China Corona Virus Outbreak

[111prez]

Eto yung complete message, tinatanong ko yung details how to order.


Greetings from Unilab!

We are pleased to offer our COVOVAX Vaccine to your company as we feel that we are one in thinking of what is good for your employees and their dependents.

I want to share with you certain basic information on COVOVAX (Brand name)

Developer: Novavax, Maryland USA

Manufactured by Serum Institute of India (SII), the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world

Philippine Partner of SII: Faberco Life Science

Unilab is exclusive distributor for the private market in the Philippines.

Current Clinical Status: Phase 3 in EU and US. Over-all Efficacy Rate 89.3% (96% efficacy in preventing Covid-19 disease caused by the original variant & 86% against the newer UK variant). Take note that the efficacy rate of COVOVAX on the South African variant is 60%). We are proud that we are the only vaccine that has the most extensive study and coverage in the three variants. However, the South African variant is yet to be found in the Philippines

Potential Supply in the Philippines: 3Q 2021 (from July subject to EUA)

Storage 2-8 degrees

Indicative price: up to P1,000 per dose delivered within the Philippines, VAT exclusive.

No downpayment required by Unilab to reserve

Dosing Schedule: 2 doses required. Day 0 and Day 21.

Take note that we are selling it at cost and that Unilab is doing this as a service to our Country and the Filipino people.

Attached is the term sheet for your review. We need an indicative quantity thru the term sheet but rest assure that it is not yet a commitment on your part. We will get in touch with you once the COVOVAX Vaccine arrive in our country for your confirmation of your reserved indicative quantity. We will deliver the stocks at the time of your inoculation to all your employees and the second dose follows after 21 days. As such, you will never have any storage problems. You just have to make sure that all the employees must be there on the time of delivery and it will be coordinated with you as to the date of your scheduled inoculation.

I hope you will consider the offer of Unilab, Inc., a trusted Filipino Pharmaceutical Company. You can reach me at 0917-8679817.


Thank you very much.


Mr. Geronimo S. Mantes

UNILAB, INC.

This Mantes issued a signed letter disowning this announcement on the CHINA WUHAN VIRUS baksin.

I got it on Viber. Will try to post it here.

[kagalingan]

If you rememeber last year I posted about Ivermectin na pinaguusapan sa international forum na sinusundan ko.

Ang haka haka sa covid eh veerus pero bacterial ang manifestation.

Tapos ang FDA ng pinas as usual warning muna kasi huli na naman.

Ito ang pharmaceutical medicine na hangang ngayon maganda pa rin nababasa ko. Hindi ito kagaya yung kagauhan ni trumpo hydrochlorox. (natawa ako ang dami nabola tsikoteers jan hahahahaha)

Sa nababasa ko nga combination ng lysine and ivermectin. But im just throwing this information. You need to study tsikoteers. Wag kayo magpakahon sa mga supot na atenista, lasalista at updilim. Kasi tigok ang mga nakakahon.

FDA warns vs use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19

Published March 17, 2021, 8:59 PM

by Analou De Vera

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned the public against the use of a veterinary medicine called Ivermectin as treatment for coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

In an advisory, the FDA said that Ivermectin was only approved for use in animals through “oral and intravenous preparations.”

The agency said that the medicine is being used to prevent heartworm disease and treatment of internal and external parasites in certain animal species.

“The drug is an important part of a parasite control program for some animal species and should only be administered according to its approved indication, or as prescribed by a duly licensed veterinarian,” the FDA said.

“The public is warned against taking animal drugs, as the FDA has only evaluated their safety and efficacy in the particular species for which they are labeled. Using these products in humans can cause serious harm. Animal drugs are often highly concentrated and can be highly toxic to humans,” it added.

The FDA noted that the “registered Ivermectin products in the country for human use are in topical formulations under prescription use only.” This means it can only be applied in the human skin and is not being taken orally.

“This is used for the treatment of external parasites such as head lice and skin conditions such as rosacea,” it said.

It said Ivermectin was not approved by the FDA “for treatment of any viral infection.”

“Any use of Ivermectin veterinary products for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided as the benefits and safety for this purpose has not been established,” it said.

FDA warns vs use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 – Manila Bulletin

[uls]

If you rememeber last year I posted about Ivermectin na pinaguusapan sa international forum na sinusundan ko.

Ang haka haka sa covid eh veerus pero bacterial ang manifestation.

Tapos ang FDA ng pinas as usual warning muna kasi huli na naman.

Ito ang pharmaceutical medicine na hangang ngayon maganda pa rin nababasa ko. Hindi ito kagaya yung kagauhan ni trumpo hydrochlorox. (natawa ako ang dami nabola tsikoteers jan hahahahaha)

Sa nababasa ko nga combination ng lysine and ivermectin. But im just throwing this information. You need to study tsikoteers. Wag kayo magpakahon sa mga supot na atenista, lasalista at updilim. Kasi tigok ang mga nakakahon.




FDA warns vs use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 – Manila Bulletin

it's all over socmed, viber groups, zoom meetings...

[shadow]

Please be guided accordingly....Attachment 38050

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tsikot Forums mobile app

Inutil na FDA saka domingo, anong moral authority meron sila mag warn ngayon eh wala sila nagawa sa PSG saka kay tulfo.

Bwisit!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kagalingan]

Bigyan ko kayo tsikoteers ng mga nababasa ko. Mga nag-aaral talaga at trial & error.



-----------------
Mar 1, 2021

New
Add bookmark
#1,483

AnnaVR
New Member

Joined
Jan 2, 2021

Messages
4

People have posted here before about the importance of the lysine:arginine ratio for viral replication, so I just want to add to that by saying that I happened to come across a pre-print of a study where coronavirus patients were given lysine supplements with really good results: (PDF) Lysine Therapy for SARS-CoV-2 I wonder why it still hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, especially now that people are dying in droves in the second wave? If this pre-print is to be believed then most of them could easily and cheaply have been saved. Of course, the food and pharma companies wouldn't like that. But then, my belief is that most of them could also have been saved by herbal remedies like neem and allicin, because I have seen and experienced many times how well these two work against common viral infections. Haven't had a chance to test them against corona yet, but don't see why they shouldn't work against that too, it's not some super special virus except that it's really good at spreading among modern humans. I've also observed many times how high arginine foods will trigger a herpes outbreak on my lips, and quite reliably whenever I forget to balance it out with lysine every single time I eat something. So I'm inclined to believe that this ratio may well affect other viruses too.
Of note, the authors mention in this paper that caffeine displaces lysine in favour of arginine in some metabolic pathways, which will also favour viral growth. They say that in their study, all the people with 'long Covid' were coffee drinkers. Yet another reason to avoid that toxic stuff...

- -----------

May nababasa ba kayo sa pilipnas na ganitong usapan? Wala kayo maencounter na lysine arginine ratio kasi puro pharma meds reseta ni docktor docktora. Walang usapang nutrition!!!!!

Isipin nyo mga nagkaka "long covid" pala eh coffee drinkers!!!!! Mabuhay talaga milkteh!!!!

[kagalingan]

(PDF) Lysine Therapy for SARS-CoV-2

1

Lysine Therapy for SARS-CoV-2         
Christopher Kagan, Alexander Chaihorsky, Rony Tal, Bo Karlicki.

Until treatments with wide universality across target viral families become a reality,
pandemics will continue to inflict severe medical and economic losses on the world's
population, as the current situation demonstrates. Both therapeutic and vaccine arms of
viral defense should be developed with universality in mind, and our group, Bio-
Virus Research, has been working on both universal vaccines and universal
therapeutic approaches for decades. In this letter we report our current results using L-
lysine therapeutically against SARS-CoV-2.         
        
    
The first report of the clinical use of L-lysine, written by the lead author of this article,
appeared in The Lancet in 1974. (1) The mechanism of action and clinical follow up
confirming its effectiveness in the treatment of herpes was published in 1978 (2), and in-
vitro confirmation of the inhibition of arginine by lysine was published in 1985. (3) Since
then L-lysine supplementation with arginine restriction has become a recognized
treatment worldwide, and the generally used dosage ranges between 100 mg to 4
grams a day; notably no toxicity has been reported with up to 8 grams per day.
(4) Lysine therapy appears to apply universally across the entire family of herpes viruses
with no exceptions reported. Examples in humans include cytomegalovirus and zoster.
(2) Lysine has been shown to be suppressive in both RNA and DNA viruses, examples
include the RNA-type mouse encephalomyelitis virus, and the DNA-type adenovirus
type 1, SV 40, and polyoma, and the herpes virus in chickens that causes Marek's
disease is known to be arginine dependent. (2) The action of lysine is complex with
interference of L-arginine incorporation into the virus by L-lysine established. (2)
(3) Lysine inhibits arginine absorption in the intestine competitively lowering arginine
levels, as well as inhibiting arginine reabsorption in the renal tubules. (2) A more
complex mechanism with respect to SARS-CoV-2 is strongly suggested in multiple
references which lay a foundation for further investigation beyond the scope of this
clinical report. (6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (17) (20) (23)        
 
 
A report in 2016 which included L-lysine showed a positive clinical outcome against
MERS-CoV in-vitro, although not SARS-CoV-2 which had not yet appeared. (5) Given that
L-lysine appears to operate universally within the herpes viral family, it would be
reasonable to expect it to work in the entire SARS viral family. Our clinical experience
demonstrates effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2, and it is therefore likely to work in
MERS-CoV and other members of the Coronavirus family in-vivo. Dietary lysine

page 2

deficiency is known to impair both antibody responses and cell-mediated immune
response. (7) Lysine improves the immune system. (4)     
      
    
We tested the clinical efficacy of lysine on SARS-CoV-2. Tabulated data from 40 +
subjects, and non-tabulated data from 100+ subjects; 8 were in the United States, and
the majority in the Dominican Republic. The age ranged between 16 to 77, with 55% of
the tabulated group being female. Approximately 50% of the subjects were PCR or rapid
test Covid confirmed. Approximately 50% were febrile, 30% had cough/throat, 35%
anosmia, 50% CNS/muscle pain, and 45% had other symptoms.         
        
        
The dose range administered was 1000 mg to 4000 mg, with the latter rarely given, and
an average dose of 2000 mg. We do not recommend exceeding 3000 mg due to
possible bradykinin buildup causing a cough or increasing coughing in some subjects.
(19) The dosage schedule recommended based on our study for acute cases (less than 1
month with symptoms) is a base dose of 1000 mg twice on day 1, increasing, if needed,
by 500 mg to 1000 mg for a total not exceeding 3000 mg on day 2. From day 3 forward,
some patients may require as high as 3500 mg. The recommended treatment times are
one hour before breakfast, and 3 pm on day 1 with the times advanced earlier in the
afternoon on day 2 if needed, opening a 9 pm time slot for a third dose. All doses
should be taken a minimum of 1 hour before a meal, and with two cups of water. Two
cups of water aids in absorption, hydration, anticoagulation, and dampens appetite
which results in a decrease in the quantity of unintended arginine ingestion. A first day
emergency dose of 2000 mg together (try not to exceed 4 grams in total on day 1) or a
few hours apart yields outstanding results. There are many charts available of
the lys/arg ratios in various foods, and a dietary ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 lysine to 1.0 arginine
for the first few days is recommended. The ratio can be lowered to 1.5 to 3.0 lysine to 1.0
arginine once near full symptom control is achieved. Restriction of coffee (and other
high caffeine drinks), the importance of which cannot be stressed enough, and
observing the arginine restricted diet is critical to the speed of recovery and success of
treatment. Additional cautionary notes are listed at the bottom of the letter, and these
cautions should be observed in follow-up clinical studies.         
        
        
No trend was noted between ***es, ages, or co-morbidities in relation to lysine
treatment. Approximately 80% of acute stage Covid-19 sufferers given lysine displayed a
minimum 70% reduction in symptoms in the first 48 hours (not including long term
symptomatic subjects). Excluding long term subjects, treatment times vary from 2 days
to 3.5 weeks, with many variables at play. Patients who started lysine in the hospital were

[kagalingan]

page 3

discharged an average of 3 days after starting treatment. Treatment should be continued
regardless of negative results, until low dose lysine is reached, and no symptoms are
observed. Even when lysine was in short supply, subjects on 2 grams on day 1, and 1
gram the following days, while adhering to the dietary restrictions, had slightly delayed
but timely recoveries. Resuming physical activity too early during recovery sometimes
resulted in setbacks. Several of the inpatients, tabulated and non, after starting this
protocol were RT-PCR negative on day 2 to 3, coinciding typically with their discharge. A
larger sample size and randomized controlled trials with RT-PCR daily testing will be
required to assess the true time to conversion to seronegative. Five patients who fasted
on day 1, due to lack of appetite, were noted to have a significant reduction in the time
and severity of febrile and non-febrile symptoms. It is assumed that zero food intake
equated to no arginine consumed, and hence faster response time. For this group, the
time to significant reduction in symptom varied from 4 hours to 18 hours (with only a
few symptoms remaining). It is important to note that while the average subject may be
completely asymptomatic on day 3 or 4, if they stop treatment/exhaust lysine supply, on
many occasions, symptoms return, albeit usually reduced in severity. Typically for this
group, symptoms abate within a few hours of resuming their lysine.         
        
        
Lysine is a treatment, not a cure, and is dependent on the immune system response
gathering momentum to further control the illness. All should remain on at least a
maintenance dose of 1 gm for a minimum of a 1 week (preferably 2 weeks or more)
after all symptoms have abated including following dietary restrictions for 3 weeks to
prevent relapse. Evidence of asymptomatic clotting for those who stopped the regimen
too early was observed. Coffee (associated arginine increase) can overwhelm lysine
rendering it ineffective until the caffeine effect subsides. The caffeine effect displaces
lysine from the metabolic pathways. (18) Coffee/high caffeine consumption was the
most common behavior of long term symptomatic subjects, followed by a
vegetarian/lysine deficient diet and exercising. Coffee/high caffeine drinks should be
avoided during treatment and for 3 weeks after recovery at a minimum. Our treatment
protocol has been used in more than 180 patients, with 40+ reported here. Only 1
subject was hospitalized after starting lysine for secondary bacterial infection. He was
discharged 6 days later, with no long-term effects. One Covid-19 confirmed fatality due
to secondary bacterial infection occurred. Obviously more studies, including randomized
controlled trials, are required for full clinical understanding.         
 
 
One of the most important observations in relation to lysine was the incredibly short
time to eliminate/reduce fever presumably due to extinguishing the associated cytokine
storm. Cytokine storm appears to be extinguished in hours, based on the 5 inpatients



4

who appeared to be in severe crisis when lysine was administered who showed very
rapid reduction in symptoms and stabilization. CRP levels returned to normal, yet D-
dimer levels were high in some subjects. Only a small percentage of subjects on lysine
were febrile past 24 hours, and most were relieved in less than 12 hours with proper
doses and dietary restrictions. IL-10 inhibits the synthesis of IL-6, TNF and IL-1 beta
which are implicated in fever. (8) IL-10 serves as an endogenous antipyretic. (8) Lysine
deficiency raises IL-6 inflammatory cytokine levels, so lysine potentially has an IL-6
inhibitory effect, and lysine also increases IL-10 anti-inflammatory cytokines as shown in
the liver. (7) Therefore, it is logical to assume that supplementation with lysine could
restore or augment IL-10 levels resulting in downregulating proinflammatory cytokines,
in turn eliminating fevers and cytokine storms. IL-6 inhibitors for patients with severe
Covid-19 are associated with decreased intubation, reduced mortality, and increased
discharge. (13) L-lysine decreases nitric oxide production (14), thereby limiting a key role
in the pathogenesis of inflammation, and thus lysine may serve an anti-inflammatory
role (15) by reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines (24). These clinical results suggest that
lysine appears highly suppressive of viral replication, and if these results are confirmed
by further studies, lysine should significantly flatten the curve, reduce mortality and
hospital bed utilization while we await a curative vaccine or vaccines, ideally one with
universal application across the entire Coronavirus group.         
 
 
It might be that the combination of suppressive lysine and vaccination is superior to either
alone. There may be places in the world where even inexpensive lysine is unaffordable, but
high lysine foods combined with arginine restriction might still serve the purpose. Our hope
is that these findings will encourage those in a position to perform follow-up studies to do
so, hopefully confirming its usefulness, and further refining our understanding of optimal
dosage, mechanisms, routes of administration and how to maximize the efficacy of this
therapy.
 
 
Cautionary note: Long term asymptomatic (over 1 month) and medically fragile patients
should exercise caution and use low dose lysine for the initial days and incrementally
raise their dose 500 mg every 4 to 5 days, until reaching 2500 mg daily and evaluate.
Higher doses have been used, but the concern is that doses higher than 3000 mg could
result in occult clots embolizing. No coffee, exercise, marijuana, or arginine rich foods
during treatment is included in the recommended protocol. Lysine has been reported to
nearly double serum zinc levels without supplementation. (16) Zinc and calcium should
not be given with lysine since lysine also raises calcium levels. (22) Patients on
pacemakers should be under close clinical observation since lysine might increase
cardiac output (21) and increases pulmonary resistance. (14) Clinicians who are

5

interested in more details may contact us for additional information at Bio-Virus
Research +1(775) 742 8811, xyz1953*gmail.com).         
 
Bio-Virus Research Inc.
5774 Tappan Dr.
Reno, Nevada, USA
xyz1953*gmail.com
+1(775) 742-8811

(PDF) Lysine Therapy for SARS-CoV-2

[kagalingan]

Google Translate

Why Ivermectin is probably the best treatment for Covid

Feb 25 2021 By Laurent Mucchielli Blog: Laurent Mucchielli's blog

Ivermectin, associated with macrolides, gives particularly important positive results in the treatment of the various forms of Covid, both in prevention, in early treatment and at the beginning of severe phases in hospitalization. Its denigration by the "health authorities" constitutes a new refusal to treat and therefore a new scandal vis-à-vis the sick.



Ivermectin will perhaps go down in history on the podium of the three drugs that have rendered the most services to humanity, along with Penicillin and Aspirin. On what step? Not the first if we simply look at the extent of its use (nearly 4 billion prescriptions for 40 years), but certainly on the first with regard to the benefit / risk factor. This drug indeed has a wide range of indications and has practically no serious side effects unlike its two neighbors (allergies and anaphylactic shock for Penicillin, haemorrhages for Aspirin).


A powerful pest control

From its birth in the late 1970s, Ivermectin has been shown to be a potent antiparasitic agent, against a wide range of internal and external nematodes (worms) and arthropods in animals. In humans, it is used against diseases that devastate and disfigure poor populations in the tropics, such as river onchocerciasis which makes blind people, and filariasis, these fine worms which enter and circulate in your body. It is used free of charge as the only medicine in campaigns to eliminate these two diseases worldwide.

Ivermectin has been widely used in veterinary medicine since 1981, it is known to be active against 183 species of nematodes and 129 species of insects and mites, lists which increase each year. It is also used on a number of viruses, such as the pseudo swine rabies virus. Thus Ivermectin treats roundworms in the stomach or intestine, worms in the lungs, mites, lice, horn flies, ticks (which cause enormous damage in cattle in the regions tropical), to the lice of fish in aquaculture (but prohibited due to the effects on the rest of the aquatic fauna).

It is authorized in humans in more than 100 countries, in France it has an authorization for gastrointestinal anguillulosis, microfilaremia and scabies. Almost 100 million people are treated with this product each year around the world, and more than 4 billion doses have been prescribed in 30 years. Programs are being set up in some countries such as Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Ghana to treat the entire population, 0.15 mg / kg once a year being sufficient to cure onchocerciasis (30 to 40 million cases / year), but also intestinal anguillulosis (35 million cases), scabies (300 million), leishmaniasis, all parasitic skin diseases, etc.


Nobel Prize for its discoverer

Ivermectin is one of the rare molecules to have obtained a Nobel Prize and is the result of an international public-private collaboration. Its discovery is due to 大村 智, Ōmura Satoshi, specialist in antibiotics at the Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, who entrusted it to a private American laboratory, Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) in 1974 for the in vitro evaluation of its bio-activity. MSD was interested in its human application as early as 1978, before marketing for animals. The first phase 1 trials started in 1980, phase 2 in 1983, and ended in 1987 with a first worldwide authorization, in France, for onchocerciasis, in view of the results on 1,206 patients. Today, the same body, which authorized it, believes, like the National Institute of Health, that more than 14,000 cases in different studies is not enough to authorize it in the case of Sars-Cov-2 . The Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded in 2015 to its discoverers, Satoshi Ōmura in Japan and William Campbel in the United States.

In addition to this action on parasites, Ivermectin has a virucidal action, first tested and adopted in a number of viral infections in animals, such as pseudo swine rabies caused by an RNA virus, such as Sars-COV- 2. In humans, studies are underway against different varieties of flaviviruses, on dengue, Zika, Chikungunya, and the virus responsible for the infection of West Nile. The clinical results on Sars-cov-2 are very promising (this presentation by Dr Paul Marik offers an overview of the state of knowledge and hypotheses on the modes of action of Ivermectin).


Harmlessness

In general in medicine, the more effective a treatment, the more likely it is that there will be side effects on other organs, which makes sense. This is not the case for Ivermectin, this drug is harmless.

If we look at Vigibase , the WHO database which for 30 years has been collecting side effects from each drug agency in more than 130 countries (including France), we find 175,208 reports for Aspirin, 159,824 for Doliprane, and 4,614 for Ivermectin. Out of 4 billion prescriptions in this period, that's 0.0001% side effects. It is also difficult to attribute all these effects to Ivermectin alone, many being due to the release of waste from dead parasites and, for Covid, to other associated drugs. By comparison, since the beginning of the year and on February 15, this base reports 65,188 declarations for Comirnaty (the Pfizer vaccine), against 46 for Ivermectin.

In its report of January 11 on these side effects in the treatment of Covid, the ANSM does not report any problem. Of the 15,143 pharmaceutical specialties reimbursed in France, it is certainly the molecule, or one of the molecules that presents the least risk. “Ivermectin is safe and can be used on a large scale,” WHO also writes . In vitro studies and MA files show that the effective doses are low compared to the doses that could pose a problem, this has even been tested at 10 times the dose in humans, without reaction. A study was even done in dogs at 30 times the dose (10mg / kg), without problem.

For the record, only one publication in the world speaks of mortality due to Ivermectin, in The Lancet (a journal whose reliability is decidedly not up to its reputation). This 1997 publication describes 15 deaths out of 47 nursing home residents treated with Ivermectin for an epidemic of scabies. The Lancet might have noticed that a treatment with Lindane and Permethrin, insecticides which kill many animals such as cats, had been applied as a whitewash just before. It took another post to find out. Ivermectin thus took years to recover from a single article with the wrong conclusions.

To put it simply, while an overdose of Doliprane, the drug recommended by the authorities, can lead to life-threatening liver necrosis, an overdose of Ivermectin is harmless.

Prophylaxis

Ivermectin has a remarkable prophylaxis action against Sars-Cov-2. The low rate of Covid in Africa, while at the beginning of the epidemic the WHO predicted a massacre, is perhaps not foreign to its wide use (not to mention all the treatments for malaria with Hydroxychloroquine). In the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents , Martin Hellwig and colleagues from Plymouth (USA), after a review of the literature, find that countries where Ivermectin chemoprophylaxis is administered en masse have significantly lower epidemics. However, if an annual intake is sufficient for many parasites, this is not the case for viruses, hence the interest of the ongoing work of the Medincell company in Montpellier to develop a long-acting form.

There are currently in the world, concerning prophylaxis alone, 11 studies on the subject (3ECR), involving more than 7,000 patients, with an average efficacy of 89%. Here are two examples, with 100% efficiency:

- A study in Argentina focused on nearly 1,200 caregivers in contact with Covid patients, at 4 sites, for 2 and a half months. 788 received Ivermectin and 407 did not. Result: 237 infections in the untreated group (i.e. 58% of the group), and 0 in the treated group. A final result.

- A second French publication focused on the 121 residents and employees of an Ehpad (69 residents, average age 90, and 52 employees) in Seine et Marne who found themselves protected from Covid, thanks to the treatment of a scabies outbreak at the facility in March 2020.

[kagalingan]

Therapeutic action

If Ivermectin acts on Sars-CoV-2 when it attacks the human organism, preventing its entry into cells and its multiplication, it would be totally illogical that what we see in prophylaxis does not reproduce in therapy . This is what most studies show, describing very rapid improvement in early stage disorders (within 48 hours). And it is not without interest either in the later phase. Most of the time, however, Ivermectin is associated with macrolides (most often azithromycin or doxycycline), as in the protocol of the IHU of Marseille (where azithromycin is given in addition to hydroxychloroquine). It is therefore mainly on the combination of these two drugs that the scientific evaluation of their therapeutic efficacy is carried out.

No study in the world shows an ineffectiveness of Ivermectin. Only 2 or 3 studies (eg Chacar, 2020 ) do not show any difference with other care (or an absence of particular care) but these studies relate each time to few cases and especially to young subjects (aged 20 to 40 years old). How to demonstrate that one treatment works better than another at an age when almost all people recover naturally?

If it is difficult to analyze these studies, all different, all with possible imperfections, it is best to add them together, which is what the WHO is doing to assess Ivermectin. There are several sites that do, and there are studies of several doctors, such as Drs Marik and Kory in the United States and Hill and Lawrie in England.

The c19ivermectin.com site lists 41 studies (including 20 randomized) carried out by 304 authors on 14,833 patients, with results of 89% in prophylaxis, 83% in the early phase, overall mortality decreasing by 78%.

In March 2020 Professor Paul Marik created a group of experts, with Dr Kory, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), to collate and analyze all the studies in order to develop a treatment protocol for the COVID-19. They discovered Ivermectin late in the day. Their work includes all the modes of action of Ivermectin and the results of all the trials available in prophylaxis and therapy. They detail each of the studies , without performing a meta-analysis and conclude that Ivermectin is effective in prophylaxis, therapy and long Covids. These results on more than 7,000 patients were presented on January 6 before the National Institute of Health.

Andrew Hill, at the request of WHO / Unitaid, analyzed 18 less questionable randomized clinical trials, involving 2282 patients. He noted rapid improvement in disorders, reduced hospitalization and a 75% reduction in mortality.

There is also the work of Dr. Tess Lawrie. This South African-born doctor, researcher in Great Britain, director of an independent evidence-based medicine consulting firm (Evidence-Base Medecine Consultancy Ltd), which tracks down good and bad publications. Her work on Ivermectin is done according to Cochrane guidelines as she is used to doing for the WHO for its recommendations worldwide. It used the 27 analyzes of the FLCCC, to make a meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational controlled studies (EOC), and excluding 11 studies including 5 prophylactic. The results on only the least debatable studies, controlled, reread and published, show a decrease in mortality of 83%. On prophylaxis studies, 88% efficacy. Everything is summarized in an excellent interview to see .

All these studies, on both sides of the Atlantic converge, all give the same results, results confirmed by selecting only the studies that cannot be biased. As Tess Lawrie says, according to studies, we can argue about the percentage decline in mortality, but the only thing that cannot be questioned is the reality of the decline. WHO and ANSM, as well as other countries (South Africa, United Kingdom, etc.) are studying the Ivermectin dossier to review their position. India distributes massively (120 million doses sold) and has 3 to 4 times fewer deaths than us, and each month 2 or 3 more countries authorize its use. See a world map here .

A cruel comparison for France (and most Western countries)

What are unsuccessful studies? Some studies that are too small or not very representative (under 40, patients in intensive care), but also large studies, because not yet reread and published, but the results are there. Take the example of this very large observational study carried out in the Dominican Republic , in the hospitals of Bournigal and Punta Cana, on a cohort of nearly 3,100 patients who presented to hospital emergency rooms with symptoms dating back 3.6 days. on average. This poor country dealt extensively with hydroxychloroquine, but fell out of stock from the third week of April 2020. Having read that Ivermectin could be advantageously used in Covid in an Australian in vitro study , their Committee of ethics decided between Doliprane and Ivermectin. They then treated between 1 st May and 10 August (end date of the study in question) all patients presenting to the emergency Covid or 3099 in total. According to the importance of the disorders, they distinguished these patients into 4 categories.

- Category 1: 2,706 patients were discharged and followed home, with Ivermectin. Of these 2,706 patients, 16 subsequently had to be hospitalized in Covid units (0.6%), 2 went to intensive care and finally only one died, i.e. a case fatality rate of 0.04% in the 'whole cohort). In France, where we were officially content to give Doliprane, we can estimate that 10 to 15% of symptomatic patients went through the hospital and that 2% died (around 20,000 positive cases and 400 deaths per day in average for 2 months).

- Category 2: 300 patients presented with more severe disorders and were immediately hospitalized in Covid units. Of these 300 patients, 3 died, for a case fatality rate of 1%. In France, this figure is around 15 to 20%.

- Categories 3 and 4 concern even sicker patients who arrived later (7 to 8 days) after the onset of the first symptoms, who were immediately placed in intensive care. Of these 93 patients, a good third (34) died. Here it is clear that Ivermectin is no longer of therapeutic interest.

Thus, at the early stages, the combination Ivermectin / Azithromycin avoids hospitalization in the vast majority of cases, and reduces mortality to 1 in 2,700, ie a rate almost equal to 0. At this stage as at the stage of hospitalization, the difference with the mortality rates observed in France is striking. It is finally only at the stage of resuscitation that this dual therapy no longer really shows any interest.

Authorization to process, lies and disclaimers

Why is Ivermectin not yet officially authorized in France? Any drug, before marketing, must pass a number of examinations to demonstrate its efficacy and harmlessness, with a benefit / risk ratio which must be favorable. The studies are long and costly, financed only by the laboratories, which finally hand over a turnkey dossier to the health authorities while they wait for the latter to issue them with the sesame (marketing authorization, AMM). For a laboratory to take these steps, it must find a financial interest. The problem with Ivermectin - like hydroxychloroquine - is that it has fallen into the public domain, that it is generic and therefore no longer brings in much money to the manufacturers who produce it.

It was previously the Merck laboratory that held the patent. In France, it currently only sells less than 5% of the eleven authorized commercial presentations, the rest being generics. This drug is therefore no longer of interest to him. Is it therefore surprising that Merck is now denigrating its own medicine ? Like hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin is an “orphan” molecule that no one will take charge of (neither in the fight against Covid, nor in other diseases). Therefore, it should be the role of public health authorities to seize it, in the general interest. A country as huge as India has understood it. Not France, whose totally hospital-centered strategy prevents more broadly from thinking about treatments in the early phase, which means that we are in the leading group of countries where Covid-related mortality has been the highest, not to mention lasting sequelae of the disease in patients who have not received proper treatment.

On all this, however, weighs a lead, a denial or even a taboo , which is not unlike the case of hydroxychloroquine. The health authorities, INSERM and a number of doctors handpicked to intervene on television sets denigrate Ivermectin . The press (starting with AFP) immediately relayed this denigration and there is not a single journalist to go and check all this. Finally, the journal Prescrire (which is independent of the industrialists but not of the State from which it receives subsidies) in turn lets itself go to manipulate the results of scientific studies to denigrate this drug.

WHO and, in France, the National Medicines Safety Agency (ANSM) are studying the case for Ivermectin, this drug whose discoverers have been nobelized and which demonstrates its effectiveness in many countries elsewhere. than in the West. We must hope that the situation is unblocked before the end of the epidemic and before we have only eyes left to mourn the dead.



The Club is the free expression space for Mediapart subscribers. Its contents do not engage the editorial staff.

Google Translate

[_Cathy_]

If you rememeber last year I posted about Ivermectin na pinaguusapan sa international forum na sinusundan ko.

Ang haka haka sa covid eh veerus pero bacterial ang manifestation.

Tapos ang FDA ng pinas as usual warning muna kasi huli na naman.

Ito ang pharmaceutical medicine na hangang ngayon maganda pa rin nababasa ko. Hindi ito kagaya yung kagauhan ni trumpo hydrochlorox. (natawa ako ang dami nabola tsikoteers jan hahahahaha)

Sa nababasa ko nga combination ng lysine and ivermectin. But im just throwing this information. You need to study tsikoteers. Wag kayo magpakahon sa mga supot na atenista, lasalista at updilim. Kasi tigok ang mga nakakahon.




FDA warns vs use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 – Manila Bulletin

Kags yan ang tina take ni fat lab monthly



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[dr. d]

Kags yan ang tina take ni fat lab monthly



Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Bwahahaha..!!!

[BratPAQ]

Ito rin ang tema ng column ni Boo Chanco
I heard from General Carlito Galvez, chief implementor of COVID plans and vaccine czar, that the bulk of COVID-19 vaccines will arrive in the second quarter this year.

I also heard from Martin Andanar, the administration’s chief propagandist, that with the arrival of the vaccines, there is light at the end of the tunnel and that the country will achieve herd immunity before the end of the year.

“Heard” immunity… also known as pang press release lang even as we are getting antsy about vaccine availability.

Herd immunity, 240k pa lang nababakunahan since March 1. Kung hindi bumilis ito. 500kba
500k a month. That means yung target nila na 1.7 million na HCW eh early June pa matatapos. Yung mga 2nd priority is June pa magsisimula.

They need to distribute the vaccines faster, baka pwede mag bakuna na rin mga private hospital.

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[istan]

They need to come up with a plan faster, so they can line their wallets up faster. Sureball papa abutin yan ng 2022. Vote for me, I bring vaccine type of thing. Tapos yun vaccine, galing rin naman sa taxes natin or donated.

100% ganyan mangyayari.

May dahilan bat babagalbagal sila.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[baludoy]

Ganyan ang media, misleading people sa headlines. Bawal daw china vaccines.

But upon reading, hindi sya bawal, but they 'cannot use' any chinese made vaccines because wala pang EUA. Not because may masamang effect.

actually it has become more than that because china (and other countries for that matter ) is using their vaccines as tools for propaganda and the projection of soft power.

in this particular case, beijing's sudden offer , in cooperation w/ the international olympic committee (ioc), to inoculate all participating athletes w/ chinese made vaccines is primarily designed to:

1. upstage and embarrass japan especially in the light of their dispute of okinawa's senkaku islands, of w/c the japanese have been gaining pogi points internationally,

and

2. to silence criticisms of china's handling of the terrible human rights atrocities on their uyghur ethnic population. you've got to remember, the beijing winter olympics is just around the corner and calls to boycott it is gaining ground internationally essentially because of that.

putting into context that japan and china have deep seated animosity since forever, the japanese is set to lose face here and hindi lang iyan simpleng sampal sa mukha sa kanila.

kung sa bagay, the olympics itself is one big propaganda machine for whomever is handling it. so it's not unprecedented for other nations to attempt to steal the host's thunder and instead train the spotlight on them. it's happened before so what's to stop that from happening again.

whoever said sports and politics should not be mixed does not live in the modern era.

applies to japanese Athlete in japan not international athletes who plan to compete in the Olympic games.

it's not explicitly stated but the offer to vaccinate japanese athletes is there. especially now that vaccine rollout in japan is wanting.

it's a bit farfetched but can you just imagine if japan is forced to accept beijing's suggestion to "help" in vaccinating their athletes just to save this year's olympics - that would be an absolute coup de etat for xi jinping. babango ang image ng china, and that's what they exactly want.

it's all about perception and influence. that's a priceless commodity in realpolitik. kaya akma nga talaga iyong relatively newish term na "vaccine diplomacy" na ginawa ng mga political pundits.

[shadow]

Nabasa ko now nag request na rin pala private sectors na payagan sila mag import ng vaccines.

Matagal ko na sinasabi yan dahil hinde naman kaya ng palpak duterte, sobrang bagal gumalaw.

From head to toes ang kapalpakan ng duterte admin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[111prez]

actually it has become more than that because china (and other countries for that matter ) is using their vaccines as tools for propaganda and the projection of soft power.

in this particular case, beijing's sudden offer , in cooperation w/ the international olympic committee (ioc), to inoculate all participating athletes w/ chinese made vaccines is primarily designed to:

1. upstage and embarrass japan especially in the light of their dispute of okinawa's senkaku islands, of w/c the japanese have been gaining pogi points internationally,

and

2. to silence criticisms of china's handling of the terrible human rights atrocities on their uyghur ethnic population. you've got to remember, the beijing winter olympics is just around the corner and calls to boycott it is gaining ground internationally essentially because of that.

putting into context that japan and china have deep seated animosity since forever, the japanese is set to lose face here and hindi lang iyan simpleng sampal sa mukha sa kanila.

kung sa bagay, the olympics itself is one big propaganda machine for whomever is handling it. so it's not unprecedented for other nations to attempt to steal the host's thunder and instead train the spotlight on them. it's happened before so what's to stop that from happening again.

whoever said sports and politics should not be mixed does not live in the modern era.



it's not explicitly stated but the offer to vaccinate japanese athletes is there. especially now that vaccine rollout in japan is wanting.

it's a bit farfetched but can you just imagine if japan is forced to accept beijing's suggestion to "help" in vaccinating their athletes just to save this year's olympics - that would be an absolute coup de etat for xi jinping. babango ang image ng china, and that's what they exactly want.

it's all about perception and influence. that's a priceless commodity in realpolitik. kaya akma nga talaga iyong relatively newish term na "vaccine diplomacy" na ginawa ng mga political pundits.

All that plus the propaganda/pampaganda efforts of the CHINA WUHAN VIRUS country to deflect the origin of this pandemic.

Which reminds me, what happened to the final report of the WHO investigation in tsayna? Was this released already?

[BratPAQ]

Nabasa ko now nag request na rin pala private sectors na payagan sila mag import ng vaccines.

Matagal ko na sinasabi yan dahil hinde naman kaya ng palpak duterte, sobrang bagal gumalaw.

From head to toes ang kapalpakan ng duterte admin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think this admin would let someone get the credit of mass vaccination? Lalo na at malapit na election.

Yung prediction na sa 2023 pa tayo mag kaka herd immunity is based on the fact na 2022 pa mapapalitan itong administrasyon na ito. [emoji23]

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[Flipo]

that's at least 200,000 vaccinations administered per day...

we haven’t started vaccinating our people beyond some frontline healthcare workers. That’s because the only vaccines we have on hand are the donations from China and COVAX, a project of the World Health Organization. The Duterte officials dropped the ball on negotiations for our vaccine supplies, remember?

But Galvez claims to be on track to vaccinate 70 million Filipinos this year. We only effectively have six months left if the vaccines will arrive soon as often claimed. That’s 180 days left. Can we vaccinate about 400,000 people a day?

That’s a fantastic and worthwhile goal. But given the track record of Duterte’s COVID response team, can we believe they are capable of pulling that off? It is simpler to contact trace, but they failed big time and still failing… hence this horrible surge of COVID cases these days.


Heard immunity | Philstar.com

[boybi]

They need to distribute the vaccines faster, baka pwede mag bakuna na rin mga private hospital.

Sumabay na din private hospitals in vaccinating their HCWs.

[111prez]

Not disowned pala, just clarified regarding the CHINA WUHAN VIRUS baksin: