WASHINGTON, D.C. – We appreciate the interest from the Washington Post in the use of ivermectin as a safe and effective preventative and treatment for COVID-19. However, the article published yesterday left out several key components of the complete story of how ivermectin is saving lives all over the world. These include the overwhelming amount of data on ivermectin, the consequences of the prohibitive approach by the government agencies, observations in clinical settings and the censorship of well-respected medical and scientific experts.

The amount of data supporting the efficacy of ivermectin is irrefutable. The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel, following World Health Organization guidelines for meta-analysis of data, has recommended its use both to prevent and treat COVID-19. In so doing, they followed evidence that included seven controlled trials on over 2,600 patients to conclude that ivermectin both reduces the risk of infection and the risk of bad outcomes for those who get infected. Additionally, a soon to be published peer reviewed study concluded that ivermectin should be the standard of care for preventing and treating COVID-19. To reach this conclusion, the study’s authors conducted the most extensive review to date of ivermectin trials.

Rather than completely taking the recommendation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at face value, it is our hope that journalists will begin to raise questions around the sudden restrictive approach that the agency is taking in requiring an unprecedented number of expensive clinical trials before recommending a drug for treating COVID-19. Their actions set a precedent that will likely prevent any drug from being repurposed unless it presents a high enough profit margin to make the additional clinical trials worth the investment from a corporate sponsor. In other words, trials are quite expensive making the approval of drugs to be first based on their ability to turn a profit before being submitted for approval. The original intent of the approval, their ability to safely provide a viable public health solution, falls to second place.

The patients who have shared their stories with how ivermectin helped them or a loved one are just a small representation of the thousands of people around the world who have benefited from ivermectin in allowing them to make a full recovery from COVID-19. These success stories include doctors and nurses who themselves were plagued by severe or lingering symptoms from COVID-19 that rapidly resolved soon after taking ivermectin. Although, not scientific evidence, these patients will hardly describe their situations as “anecdotal” as the article states. Moreover, we are confident that, if asked, all of them would disagree with the sentiment that they “would have recovered eventually” as also started in the article.

Curiously missing from the story was the censorship of medical and scientific professionals who have conducted unbiased research on the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in preventing and treating COVID-19. Many of these experts have had their work unpublished, they have been de-platformed from social media and some even threatened with jail time. The work of these heroes is helping to prevent suffering and loss of life, yet they are treated as if they are committing a crime. This only puts further limitations on our ability to end the pandemic and lessen the loss of life. It seems reasonable to dig deeper into this issue to find out why a scientist cannot share the evidence of peer-reviewed research for the good of all if it might not agree with the current opinion of other medical authorities that do not have the ability to conduct research in a manner as efficiently as other research institutions.

We hope that in the future members of the media will explore the many facets of the current state of affairs with not only ivermectin, but with other promising treatments for COVID-19. If it is true that the virus is here to stay, we are going to need all the help we can get and not rely solely on medical solutions that prove to meet a certain profit threshold to make an unnecessarily high number of trials worth the investment. Additionally, it is misleading to dismiss first-hand accounts of clinicians and patients who have seen the power of ivermectin in their own work. The job of scientists is to always ask questions and explore the evidence for the answers. Journalists have a similar job description. It is our hope that we will both stay true to our professional commitments to the public.

About the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
The FLCCC Alliance was organized in March 2020 by a group of highly published, world renowned Critical Care physician/scholars – with the academic support of allied physicians from around the world – to research and develop lifesaving protocols for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in all stages of illness. Their MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol, introduced in March 2020, has saved thousands of patients who were critically ill with COVID-19. Now, the FLCCC’s new I-Mask+ Prophylaxis and Early At-Home Outpatient Treatment Protocol with Ivermectin has been released – and is a potential solution to the global pandemic.

Ik ga het niet eens proberen uit te leggen...als je dat niet snapt

Van paniek

Waarom, vraagt deze man zich af

Vrouwlief is vanmiddag onverwacht getest. In het zorgcentrum was een bewoner vertrokken naar een andere instelling. Bij die instelling is hij getest en positief bevonden. Gevolg dat het hele zorgcentrum, waar vrouwlief werkt, getest moet worden.

Nu maar afwachten wat morgen het resultaat is. Voor zondag heeft ze een afspraak voor de inenting met het Pfizervaccin. Woensdag heb ik een afspraak voor dezelfde injectie.

Met die testsamenleving en nieuw testbeleid en van alles wat nog opgezet moet worden en ook nog geëvalueerd; zit dat de versoepelingen niet in de weg dan

Acht vakantiegangers op proefreis naar Rhodos in quarantaine, vier mogelijk besmet met coronavirus

Acht van de reizigers die met Sunweb op proefvakantie zijn op Rhodos zijn in quarantaine gegaan. Dat maakte Sunweb bekend. Vier van hen zijn mogelijk besmet met het coronavirus. Uit de PCR-test van vrijdag kon volgens Sunweb niet met zekerheid worden gezegd of deze reizigers positief of negatief waren.

ze sluiten je gewoon op op je hotelkamer

quarantaine

betekent afzondering, in isolatie gaan betekent opgesloten worden

Moeten naar ander hotel

Ze werden in een aparte vleugel van het hotel geplaatst. Later op de dag volgde opnieuw een test. De kamergenoten van de vier bleven uit voorzorg ook in quarantaine.

alle vakantiegangers mochten het hotel al niet uit

waar heb je dat weg ?

Non-profit EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, received a taxpayer-funded bailout in February 2021.

The bailout was the second received by EcoHealth since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. After receiving $738,861 in a bailout in May 2020, EcoHealth got an additional $719,570 in February of this year, according to a new report from watchdog group Whitecoat Waste.

The bailout funds were a part of federal COVID-19 relief packages passed under both the Trump and Biden administrations.

EcoHealth Alliance head Peter Daszak was the only American member of the China-led World Health Organization Team dispatched to China to search for the origin of COVID-19. Daszak has a past involving dangerous gain-of-function research on bat-based coronaviruses, which some have speculated could have played a role in a potential lab-leak origin of the pandemic.

A complaint filed in March alleged that EcoHealth violated federal law by not disclosing its taxpayer funding. As for Daszak, it was revealed earlier in 2021 that he hid his involvement in organizing a pro-China, anti-lab-leak statement early in the coronavirus pandemic. (RELATED: Can The WHO’s COVID-19 Investigation Be Trusted? Some Experts Say No)



Just weeks before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Daszak publicly discussed how easy it is to manipulate bat-based viruses in a lab setting, and detailed his prior work on the subject. As a member of the WHO investigative team, Daszak helped convince fellow investigators that a trove of missing data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was irrelevant to their search for the origins of COVID-19.

Due to its history of helping move U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth has been a key part of the lab-leak origin hypothesis, which posits that COVID-19 was leaked due to a lab accident after being manipulated for gain-of-function research. (RELATED: Did Coronavirus Come From A Lab? Ten Key Takeaways From A Shocking New Report)

The WHO has walked back early claims that the lab-leak theory should be ruled out, and a growing number of government officials and media figures have expressed interest in the theory as a possible explanation for the pandemic.

Dashcam Drenthe schreef:
Noem eens 1 onwaarheid in mijn stuk met goede onderbouwing.

Ik weet al hoe dat afloopt.. Er komt niets.

Wat structureel wordt genegeerd zijn de actuele ziekenhuisopnames

Je snapt er echt helemaal niets van

Dus de grote groep daaronder kan gewoon vrijgelaten worden.

Het virus gaat niet van mensen onder de 60 naar mensen boven de 60?

is de economie helemaal niet zo kapot.

Als de huizenprijzen met 15% in het zelfde jaar kunnen stijgen, is de economie helemaal niet zo kapot.

Wat structureel wordt genegeerd zijn de actuele ziekenhuisopnames.

Morgen invoering max 50 km p/u. Want dan vermindering ziekenhuisopnames. Niets anders telt.

15%

En nu gaan wij lopen janken uuh ziekenhuizen zitten vol.

Probleem van personeel is, dat je niet zomaar een blik

opleidingseisen

dat dacht ik al, geen onderbouwing

Hebben we nu meer of minder maatregelen dan een jaar geleden.

Waarom dan?

Wij stonden erbij en keken ernaar..

Sorry, had je even gemist

Ziekenhuizen ligger voller.

knap voorgerekend maar niet heus