*Zimbabwe authorises doctors to prescribe ivermectin for prevention and treatment of Covid-19*

HARARE – The Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) has authorised doctors to prescribe ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, paving way for widespread use of the drug.

The new regulations allow doctors to prescribe ivermectin on condition they record patient symptoms and any adverse side-effects, to be submitted in monthly reports.

“The Secretary for Health and Child Care has authorised the MCAZ to authorise the importation and use of ivermectin for COVID-19,” MCAZ said in a notice.

“MCAZ will issue bulk Section 75 approval for importation of human formulations of ivermectin manufactured by GMP compliant facilities.”

MCAZ said dispensing community pharmacies are also eligible but are required to apply in writing and make “undertakings to abide by the conditions of using human ivermectin formulations”.

The Zimbabwe Ministry of Health allowed ivermectin use in January 2021 for evaluation for treatment and prevention. Kukurigo understands approval by the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe for local studies to trial ivermectin has been delayed for several months by bureaucrats, unnecessarily delaying its use until the third wave threatened to break.

The recent publications by Dr Tess Lawrie _(The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review, published in the Journal of Antibiotics)_ and Dr Pierre Kory _(Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines published in the American Journal of Therapeutics)_ appears to have marked a turning point in perceptions.

Evidence from the studies suggests that ivermectin’s efficacy arises through, among others:

_1. competitive binding of ivermectin with the host receptor-binding region of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, limiting binding to the ACE-2 receptor;_

_2. binding to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, thereby inhibiting viral replication (Swargiary, 2020);_

_3. binding/interference with multiple essential structural and non-structural proteins required by the virus in order to replicate._

Oxford University earlier this week announced it would also be trialling the drug.

A Harare physician that spoke to Kukurigo on condition of anonymity for fear of victimisation welcomed the regulations but accused the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe (MDPCZ) of criminalising science by instigating the arrest of a doctor at the centre of ivermectin Covid-19 treatment (name withheld to protect professional reputation).

“Many deaths could have been avoided if the regulatory authorities had paid attention to the science as opposed to parroting the World Health Organisation and pharmaceutical vested interests. The evidence has been there for a while and we know ivermectin works from local treatment that has been done by some courageous doctors,” he said.

Adding: “MCAZ has been throwing spanners in the works but has been forced to backpedal because of pressure from government which is seeing the evidence as it moves out of medical circles into the mainstream.”

“The question for the Medical Council is why they instigated the arrest and humiliation of a doctor over ivermectin despite dozens of studies including a meta-analysis at the time showing the drug worked? Now that Oxford and the Americans are coming on board, suddenly the regulators realise the monumental mistake they have made and the risk to their credibility as the evidence grows. We obviously welcome this development but it is quite disappointing how multiple studies were ignored and many lives lost unnecessarily.”

Dr Pierre Kory, an authority on treating Covid-19 with ivermectin, has accused the World Health Organisation of undermining the drug in a bid to protect vaccine manufacturers whose Emergency Use Authorisations would have to be rescinded if an existing medication was shown to prevent and treat the disease.

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting exasperated trying to explain to people that we’re being lied to.
Accompanying the lies is the near destruction of our economy & civil society.

Just two facts tells you beyond any possible doubt that the whole covid19 policy response fiasco is faked:

1. The infection fatality ratio as estimated by Dr John Ioaniddes is 0.15%. Typical seasonal influenza IFR is estimated at around 0.1%. Some years it’s less dangerous, others it’s more.
So the conclusion is that covid19 is, across the population, slightly worse than the typical flu season. Because the lethality of flu varies from year to year, it’s equally true to say that the lethality of covid19 is well within the envelope of the worst of the flu seasons, easily several over the last 20years.
More relevant yet, covid19 has a steeper age/ lethality relationship than does ‘flu.
This means that the over 70s are appreciably more at risk from covid19 than from flu.
The corollary though is that the entire working age population is at a LESSER risk than they are from flu.
Ioaniddes is among the most respected medical doctor / epidemiologist working today. His assessment is or was on WHO’s website for ages, hiding in plain sight.
There was never a need to lockdown any of the working aged population.

2. There are several, safe & effective treatments. Information on these has been censored & those trying to tell us about these off-patent, low-cost agents get smeared.
Nevertheless there is higher quality clinical trials data on many of them than there if analogously for the covid19 vaccines.
Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, Vitamin D, ivermectin, budesonide, apixaban, fluvoxamine (doubtless others).
Used with skill, reductions in hospitalisation & death from covid19 ranging from 75% to 90% have been reported, and with overwhelmingly good safety profiles.

So if the virus isn’t exceptionally lethal (it simply isn’t) & if there are numerous safe & effective treatments to keep people out of the hospital & to save lives (and there are), what’s all this theatre about?

Answers on the back of a copy of Klaus Schwab’s latest book.

Mike

On the matter of further trials, I humbly suggest that Gates-funded trials of Ivermectin are highly unlikely to show results in favour of this safe, low cost and already proven to be effective medicine.

Like the child that pointed out that the Emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes, I would like to point out that Mr Gates is heavily invested, both financially and ideologically, in vaccinating the World. With Ivermectin vaccination is unnecessary - in fact, approval of all novel experimental therapies would have to be withdrawn. So Ivermectin is a big threat to Mr Gates’ investment.

One would not expect a philanthropist to make billions in profits at a time of human suffering. Thus, I would also like to point out that contrary to popular belief, Mr Gates cannot be a philanthropist - true philanthropists at times of tremendous suffering and loss have very little because they have given so much away. The sooner people realise that hoarding money is the same as hoarding other material possessions, the sooner people will see that Mr Gates’ Heart and Soul have been captured by his wallet, and the spell will be broken. Sadly, like any hoarder, Mr Gates needs the sort of help that money can’t buy.

We do not have to go along with his pretence anymore. It is clear that he values profit over humanity. Let’s acknowledge it and get on with getting the world healthy in spite of him. ~ Dr Tess Lawrie

Found on the train 💕

Re: Roman et al.
“Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials”
Clinical Infectious Diseases, Accepted for publication ciab591
 
We note this recent meta-analysis covering n=1173 patients over 10 studies, asserting a conclusion the opposite of our own covering 3406 patients over 24 studies. This work ignores many of the larger trials, particularly those with mortality as an important endpoint.
 
This article has an embarrassing history whereby treatment arms in the study of Niaee were reversed, attracting protest from Dr Niaee himself. This egregious error has been corrected in the revised version, but with no change to the Conclusions in spite of dramatic change in the evidence. Among other technical errors the study of Chaccour is assigned a RR of unity with absurd Confidence Intervals [0.02 46.56] when the correct assignment for a study with zero deaths in both arms (mortality outcome) is “not estimable”. Our own paper is particularly careful with analysis of “double-zero” studies. Several further errors are identified by contributors in the Comments section of medRxiv, apparently uncorrected.
 
The point mortality reduction estimate of RR=0.37 in fact remarkably close to our own findings of RR=0.38 though the CIs ( [0.12, 1.13] vs [0.19, 0.73] ) are not, being based on fewer studies and in part by the absurd values assigned to Chaccour. The conclusion “ivermectin did not reduce all-cause mortality” does not follow from the evidence, with such selective study inclusion, and mishandling of data. ~ BiRD systematic review team

For information about the latest attempt to disinform and confuse the public about the role of Ivermectin for covid, please visit https://bird-group.org/rebuttal-to-roman-et-al/ thank you. Don’t give up - remember, when you stand up for Ivermectin, you’re standing up for the Truth ~ The Bird Team

https://youtu.be/5EXNkZ-P668 It’s a tragedy of epic proportions that people around the world (in this case, Jamaica) are having to plead for access to the safest and most effective early treatment for covid. Only with your help will this end.

Now published:

Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial (Niaee et al.)

The data from this trial are seriously misrepresented in the Roman et al. 2021, review.

https://www.apjtm.org/article.asp?issn=1995-7645;year=2021;volume=14;issue=6;spage=266;epage=273;aulast=Shakhsi