Hidup secara berbeda. Lupakan keseragaman konvensional hotel tanpa karakter. Di sini, setiap ruang, setiap kamar memiliki kepribadiannya sendiri, aromanya, warnanya, seperti di rumah. Di sini kita berada di alam dan alam ada di dalam kita. Dan kami senang berbagi perasaan itu.
Live differently. Forget the conventional uniformity of characterless hotels. Here, each space, each room has its personality, its scents, its colors, just like at home. Here we are in nature and nature is within us. And we love to share that feeling.
L’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) s’est appuyée uniquement sur la vaccination pour lutter contre Omicron, la nouvelle variante hautement infectieuse du Sars_Cov_2. Jusqu’à présent, cet organisme consultatif international de santé publique a complètement ignoré l’importance des anticorps naturels dans ses avis de temps à autre.
Lorsqu’une personne se remet naturellement du Covid-19, elle développe une immunité naturelle contre le virus qui cause la maladie. Les études scientifiques disponibles à ce jour ont montré que les anticorps naturels offrent la meilleure protection durable par rapport à tous les vaccins disponibles. Bien que, dans aucun de ses avis émis jusqu’à présent, l’OMS n’ait reconnu l’une de ces études pour donner l’importance accordée à l’immunité naturelle par rapport à l’immunité acquise par le vaccin. Une section d’experts de la santé en Inde doute du rôle impartial et équitable de l’OMS dans la lutte contre le Covid-19.
« Depuis le début de la pandémie, le rôle de l’OMS est douteux. Son obsession pour les vaccins est discutable », a déclaré le Dr Sanjay Rai, professeur, Département de médecine communautaire, AIIMS, Delhi.
Le Dr Rai, qui est également président de l’Association indienne de santé publique, souligne les notes techniques que l’OMS publie de temps à autre après le début de la pandémie et affirme que le parti pris contre l’immunité naturelle est assez évident dans ces communications. .
Par exemple, dans une note scientifique publiée le 24 avril 2020, l’OMS avait rejeté les suggestions de certains gouvernements selon lesquelles les personnes qui s’étaient naturellement remises du Covid-19 devraient recevoir un “passeport d’immunité” ou un “certificat sans risque”. voyager car ils étaient protégés contre la réinfection.
“À ce stade de la pandémie, il n’y a pas suffisamment de preuves sur l’efficacité de l’immunité médiée par les anticorps pour garantir l’exactitude d’un” passeport d’immunité “ou d’un” certificat sans risque “”, avait déclaré l’OMS.
Plus d’un an plus tard, lorsque de nombreuses études scientifiques ont prouvé l’importance de l’immunité naturelle pour offrir une meilleure protection par rapport aux vaccins, l’OMS, dans son mémoire scientifique du 10 mai 2021, a déclaré que la vaccination et l’infection naturelle offrent une protection similaire.
«Bien que rarement signalée à ce jour, une réinfection par le SRAS-CoV-2 peut survenir. Quatre grandes études menées au Royaume-Uni, aux États-Unis d’Amérique et au Danemark ont estimé que l’infection par le SRAS-CoV-2 offrait une protection de 80 à 90 % contre la réinfection jusqu’à 7 mois et jusqu’à 94 % de protection contre les maladies symptomatiques », a déclaré l’OMS. tenu.
Malgré cela, il a conclu en disant: «Les tests disponibles et les connaissances actuelles ne nous renseignent pas sur la durée de l’immunité et de la protection contre la réinfection, mais des preuves récentes suggèrent que l’infection naturelle peut fournir une protection similaire contre la maladie symptomatique que la vaccination, au moins pour le suivi disponible. -up période.
Le Dr Rai dit que si l’OMS était d’avis que le vaccin et l’infection naturelle offrent une protection similaire, alors “pourquoi n’a-t-elle pas recommandé que les personnes guéries naturellement n’aient pas du tout besoin du vaccin?”
Plus surprenante est la position de l’OMS dans sa note technique datée du 27 novembre 2021, intitulée “Améliorer la préparation à Omicron (B.1.1.529) dans la région OMS de l’Asie du Sud-Est”.
Ignorant complètement l’importance de l’immunité naturelle dans la lutte contre Omicron, il a déclaré: «L’augmentation de la couverture vaccinale contre le COVID-19 dans tous les groupes d’âge éligibles, mais en particulier chez les personnes âgées, les travailleurs de la santé et les autres personnes à haut risque de maladies graves devrait être prioritaire. par les autorités de santé publique. »
Le Dr Rai a déclaré que ces mémoires ne montrent pas seulement que l’OMS ne tient pas compte d’une forme supérieure d’immunité uniquement pour promouvoir la vaccination. « Si tout le monde est vacciné, alors les preuves en faveur de la supériorité de l’immunité naturelle disparaîtront d’elles-mêmes. C’est vraiment dommage.”
Le Dr Amitav Banerjee, chef du département de médecine communautaire, Dr DY Patil Medical College, Pune est d’accord avec le Dr Rai et a déclaré que dans le dernier mémoire technique daté du 27 novembre 2021, l’OMS aurait également dû dire que ceux qui se sont rétablis naturellement don ‘ t besoin d’être vacciné.
Des études de population dans le monde réel menées en Israël après le déploiement de la vaccination ont établi qu’une telle immunité acquise naturellement est 13 fois plus robuste que celle induite par les vaccins. En traduisant cela en pratique, on peut dire qu’une personne qui s’est remise d’une infection naturelle a déjà reçu 13 rappels ! Pourquoi l’OMS ne peut-elle pas voir cela et l’inclure dans ses avis ? » dit Banerjee.
Il a ajouté : « Cela relève du bon sens, même si nous ignorons la science, qui n’est que trop fréquente dans cette pandémie. Celui qui attrape l’infection héberge le virus entier pendant environ 13 jours dans le corps. Le vaccin essaie d’imiter cela en injectant une dose d’une partie atténuée du virus ou avec un vaccin à base de gènes nouvellement développé qui stimule le corps à produire seulement une partie du composant viral – la protéine de pointe. Une double injection du vaccin et un rappel ça fait trois, pas treize !
Le Dr Banerjee regrette que le bon sens, la science et l’épidémiologie sociale soient négligés par l’OMS et les décideurs politiques mondiaux, “et des modèles basés sur des chiffres inertes de l’Occident sont projetés dans des pays asiatiques et africains avec des dynamiques de transmission différentes”.
Le professeur Gobardhan Das, un immunologiste bien connu associé au Centre spécial de médecine moléculaire de l’Université Jawaharlal Nehru, estime également qu’en émettant des alertes et en faisant des déclarations sensationnelles, l’OMS crée une situation de panique alors que ce n’est pas nécessaire.
«Il semble que QUI soit confus. D’un côté, ils disent que le vaccin et l’immunité naturelle offrent une protection égale, de l’autre, ils ne sont pas prêts à accepter de considérer ceux qui se sont remis d’une infection comme déjà immunisés. En fait, les données d’une étude réelle indiquent que l’infection naturelle suscite de bien meilleures réponses immunitaires et une meilleure protection », a déclaré le professeur Das.
Réitérant sa position antérieure selon laquelle Omicron est “une aubaine déguisée” car il s’est propagé dans plus de 90 pays, mais la majorité des patients présentent des symptômes bénins qui ressemblent à un vaccin, il a déclaré : “En aucun cas, je suggère de être infecté. Il faut suivre toutes les précautions et directives fournies par les agences gouvernementales. Mais, il ne faut pas paniquer.
“L’OMS crée une panique inutile. Ils n’ont pas alerté alors que c’était effectivement nécessaire. En décembre 2019, l’OMS, bien qu’elle sache que le COVID-19 se propageait rapidement depuis Wuhan, a assuré à plusieurs reprises qu’il n’y avait rien à craindre et a conseillé d’autoriser tous les voyages, etc. En raison de l’ignorance de l’OMS, de nombreuses vies ont été perdues », a déclaré le Dr Das.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has relied solely on vaccination to fight Omicron, the highly infectious new variant of Sars_Cov_2. Until now, this international public health advisory body has completely ignored the importance of natural antibodies in its advice from time to time.
When a person naturally recovers from Covid-19, they develop natural immunity against the virus that causes the disease. The scientific studies available to date have shown that natural antibodies offer the best long-lasting protection compared to all available vaccines. Although, in none of its opinions issued so far, the WHO has acknowledged any of these studies for giving weight to natural versus vaccine-acquired immunity. A section of health experts in India doubt the impartial and fair role of the WHO in the fight against Covid-19.
“Since the start of the pandemic, the role of the WHO has been questionable. His obsession with vaccines is questionable,” said Dr Sanjay Rai, Professor, Department of Community Medicine, AIIMS, Delhi.
Dr Rai, who is also the President of the Indian Public Health Association, points to the technical notes that the WHO publishes from time to time after the start of the pandemic and says that the bias against natural immunity is quite obvious. in these communications. .
For example, in a scientific note published on April 24, 2020, the WHO had rejected suggestions by some governments that people who had naturally recovered from Covid-19 should receive an “immunity passport” or “certificate”. without risk”. travel because they were protected against reinfection.
“At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence on the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to warrant the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘certificate without risk,” the WHO said.
More than a year later, when many scientific studies proved the importance of natural immunity to offer better protection compared to vaccines, the WHO, in its scientific brief of May 10, 2021, declared that the vaccination and natural infection provide similar protection.
“Although rarely reported to date, reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 can occur. Four large studies from the UK, USA and Denmark estimated that SARS-CoV-2 infection provided 80-90% protection against re-infection for up to 7 months and up to 94% protection against symptomatic disease,” the WHO said. tenuous.
Despite this, he concluded by saying: “Available tests and current knowledge do not tell us about the duration of immunity and protection against reinfection, but recent evidence suggests that natural infection may provide protection. similar against symptomatic disease as vaccination, at least for available follow-up. -up period.
Dr Rai says that if the WHO was of the opinion that the vaccine and natural infection offer similar protection, then “why did it not recommend that people cured naturally should not need any vaccine?”
More surprising is the position of the WHO in its technical note dated November 27, 2021, entitled “Improving Omicron (B.1.1.529) preparedness in the WHO South East Asia region”.
Completely ignoring the importance of natural immunity in the fight against Omicron, he said: “The increase in vaccination coverage against COVID-19 in all eligible age groups, but in particular in the elderly, healthcare workers and others at high risk of serious illness should be prioritized. by public health authorities. »
Dr Rai said these memoirs not only show that the WHO disregards a higher form of immunity just to promote vaccination. “If everyone is vaccinated, then the evidence for the superiority of natural immunity will disappear on its own. It’s really unfortunate.”
Dr Amitav Banerjee, Head of Department of Community Medicine, Dr DY Patil Medical College, Pune agrees with Dr Rai and said that in the latest technical brief dated 27 November 2021, WHO should also have said that those who have recovered naturally don’t need to be vaccinated.
Real-world population studies conducted in Israel after the rollout of vaccination have established that such naturally acquired immunity is 13 times more robust than that induced by vaccines. Translating this into practice, we can say that a person who has recovered from a natural infection has already received 13 reminders! Why can’t the WHO see this and include it in their advice?” Banerjee said.
He added: “It is common sense, even if we ignore the science, which is all too common in this pandemic. Whoever catches the infection harbors the whole virus for about 13 days in the body. The vaccine tries to mimic this by injecting a dose of an attenuated part of the virus or with a newly developed gene-based vaccine that stimulates the body to produce only part of the viral component – the spike protein. A double injection of the vaccine and a booster makes three, not thirteen!
Dr Banerjee regrets that common sense, science and social epidemiology are neglected by the WHO and global policy makers, “and models based on inert numbers from the West are projected into Asian and African countries with different transmission dynamics”.
Professor Gobardhan Das, a well-known immunologist associated with the Special Center for Molecular Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru University, also believes that by issuing alerts and making sensational statements, the WHO is creating a panic situation while this n is not necessary.
“It seems WHO is confused. On the one hand, they say that the vaccine and natural immunity provide equal protection, on the other, they are not ready to agree to consider those who have recovered from an infection as already immune. In fact, data from an actual study indicates that natural infection elicits much better immune responses and protection,” Professor Das said.
Reiterating his earlier position that Omicron is “a godsend in disguise” as it has spread to more than 90 countries, but the majority of patients have mild symptoms that resemble a vaccine, he said: “In no way do I suggests getting infected. One should follow all precautions and guidelines provided by government agencies. But, one should not panic.
“The WHO is creating unnecessary panic. They did not alert when it was indeed necessary. In December 2019, the WHO, despite knowing that COVID-19 was spreading rapidly from Wuhan, assured many times that there was nothing to fear and advised to allow all travel etc. Due to WHO’s ignorance many lives were lost,” Dr Das said.
<!-- Google Tag Manager -->
new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s),
<!-- End Google Tag Manager -->
The pandemic which is turning the world upside down is dramatically changing the way we live and consider our travel and living conditions. We know that the deep upheavals of the ecosystem are causing and will lead to more pathogenic phenomena, calling us to be more vigilant in our living conditions.
In this post-pandemic period, many people now prefer to take their vacations in airy places, a little isolated, close or in nature. Small units are preferred for reasons of promiscuity. Mi Casa responds precisely to this trend.
1- A natural environment, excluding pollution. 2- An airy distribution of rooms & villas over a large area. 3- Many isolated places of relaxation and catering. 4- Controlled hygiene. 5- Easy traffic and low promiscuity in common areas.
Thus you are assured of having a minimum of interference with the other occupants, and preserving social distancing in a relaxed atmosphere.
A green getaway. There is always a piece of heaven on earth. If you miss nature, know that nature miss you. The place of man is where he flourished. Rediscover the simple joys, the moments of contemplation which remind us that we are above all a masterpiece of nature. While fleeing in the cities, we hurt our planet. Come, and dream a little, near a waterfall, among the flowers, plants, orchids, mixing your thoughts with the songs of a river and birds. A moment with friends, you and nature.
DIRECT BOOKING CALL or WA (62)813-3147-6879
VILLA GARDEN VIEW (up to 6 guests in 2 BR)
FEBRUARY -1 night 1,100,000rp – 2 nights 1,800,000rp
VILLA RIVER VIEW (5 guests in 2 BD)
FEBRUARY -1 night 1,000,000rp – 2 nights 1,600,000rp
Cela faisait longtemps qu’on ne l’avait plus vu dans les médias : l’épidémiologiste Laurent Toubiana a relevé “le Défi de la vérité” ce matin, peu avant la conférence de presse d’Olivier Véran. Après avoir longtemps prêché dans le désert, le chercheur à l’Inserm fait son retour à un moment “où la compréhension du phénomène évolue dans la population”. “Le fait de répéter ce que je disais au tout début a un relief différent. C’est pour ça que je reviens aujourd’hui, parce que l’histoire recommence. […] Comme disait Karl Marx “la première fois c’est une tragédie, la deuxième fois c’est une farce. Aujourd’hui, nous en sommes à la cinquième farce.”
United States: Nebraska breaks taboo and authorizes early treatment
Publié le 28/10/2021 à 21:34
Doug Peterson conducted a full-scale investigation Twitter DP
Thunderclap in the State of Nebraska! A careful investigation led by Attorney General Doug Peterson denounces the fraudulent practices of the behemoths of the pharmaceutical industry and the questionable links with regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC). After having analyzed at length the many scientific studies on early treatments and observed the action of these molecules against Covid 19, he gives doctors the freedom to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
At the request of the Nebraska State Department of Health, on October 15, Attorney General (equivalent to Nebraska State Minister of Justice) Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion that doctors can legally prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for treatment against Sars-CoV-2, provided the informed consent of the patient is obtained.
A careful investigation that preceded the decision
Few topics have sparked as much controversy as early treatment with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, two inexpensive and long-standing drugs, widely used with success in many parts of the world for the prevention and treatment of Covid 19. These two molecules unleashed passions. To lose the reason. The publications are numerous and some doctors still administer them in the United States, even if the regulatory agencies still do not recommend these two drugs while some practitioners are sued for having prescribed them.
Despite this situation, some scientists have published studies in which they provided evidence of effectiveness and the media coverage of some of them showing good results led Dannette Smith, head of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services ( Uniform Credencial Act) to ask the Attorney General’s office whether doctors could prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
Before making his findings, prosecutor Doug Peterson took the time to conduct a real investigation into these early treatments. For this, he chose to limit his conclusions to the two molecules most used in the world, namely hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, without excluding the possibility that other unauthorized drugs could prove to be promising in prophylaxis or in treatment against Sars-CoV-2.
During his investigation, he began by taking an interest in the famous article published in the Lancet which denounced the dangerousness of hydroxychloroquine in May 2020. By the discovery of erroneous statistics fabricated by authors who refused to provide analyzed data, he understands that this study is fraudulent. A fraud also recognized by the editor in person who admitted that the article was a “fabrication”, a “monumental fraud” and a “shocking example of research misconduct” in the midst of a global health emergency. Unfortunately, despite the retraction of the authors and the media coverage of its withdrawal, the damage was done since several countries were going to stop treating with this molecule and many clinical trials were canceled or interrupted.
Returning to previous clinical studies, the prosecutor continues his investigation by analyzing a 2004 laboratory study which revealed that chloroquine was “an effective inhibitor of the replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in vitro” and that for this action, it should “be considered for immediate use in the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV infections”. In 2005, a new clinical trial showed that chloroquine had potent antiviral effects against SARS-CoV infection and was effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV in cell cultures.
Citing similar results regarding hydroxychloroquine – a derivative less toxic than chloroquine – widely used since its approval by the FDA in 1955 for the treatment of malaria, he cites several studies showing that hydroxychloroquine not only exhibits capable antiviral properties. inhibit the entry, transmission and replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but also anti-inflammatory, which help to regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines.
On the possible side effects of hydroxychloroquine, he is very reassuring after reading the reports of a group of researchers who conducted a review which found that people who take hydroxychloroquine in appropriate doses “are at very low risk of experiencing adverse cardiac effects, particularly when administration is short-term”.
Indeed, concerns about the safety of this drug are largely due to erroneous data from the fraudulent Lancet study which incorrectly claimed that hydroxychloroquine increased the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for the treatment of Covid. . The researchers recalled in passing that the Covid itself can cause heart problems, and that there was no reason to believe that this drug had changed after 70 years of widespread use and that it could even be prescribed to pregnant women.
On hydroxychloroquine, Mr Peterson wrote that “numerous large observational studies suggest that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death when given to ambulatory patients particularly at high risk in early treatment of COVID-19 ”and that based on its review of the evidence, his office did not find clear and convincing evidence that would justify preventing doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine for the disease. prevention or early treatment of Covid, after obtaining the informed consent of the patient “.
The same investigative work is being done for ivermectin.
Its investigation is not limited to the only American territory since its conclusions also relate to data coming from various states, countries or regions of the world. To do this, it draws on studies from a group of academics who compared the figures for Covid patients from countries that routinely administer ivermectin for prophylaxis and figures from countries that do not. These researchers showed that there was “a highly significant correlation in a global context but also by comparing” African countries which regularly administer ivermectin against parasitic infections as prophylaxis and African countries which do not. ” Based on these positive results, the researchers speculated that these results could be related to the ability of ivermectin to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely results in lower infection rates. “
If he began research on verifying the effectiveness of ivermectin against Sars-CoV-2, the prosecutor then went back a few years to find clinical studies that confirmed the antiviral activity of ivermectin. against several RNA viruses by blocking nuclear trafficking of viral proteins.
Struck by the drug’s effectiveness, Attorney General Peterson is also checking the findings of studies on side effects and finding them to be minimal and transient. The latest statistics available through VigiAccess report only 5,674 adverse reactions to ivermectin between 1992 and October 13, 2021, an “incredibly low” number considering that 3.7 billion doses have since been administered. the 1980s, writes Peterson.
As he had done for hydroxychloroquine, Doug Peterson examines the scientific studies with negative results and finds that they contain a great deal of perceptual bias and fraudulent elements. He points in particular to studies on ivermectin which have shown negative results by providing “flawed data which present unsubstantiated claims about adverse reactions” and those which excluded “most of the available evidence”.
From this very careful investigation, the opinion of the Attorney General, based on an assessment of the relevant scientific literature, was issued. He found that most publications showed very significant results for these two drugs since mortality would be reduced by 75% or more when the molecule is used as part of early treatment or sometimes as prophylaxis.
An authorization that comes under the reminder of Nebraska law
While early treatments including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are allowed, the Attorney General’s office stresses that it is not up to him to recommend treatment against Covid 19 in particular. However, allowing them to prescribe allows doctors to evaluate other lifesaving tools, preventing patients from being hospitalized, which will take the strain off the already strained healthcare system.
These authorizations are accompanied by a series of warnings to physicians, in particular the obligation to obtain the informed consent of their patient and warnings against the prescription of excessively high doses, reminding that these faults could be the subject of disciplinary measures.
The attitude of the authorities singled out by the prosecutor
Nothing escapes the eye of prosecutor Doug Peterson who, after a positive opinion on these two molecules, calls on the FDA and Dr.Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIH), on their hypocritical attitudes not hesitating to denounce the inconsistencies of their statements.
When on August 29, Dr Anthony Fauci announced on CNN that there was “no clinical evidence” of the efficacy of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of Covid, the prosecutor wrote that “this definitive statement contradicts directly the recognition by the NIH that “several randomized trials … published in peer-reviewed journals” have reported data indicating that ivermectin is effective as a treatment for COVID-19 “.
For this, he returns to the change in attitude of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which now adopts a neutral attitude by proposing no standard of recommendation or non-recommendation – a change from its position of January 2021 where it advised against the use of the drug for the treatment of Covid.
About this he writes :
“The reason for this change is that the NIH has acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective cohort studies of the use of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 have been published in peer-reviewed journals. And some of these studies have reported positive results, including a shorter time for resolution of disease symptoms that have been attributed to Covid-19, greater reduction in levels of inflammatory markers, shorter time for clearance. viral, and lower death rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received another medication or placebo.”
The insecurity of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the ivermectin file is also exposed when taking advantage of the stories of people who had used the animal form of ivermectin, the FDA, on one of its pages web, had not hesitated to condemn any use of ivermectin to treat Covid 19, acknowledging on this same page that it had not reviewed the data to support the use of ivermectin in patients with Covid 19. Therefore, “we do not see on what basis the FDA relied to denounce ivermectin as a treatment or prophylaxis of Covid-19” wrote the prosecutor.
On that same web page, the FDA said: “Ivermectin is not an antiviral,” which contradicts another of its web pages which cited a study in Antiviral Research that identified ivermectin as a drug ‘which Broad spectrum antiviral activity has already been demonstrated. ” The prosecutor said in passing that the FDA has since removed the line indicating that ivermectin is “not ‘antiviral”.
Finally, Doug Peterson returns to the FDA’s most controversial statement when on August 21, it posted a link on Twitter to its “Why You Shouldn’t Use Lvermectin” webpage with this statement: “You are not. not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, everyone. Stop that. ” Peterson denounces “disturbing message not only because the FDA takes a serious matter lightly, but also because it inaccurately suggests that ivermectin is only for horses or cows”.
In general, he deplores the attitude of this regulatory agency which ignores several randomized controlled trials and at least one meta-analysis which concludes that ivermectin is effective against Covid 19. He also regrets that the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have taken a similar stance – unsupported by scientific evidence – and that the media has fueled confusion and misinformation about this drug.
Links of interest between regulatory agencies, professional associations and pharmaceutical companies
The American & nbsp; and international trade associations have issued unfavorable opinions on ivermectin. Relying solely on the suspect positions of the FDA and CDC, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Pharmacists Association (APHA) and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) published in September a statement strongly opposing the ordering, prescribing or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of a clinical trial.
In their statements, these associations referred to a statement by Merck – the original patent holder – opposing the use of ivermectin for Covid due to a “worrying lack of safety data in the majority of studies “.
When asked why the original patent holder for ivermectin would go to great lengths to question this drug by giving the impression that it might not be sure, the prosecutor sees two plausible reasons:
“Firstly, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck no longer benefits from it. This probably explains why Merck refused to ‘conduct trials clinics’ on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the opportunity. “
” Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as a treatment early stage of COVID-19. [The US government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $ 1.2 billion for 1.7 million doses of its investigational COVID-19 treatment, if it is proven to work in a large-scale trial by course and if cleared by US regulators. “
Merck’s treatment is known as “molnupiravir” and is aimed at preventing the progression of COVID when given at an early stage of the disease. When Merck announced on October 1 that preliminary studies showed molnupiravir halved hospitalizations and deaths, the drugmaker’s share price immediately jumped 12.3%.
“So if cheap ivermectin works better than molnupiravir, or even the same way, it could cost Merck billions of dollars,” Peterson wrote.
Very favorable reactions to the decision of prosecutor Doug Peterson
In admiration of the work done, Robert Kennedy said, “We finally have a leader who places constitutional rights, peer-reviewed science and human health above the profits of industry. Doug Peterson is unwavering and unwavering – a true “hero on horseback” for all Americans “.
“Every citizen – Democrat or Republican – should be thankful for Doug Peterson’s thoughtful and courageous counteroffensive against the efforts of Big Pharma, its captive federal regulators, and their allies in media and social media to silence doctors. and deny Americans life-saving treatments, ”Robert F. Kennedy Jr, president of Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender by email.
Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland echoed the doctors’ mission: “This advice from the Attorney General of Nebraska allows doctors to become doctors again, without being subject to the influence of government, pharmacists and other people who interfere in the crucial relationship between doctor and patient ”.
This crisis has placed doctors in working conditions that break with the normal mode of care which enshrines freedom of prescription. This freedom, far from being new, has always been enshrined in the highest instances such as the Supreme Court of the United States, which has affirmed that “the use not indicated on the label of medical devices” is an “accepted and necessary practice”. And the FDA has maintained this position for decades that “a physician may prescribe a drug for uses or in treatment regimens or patient populations that are not included in the approved labeling.”
By opposing the economic model of the global pharmaceutical giants and the regulatory agencies that respond more to the demands of financial markets than to public health concerns, Attorney General Doug Peterson is giving medicine back its full place in a reasonable approach to its health. practice.