Ivermectin – Truth & Totalitarianism

Written by zerohedge.com on October 20, 2021. Posted in Current News

Merck stock surged 10 percent last Friday after it said its investigational pill cuts the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients.

“The pill reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%,” Merck and its partner, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, said in a statement Friday.

“This is a phenomenal result. This is a profound game-changer to have an oral pill that had this kind of effect, this magnitude of effect in patients who are at high risk who are already symptomatic,” former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Friday on CNBC about results of the interim analysis.

“Meanwhile, shares of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna fell 2.5 and 10 percent, respectively.”

This puts Dr. Scott Gottlieb between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, as a member of Pfizer’s Board of Directors, he is paid handsomely to attend a few board meetings per year, yet on the other hand, he must not be too glowing in his praise of the antiviral, which might lead people away from the Pfizer vaccine. Moreover, it could affect sales just as it has already dropped the stock price.

In 2020, Gottlieb was paid $338,587 by Pfizer. In 2020, he also earned $525,850 as a director of Illumina. Due to his former FDA Chief status, Gottlieb is in high demand as one word of favor from him can send a stock price soaring.

He has served on multiple other boards, including Tempus Labs, National Resilience, and the Mount Sinai Health System. It must be a daunting task to walk the line by promoting one corporate interest while not offending any of the others.

But the good news is that soon, Pfizer, too, will be peddling their antiviral drug, which should make up for any drop in their vaccine sales.

“Pfizer is testing whether its pill—PF-07321332—can prevent infection in people exposed to the virus or benefit patients who have not been hospitalized with COVID-19.”

Roche and Atea are not far behind with their antiviral pills, and soon all of Big Pharma can get in on the action. They have timed it perfectly.

While shutting down any competition from repurposed drugs like HCQ or Ivermectin, they deftly rolled out the vaccines first, making sure not to confuse the consumer with antiviral pills that would only be allowed AFTER the majority of the population had been vaccinated. 

The one glitch is that Merck’s Molnupiravir only surfaced AFTER a prominent scandal involving Merck lying three times.

Just as Peter would disown Christ three times before the cry of the rooster, Merck would turn their back on their creation with three lies about Ivermectin before they would accept the payoff from the United States government.

On February 4, 2021, Merck, the corporation behind the monumental Mectizan Program, which rescued the world from River Blindness, told three untruths about Ivermectin.

Lie #1: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies;

FALSE:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

Lie #2: No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease.

FALSE: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-Response-to-the-NIH-Guideline-Committee-Recommendation-on-Ivermectin-use-in-COVID19-2021-01-18.pdf

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf

Lie #3: A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

FALSE: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/

However, the Monash preclinical study disproved the first statement showing a massive 99.98 percent reduction in viral load with a single Ivermectin treatment in cell culture.

The second statement is disproved by the FLCCC’s Public Statement issued January 18, 2021, that reports colossal evidence for Ivermectin’s clinical activity and efficacy against COVID-19 in clinical settings:

a. Large reductions in mortality rates;

b. Shorter durations of hospital stay;

c. Profound reductions in the infectivity rate in both pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis studies;

d. Faster times to clinical recovery;

e. Faster times to viral clearance.

Finally, the third statement concerning “lack of safety data” contradicts the published WHO safety data. In 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin given over four decades, Ivermectin has proven exceedingly safe.

Moreover, more than anyone, Merck is in the position to know Ivermectin’s true safety profile as they provided those billions of doses for the Mectizan Donation program.

However, lying was required, and the payoff came on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, when Merck got a fat reward. They announced the US government had agreed to pay $1.2 billion for 1.7 million doses of their new antiviral, Molnupiravir, BEFORE clinical testing showed either effectiveness or safety.

Our hard-earned tax dollars were irresponsibly handed over to Merck by an agency charged with a fiduciary duty to protect our health.

So in the end, Scott Gottlieb did not endanger Pfizer’s bottom line. Just as Moderna was choreographed to go first in the vaccine rollout, Merck was first with the antiviral, and Pfizer first with the booster. They would take turns as there was more than enough profit to go around. Soon it would be Pfizer’s turn at the antiviral trough, but they had to be patient for now. There was an order and method to this.

But the craftiest strategy of all was Merck’s: Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.

This quote has been variously attributed to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. Regardless of its source, it has proven remarkably effective as a propaganda tactic throughout modern history, and Merck was betting on this to sell the public on Molnupirivar. However, the move backfired. In the case of Ivermectin, they falsely argued that it was ineffective and unsafe while their own drug suffered from both.

For example, one could argue, “There is a concerning lack of safety data” regarding Molnupirivar. Indeed, it does not have decades of safety data like Ivermectin; it does not even have years. The little safety data pertains to a dearth of Phase II and Phase III clinical trials, which total less than a few thousand patients.

While Ivermectin’s safety data with over 40 years of treatment in over 3.7 billion doses is truly robust, Molnupiravir’s safety numbers are barely rudimentary. In short, Molnupiravir’s safety data is concerning because of its lack.

Of more concern is a recent study showing the alarming potential of Molnupiravir’s metabolite, NHC, to induce mutations. In a peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the author writes, “The mutagenic effect of NHC has been shown in animal cell cultures, raising concerns on the potential risk of molnupiravir-induced tumorigenesis and the emergence of detrimental mutations in sperm precursor cell generation and embryo development.”

I don’t know about you, but that would be enough for most of my patients to decide against this drug. With all due respect to Dr. Gottlieb, if the choice were between a drug with a 40-year safety profile of excellence versus a new experimental one that could introduce mutations into germ cells, it would be a no brainer.

As if this were not enough, another group of researchers at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center associated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are also concerned.

They write, “The concern would be that mutations in host DNA could contribute to the development of cancer or cause birth defects either in a developing fetus of through incorporation into sperm precursor cells.”

This may be the best time to mention that cheap, repurposed drugs, all FDA approved as safe for other conditions, are one of the best ways to address terminal cancers. They have well-defined and often long-term safety profiles, and cocktails of such old drugs hold great promise as adjuncts in cancer prevention and treatment. Moreover, unlike experimental new medicines with little safety testing, repurposed drugs will not give you cancer.

As for meaningful clinical activity or efficacy in patients with COVID-19, there are also concerns with Molnupiravir. The hospital trials were stopped early. Where is the data for inpatients? Where is the data for patients on ventilators? Where is the evidence for pre-exposure prophylaxis?

The limited trials that have been performed only suggest a correlation between Molnupiravir use and a lower rate of hospitalization and fewer deaths based on low numbers of patients. But the evidence is lacking on safety, prevention of disease, and treatment of late disease. This is where the evidence on Ivermectin is overwhelming.

However, the evidence of effectiveness for Molnupiravir is sketchy at best.

Moreover, on the use of Molnupiravir in mild and moderate disease, we have one study – only partially completed – showing 7.3% death OR hospitalization in the drug group versus 14.1% of those receiving placebo. The fact that deaths were combined with hospitalizations does not mean that 48% fewer in the treatment group died. It means the sum of deaths and hospitalizations was 48% lower in the treatment group.

Moreover, the study only involved 775 patients. This is far too few on which to base an approval. Right? Isn’t that what we have been told regarding Ivermectin? After all, we now have over 32 randomized controlled trials of Ivermectin in COVID, reflecting a 58 percent improvement in the Ivermectin groups compared to placebo. Thus, we have 65 clinical trials in total involving 655 scientists and 47,717 patients.

We have been told this is insufficient evidence, so the Merck data on 775 patients cannot possibly be enough if we use the same standard.

With Ivermectin, we see an average of 86 percent improvement in 14 prophylaxis studies, a 66 percent improvement in 29 early treatment trials, a 40 percent improvement in 22 late treatment trials, a 57 percent improvement in the 26 mortality trials. This data has been updated to October 1, 2021.

So, even assuming Molnupiravir effectively reduces death PLUS hospitalization by 48%, we still do not know how reliable this figure will be when looking only at death. Ivermectin’s reduction in death in mild to moderate COVID-19 surpasses this number.

Assuming more studies confirm Molnupiravir’s lesser effect at reducing mortality in mild to moderate disease, we are still left with uncomfortable questions about its safety. However, Ivermectin’s excellent long term safety profile is solid, and this alone will lead many to choose Ivermectin OVER Molnupirivar, especially when factoring in the possibilities of mutagenesis and gene toxicity.

The price of around $700 per course of treatment which involves ten pills, makes it vastly more expensive than Ivermectin, which might be fine if it were considerably more effective. But it isn’t, it is less effective, and it is potentially MUCH more dangerous. The fact the choice is being “forced” does not make it more appealing.

Perhaps the most distasteful dimension is that the drug was developed through deceit and propaganda under Merck’s scandal with Ivermectin.  

It is part of an overall mandated program that robs people of their God-given liberty to choose their own medical treatment. 

The mandates have been fraught with division among leading scientists, including Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Robert Malone discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and invented mRNA vaccines while he was at the Salk Institute in 1988. He helped draft “The Physicians Declaration,” which was announced at the Global COVID Summit held in Rome, Italy.

The Physician’s Declaration is not unlike the US Declaration of Independence, as both documents enumerate a series of injustices that create the need for a Declaration.

In the case of the US Declaration of Independence, those injustices included taxation without representation, not providing fair hearings or trials – the lack of due process – and “exciting domestic insurrections amongst us.”

In the case of the Rome Physician’s Declaration, these injustices include public policymakers who have forced a “one size fits all treatment strategy” to the Pandemic resulting in “needless illness and death.” In addition, physicians have been subject to censorship of ideas, barriers from pharmacies, threats of censure, and loss of license for upholding their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.

Censorship of  Senate testimony of Harvard and Yale-educated physicians by YouTube at the behest of government agencies should not be tolerated in a democratic society.

When the WHO and CDC degenerate into captured agencies that no longer serve the medical interests of the people, something needs to change.

As of today’s date, some 10,000 physicians and health scientists have also signed the modern Physician Declaration and accused the public health agencies of “crimes against humanity.”

Physicians have declared through this document that they “must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action” and that physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments.  A fully informed patient should have the right to choose or decline medical treatment. This absolute right MUST be restored.

See more here: zerohedge.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.