to the VAERS database. How much is this underreporting? VAERS did their own analysis about ten years ago and found, “Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Their words, not mine.

This means adverse events could be happening far more frequently than what we are being told by the corporate media who don’t even report VAERS’s current data. What if these adverse events are 10 or even 100 times more common than VAERS reports? To paraphrase Billy Beane, “If the vaccines are safe, why aren’t they safe?”

CV Vaccine Effectiveness

Are they effective? The CDC answers an emphatic yes,

COVID-19 study shows mRNA vaccines reduce risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people. Vaccination makes illness milder, shorter for the few vaccinated people who do get COVID-19.

Does the real world agree and support the CDC’s optimism? Gibraltar is more than fully vaccinated, they are 118 percent vaccinated, meaning that many fully vaccinated have had booster injections too. Yet this headline doesn’t jive with CDC assertions, “Most vaccinated place on Earth told to cancel holiday plans amid an exponential rise in COVID cases.”

Pick another country: “93% vaccinated Ireland has gone into partial lockdown, including midnight curfew.” This recent headline too, “COVID surge in Singapore despite 80 percent vaccination.” Or from the U.K. where the Spectator reported, “The rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed.”

Closer to home it’s much the same, “Vermont has the highest vaccination rate in the country. So why are cases surging?” My home state of Colorado is singing from the same hymnal, “Colorado’s COVID hospitalizations jump again as virus’ statewide death toll surpasses 9,000.” Colorado’s 12 and up population is over 80 percent partially or fully vaccinated.

If these numbers are misinformation, tell that to big media. I am quoting their headlines. Will their licenses be threatened?

Relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of September 3, 2021

The CDC on its website claims, “Research provides evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19.” Yet cases in highly vaccinated locations are surging, now almost two years into the COVID pandemic. As Billy Beane might say, “If the vaccines work, why aren’t they working?”

CV Vaccines Are Free

Last is the “free” claim. Nothing from the government is “free.” Recipients may not be charged but that is not the same as “free.” The government produces nothing and therefore is not able to offer anything for free. They confiscate money from those they lord over and redistribute it back to those from whom they took it.

The Pfizer vaccine costs the government about $20 per dose, with the other COVID vaccines in the same ballpark. Some 445 million doses of vaccine have been administered in the U.S. to date. That’s $9 billion right there. Spending on research and development has been estimated at $40 billion, pushing the total north of $50 billion, and likely much higher given the many hidden or non-transparent costs.

If these numbers seem off, major vaccine maker Pfizer expects $36 billion in COVID vaccine revenues in 2021, in the same range as the above numbers. While the vaccine may be free to the person getting jabbed, someone is paying the tab for the vaccine, syringe, and time of the person administering the shot. It always works that way – nothing is really “free.” As Billy Beane might say, “If the vaccines are free, why do they cost so much?”

There is nothing wrong with the medical establishment saying, “we don’t know” or “we’re not sure” about COVID prognostications, rather than being cocksure about everything until reality turns their pronouncements upside down. Gaslighting the public, being wrong more than right, doesn’t engender confidence.

Those who preach “follow the science” seem to neither understand nor desire to actually follow the science, instead letting politics replace science with our COVID policies often not following the science.

Dr. Anthony Fauci acknowledged the new vaccine reality in a New York Times podcast last Nov. 12,

“They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly.”

When others observe and acknowledge this reality, they are ostracized and shamed. How long has Dr. Fauci known this? Last May, the CDC said that once vaccinated, you can return to a normal life. How is that working out?

Instead of transparency, we see this, “FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data.” Is this, “part of the FDA’s commitment to transparency” as the FDA itself claims? This is the same FDA that took only 108 days to review Pfizer’s clinical trial data, deeming it safe and effective enough for FDA approval. But for the public, the FDA needs 20,000 days to “review” the same data before public release.

The published concept of “imperfect vaccinations enhancing the transmission of highly virulent pathogens,” meaning that vaccinating during a pandemic can create new vaccine-resistant virus strains, is never discussed. Neither are off-label therapeutics that while not a panacea, may save lives. Instead, the government and medical establishment balkanized the world, vaccinated versus unvaccinated, us versus them, the worthy versus the lepers, creating further division in an already divided society.

Despite the shaming and ridicule, here we are, almost two years into the COVID pandemic, with a mostly vaccinated population, and hospitals and ICUs are overrun with COVID cases. This pandemic should be in the rearview mirror, yet in some respects, it is bad as it was last year. Leaving Billy Beane to ask, “If the vaccines work, why aren’t they working?”

Footnote: A Major part of the answer is due to Mucosal Immunity

Double-click to enlarge image.

This post provides a synopsis of the PubMed paper COVID-19: The Ivermectin African Enigma. by R. Guerrero et al. (2020 Dec 30) Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

1) Why was this study conducted?
Ivermectin has been used since 1995 for the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC). Currently, it is being considered as the possible target drug for SARS CoV-2. The low frequency of cases and deaths from the SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 virus in some countries of Africa prompted us to assess the possible influence of this community-based strategy. (Note Onchocerciasis is commonly referred to as “river blindness.”)

2) What were the most relevant results of the study?
APOC Countries with a Community-directed treatment with ivermectin strategy show 28% lower mortality (RR= 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67-0.78) and 8% lower rate of infection (RR= 0.92, 95% CI: 0.91-0.93) due to COVID-19; compared with non-APOC countries.

3) What do these results contribute?
Our data suggest that a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use. Additional studies are needed to confirm it.

APOC is a partnership programme including 19 countries with active involvement of the Ministries of Health and their communities, several international and local NGDOs, the private sector (Merck & Co., Inc.), donor countries and UN agencies. The World Bank and WHO acted as Fiscal Agent as Executing Agency, respectively. A Community-Directed Treatment with Ivermectin was the delivery strategy of APOC. With the purpose of achieving sustainability, local communities were empowered to administer and distribute ivermectin in their own villages. The programme which was extended until 2015 intended to treat over 90 million people annually in the 19 countries, protecting an at risk population of 115 million, and to prevent over 40,000 cases of blindness every year 1,2. In 1998 the Program was expanded to some Asian countries to combat lymphatic filariasis and APOC countries continued to use ivermectin, in association with albendazole, in this program 3

We used generalized Poisson regression models to obtain effect estimates of APOC status on SARS-CoV-2 cumulative infection and mortality rates. The models included country characteristics to adjust for socioeconomic differences between countries that could affect their response capacity and quality to the pandemic. To measure the impact of confounding variables like health, education, and standard of living we decided to control them by using the Human Development Index (HDI)5. HDI is a geometric mean of normalized indices of the three key dimensions of human development: health, assessed by life expectancy at birth; education, measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged ≥25 years and standard of living measured by gross national income per capita. Although it does not reflect poverty, security, empowerment, or inequalities, we consider that it is the best indicator that represents the global situation of a country.

Striking differences in the evolution of COVID-19 mortality are observed Figure 1B and APOC countries appear to have lower rates. Analysis of raw data, as shown in Table 1, indicate that APOC countries had lower infection (as indicated by lower case detection) and mortality rates due to COVID-19 (p <0.001). The ratio of mortality rates was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.12-0.13) and the ratio of infection rates was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.16-0.16), indicating that the APOC group was associated with lower mortality and infection rates compared to non-APOC countries, that is 88% and 84%, respectively. In addition, the APOC countries also had a lower number of detected cases and a lower frequency of tests.

Mortality, detection of new cases and number of tests performed were positively and significantly associated with HDI. The Figure 2 shows the COVID-19 Cumulative Mortality Rate per million in APOC countries compared with non-APOC countries.

Death rates were directly associated with HDI in all African countries, while number of infections were inversely associated in APOC countries, that is the higher the HDI the lower the expected number of infections. In African regions with HDIs above Z-score means, the expected number of deaths and infections was lower in APOC countries. In contrast, in the regions with the lowest HDI Z-score (less than 0), the estimated number of deaths and infections was lower in the non-APOC countries compared to APOC countries  (See Figure 15 at top).

No country knows with certainty the total number of subjects infected by SARS-CoV-2 within its territory, only an approximate number provided by the people who are tested; then, the number of tests performed largely determines the count of confirmed cases of the disease. In developed countries the number of tests performed can reach larger proportions of the population, like Iceland that had almost half of its population tested, 483 per thousand people7, however, on the African continent the tests performed per million inhabitants can be as low as in South Sudan 1,072 and Egypt 1,311 4.

A high HDI indicates longer life expectancy, better education and a higher standard of living. Our results coincide with others that show higher infections and death rates associated with high HDI 10,11. This can be explained because the component “life expectancy at birth is associated with a higher percentage of population >65 years. Our non-APOC group had a larger population in the >65 category and larger life expectancy (9 years) than the APOC group. That is why it is crucial to control for this confounding variable.

Mbow et al.12, analyzed the low morbi-mortality by COVID-19 in Africa compared to European countries and US, concluded that it is unlikely that it may be due to race, quality of reporting and death registration, different population age composition, lockdown stringency or other sociocultural aspects. Mbow mentions that studies of African COVID-19 patients show clear differences in the activation, proinflammatory and memory profiles of the immune cells compared not only versus Europeans but also among Africans with high and low exposure to microorganisms and parasites. Also suggest, that the virus may be spreading differently and with an attenuated outcome in Africa.

It is not known if a residual ivermectin effect increases the number of asymptomatic in the APOC countries. It is also unknown whether there are differences in susceptibility between populations of different African countries or regions. The ivermectin is considered a drug of choice for various parasitic and viral diseases and shown to have in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2 13-16.  Although there have been suggestive clinical studies 17,18, and >50 trials are currently in progress worldwide 19. There is the need of good designed clinical trials to conclusively ascertain its benefits in humans.

Overall, the reasons are not clear, yet present data suggests that a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use.

For a more recent update on Ivermectin Covid effectiveness see Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor

(AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)

Update Nov. 25, 2021
See also Post Ivermectin and the African Enigma

Hot Air reports An African mystery: Where did COVID go? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

There’s something strange happening in Africa which, according to the Associated Press, has scientists “mystified.” The curious situation is particularly prevalent in Zimbabwe. It’s a nation with a population of 14.8 million people and a vaccination rate of less than 6%, a fact that the World Health Organization lectures us about endlessly. And yet in the past week, they recorded a total of 33 COVID deaths. How is this possible? The AP interviewed a number of people who were shopping in a township outside Harare, almost none of whom were wearing masks. One man declared that the virus was “gone” and asked the reporter, “when did you last hear of anyone who has died of COVID-19?” He said that he carries a mask in his pocket because the police demand bribes from people without masks or they are threatened with arrest, but he rarely puts it on. Doctors have a few theories they are tossing around, though many are simply stumped. But I bet some of us who aren’t medical professionals could make a guess.

When the coronavirus first emerged last year, health officials feared the pandemic would sweep across Africa, killing millions. Although it’s still unclear what COVID-19’s ultimate toll will be, that catastrophic scenario has yet to materialize in Zimbabwe or much of the continent.

Scientists emphasize that obtaining accurate COVID-19 data, particularly in African countries with patchy surveillance, is extremely difficult, and warn that declining coronavirus trends could easily be reversed.

But there is something “mysterious” going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists, said Wafaa El-Sadr, chair of global health at Columbia University. “Africa doesn’t have the vaccines and the resources to fight COVID-19 that they have in Europe and the U.S., but somehow they seem to be doing better,” she said.

As already noted, one of the most stunning statistics in that story is that the vaccination rate in Zimbabwe is only 6%. If you found a single county in the United States with a 6% vaccination rate, Joe Biden would probably already have ordered everyone to be shipped off to prisons. If it happened in Australia they would likely have started executing people by now. But in Africa, it’s just a fact of life.

Reading through the commentary provided to the AP by various medical experts, there seem to be three general theories being suggested to explain the absence of a COVID catastrophe in most of Africa except for the nation of South Africa where they have a significantly higher caseload. The first theory is that the COVID epidemic is just as bad as everywhere else but we simply don’t collect enough data to realize it. The second theory is that scientists should be studying the African people to see if they are somehow more naturally resistant to the novel coronavirus. The final theory is that the average age of people in Zimbabwe (for example) is roughly 20 because life expectancies are much lower. Younger people are less likely to die from the disease.

Let’s consider all of these ideas from the layman’s point of view. Is it possible that there are a lot more cases of COVID in Africa than are being reported? Of course. That only makes sense because most areas in countries like Zimbabwe simply don’t have the resources to be testing everyone. In many cases, the only people being tested are the ones who show up at a medical center displaying symptoms. But one thing they are fully able to record is the number of people who are dying. If deaths of all sorts aren’t rising significantly, then not that many people are dying from COVID.

The idea that Africans are somehow naturally more immune to the virus sounds a bit wacky, at least at first glance. In the United States we have plenty of African-Americans who should be essentially drawing from the same gene pool, right? And yet COVID rates in those communities (where vaccine hesitancy remains higher than the national average) have been quite high during surges in the pandemic. Something doesn’t add up here.

And then there’s the idea that a population with a much lower average age won’t produce as many deaths. While that should statistically be accurate, I would suggest that we can expand on that theory. Residents of Zimbabwe have lower life expectancies so their average age is considerably lower. That much is true. And their vaccination rate is in single digits. Now let’s combine those facts with the reality that almost nobody is being tested for the virus and add in the fact that the COVID survival rate for younger and otherwise healthy people is well over 99%.

Putting all of that together, isn’t it just possible that most of the people in Zimbabwe have already had COVID, developed their own antibodies, and just gotten on with their lives?

Dare we use the forbidden words that the American media refuses to speak and suggest that just maybe the people of Zimbabwe have developed herd immunity? We know the virus exists in the country because a few people died of it last week. We also know how contagious it is. Doesn’t it just make sense that COVID swept through the country and there are no large pockets of people who have never been exposed, so the damned virus is simply dying out on its own?

I’m sure I’ll be locked up in the COVID “misinformation” jail for suggesting this, and I will once again repeat the disclaimer that I have no formal medical training. But it’s something to think about. Perhaps the situation in Zimbabwe really isn’t all the much of a “mystery” after all. Maybe… just maybe… all we’re seeing is mother nature taking her natural course. The human body contains all sorts of marvels and surprises from time to time. We just recently learned of the second person confirmed to have completely recovered from HIV without any medical treatment. It makes me wonder how many other people have contracted HIV but were never tested for it and went on to fight it off on their own. When was the last time anyone tested you for HIV? I haven’t had a test since right before I was married, nearly 30 years ago. Just some food for thought for you on a Friday.

Footnote:

From Zimbabwe Independent (July 23, 2021): Sharpe donates US$50 000 for Covid-19 drug

Property mogul Ken Sharpe last Friday donated US$50 000 to government for the purchase of Ivermectin, which he said saved both his life and that of his wife after they contracted the Covid-19 virus.

The donation, which was made during an event held at the State House headed up by President Emerson Mnangagwa, was Sharpe’s way of giving back after missing death by a whisker.

Sharpe who is the chairperson for West Property said he would not have made it if he had not taken Ivermectin after contracting the virus .

Ivermectin is a broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent.

It is included in WHO essential medicines list for several parasitic diseases and is used in the treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness), strongyloidiasis and other diseases caused by soil transmitted helminthiasis.

“It is a fact that I had been vaccinated and I believe, as you can see, I am a strong man in good health of just under 50 years of age. However, even having observed all the Covid-19 protocols of social distancing, without the assistance of the medicine that I took … I would not be standing here today,” he said .

He shared how he battled with the most severe symptoms until he started taking Ivermectin to which he owes his life.

Sharpe, however, said it was hugely unfair that currently the life-saving drug was pegged at a high price and yet a bit of research had proved that it could be sourced for a few cents.

This he said, would expand and widen access to many people who were currently failing to buy at the current prices.

Don’t Fence Us In!

Here are five reports raising concerns that these Covid vaccines are not what they are cracked up to be.

1.  Bureaucrat obsession with “silver bullet” vaccines

As Scott Atlas observes in his book about the US pandemic response:

Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield and Dr. Fauci—often called “the nation’s top expert in infectious disease”—dominated all discussions about the health and medical aspects of the emerging pandemic. One thing was very clear: all three were cut from the same cloth. First, they were all bureaucrats, with a background in various government agencies. Second, they shared a long history in HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis. That was problematic, because HIV couldn’t be more different from SARS2 in its biology, its amenability to testing and contact tracing, its spread and the implications of those facts for its control.

Indeed, the three of them spent many years focusing on the development of a vaccine, rather than treatment, for HIV/AIDS—a vaccine that still does not exist.

Drs. Birx and Fauci commandeered federal policy under President Trump and publicly advocated for a total societal shutdown. Instead of focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, their illogical and extraordinarily blunt response—despite its predictable, wide-ranging harms—was instituted as though it were simple common sense.

How Panic Spread in the Early Days of COVID-19

As we all recall, the lockdowns were initially for two weeks to protect the health system, and then were perpetuated as being necessary until vaccines were available. That initial obsession with a vaccine-only solution has grown tyrannical with “No Jab, No Job” mandates.

HCQ or IVM + nutritional supplements fill the need for early home treatment whether people are vaccinated or not.

2.  Cancellation campaign against repurposing anti-viral medicines

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson together with his Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General issued their opinion in response to a request by Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services CEO, Dannette Smith. She wanted the AG’s office to examine carefully whether doctors could face legal action or be subject to discipline if they prescribed the meds for COVID treatment.

“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” AG Doug Peterson wrote.

The Office of AG pointed to multiple medical journal articles, research, and case studies. They mentioned the study from Lancet that was later on retracted because of its flawed statistics regarding the use of HCQ.   Because of conflicting data on the treatments by the principal authors, “We find that the available data does not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19,” the opinion said.

Office of AG also used the study from the Mahmud and Niaee research team and many more about Ivermectin’s role as prophylaxis.

The office of AG even attacked the company, Merck, on their agenda.

Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons. First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to “conductI] clinical trials” on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. “[The U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.”

That treatment, known a “molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease.” On October 1, 2021, Merck announced that preliminary studies indicate that molnupiravir “reduced hospitalizations and deaths by half,” and that same day its stock price “jumped as much as 12.3%.” Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than–or even the same as-molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.

Nebraska AG Frees Doctors and Patients to Use HCQ and IVM

3.  Covid vaccine-induced immunity is incomplete

THE FOURTH issue is the recognition that genetic vaccines have limited value. While doctors support the current vaccine roll-out, reported “danger signals” must be clarified. Both the DNA-vector vaccine (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) behave as predicted by biology relevant to airways’ protection (something not understood by the vast majority of “experts”): short duration of protection limited to control of systemic inflammation, with little impact on infection of the airways.

Israel was used as a laboratory for the Pfizer vaccine. Six months after vaccination, there was essentially no protection against infection or mild disease, although protection against severe disease remained at 85-to-90 per cent. Thereafter came a rapid and progressive loss of protection against more severe disease. Infected vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects have similar viral loads and transmission capacity.

Immunity following natural infection is better and more durable than that induced by vaccination, so there is no sense in immunising those who have had COVID infection in the preceding six months.

We Can’t Vaccinate This Pandemic Away

4. Pandemic policies driven by opinion polls

From zerohedge Jordan Peterson: Government Adviser Told Me COVID Rules Based On Opinion Polls, Not Science. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Jordan Peterson says he spoke to a senior government adviser who told him Canada’s COVID restriction policies are completely driven by opinion polls and not science.

“In relation to the COVID restrictions, I talked to a senior adviser to one of the provincial governments a couple of weeks ago,” said Peterson.

“He told me flat out that the COVID policy here is driven by nothing but opinion polls related to the popularity of the government,” he added.

“No science, no endgame in sight, no real plan, and so what that means is that the part of the population that is most afraid of COVID,” are driving the policy.

Peterson pointed to figures that prove people vastly exaggerate the risk of being hospitalized by COVID due to relentless government fearmongering campaigns.

The author said he found the conversation “extremely disheartening” because he had hoped lockdown policies were “at least driven by something remotely resembling a scientifically informed plan.”

Peterson said the government adviser was “irate at what had been happening, enough to consider resigning.”

5.  Under 60 unvaccinated have better life expectancy than vaccinated

A previous post reckoned that the drive to mandate 100% vaccination is motivated by the need to eliminate the unvaccinated as a control population for comparative evaluation.  That possibility is now allowing discovery of ground truth, as evidenced by the UK medical records, and also worldwide data.  From Gateway Pundit Shocking UK Study Stuns Medical Community: Vaccinated People 60 and Younger Are Twice As Likely to Die as Unvaccinated People  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Vaccinated people under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people in the same age group.

The original data is here.

This ought to be the death knell for the push for mandatory vaccines. Will it?

Via Alex Berenson.

The brown line represents weekly deaths from all causes of vaccinated people aged 10-59, per 100,000 people.

The blue line represents weekly deaths from all causes of unvaccinated people per 100,000 in the same age range.

I have checked the underlying dataset myself and this graph is correct. Vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are running well above normal.

Now we know why the globalists want to hide the Pfizer vaccine results for 55 years.

See also at Daily Expose UK A Deadly Pandemic of the Fully Vaccinated – Worldwide data from 185 nations proves the highest Covid-19 Death rates are in the most vaccinated countries

White columns are age-adjusted

The charts and graphs show…

1. The above shows that the incidence of cases increases fairly linearly with the percentage of vaccinated people at a rate of 800 cases per million per extra percentage vaccinated.
2.  Heavily vaccinated countries (over 60%) have 3x the case rates of lightly vaccinated countries (under 20%) and have 7x the case rates of very lightly vaccinated countries (under 10%).
3. Raw death rates from Covid-19 increase with vaccination percentage from 0% to 50-60% and then decrease thereafter. Heavily vaccinated countries (over 60%) have twice the Covid-19 death rates of lightly vaccinated countries.
4. The death rates are very high for partially vaccinated countries and come down for highly vaccinated countries because the old are vaccinated first. This skews the early or partially vaccinated death rates against vaccination because the unvaccinated group have a lower average age.

But by the time 80-90% are vaccinated, everyone has had the chance to be jabbed and the age skewing will have almost vanished. So the age adjusted death rate will run in a straight line from around 120 deaths per million for unvaccinated nations to around 600 deaths per million for fully vaccinated nations.

On that basis this data shows that each percentage of vaccination increases the death rate by around 6 deaths per million

5.  This data shows that a 2nd Jab offers no significant benefit over a 1st jab.

The inescapable conclusion from all the data we have up to October 31 is that vaccines increase case numbers by 3x-7x and increase death rates from Covid-19 by 2x-4x..

This is not a representative sample of a few thousand cases or deaths from one nation. It is the full study of all the cases so far in every reporting nation. The results are in. There is a massive positive correlation between vaccination percentage and case numbers and deaths.

Covid-19 vaccination has been the largest experimental intervention in the history of medical science. The work of every Government statistics department in 185 nations collated by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has produced the largest cohort study ever to be considered. We include the full dataset used below for further analysis by interested parties.

Scott W. Atlas writes at Newsweek on the panic response instilled in the US from the beginning in his article with the same title.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

It was February 2020, and news accounts had been describing increasingly alarming information about a deadly new virus emanating from Wuhan, China. Apart from my general concern about the spread of the infection, I was confused about some of the basic numbers being aired. The overall message coming from the World Health Organization (WHO) seemed to have obvious flaws. The extremely high risk estimates seemed very misleading. Even worst—the reported fatality rates were based only on patients who were sick enough to seek medical care rather than on the undoubtedly much larger population of infected individuals. I was stunned that this basic methodological flaw was being overlooked by almost everyone, while the resulting fatality rate of 3.4 percent was highlighted throughout the media. Every legitimate medical scientist should have called that out. Their silence was puzzling.

In the United States and throughout the world, a naive discussion about statistical models ensued. To an extraordinary and unprecedented extent, these epidemiological models were featured front and center in news coverage, with no perspective on the models’ usefulness. Reminiscent of other legendary frenzies in history, like the tulip bulb mania or the tech stock bubble, hypothetical extreme-risk scenarios went seemingly unchallenged and were given absolute credence.

At the same time, common sense and well-established principles of medicine were being ignored. Every second-year medical student knew that the elderly were almost certainly the most vulnerable group of people, since they were virtually always at highest risk of death and serious consequences from respiratory infections. Yet this was not stressed. To the contrary, the implication of reports and the public faces of official expertise implied that everyone was equally in danger. Even the initial evidence showed that elderly, frail people with preexisting comorbidities—conditions that weakened their natural immunological defenses—were the ones at highest risk of death. This was a feature shared by other respiratory viruses, including seasonal influenza. The one unusual feature of this virus was the fact that children had an extraordinarily low risk. Yet this positive and reassuring news was never emphasized. Instead, with total disregard of the evidence of selective risk consistent with other respiratory viruses, public health officials recommended draconian isolation of everyone.

The architects of the American lockdown strategy were Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. With Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC, they were the most influential medical members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield and Dr. Fauci—often called “the nation’s top expert in infectious disease”—dominated all discussions about the health and medical aspects of the emerging pandemic. One thing was very clear: all three were cut from the same cloth. First, they were all bureaucrats, with a background in various government agencies. Second, they shared a long history in HIV/AIDS as a public health crisis. That was problematic, because HIV couldn’t be more different from SARS2 in its biology, its amenability to testing and contact tracing, its spread and the implications of those facts for its control.

Indeed, the three of them spent many years focusing on the development of a vaccine, rather than treatment, for HIV/AIDS—a vaccine that still does not exist.

Most others on the task force were juggling several concerns or had no medical background. This was one more responsibility added to their portfolios, so they deferred to those deemed medical experts. Drs. Birx and Fauci commandeered federal policy under President Trump and publicly advocated for a total societal shutdown. Instead of focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, their illogical and extraordinarily blunt response—despite its predictable, wide-ranging harms—was instituted as though it were simple common sense.

Over those first several weeks, fear had taken hold of the public. Media commentators and even policy experts, many of whom had no expertise on health care, were filling the airwaves and opinion pages with naive and incorrect predictions. This misinformation was going unchecked, and was indeed repeatedly endorsed and sensationalized. Some whom I had previously considered among my smartest colleagues and friends expressed great confusion and a striking absence of logic in analyzing what was happening.

I asked myself time and again, “Where are the critical thinkers?”

After more than 15 years a health policy researcher and decades in medical science and data analysis, I had never seen such flawed thinking. I was bewildered at the lack of logic, the absence of common sense and the reliance on fundamentally flawed science. Suddenly, computer modelers and people without any perspective about clinical illnesses were dominating the airwaves. Along with millions of other Americans, I began witnessing unprecedented responses from those in power and nonscientific recommendations by public health spokespeople: societal lockdowns including business and school closures, stay-at-home restrictions on individual movements, and arbitrary decrees by local, state, and federal governments.

These recommendations were not just based on panic; they were responsible for generating even more panic. COVID rapidly became the most important health policy crisis in a century.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D. is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution.