新着順:14/2813 記事一覧表示 | 《前のページ | 次のページ》

イベルメクチンには触れないで、ワクチンの展開を狂わせるから。

 投稿者:  投稿日:2021年 5月14日(金)01時45分52秒 103.140.113.228
  通報 編集済
  Alzhacker@Alzhacker
https://twitter.com/Alzhacker/status/1392854535597531140
イベルメクチンには触れないで、ワクチンの展開を狂わせるから。

特許が切れているほど古く、WHOの必須医薬品や子供用医薬品のリストに載っているほど安全で、大量の薬剤投与に使われる安価な薬が、COVIDの病気の進行や症例を大幅に減らすとしたらどうなるだろう?

緊急使用許可(EUA)が法的に認められるためには、「病気や症状の診断、予防、治療のために、候補製品に代わる適切で承認された利用可能な代替品がないこと」が必要である。ワクチンは、レベル4の試験に合格して初めて合法となるが、それが2021年に実現することは確実にない。

これは、WHOを中心とする大規模な公衆衛生機関にとって、大きな頭痛の種となるであろう。試験以外のワクチンの展開が違法になってしまうのである。ワクチンメーカーは、パンデミック時に何億ドルもかけてワクチンの開発と試験を行っていたが、2021年に期待していた1,000億ドルの利益は得られないだろう

2021年3月31日、WHOはイベルメクチンの安全性と大規模なRCTによる証明がないことを理由にCOVID治療への使用をしないことを推奨した。

なぜWHOがこのようなことをしたのかという疑問に答えるのは困難だが、EUAの合法性の重要性や、お金の流れに従うという昔からのアドバイスを無視すれば簡単だ。

今年の1月にWHOが依頼したイベルメクチンの研究、RCTのメタ分析結果が発表された。イベルメクチンは死亡率を74%減少させ、予防としては85%の効果があるとされた。試験責任者のヒル博士は「需要が供給を上回る前に、各国政府は供給源を確保すべきであり、これを展開しないのは不道徳である」と述べた。

同じ月に、他の2つの独立した非スポンサーのメタアナリシスによって、病気の様々な段階で同様の範囲の有効性が確認された。イベルメクチンは、病気のすべての段階で有効であるが、使用する用量にもよるが、予防として最も効果的であり、早期治療では約80%の効果があるとされている。

WHOは現在のところ自己投薬を避けることを除いて、早期治療に関するアドバイスや推奨事項はない。一般的に症状が軽い最初の1週間で治さないと、呼吸困難で病院に行かなければならない時には死に至る可能性が大幅に高まる。イベルメクチンをはじめとする再利用可能な薬を使えば、それを防ぐことができる

イベルメクチンは35年前から人に使用されており、40億回以上投与されており強力な抗ウイルス作用と抗炎症作用を持っている。
その安全性は通常の20倍の投与量で証明されている。死亡例は19件のみで、副作用は一般的に軽度で短期間である。これに対し米国では毎年約450人がパラセタモールで死亡している

メルク社は声明を発表し、、イベルメクチンはCOVID-19に対する有効な治療法ではないと主張した。開発途上国の何百万人もの人々に配布するために寄贈した薬に「大半の研究で安全性に関するデータが不足している」という奇妙な主張をした。

その数日後、メルク社はアメリカ政府から3億5600万ドルを受け取って治験薬を開発していたのだが、メディアはこのメルク社の声明を盲目的な真実として報道した。WHOは、イベルメクチンの使用を控えるよう勧告する際に、効果がないという証拠としてメルク社の言葉を引用した。

ワクチンの展開は、2021年には約1,000億ドルの価値があり、COVIDの新しい亜種に対応するために、毎年更新される可能性がある。
ビル&メリンダ・ゲイツ財団は、WHOの2番目に大きなスポンサーである。ゲイツ氏とWHO事務局長のテドロス氏が設立したワクチン同盟であるGAVIは第5位の出資者である。

2021年3月、WHOはイベルメクチンを試験以外のCOVIDの治療には推奨しないと発表した。彼らは、ヒル博士による数ヶ月に及ぶ綿密な調査を無視して、5、7、16の試験(報告書は矛盾している)からチェリーピックして、5つの試験を引用するだけの急いで行われた分析に置き換えたのだ。

WHOは、イベルメクチンが大規模なRCTで証明されない限り、イベルメクチンの使用を承認しない。このような試験には数百万ドルの費用がかかるが、ワクチンに金銭的な利害関係のある人以外は誰も資金提供を申し出ていない。

WHOは既存薬について大規模RCTを行うのに最適な立場にあるが、イベルメクチンが実験室でCOVIDを殺せることが証明されてから 1年以上経っているにもかかわらず、試験を行っていない。大手製薬会社だけが大規模なRCTを行う余裕があるため、大規模なRCTを行うのは大手製薬会社が開発した新薬だけである。

世界中のほぼすべてのメディアが、イベルメクチンの弱体化に貢献している。主流のジャーナリストは、証拠を調査したり、イベルメクチンを支持する科学者に質問したり議論したりすることはなかった。

イベルメクチンは「動物用医薬品」と呼ばれ、危険視されている。イベルメクチンは、ヒドロキシクロロキンの繰り返しであり、真剣に受け止めるべきではないと見られている。信じられているだけであり、嘲笑するだけの価値しか無いと。

どこを見ればいいのか知らない限りイベルメクチンに関するポジティブな情報はほとんど見つからない。SNSではイベルメクチンについて肯定的な意見を述べることは非常に難しく、投稿者は長期間プラットフォームからブロックされる。YouTubeは、イベルメクチンのプロモーションをポリシー違反としている。

現在イベルメクチンの効果を示すRCTは27件、メタアナリシスは7件、そして多くの観察試験が行われている。 効果がないという証拠はほとんどない。全インド医療科学研究所の新しい研究では3500人以上の医療従事者に予防的にイベルメクチンを2回投与したところ、翌月には医療従事者の感染が83%減少した。

最終的には、もしイベルメクチンや他の再利用薬(有望な抗うつ剤であるフルボキサミンなど)が早期治療に有効であれば、長期的な安全性や将来の亜種を治療する能力が不明で製造者が責任を負わない試験中のワクチンを使用する必要がないということだ。

万が一病気になっても、イベルメクチンを身近に置いておけば、早期に家庭で治療することができ、ウイルスの複製を早期に防ぎ、ほぼ確実に病院に行かずに済むだろう。また、将来の感染症に対する自然な保護を提供する免疫反応を構築することができる。

そして広く使用することで病気の波を抑えることができ、これによって得られた時間を利用することで、ワクチンは長期的な安全性と効率性を証明することができる。

Don’t mention Ivermectin; it’ll upset the vaccine rollout
https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2021/05/12/mailbox-ivermectin
By Andrew Bannister

What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts? What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalisation?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, “there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.” The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021.

This would present a major headache for the big public health agencies led by the WHO. The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal. The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021. In a pandemic, and for the next one, we need big pharma to react quickly, and the best way to that, is to reward them financially. Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily. On the 31st of March 2021, the WHO recommended against the use of Ivermectin for COVID treatment, citing safety and lack of large RCT proof.

The question of why the WHO would do this is difficult to answer, only if you ignore the importance of the legality of the EUA, and the time tested advice, of following the money. The WHO, a once noble organisation funded by the worlds countries, now receives less than 20% of its budget from member states. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second biggest sponsor after the USA. The GAVI Alliance, a private/public organisation promoting vaccines, was founded by Gates, and now pushing for vaccine passports, are the 4th biggest sponsor to WHO. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director-General, served on the GAVI board for several years. The WHO, in 2021 changed the definition of “herd immunity”, to occurring only when the global population has been vaccinated.

The WHO has either made serious mistakes in their analysis or deliberately undermined Ivermectin and other early treatment drugs, in favour of vaccinating the world. Obviously this is a huge windfall for vaccine manufacturers, with Pfizer set to receive over a trillion rand from vaccines over the next five years according to Morgan Stanley.

In January this year, the several months long, Ivermectin research, meta-analysis of Randomised Control Trials (RCT), commissioned by WHO was released. The paper showed that Ivermectin reduces death by 74% and is 85% effective as prophylaxis. The trial leader, Dr Andrew Hill, was on Zoom meetings saying that governments should secure their source before demand outstrips supply and that it would be immoral, not to roll it out. The same month, two other independent, unsponsored meta-analysis confirmed a similar range of effectiveness at various stages of the disease. While effective at all stages of the disease, Ivermectin is most effective as a prophylaxis and about 80% in early treatment, depending on dose used.

The WHO currently have no advice or recommendation’s for early treatment apart from recommending against self-medication. If you don’t heal in the first week, when symptoms are generally mild, by the time you have to go to the hospital with breathing problems, your chances of dying have increased significantly. The use of Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs, could prevent that. As its safer than paracetamol, it should be available over the counter. As is happening in Mexico City and some states in India, anyone testing positive or feeling sick should take it, and give it to those they are in close contact with. It may be possible, if you want to attend a large social event or travel in a plane, that you take a pill, four hours before, and you will have significant protection for a few days. Lockdowns could end.

Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder, donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries. 2015 the two individuals who developed Ivermectin were awarded a Nobel Prize for medicine. While known primarily as an anti-parasitic, Ivermectin has powerful anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal. Only 19 deaths are known and side-affects are generally mild and short. As a comparison, approximately 450 US citizens die from paracetamol every year.

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both. In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, “A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” of the a drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries. The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic. The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.  Global vaccine rollout, to everyone, is the policy.

The vaccine rollout is worth about $100bn in 2021, and there may well be annual updates to deal with new variants of COVID. The WHO answers to nobody but its’ funders. Less than 20% of its budget comes member states, the bulk coming from other sources. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest sponsor of the organisation. GAVI, a vaccine alliance, founded by Gates and WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus, served on its board prior to his current position, is the fifth largest contributor.

In March 2021, WHO said that Ivermectin was not recommend for the treatment of COVID outside of trials. They did this by ignoring their own months long, in-depth investigation by Dr Andrew Hill, that found Ivermectin was associated with 74% reduction in fatalities, and replaced it with a hastily done analysis that cherry picked from five, seven or sixteen trials (the report contradicts itself) but only cite 5 trails. The figures ,the WHO report supplies, show a reduction of death by 81%, but with a “very low certainty of evidence”. The WHO report didn’t even mention prophylaxis, where Ivermectin’s most effective, saying that fell outside its mandate. The WHO will not approve Ivermectin’s use, without it first proving itself in a large RCT. These trials cost millions and nobody, except those with a financial interest in vaccines, have offered to fund. The WHO are best placed to run large RCT’s on existing drugs, but haven’t done so with Ivermectin, despite it being over a year, since Ivermectin was proved to kill COVID in a lab. As only big pharma can afford the large RCT, the only drugs that go through the large RCT’s, are the new ones developed by big pharma, and become the only ones approved by WHO.

Almost every media house around the world has contributed to the marginalisation of Ivermectin. No mainstream journalists have investigated the evidence or questioned and debated scientists supporting it. It’s called an “animal drug” and dangerous. Ivermectin is seen as a repeat of hydroxychloroquine and not to be taken seriously. Belief in it, worthy only of derision.

On 10 December 2020, at the World Press Freedom Conference, an extension to the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was announced. Founded to prevent false information around elections, the TNI, whose members are  leading media houses: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC, European broadcast Union, Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Twitter and Washington Post, were now extending that to vaccines. In a surprisingly underreported event, many of the world’s biggest media, agreed to promote the global vaccine rollout and focus on combatting the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation. While noble and well-intended, this has unfortunately led to a media silence on promising, early treatments that could significantly drop hospitalisations.

The March this year, New York Times broke a story, repeated around the world, reporting a trial that proved “Ivermectin had no effect”. The Lopez-Medina trial, published in JAMA, a leading medical journal, was held as the gold standard for Ivermectin RCT’s. In the trial, reminiscent of a “big tobacco” hit-job, vaccine manufactures paid the researchers (documented in the papers Conflicts Of Interests section). There are many faults in the trial. Among them, they accidentally gave Ivermectin to both arms of the trial and changed the trials primary outcome, mid-trial, three times. Normally, nobody would pay a trial any attention after these significant problems. As the trial was on a young heathy population, in an area with high Ivermectin use, freely available from the mayor during their first COVID wave, you were allowed on the trial if you hadn’t taken Ivermectin for 5 days, despite it’s effects being noticeable up to a month after a single dose. Surprisingly less than 3% of the participants had disease progression, against an expectation of 18%. The rare but specific Ivermectin side effect, blurred vision, was within 0,3% (11.3/11.6%) of both groups as were other side effects. The results were collected telephonically and no physical examination was done. From their result, with surprisingly few people having disease progression (some suggest that the trial inadvertently proves Ivermectin’s efficiency), it’s not possible to arrive at the conclusion that Ivermectin doesn’t work, which is what they did, and the media bought it.

Unless you know where to look, you will find hardly any positive information on Ivermectin. Social media makes it very difficult to say anything positive about it without the poster getting blocked from the platforms for lengthy periods. YouTube has made the promotion of Ivermectin, a violation of its policies. There is no public conversation in the media about it. It’s just ignored. Respectable medical journals are sitting with piles of Ivermectin papers on their desks that they refuse to publish without providing reason, despite at least one of them having passed peer review by two FDA reviewers. The book “Manufacturing of Consent” comes to mind where Chomsky and Herman look at how mass media serves the rich. It’s a David against Goliath fight, a cheap generic vs Big Pharma.

There are now 27 RCT’s, about 7 meta -analysis and many observational trials, that show Ivermectin works.  There is very little evidence that it doesn’t work. The WHO were very sparse in detail and process, in their recommendation against its use. New research from the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), on a group of over 3500 health care workers, using two doses of Ivermectin as prophylactic, reduced cases among health care workers by 83% in the following month. Mexico City has for several months been using a test and treat with Ivermectin strategy. A research paper by Mexico City Health, claims that, depending on dosing, they have reduced hospitalisations by 56-73%. India in its current destructive wave, has just taken the example set by its two most successful states, and authorised the use of Ivermectin in early treatment. Doctors who use it, swear by it. As for more proof, the Gates/Together trial is ongoing, but given Gates’s large investments in vaccines, its results, already mistrusted. In Goa they have just authorised giving Ivermectin to everyone who tests, not waiting for a result. If Ivermectin works, it should soon be clearly seen unless the “Ivermectin is dangerous” group wins. We need more studies, especially on higher dosing, but we know it’s safe, so no need to wait.

Ultimately what this means, is that if Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs (like the promising anti-depressant Fluvoxamine), work for early treatment, you won’t have to use a vaccine, that’s still in trial, with unknown long-term safety or ability to treat future variants, and for which, the manufactures accept no liability.

In case you get sick, keep Ivermectin close by for early, household treatment, and you will prevent viral replication early and almost certainly, avoid hospital. You would have also built an immune response that will provide natural protection against future infections. Its wide-spread use, should dampen waves of disease, while vaccines can use this time to prove themselves, with long term safety and efficiency.


おたかさん 311以降国に怒る毎日@motialtjin
https://twitter.com/motialtjin/status/1392865943164915717
もう掲載されたので厚労省も否定はできませんよね。
各種医師会などの組織もやりやすいはずですし、患者の求めには否定できないのでは?
近く病院に行った時に話してみます。このコピーもって。

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Abstract

Background:

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials.

Areas of Uncertainty:

The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Data Sources:

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

 
》記事一覧表示

新着順:14/2813 《前のページ | 次のページ》
/2813