The Montserrat Reporter

Contribution 129/21 # 20

Is there an alternative to a quarrel of the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed, with the latter being blamed for the onward spreading of the epidemic?  (Can we travel to Montserrat without being forced to take vaccines?)

BRADES, Montserrat, September 17, 2021 – The breaking news on Friday, September 17 was that “the recently announced policy by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda requiring all arriving passengers to be COVID-19 vaccinated (at least partially), also applies to persons in transit to and from Montserrat.”^[1] It further seems that the acceptable vaccines for this are those used in Antigua, i.e. [1] AstraZeneca Vaccine, [2] Sputnik V from Russia, [3] Pfizer (though that obviously may be adjusted, e.g. Moderna, etc.).  This goes with the linked issuing of “vaccine passports” by Antigua, complete with QR codes that tie in with files on each vaxxed person. The only relief is the assurance that “the current arrangement for the acceptance of medical emergencies from Montserrat will remain unchanged.” Premier Farrell of Montserrat, has suggested the need for another gateway for travel to Montserrat. This cluster of developments, therefore, poses significant challenges for Montserratians wishing to travel who have concerns about vaccination, and about our onward relationship with Antigua.

A first concern is that here at TMR, we have already seen from the mainstream, official and credible sources, that both the vaxxed and unvaxxed can catch Covid-19 and can spread it, also both may suffer serious hospitalisation and adverse events.

Where, while for the moment the unvaxxed dominate in hospitalisation in our region including Antigua, in places like Israel – one of the most widely vaxxed countries in the world, some 80% – by August 15^th, 59% of those with serious or critical cases were “fully vaccinated,” and there are suggestions that a month later, the proportion is even higher.  This is the main reason why Israel has pushed for a third jab, and millions of Israelis have already taken it.^[3] The UK and USA are now beginning to follow that lead.

Similarly, the vaxxed are tested on arrival here and are quarantines, precisely because we know they can catch and transmit the disease. This reflects the “leaky,” “non-sterilising” nature of these vaccines, which do not reliably stop a new infection cold. There is also a challenge that the degree of protection rapidly fades after perhaps six months. Hence, talk of not only the third jab but of an onward train of jabs every year or even every six months.

So, plainly, there is only a questionable basis for discrimination based on the idea that vaccine protection makes such a difference that the travel bans and other coercive measures are justified. For instance, an eighteen-member FDA advisory panel in the USA just voted not to go for the third jab across the board,^[4] because of a lack of data and apparently also in part influenced by the known issue of heart damage for young men. As AP reported:

“. . . the advisory panel rejected 16-2, boosters for almost everyone. Members cited a lack of safety data on extra doses and also raised doubts about the value of mass boosters, rather than ones targeted to specific groups. Then, in an 18-0 vote, it endorsed extra shots for people 65 and older and those at risk of serious disease. Panel members also agreed that health workers and others who run a high risk of being exposed to the virus on the job should get boosters, too.”

Antigua’s authorities should be politely asked to explain the travel ban given the facts of breakthrough infection and concerns about known risks and long-term potential side effects.

A second concern is hardly less serious, and can be seen from the Antigua Vaccine Passport:

For, the use of a QR code means that camera-using scanners with network access can immediately connect to detailed stores of information called databases and can then draw out details on one’s health history, other personal information, financial facts, where one has gone, what one has done, etc. Of course, this can then be used to block entry or block one’s ability to buy or sell and more. That is, this feature is therefore a dangerous move towards what we can call the spy-and-control state.  Or, in terms of a well-known Bible text that warns of the dangers of such centralised control and discriminatory action against dissenters:

“Rev 13:16 [The second beast, from the Land] also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the [first] beast [from the Sea] or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666 [= Nero Caesar, first Roman Emperor to attack and persecute the church].” [NIV]

The Rev 13:16 – 17 concerns are obviously highly relevant: we are here seeing a rise of centralised, government control that can all too easily be exerted on where one may go, whether s/he can make a living, even what one may or may not buy. That is too much power for anyone to safely handle.

But, is there an alternative to pushing or even mandating vaccines to prevent a disaster that overwhelms our health services and wrecks our economy?

Yes, to see it, let’s compare Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, India, with their sister state, Kerala. Then, onward, with the USA:

By making aggressive, widespread early use of Ivermectin, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi were able to control and suppress the Delta strain surge and have now reduced new cases and deaths to very low numbers, despite having perhaps 6% of people there vaccinated. This included, for example, giving every family member of a house where a case occurred, preventative doses. Kerala instead, refused to make early use of Ivermectin then stopped it altogether. So, just as in the USA, case numbers did not dramatically fall there.

Let us look at trends with Uttar Pradesh (241 million) vs the USA (333 million), similarly:

This effect of widespread, early Ivermectin use has also occurred elsewhere, but that is being marginalised or even dismissed. But, it is clear from such data that there are low-cost, effective, credible treatments that should be used alongside targeted vaccinations and other measures.

Covid-19 is a solvable problem, solvable without resorting to drastic coercion and polarisation against the unvaxxed.  That is going to require that we re-think the heavily promoted conventional wisdom and shift to a balanced approach, involving preventative dosing of those at risk, early treatments, and vaccines. Such re-thinking is obviously a challenge but it is one we should face.

[1] See GoM https://www.gov.ms/2021/09/17/antiguas-vaccination-travel-policy-also-applies-to-in-transit-passengers-to-montserrat/?fbclid=IwAR1kb8zkZKDMY50Kq-aKfhuXaGZBxZVruzQGy1iiJyNAa_HVF7oCQPIWwuI#

[2] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/losing-patience-with-the-unvaxxed-vs-playing-with-the-fire-of-leaky-vaccines/

[3] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/

[4] See https://apnews.com/article/fda-panel-rejects-widespread-pfizer-booster-shots-1cd1cf6a5c5c02b63f8a7324807a59f1?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

Contribution 128/‘21 # 20)

Have we put the cart before the horse with this pandemic, as leaky vaxxes can trigger the rapid spread of more dangerous strains? (And so, back to the value of Ivermectin.)

BRADES, Montserrat, September 12, 2021 – It is clear that some health authorities and governments across the Caribbean and wider world are beginning to “lose patience” with the not vaccinated. Such are widely viewed as misinformed, as idiotic,^[1] stubborn, led by armchair instigators, as a dangerous source of spreading the pandemic, even as irresponsible and antisocial. Street talk and social media buzz show that some here in Montserrat are catching the impatience fever. We need to cool down the temperature and show why effective treatments such as Ivermectin are a key strategy.

For, there is a Marek’s Disease Virus^[2] shaped reason why Pfizer’s CEO recently touted his bright shiny new pill and finally publicly admitted that “Success against #COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments.”^[3]For, here in Montserrat, across the region and the world, we are playing with the fire of “leaky,” “non-sterilising” vaccines.

The case of Marek’s Disease Virus in chickens – yes, chickens – tells us why.

Andrew F Read et al. let the cat out of the bag,  in PLOS Biology, back in July 2015^[4]:

“Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could . . .  allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek’s disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains . . . . When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist . . . [W]e report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease.”

The article also notes that:

“Efficacy and mode of action are key. If [a] vaccine is sterilizing, so that transmission is stopped, no evolution can occur. But if it is non-sterilizing, so that naturally acquired pathogens can transmit from immunized individuals (what we hereafter call a “leaky” vaccine), virulent strains will be able to circulate in situations in which natural selection would have once removed them . . .” 

It is of course obvious that local, regional and international officials recognise that the major Covid-19 vaccines (including the AstraZeneca used in Montserrat) are “non-sterilising.” That’s why the vaccinated have continued to be tested and quarantined. That’s why they must still wear face masks and do social distancing etc. That’s why it is admitted they can catch and infect others with the disease, though it is believed that the vaccines reduce the intensity of the disease. And, it is why, with Delta strain on the loose, we see significant numbers of cases where the “fully vaccinated” are becoming seriously ill or worse with Covid-19. So, again, as a recent report on Israel (which is now pushing third jabs) noted^[5]:

“As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 . . . 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,”  says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) . . . “One of the big stories from Israel is:

‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’” [“A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta” Science Mag dot Org, August 16, 2021.]

In short, those who are “losing patience” with the unvaxxed have put the cart before the horse and are sliding into blaming the victim.

It was obvious from the beginning that the major anti-Covid-19 vaccines were “leaky” or “non-sterilising.” The researchers, regulators, and officials all knew that. We can take it to the bank that they knew about the Marek Virus evidence, that leaky vaxxes can turn the vaxxed into reservoirs for more dangerous, more infectious, fast-spreading strains than would naturally have come about. So, we know one reason they are desperate to get everyone jabbed, they fear a  truly lethal breakout strain, let’s call it Delta-plus. But we are not locked up in such a dilemma. There is the Ivermectin-based treatment option that should have been vigorously pushed as the treatment arm of our pandemic strategy for many months now.

But, someone following the WHO-FDA talking points,^[6] may say, there’s no scientific evidence of that.

False, irresponsibly, destructively, inexcusably false, with lives on the line.

For one example, here are Omura et al from Japan, in a review article published in March this year^[7] – yes, six months ago:

 “As of the 30th  of January 2021, a total of 91 trials in 27 countries has been recorded at these registration sites. There are 43 trials in phase 3 and 27 trials in phase 2, along with 17 observational studies. This includes 80 trials being conducted for therapeutic purposes and 11 for the purpose of preventing the onset of disease in close contacts and healthcare professionals. Furthermore,  by the 27th of February, the results of 42  clinical trials,  including approximately 15,000 patients (both registered and unregistered studies) have been subjected to a meta-analysis after exclusion of biasing factors. It was found that 83% showed improvements with early treatment,  51%  improved during late-stage treatment, and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted. This confirms the usefulness of ivermectin. Since it is a meta-analysis based on 42 test results, it is estimated that the probability of this comprehensive judgment being a mistake is as low  as one  in  four  trillion.” [The Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 74-1. Ivermectin emerged from research done in Japan.]

Investors and gamblers would salivate over an opportunity to bet with odds of four million, millions to one in favour of success. That is far more than adequate, robust scientific evidence to allow physicians to prescribe Ivermectin as a preventative, as a treatment to stamp out early-stage Covid-19, and even as part of protocols for seriously ill patients.^[8] Those who have pretended otherwise have done the world a grave disservice.

It is time for a fresh conversation and a fresh approach to taming the pandemic before it becomes an even more destructive immune escape monster, say, Delta-plus. That is going to require that we back away from the WHO-FDA talking points and recognise the evidence for and legitimacy of treatments based on repurposed, proved medications such as Ivermectin.

[1]TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/failing-the-horse-de-wormer-test/

[2] See https://extension.psu.edu/mareks-disease-in-chickens-description-and-prevention

[3] See https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1433024869168558081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[4] See PLOS Biology https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

[5] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/covid-19-vaccine-trends-concerns-and-misinformation/ see also https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta 

[6]See FLCCC point by point response https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CLEAN-FLCCC-STATEMENT-AGAINST-THE-GLOBAL-IVERMECTIN-DISINFORMATION-CAMPAIGN-5.11.2021.pdf

[7] See JJA http://jja-contents.wdc-jp.com/pdf/JJA74/74-1-open/74-1_44-95.pdf

[8] See https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/

Contribution 128/21 # 20 – (A special)

Have we put the cart before the horse with this pandemic, as leaky vaxxes can trigger the rapid spread of more dangerous strains? (And so, back to the value of Ivermectin.)

BRADES, Montserrat, September 12, 2021 – It is clear that some health authorities and governments across the Caribbean and wider world are beginning to “lose patience” with the not vaccinated. Such are widely viewed as misinformed, as idiotic,[1] stubborn, led by armchair instigators, as a dangerous source of spreading the pandemic, even as irresponsible and antisocial. Street talk and social media buzz show that some here in Montserrat are catching the impatience fever. We need to cool down the temperature and show why effective treatments such as Ivermectin are a key strategy.

For, there is a Marek’s Disease Virus[2] shaped reason why Pfizer’s CEO recently touted his bright shiny new pill and finally publicly admitted that “Success against #COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments.”[3] For, here in Montserrat, across the region and the world, we are playing with the fire of “leaky,” “non-sterilising” vaccines.

The case of Marek’s Disease Virus in chickens – yes, chickens – tells us why.

Andrew F Read et al. let the cat out of the bag,  in PLOS Biology, back in July 2015[4]:

“Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could . . .  allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek’s disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains . . . . When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist . . . [W]e report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease.”

The article also notes that:

“Efficacy and mode of action are key. If [a] vaccine is sterilising, so that transmission is stopped, no evolution can occur. But if it is non-sterilising, so that naturally acquired pathogens can transmit from immunized individuals (what we hereafter call a “leaky” vaccine), virulent strains will be able to circulate in situations in which natural selection would have once removed them . . .” 

It is of course obvious that local, regional and international officials recognise that the major Covid-19 vaccines (including the AstraZeneca used in Montserrat) are “non-sterilising.” That’s why the vaccinated have continued to be tested and quarantined. That’s why they must still wear face masks and do social distancing etc. That’s why it is admitted they can catch and infect others with the disease, though it is hoped that the vaccines reduce the intensity of the disease. And, it is why, with Delta strain on the loose, we see significant numbers of cases where the “fully vaccinated” are becoming seriously ill or worse with Covid-19. So, again, as a recent report on Israel (which is now pushing third jabs) noted[5]:

“As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 . . . 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,”  says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) . . . “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’” [“A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts but does not defeat Delta” Science Mag dot Org, August 16, 2021.]

In short, those who are “losing patience” with the unvaxxed have put the cart before the horse and are sliding into blaming the victim.

It was obvious from the beginning that the major anti-Covid-19 vaccines were “leaky” or “non-sterilising.” The researchers, regulators, and officials all knew that. We can take it to the bank that they knew about the Marek Virus evidence, that leaky vaxxes can turn the vaxxed into reservoirs for more dangerous, more infectious, fast-spreading strains than would naturally have come about. So, we know one reason they are desperate to get everyone jabbed, they fear a  truly lethal breakout strain, let’s call it Delta-plus. But we are not locked up in such a dilemma. There is the Ivermectin-based treatment option that should have been vigorously pushed as the treatment arm of our pandemic strategy for many months now.

But, someone following the WHO-FDA talking points,[6] may say, there’s no scientific evidence of that.

False, irresponsibly, destructively, inexcusably false, with lives on the line.

For one example, here are Omura et al from Japan, in a review article published in March this year[7] – yes, six months ago:

 “As of the 30th  of January 2021, a total of 91 trials in 27 countries has been recorded at these registration sites. There are 43 trials in phase 3 and 27 trials in phase 2, along with 17 observational studies. This includes 80 trials being conducted for therapeutic purposes and 11 for the purpose of preventing the onset of disease in close contacts and healthcare professionals. Furthermore,  by the  27th   of  February,  the results of  42  clinical trials,  including approximately 15,000 patients (both registered and unregistered studies) have been subjected to a meta-analysis after exclusion of biasing factors. It was found that 83% showed improvements with early treatment,  51%  improved during late-stage treatment, and there was an 89% prevention of onset rate noted. This confirms the usefulness of ivermectin. Since it is a meta-analysis based on 42 test results, it is estimated that the probability of this comprehensive judgment being a mistake is as low  as  1  in  4  trillion.” [The Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 74-1. Ivermectin emerged from research done in Japan.]

Investors and gamblers would salivate over an opportunity to bet with odds of four million, millions to one in favour of success. That is far more than adequate, robust scientific evidence to allow physicians to prescribe Ivermectin as a preventative, as a treatment to stamp out early-stage Covid-19, and even as part of protocols for seriously ill patients.[8] Those who have pretended otherwise have done the world a grave disservice.

[1]TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/failing-the-horse-de-wormer-test/

[2] See https://extension.psu.edu/mareks-disease-in-chickens-description-and-prevention

[3] See https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1433024869168558081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[4] See PLOS Biology https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

[5] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/covid-19-vaccine-trends-concerns-and-misinformation/ see also https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta 

[6]See FLCCC point by point response https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CLEAN-FLCCC-STATEMENT-AGAINST-THE-GLOBAL-IVERMECTIN-DISINFORMATION-CAMPAIGN-5.11.2021.pdf

[7] See JJA http://jja-contents.wdc-jp.com/pdf/JJA74/74-1-open/74-1_44-95.pdf

[8] See https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/

Contribution Part 126/21 # 18 (Special)

But, what does that suggest about the “bird already in the hand,” Ivermectin ?

BRADES, Montserrat, September 6, 2021 – According to a Sept 1, 2021, Reuters news feed,[1] “Pfizer Inc . . . and Merck & Co Inc . . .  announced . . .  new trials of their experimental oral antiviral drugs for COVID-19.” Reuters then continues: “ . . .  as the race to develop an easy-to-administer treatment for the potentially fatal illness heats up.” It seems, that Pfizer is testing effectiveness on 1,140 non-hospitalised patients “who are not at risk of severe illness.” Meanwhile, since July, Pfizer has been running another trial for patients “who are at high risk of becoming severely ill due to underlying health conditions such as diabetes.” Pfizer’s CEO, in a related tweet, stated that “Success against #COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments.”[2]

All of this is indeed progress towards hopefully effective treatment.

However, such an announcement immediately raises the bird in the hand question: Ivermectin.

To see some of its force, let us note how the above fits in with a response to Jamaica’s Health Minister by a signatory of the Jamaican Doctors’ May 20^th letter,[3] Charles Royes:

“Merck Pharmaceuticals, the original manufacturer of Ivermectin, no longer has a patent on production. They can no longer compete with low-cost manufacturers and have no financial interest in the drug. Instead, Merck has committed millions of dollars towards the development of another drug, Molnupiravir, which it hopes to market as a treatment for COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, Japan requested Merck to conduct clinical trials with Ivermectin and they declined.”

Plainly, if success against Covid-19 “will likely require both vaccines & treatments,” then, why was credible, adequate evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin[4] sidelined? And why is there a push to use disreputable tactics such as pushing the notion that it is horse deworming medicine . . . neatly omitting its Nobel Prize-winning performance against river blindness and evidence of antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects? Where, as that evidence was available in a key part in 2020, doesn’t that suggest that delays have cost us dear?

Of course, it has been convenient for many to dismiss that body of evidence as lacking credibility. The problem with that is, that in fact Ivermectin has been in use in several regions and has shown startling impact, on population-level data.

For just one example, as TMR discussed earlier,[5] here is the case of Slovakia – showing how case rates sharply taper off once Ivermectin was made widely available:

Similar patterns in Indonesia, India, Peru, and Mexico should give us pause before we take convenient dismissals at face value. Peru in particular gave the world a natural experiment across its 25 states, in a population of 33 million, as Dr. John Campbell of the UK summarised.

Dehli, India is typical of Indian cases:

So, it is quite plausible that had Ivermectin been given a more fair hearing, we would have been able to put on the ground, treatments plus vaccine strategy many months ago. Recall, now that he has a competitor to Ivermectin (but one likely to make much bigger profits) Pfizer’s CEO has gone on record, that success against Covid-19 “will likely require both vaccines & treatments.”

We can call that an inadvertently telling admission against interest, so, likely to be true. Here, an admission that can hardly be a brand new realisation, as serious development work for the candidate oral drug has to have been ongoing since the early days of the crisis.  Likewise, for efforts by Merck, which also declined a Japanese request to study Ivermectin.

It is also worth the while to ponder a moment on why both treatments and vaccines are now on the table. For, the vaccines are non sterilising and seem to significantly fade after about six months. This is why there seems to be a push for third jabs, with Israel in the lead. Suggestions point to regular onward boosters. Such in turn points to selection pressure on the virus from the vaccines, leading to the emergence of breakout variants comparable to antibiotic or insecticide resistance. That is, we need effective anti-viral treatments to help stop the progress of infections, also further reducing spreading. And yes, the “fully vaccinated” can catch and spread the disease.

Again, as a report on Israel noted[6]:

“As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 . . . 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,”  says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) . . . “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’” [“A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts but does not defeat Delta” Science Mag dot Org, August 16, 2021.]

[1] See https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-starts-dosing-patients-oral-covid-19-drug-trial-2021-09-01/

[2] See https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1433024869168558081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[3] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/jamaican-doctors-stage-an-ivermectin-uprising/

[4] See https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

[5] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-some-population-level-evidence/

[6] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/covid-19-vaccine-trends-concerns-and-misinformation/ see also https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta 

Contribution – 124/21 # 17)

Is Ivermectin simply an anti-parasitic for animals that is being misused due to anti-vax propaganda?

BRADES, Montserrat, September 6, 2021 – Indeed, Ivermectin is often used to de-worm horses, dogs, etc, and as an antiparasitic. That is the germ of truth that has been used to lend credibility to a smear job, [yes], that ignorant people following unscientific anti-vax misinformation are dosing themselves with a useless, toxic medicine intended for animals. It is even true that some desperate people have indeed apparently taken horse-sized doses of veterinary formulations, obviously without a doctor’s supervision. For, a horse might weigh 1,200 lbs, a big person perhaps 250. So, a horse-sized dose would then be maybe four or more times that for a human being and could easily have toxic effects.  But, that’s not even near to being the whole story.

And the push to suggest that it is, is instead a truth test that far too many are failing.

First, those who promote or publish the atrocity tale in the media. As, there is the readily accessed ¾ of the story that could easily have been found, starting with its Nobel Prize-winning role in dealing with human river blindness. Yes, Ivermectin has been used successfully and safely with people (under medical supervision) for over thirty years. 

Failure to acknowledge that is without excuse for any significant media house, official, or spokesperson.

Second, if we fail to take a critically aware view of such voices, ironically, we are in danger of swallowing or even spreading misinformation ourselves.

In either case, credibility is broken.

We can also provide facts from relevant scientific literature. For example, as Dr. Pierre Kory and others note in a 2021 American Journal of Therapeutics article[1]:

“Ivermectin [was] introduced as a veterinary drug [in the early 1980s] . . .  it soon made historic impacts in human health, improving the nutrition, general health, and well-being of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) in humans in 1988 . . . Ivermectin’s impacts in controlling onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, diseases which blighted the lives of billions of the poor and disadvantaged throughout the tropics, is why its discoverers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 and the reason for its inclusion on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘List of Essential Medicines.’ ”

In a 2020 [Nature] Journal of Antibiotics article,[2] Fatemeh Heidary and Reza Gharebaghi add:

“Studies revealed that ivermectin as a broad-spectrum drug with high lipid [ = fat] solubility possesses numerous effects on parasites, [1, 3] nematodes, arthropods, flavivirus, mycobacteria, and mammals through a variety of mechanisms. In addition to having antiparasitic and antiviral effects, this drug also causes immunomodulation in the host. Studies have shown its effect on inhibiting the proliferation of cancer cells, as well as regulating glucose and cholesterol in animals.” [Pardon the technical language.]

That is why Ivermectin was a reasonable drug to test as a possible repurposed treatment for effectiveness against Covid-19. As we have already seen here at TMR, it is credibly effective, which is why leading Doctors in Jamaica publicly advised their Minister of Health[3]:

“[w]hile Ivermectin[‘s] efficacy has been demonstrated in the management of all stages of Covid, we draw particular attention to its use in the early stage of the disease . . . In our carefully considered opinion, the available data on Ivermectin is quite adequate.[4] There is no need to await the outcome of further trials. Any call for local trials prior to approval is unnecessary, as neither time, resources, nor ethical approval would permit. We need not await WHO approval of the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. The WHO, unfortunately, has been slow, and sometimes incorrect, in its assessment and advice on various aspects of the pandemic and specifically so in relation to its current stance on Ivermectin. Several medical jurisdictions in various countries are proceeding to include Ivermectin in their Covid-19 treatment strategies.”

A summary of such evidence has been made by Dr. Kory and others.[5] Reportedly, Ivermectin:

 – inhibits the replication of many viruses, including influenza, Zika, Dengue, and others

 – inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and binding to host tissue

 – has potent anti-inflammatory properties

 – significantly diminishes viral load and protects against organ damage in multiple animal models

– prevents transmission and development of COVID-19 disease in those exposed to infected patients

 – hastens recovery and prevents deterioration in patients with mild to moderate disease treated early

 – hastens recovery and avoidance of ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients

– reduces mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19

– leads to striking reductions in case-fatality rates in regions with widespread use

 safety, availability, and [low] cost . . .  is nearly unparalleled

– near nil drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered

There is a fair amount of published evidence for that [see the report], there is a growing body of cases and studies, and there are population-level results. No wonder the Jamaican Doctors make a pointed contrast:

“Emergency Use Approval has been granted from health regulatory authorities, including WHO, and FDA, for the clinical use of other treatment regimes (Remdesivir, Convalescent Plasma, Monoclonal Antibodies, etc.) with far less research and data support compared with Ivermectin.”

A Cartoon used to promote the notion that Ivermectin is a misused de-wormer for horses (and yes, this is apple flavour here)

[1] See https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

[2] See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z.pdf

[3] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/jamaican-doctors-stage-an-ivermectin-uprising/ cf Gleaner https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20210520/doctors-back-ivermectin-covid-19-fight 

[4] TMR note, e.g. see https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf 

[5] See https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf pp. 3 – 4

Contribution – Part 123/21 # 15

What is the reasonable balance of risks and benefits for children, and what is this kind of push or pressure to vaccinate them?

BRADES, Montserrat, August 30, 2021 –  Over the past few days, Montserrat’s Chief Medical Officer was heard on ZJB News, discussing vaccination of our children (especially teenagers), as the global vaccination push moves on. As we can see from a poster used in Guyana, a similar push is underway across the region. No doubt, this push is by people meaning to do good, but there are some informed consent issues that we need to contemplate, especially given the backdrop of –

• the Jamaican Doctors’ stout stance in support of Ivermectin as a sound alternative treatment[1]
• the policy concerns raised by the UK Doctors group we reflected on last time[2]
• population-level evidence on Ivermectin’s effectiveness,[3] and also
• what we reasonably know about Covid-19, vaccines, and the young.

For example, in cautioning Israel’s Rabbinical Court about vaccination of the young, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (who championed an early and effective protocol for treating patients before they had to be hospitalised) pointed out[4] that statistics showed that Covid-19 case survival rates for children are perhaps 99.998 percent. Dr. Thomas T. Siler of Washington State, USA, adds[5]:

“Globally, the survival rate for COVID-19 is 99.8%. Under the age of 70, the survival rate for COVID-19 is 99.97%. This is on par with many influenza seasons. Americans younger than 70 [→  so, children, too . . . ] do not have to fear COVID-19 any more than influenza and we know how to protect the elderly.” [He also states, that “[a] study in the UK showed that the survival rate in children is 99.995%,” quite close to Dr. Zelenko’s number.]

That would easily compare to survival rates for ordinary Flu in an era where Tamiflu is an effective antiviral treatment and where though there are annual Flu shots, many view them as hit or miss and may fear the incidence of adverse reactions.

So, yes, “vaccine hesitancy” is actually a long-established phenomenon, and in key part exists as many people make responsible judgments as to which vaccines are worth the perceived risks, which they trust, and which they will not take. As, is a basic fully informed patient right, complete with the Nuremberg Code right[6] to withdraw from procedures. That, of course, hangs a cloud of medical ethics and communication ethics questions over the CDC-inspired poster below.

A poster, that tries to subtly exploit the reputation of prior, often sterilising vaccinations to create an aura of complete effectiveness for the Covid-19 vaccines; through association. Vaccines that are admitted as not eliminating infections in the early stages, only ameliorate the intensity of the disease.

Which, is why the “fully vaccinated” can still catch Covid-19 and can still spread it, especially as the degree of protection wanes after 6 – 8 months.

That’s why in Israel, already, over a million people have had third jabs, starting with their new Prime Minister. Indeed, that’s why a booster shot train is clearly coming,[7] which obviously increases the cumulative risk of adverse reactions.

That’s why we are being told that the vaccinated must still wear face masks etc, and that’s why such are still quarantined on arrival.

Indeed, we are seeing a considerable number of breakthrough cases all across the world where the “fully vaccinated” are getting infected. That’s why we recently saw how Science Magazine reports how 59% of 514 patients in Israeli hospitals with “severe or critical” Covid-19 disease were “fully vaccinated.” Notice, too, the strong bias of these breakthrough cases to the aged, nearly nine (9) out of every 10.

As the Science Mag article[8] reported:

• “As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 . . . 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,”  says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) . . . “One of the big stories from Israel [is:] ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’” [“A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta” Science Mag dot Org, August 16, 2021. (NB: Israel mainly uses the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which is being prematurely pushed into full approval by the US FDA.)]

Notice, “Vaccines work, but not well enough.”

To which, we may freely add, [i] and they are still quite experimental while [ii] raising serious questions on the balance of risks and benefits.  If you doubt the first, consider how it is just now being confirmed that after about six months, the degree of protection (already limited from the beginning) fades significantly. Hence, “not well enough.” And no, we are not locked up to vaccines or a totally out of control pandemic, not when reasonable, proven treatments and protocols are available. If you doubt this, ask the Jamaican Doctors about their experience with Ivermectin over the past year (before you give too much weight to silly sensationalised media stories about horse de-worming medicine and idiots who take horse-sized doses using veterinary formulations, etc).

As for the second, simply note the rush in Israel that has already vaccinated over a million with the third jab. Yes, we are not hearing the whole, frank story from officialdom. Especially, when it comes to children. Let’s look at a bit more from Dr. Siler of Washington State, USA:

• “The average age of death from COVID is 78. The average life expectancy in America is 78. This is not to say, “Don’t worry, only old people are dying of COVID-19.” However, this fact should direct and inform our policies to protect the elderly especially. Children and those under age 70 are at much lower risk . . . .

• In the U.S. 335 children have died since the start of the pandemic. A study done by Johns Hopkins and FAIR Health showed that all of the children that died from April 2020 to August 2020 had immune problems or were chronically ill. In that period not one healthy child died. Children have more chance of dying in a car wreck, unintentional drug overdose, or influenza than from COVID-19. Vaccination for healthy children is not needed.”

We don’t have to blanket endorse Siler’s or Zelenko’s numbers to ask our health officials across the region to frankly explain the push to vaccinate our children and young adults, given concerns about the vaccines and the stance being taken by the Jamaican doctors on their experience with Ivermectin over the past year or so. Where, for example, Dr. Zelenko is warning that well over half of expectant mothers in the first six months are miscarrying after being vaccinated. Given the Holocaust of 1942 – 45 and other sensitivities of Jewish history, he understandably raises the G-word: [self-]genocide.

That may be over the top. Nevertheless, if it is true that healthy children are more at risk in a bad flu season, why the big difference in response to this pandemic?

There is also, a linked clutch of technical issues, cases vs infections, and herd immunity, vs new variants. As Dr. Siler puts it:

“Herd immunity for the alpha strain is here. Sixty-seven percent of the American population have had at least one COVID-19 vaccination. The official number of cases is about 10% of the population, but several antibody studies show that the percentage of those with natural immunity is 4-6 times higher. Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins professor, estimates that 80-85% of the population is immune from natural immunity and vaccination. Those who deny this must explain how cases and deaths started to decline in January way before there was a significant vaccine effort. COVID-19 will not go away. Instead, we are transitioning now from a pandemic to endemic status and, indeed, some eminent virologists say vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic is making herd immunity more difficult to obtain through the creation of variants.”

In short, cases are infections on record by medical authorities (often as a result of the flawed PCR, etc tests). Infections are what happens when viruses invade our bodies and start the disease process. If we have strong “resistance,” that may get no further, but we will form antibodies to the various bits and pieces of the SARS-COV2 virus. This natural immunity is actually stronger than that triggered by the vaccines, which focus on the infamous spike protein. Where, lastly, non-sterilising vaccines put selection pressure on the virus, pushing the emergence of strains that are resistant to such treatments. Herd immunity happens when enough people are strongly resistant to a disease, so it becomes hard for it to spread.

Going forward, clearly, we should not rely overmuch on vaccines but should use a battery of effective treatments and proved public health methods. Especially, for our children.

[1] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/jamaican-doctors-stage-an-ivermectin-uprising/

[2] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/uk-doctors-question-typical-covid-19-pandemic-policies/

[3] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-some-population-level-evidence/

[4] See https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/poison-death-shot-dr-zelenko-testifies-before-israeli-rabbinical-court/

[5] See https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/the_good_newsa_covid19_update.html

[6] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/compulsory-jabs-vs-the-nuremberg-code/

[7] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/

[8] See https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta 

https://www.themontserratreporter.com/jamaican-doctors-stage-an-ivermectin-uprising/

There are hints of the pharmacists supporting too and the underlying implication is that for the better part of a year or more there has been consistent, good success in treating many patients.

Notice, the comment on WHO and by extension wider officialdom in the face of a life-threatening pandemic:

In a carefully considered opinion, the available data on Ivermectin is quite adequate.[2] There is no need to await the outcome of further trials. Any call for local trials prior to approval is unnecessary, as neither time, resources, nor ethical approval would permit.[3]

We need not await WHO approval of the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19. The WHO, unfortunately, has been slow, and sometimes incorrect, in its assessment and advice on various aspects of the pandemic and specifically so in relation to its current stance on Ivermectin. Several medical jurisdictions in various countries are proceeding to include Ivermectin in their Covid-19 treatment strategies.[4]

Please note that Emergency Use Approval has been granted from health regulatory authorities, including WHO, and FDA, for the clinical use of other treatment regimes (Remdesivir, Convalescent Plasma, Monoclonal Antibodies, etc.) with far less research and data support compared with Ivermectin.

This breaches the phalanx of conformity and SHOULD lead to reconsideration of the “horse deworming medicine” belittling, distractive, dismissive talking point.

Contribution 122/21 # 13)

What is the reasonable policy justification for a shift to lockdowns, draconian travel restrictions, masks, “jab everybody” etc?

BRADES, Montserrat, August 26, 2021 –  Last time, we saw how eminent Doctors in Jamaica challenged the Jamaican Government to permit the importation of Ivermectin and its use “off label” to treat COVID-19.[1] Similarly, in the UK, a circle of British Doctors has written the National Government and the “devolved” administrations to raise concerns regarding the policy response to the Pandemic. This allows us to see points of concern globally, as the UK’s response has been typical.

Some of the key concerns raised in their August 22^nd letter[2] include:

[1, The novel, Lockdown approach:] “. . . lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020 . . . they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals.”

[2, The unexplained change in policy:] “. . . the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise, society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.”

[3, Miscounting and exaggerating Covid-19 death tolls:] “By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.”

[5, Failing to focus on the elderly:] “The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born . . . It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.”

[6, A distorted, alarmist picture of the death rate:]  “The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID . . .   [D]ata from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.”

[7, Distorting evaluation of effective alternative treatments:] “[E]vidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed . . .  More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.[3]”

[8, Ineffectiveness of masks:]  “ . . . there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face-covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2 . . . . Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings.”

[9, Masks as a signal of blind conformity:] “[T]he use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe.  Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask-wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.”

[10, Informed consent and experimental vaccines:] “Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population) . . . . [A] number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign[4] . . . . [For example, due to] omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.”

[11, Fear of novel strains:] “The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified . . . [T]here is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.[5]”

[12, The PCR Test vs infectiousness:] “The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly ”

[13, Governance breakdown:] “You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.”

Such concerns (and the many further details in the letter) paint a quite familiar picture.  Given the manifest economic, social and personal harm, there had better be a very good health and safety reason for the drastic pandemic policy changes. What is it?

For example, right from the beginning, it was pointed out that deaths of despair due to suicides, etc. triggered by economic and social disruption could easily outnumber direct deaths due to Covid-19. It is also widely pointed out that actual deaths from Covid-19 are a small fraction of deaths with Covid-19.  The inconsistency in standards of evidence between what officialdom objected to (e.g. Ivermectin) and what it wanted to push (e.g. masks etc. or novel, now failed treatments such as Remdesivir) has been repeatedly noted. Then, there is the question, which masks work, which don’t, and is it wise to turn them into in effect a loyalty test. The concern that Covid-19 may become endemic with annual new strains also points to a need to restore more balanced, sustainable approaches. These include, that large-scale inflationary fiscal measures to cushion dislocations must be temporary if we are to avoid getting back into the stagnation with inflation trap we saw in the 1970s. Here in the Caribbean, we have to re-think Tourism.

[1]See  https://www.themontserratreporter.com/jamaican-doctors-stage-an-ivermectin-uprising/

[2] See https://trialsitenews.com/our-grave-concerns-about-the-handling-of-the-covid-pandemic-by-governments-of-the-nations-of-the-uk/

[3] TMR note, see https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-some-population-level-evidence/ and also https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-and-the-vaccine-debate/ with key reference https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

[4] TMR note, see https://www.themontserratreporter.com/compulsory-jabs-vs-the-nuremberg-code/

[5] TMR note, see https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/

Contribution – Part 121/21 # 13)

Why are leading doctors in Jamaica rising up and challenging officialdom there to facilitate widespread use of Ivermectin to treat Covid-19?

BRADES, Montserrat, August 25, 2021 –  Yes, many of Jamaica’s Medical Doctors have risen up to demand that Ivermectin be widely used in treating Covid-19. For example, on May 20^th this year, a circle of leading Doctors – who claimed to “represent many other doctors in both public and private practice” – published^[1] an open letter to Jamaica’s Minister of Health and Wellness, Hon. Christopher Tufton, which asserted that “[w]hile Ivermectin[‘s] efficacy has been demonstrated in the management of all stages of Covid, we draw particular attention to its use in the early stage of the disease.” They also argued that:

“In our carefully considered opinion, the available data on Ivermectin is quite adequate.^[2] There is no need to await the outcome of further trials. Any call for local trials prior to approval is unnecessary, as neither time, resources, nor ethical approval would permit.^[3]

We need not await WHO approval of the use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19. The WHO, unfortunately, has been slow, and sometimes incorrect, in its assessment and advice on various aspects of the pandemic and specifically so in relation to its current stance on Ivermectin. Several medical jurisdictions in various countries are proceeding to include Ivermectin in their Covid-19 treatment strategies.^[4]

Please note that Emergency Use Approval has been granted from health regulatory authorities, including WHO, and FDA, for the clinical use of other treatment regimes (Remdesivir, Convalescent Plasma, Monoclonal Antibodies, etc.) with far less research and data support compared with Ivermectin.”

 The group includes Dr. Michael Banbury, Chief Executive Officer, Medical Associates Hospital and Medical Center [a leading private Hospital in Kingston, Jamaica] and Trinidad-born Professor Brendan Bain, Consultant Physician and Infectious Disease Specialist, who pioneered the region’s fight against AIDS as well as several other consultant Doctors. 

As early as April 1^st, a Gleaner report^[5] indicated how:

“Doctors in private practice, with the support of pharmacists, continue to prescribe the antibacterial, antifungal drug Ivermectin for patients with adverse COVID-19 symptoms despite the Ministry of Health and Wellness not giving the drug its blessing to treat the illness . . . . the doctors . . . continue to swear by the drug, pointing out that they have been prescribing it to their patients for months with great results . . . . None of the doctors has lost patients who have taken the drug, they say.”

Of course, that was in the early days, and doubtless, some treated with Ivermectin have died since as numbers built up. There are no 100% effective treatments against Covid-19 and so we must recognise that there are several treatments to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Vaccination is clearly one, Ivermectin is another. Indeed, arguably, even the much derided Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Zinc cocktail with vitamins D and C as yet another. (Yes, there is a continuing body of evidence that such a cocktail works in the early stage of Covid-19, but that is not our focus here.) 

The point is, in the face of a fast-moving pandemic that threatens to become a globally endemic disease – likely with a new Covid strain each year – we should balance our options and not bureaucratically lock out any reasonable treatments.

One of the co-signatories of the May 20^th letter, Consultant Surgeon Mr. Charles Royes^[6], went on to write, in a June 18^th letter to the Gleaner^[7] commenting on Minister Tufton’s answers to questions in Parliament:

“1. Safety – The minister stated that a conservative position is being taken to guard the Jamaican public against the possible dangers involved in the use of Ivermectin. The reality is that Ivermectin is a safe drug – safer than penicillin and the other antibiotics in common use, safer than aspirin and, the data suggest, safer even than Panadol. And, without doubt, safer than Remdesivir, which the ministry has approved. The safety issue should be put to bed.

2. Efficacy – Although there is a difference of opinion on this aspect, most of the studies to date show some degree of efficacy against COVID-19. Depending on the type of study, its size, limitations, and constraints, the power of its conclusions may vary. Some speak with a louder voice than others, but all point in the same direction – positive for efficacy. At the very least, the evidence indicates a possible significant benefit.”

He then went on to reveal how:

“Some months ago, the National Health Fund (NHF) arm of the ministry [of Health] imported a quantity of Ivermectin from a supplier in the United States and, in doing so, presumably succeeded in providing the necessary information to allow for its approval. However, following on the minister’s assurances, efforts by a private company to import the very same product, from the very same supplier, were denied by the Standards and Regulations Department. Instead, a long list of requirements was provided. Assuming that the NHF provided adequate data, why the insistence on further information? It should be noted that the product from this supplier has FDA and WHO approval.”

That’s bureaucratic obstructionism and such hypocrisy is without excuse in the face of a pandemic.

As regards disavowal of Ivermectin by Merk, Royes gave a fair comment observation:

“4. Reference to Merck – Merck Pharmaceuticals, the original manufacturer of Ivermectin, no longer has a patent on production. They can no longer compete with low-cost manufacturers and have no financial interest in the drug. Instead, Merck has committed millions of dollars towards the development of another drug, Molnupiravir, which it hopes to market as a treatment for COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, Japan requested Merck to conduct clinical trials with Ivermectin and they declined.”

His conclusion is sobering:

“In a further discussion in Parliament, the minister said, “his side” of the House was unwilling to take the risk of endorsing Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. This risk, as far as the safety of the drug is concerned, is, according to the data, minimal. However, the risk involved in failing to use or facilitate the use of possible effective treatment is being implicitly accepted by the Government. This should be recognised and remembered.”

Perhaps, as we who are in Montserrat begin our new conversation on Covid-19, we should consult with the Jamaican Doctors. Who, clearly, are not “armchair instigators.”

[1]See, Gleaner: https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20210520/doctors-back-ivermectin-covid-19-fight

[2] TMR note, e.g. see https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf  

[3] TMR note, that is, given the fast-spreading, deadly pandemic.

[4] TMR note, see https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-some-population-level-evidence/

[5] See https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20210401/docs-still-pushing-ivermectin-covid-nod

[6] Strictly, Surgeons (yes, including our well-known “Dr. Lewis”) are “Mr.”

[7] See https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters/20210618/letter-day-why-resistance-ivermectin

Contribution – Part 120/21

Is “vaccine hesitancy” a mere matter of “misinformation” (perhaps spread by “armchair instigators”)?

BRADES, Montserrat, Aug 23, 2021 –  Recent talk about “vaccine hesitancy” by officials across the Caribbean region and here in Montserrat has highlighted claims of “misinformation” coming from “anti-vaxxers.” Locally, a natural health advocate who actually calls himself an “anti-vaxxer” has been censored by ZJB Radio in live call-ins several times and has now been reduced to speaking in poetic parables. Overseas, outright censorship and de-platforming have now become routine, a bad sign.  So, is the obvious concern about the rushed development (recall, “Operation Warp Speed” [1]) of still experimental, emergency/ conditional authorised vaccines simply misinformation, perhaps fed by conspiracy theories?

First, let us carefully observe what is cleverly NOT being said in an August 18^th US White House tweet on proposed third jab booster shots.  Of course, the vaxxes are announced as “safe” and “highly effective,” but why is it that we are seeing a highly unusual fading in protective effects in six to eight months?

So much so, that the “fully vaccinated” are now expected to get another “booster” shot?  (Is that what we remember for typical vaccines, and is it not strange that we were not told about such boosters originally? Yes, some well known “vaxxes” require boosters several years later, but in six to eight months? C’mon.)

The point is quite clear, we are just now learning about longer and longer-term effects and concerns, here, that protection is waning just as new strains are spreading, so we need the third jab. Nor is this just in the US or Israel which also mainly uses mRNA vaccines such as Pfizer’s vaccine. In the UK it was recently announced that they are pushing for 32 million people to take the third jab. And, lost in the shadows, since February, there has been talk of possible booster shots in the Autumn and of annual or even six-monthly shots. That’s why here at TMR we previously spoke of the booster shot train. [2]

Clearly, researchers and officials are still monitoring and learning from a changing situation with the vaccines and with Covid-19.

That is, as “emergency” or “conditional” authorisation implies, these are still experimental vaccines.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for some officials to deny that regulatory fact.  And no, the current push to prematurely declare the Pfizer vaccine fully approved does not change the underlying facts. For, it is impossible to put the emergence of long-term effects and trends on “warp speed.” Plainly, the future still arrives at the rate of 24 hours per new day, 365 ¼ days per new year. There is a reason why new drug development typically takes 4 – 7 years or even over ten years.

Speaking of trends, some tend to blame the emergence and spreading of highly contagious new strains on the “not-vaxxed”.  But, there is an issue of drugs resistance at work, similar to how so many bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics or how some insects seem to now shake off formerly highly effective insecticides. Because, of “adaptation to selection pressure.”  There are even problems with resistance to some antiseptics used in hospitals etc. (That’s part of what we are paying Doctors for, to know about and deal with such challenges.)

Did you notice that the “fully vaxxed” are still being told to keep on wearing face masks and to practice social distancing, etc.? Why is that? In part, because the vaccines are what some call “non-sterilising.” For, they typically don’t immediately stomp on a viral invasion General Rommel style and prevent forming a beachhead for Covid-19. Instead, they are said to reduce the intensity of the disease, and it is hoped they reduce the likelihood of death or serious damage to health. That is, it is quite possible for the “fully vaxxed” to catch Covid-19 and to spread it to others.  That’s why we are seeing a fair number of reports of just that happening. (And this is before we see “breakout” strains that are sufficiently different that the antibodies from vaccination have little effect. Some argue that the Delta strain is nearing that sort of breakout.)

Yes, all of this is complicated, and there are other more complex concerns. Especially, regarding adverse reactions.

For example, some have pointed out how the US reporting system has seen a surge in bad reactions to vaccines once the Covid-19 vaccines were put on the table. There have been reports of blood clot formation, heart failures, and mysterious sudden deaths. There are similar reports from Australia. However, perhaps the most relevant report is from the European Union, where all four main vaccines are in use. Some have queried the databases and have compiled [3] figures that should indeed be of some concern, such as:

In more details as reported, up to July 31^st for the 27 EU states:
Pfizer: 9,868 deaths and 767,225 injuries
Moderna: 5,460 deaths and 212,474 injuries
JANSSEN: 733 deaths and 57,159 injuries
AstraZeneca: 4,534 deaths and 923,749 injuries

Selecting the breakdown for AstraZeneca, and highlighting a few striking lines:
• 21,004   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 126 deaths
• 19,717   Cardiac disorders incl. 1,489 deaths
• 33,642   Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,168 deaths
• 137,631 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,081 deaths
• 205,214 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,832 deaths

We do not need to endorse or certify these numbers (and there are doubtless overlaps etc) to understand why many will be concerned and why it is not good enough to simply dismiss concerns as “misinformation.” Yes, such figures are as usual hedged about with many disclaimers and debatable points, etc. On the whole, a common view is that voluntary reporting likely leads to underreporting, and it is always easy to throw up endless technical objections that boil down to correlation is not causation. However, let us remember that the cigarette manufacturers did just that for many decades, highly successfully, until in the end it was finally concluded, enough is enough.

On further fair comment,  these vaccines can clearly be regarded as ameliorative treatments administered before the fact of infection, which now seem to require onward boosters after 6 – 12 months. Possibly, on an ongoing basis as new strains emerge and as boosters also begin to fade out. Where cumulative risk obviously rises with repeated exposure.  Likewise the so-called “fully vaccinated” can catch and pass on Covid-19. If that is so, why is there pressure targetting the “unvaxxed” as the threat for new infections? Isn’t it the case that in Israel [4]:

“As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 . . . 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older. “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,”  says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) . . . “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’” [“A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta” Science Mag dot Org, August 16, 2021.]

Fair comment, the Covid-19 vaccines were rushed through at “warp speed” and at the same time long since tested repurposed drugs showing clearly significant antiviral effects have been brushed aside by officials and the major media, especially now Ivermectin. [5] Part of that comment is that in accord with the Nuremberg Code [6] and similar ethical regulations, emergency authorisation and experimental treatments are permitted in cases where there is no established, well-accepted effective treatment.  There is obviously a lingering question of health and life risks and uncertainties. It should therefore give serious pause to vaccine advocates that a key inventor of mRNA technologies, Dr. Robert Malone, is giving cautions on safety issues. [7]

Some would observe that while repurposed drugs such as Ivermectin are not going to make a fortune for anyone now, Moderna just turned in a quarterly profit report in the billions. Others will mutter about big pharma.

Yet others will highlight Mr. Bill Gates’ TED Talk PR fiasco of saying on stage, on video, that he hoped to reduce an estimated global population trend to nine billion by 10- 15%, [8] naming vaccines as a means to do this.

Then, there is the sheer fact of global spread and linked onward mutations of the Covid-19 virus, where apparently animal reservoirs have come up. Such as, cats. This virus is not going away anytime soon and we have to find better strategies to adapt to it and treat it.

Perhaps, then, we need to have a new conversation, one that doesn’t start by stigmatising the concerned as being the ignorant misinformed misled by armchair instigators.

[1]See https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 Note, In the well-known Sci-Fi Star Trek universe, space ships moving in imagined excess of the speed of light are moving at “warp speed.”

[2] TMR, https://www.themontserratreporter.com/the-emerging-covid-vax-booster-shot-train/

[3] See: https://www.technocracy.news/soaring-european-union-reports-1-9-million-vaccine-injuries-20595-deaths/

[4] See https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta

[5] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/ivermectin-some-population-level-evidence/

[6] TMR https://www.themontserratreporter.com/compulsory-jabs-vs-the-nuremberg-code/

[7] See https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/06/22/robert_malone_steve_kirsch__bret_weinstein_discuss_spike_protein_from_vaccine_is_dangerous.html

[8] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfstBe1buaA from 2:28 on.