Be kind

Reflections on strange times: Covid-19

1. Introduction

I've been affected by the unsettling polarization in public opinion surrounding a myriad of Covid-19 issues, vaccine passports, lockdowns, emergency legislation, Bill Gates etc... Everybody has been hearing it, the polarization is happening amidst a rising tide of anger and fear. Never in my life have I experienced such division within the community, between families, between friends, even between partners.

When contentious issues are discussed, and emotions run high, rational thought and open dialogue can be the first casualties. Certainly, I'm guilty of this human frailty, and can think of many occasions when my personal biases have clouded my judgment. As such, over the past year I've attempted to maintain an open mind, to empathize with a range of fiercely held opinions, to find common ground with people,  and to understand what the hell is going on. The difficulty of doing so has been compounded by the surreal experience of lockdowns, social isolation, and the disfunction of communicating on social media.

In a climate of fear, maintaining the ability to think and speak freely, and to dispassionately consider a range of ideas becomes increasingly challenging. Current events are moving so quickly, its difficult to digest the unprecedented social and political changes we are currently experiencing,  censorship laws, vaccine passports, rushed emergency health legislation with no sunset clauses. I find the mandate to embrace our government as a  ‘single source of truth’ equally disquieting. For this reason, I would like to play devil’s advocate for some contentious ideas that question the official position on Covid-19. I would like to share the following peer-reviewed studies, news articles (all from trusted sources), and expert opinion as a counterpoint to our current pandemic response. I do so as an emphatic rejection of censorship, and in defense of the democratic right to engage in open dialogue and scientific debate.   

2. The proposition

I’ve broken down some concerns, laid out below as a series of questions. I appreciate that answering these questions would require significant research and evidence. However, I believe a preliminary body of compelling evidence (presented by a growing number of professionals globally) already warrants serious consideration of the following: 

Question 1

Have pharmaceutical regulatory agencies — those entrusted with the independent oversight of global health — been captured by corporate interests?

Question 2

Given that the World Health Organisation guides and coordinates international health policy, overseeing subsidiary regulators like Medsafe in NZ. Is it reasonable to consider that health policy locally is being unduly influenced by financial incentives? (In the context of the current pandemic this financial incentive is unprecedented, and measures in the billions). 

Question 3

If the evidence for regulatory capture could be demonstrated, what might the consequences be for global health in the context of the current pandemic?

Question 4

One of the leading US clinicians in early Covid care, Pierre Kory (MD), claims the weight of scientific evidence supporting Ivermectin’s efficacy in the treatment of Covid-19 is overwhelming, and that regulatory approval for the use of Ivermectin would have ended the pandemic.  Is it conspiratorial thinking to consider that corporate profit, and the capture of regulatory bodies by big pharma might be behind the suppression of Ivermectin, and other cheap Covid-19 drug treatments? (Ivermectin’s patent has expired, and consequently pharmaceutical companies can’t profit from its use).

NPR article: Some doctors think they've found a cheap generic drug which treats covid-19 so why hasn't anyone heard of it?

Question 5

If policy makers are overlooking cheap lifesaving drugs to ensure the ongoing uptake of lucrative vaccines, (profit before life) can these policy makers also be trusted to impartially assess the safety of a vaccine with no studies on long-term effects?

Question 6

Are these questions worthy of consideration in the context of informed consent, human rights, and the current climate of pressure/coercion implicitly exerted by vaccinate passports?

3. The counterpoint

Here is a discussion conducted by biologist Bret Weinstein (PhD) with physician Pierre Kory (MD) see Pierre’s LinkedIn profile here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pierre-kory-8021731b6 .

The conversation focuses on the evidence-based efficacy for Ivermectin use in the treatment of Covid-19, and questions why approval for Ivermectin is being stalled by regulatory bodies. 

https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the/id1471581521?i=1000523859023

A reference list of  peer-reviewed studies mentioned in the podcast is available at the bottom of this post.

Video: Dr Pierre Kory's lecture to Physicians on Ivermectin 

Pierre Kory: "We have serious problems right now where the science is being viewed as inconvenient to the monolithic vaccination policy, and is being suppressed."

Here is another interview discussing peer reviewed evidence for the efficacy of early covid-19 drug treatment, and its censorship. The interview is conducted by Dr. Mobeen Syed with Steve Kirsh (Covid early treatment fund).What I find particularly worrying in this video is the discussion around regulatory capture of policy makers by pharmaceutical companies. If you click on the link, it will open the video at the relevant discussion point.

https://youtu.be/tHIYXqMXZOU?t=1286

Why has the Pfizer vaccine been granted full indemnity against injury claims in New Zealand despite no safety data on the long-term side effects? See this RNZ article.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/.../government-grants-vaccine...

Pfitzers liability waiver should give pause for thought. If their product is as safe as they claim, and the company is motivated by the highest ethical standards of care, why doesn’t that extend to compensation for harm? Could it be that profit is the guiding principle underpinning their actions?

Pfizer stand to make $33.5 Billion in vaccine revenue in 2021.

https://www.forbes.com/.../pfizer-expects-335-billion.../...

Is it conspiratorial thinking to consider the possibility that corporate profit, and the capture of regulatory bodies by big pharma might be behind the suppression of covid-19 drug treatments such as Ivermectin?

As discussed in the linked interviews, Ivermectin has a 40-year safety record in the treatment of human parasitic disease. The scientists who made the breakthrough discoveries involving the drug were awarded the Nobel prize. (Although this honour was unrelated to the subsequent discovery of Ivermectin's antiviral properties). 

Considering the emerging body of evidence for Ivermectin's impressive antiviral effects, why are the media so quick to discredit it as horse wormer? (See Pierre Kory in discussion with Brett Weinstein & relevant references).

In the NZ Herald yesterday economist Shamubeel Eaqub says there is no hope of eradicating covid-19. “I think the big thing is that globally, it is now endemic because we have globally failed to roll out vaccinations to poor countries.” Please think about the implications of that statement for a moment. Vaccine companies are withholding vaccines from poor countries, and tacitly exempting themselves from responsibility for the deaths of those who can't pay.

 "Rich countries benefit from new health technology first, while poor countries have to wait years or decades for it to trickle down to them. It is estimated that about 85 countries will not have widespread access to the vaccines until 2023, while mass immunisation might not happen until 2024."

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/.../vaccine-nationalism...

Meanwhile, “AstraZeneca plans to award its chief executive, Pascal Soriot, a big increase in bonuses – 650% of his 1.3m (pounds) base salary,” https://www.theguardian.com/.../obscene-bonus-hike-for...

Considered within the context of a global pandemic, the national rally cry of self-sacrifice "shot bro" is rendered impotent by profit driven pharmaceutical companies who refuse to do the same, resulting in global death and endemic disease. Furthermore, policy makers (arguably) are overlooking readily available drugs that could save lives to ensure the ongoing uptake of lucrative vaccines.

Who should carry the burden of shame for these monumental failures? Should it be the unvaccinated poor, or the vaccine hesitant? Glenn Greenwald highlights the worrying trend amongst liberal elites to label the unvaccinated as stupid, primitive and ignorant. He points out that vaccine hesitancy often reflects racial and economic disparities and warns against the alarming media trend of violent sentiment aimed at the unvaxed.

 "Howard Stern recently lambasted the unvaccinated as “imbeciles” and “nut jobs” and argued they should be denied health care and be left to die. That the unvaccinated are inherently primitive and stupid troglodytes was always a claim as baseless and offensive as it is counter-productive." - Glenn Greenwald

The following article was published October 9th 2021 in The Lancet (A weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal, among the world's oldest, best-known general medical journals). The article raises concerns about boosters and is titled 'Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses,' Its authored by FDA Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Vaccines Research, Marion Gruber and Phillip Kause Available: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext

This article details the need for a careful risk benefit analysis before adopting ongoing vaccine boosters. The authors argue for a science based decision concerning booster policy:

"these high-stakes decisions should be based on peer-reviewed and publicly available data and robust international scientific discussion."

"This is a compelling issue, particularly as the currently available evidence does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination."

The article details potential long term risks from the Pfizer jab in reference to heart inflammation (myocarditis). The authors warn that if the risks associated with ongoing boosters are found to be worse than the benefits, pressure to adopt a booster policy based on other factors, (economic for example) would be a mistake.

Given that we are about to introduce vaccination passports in NZ that will mandate biannual jabs for life or face excommunication from society for non compliance, we might want to be sure about the safety of doing so.

The authors state that the science does not currently support the efficacy and safety of boosters:

"any decisions about the need for boosting or timing of boosting should be based on careful analyses of adequately controlled clinical or epidemiological data ... along with evidence about whether a specific boosting regimen is likely to be safe and effective against currently circulating variants."

By definition, a failed risk benefit analysis identifies a solution worse than the problem I.e. vaccine boosters pose more health risks than Covid. Although this is not the finding of the article, given the lack of scientific data to support booster safety raised by leading vaccine safety administrators at the FDA, we ought to take notice.

It is also worth noting that after publication of the Lancet article the authors resigned from the FDA. Its worrying that an appeal by scientists for science based policy was so controversial it warranted resignation (a political statement), and a serious warning that current vaccine policy is being dictated by political and economic factors, and not health concerns.

4. Conclusion

In stark contrast to the pandemic boom which is reaping unprecedented profits for big pharma, the NZ public are being pressured to: vaccinate with an experimental mrna vaccine with no long-term safety record; give up civil liberties; pay for any harm caused by the vaccine with our taxes; suffer endless lockdowns that are destroying livelihoods and the economy; adopt vaccine passports. All this is happening with very little adversarial pushback from the media.

Like all New Zealanders, I’m concerned for the wellbeing of my family, my friends, and the wider community. I don't want to place anybody at risk, and the thought of potentially doing so is gut wrenching and weighs heavily on me. Until recently I was going to get the jab. Like most people I considered it the best course of action. I'm not an antivaxxer (I've had just about every vaccine known to man). That’s why I don’t consider these questions as trivial; they are heart felt and the source of some vexation. The concerns they raise are moot points. I will be more than happy if they are unfounded, because if not, the implications are chilling to consider.

Reference List

DarkHorse podcast, Dr. Bret Weinstein (Ph.D) and Dr. Pierre Kory (M.D.) discuss the ongoing pandemic, the care of COVID-19 patients, and the incredible story of Ivermectin. Mentioned in the full episode: British Ivermectin Recommendation Development group: https://bird-group.org/

The BIRD Recommendation on the Use of Ivermectin for Covid-19: Executive Summary: https://bird-group.org/wp-content/upl... Carvallo et al 2020. Study of the efficacy and safety of topical ivermectin+ iota-carrageenan in the prophylaxis against COVID-19 in health personnel. J. Biomed. Res. Clin. Investig., 2. https://medicalpressopenaccess.com/upload/1605709669_1007.pdf Cobos-Campos et al 2021.Potential use of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Efficacy of ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2. Clin Res Trials, 7: 1-5. https://www.readkong.com/page/potential-use-of-ivermectin-for-the-treatment-and-2189857

Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 93 studies, 55 peer reviewed, 56 with results comparing treatment and control groups: https://c19ivermectin.com Karale et al 2021. A Meta-analysis of Mortality, Need for ICU admission, Use of Mechanical Ventilation and Adverse Effects with Ivermectin Use in COVID-19 Patients. medRxiv. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/05/04/2021.04.30.21256415.full.pdf Kory et al 2021. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28(3): e299: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ Nardelli et al 2021. Crying wolf in time of Corona: the strange case of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Is the fear of failure withholding potential life-saving treatment from clinical use?. Signa Vitae, 1: 2. https://oss.signavitae.com/mre-signavitae/article/20210508-344/pdf/3-4%20SV2021022602.pdf Yagisawa et al 2021. Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19. The Japanese Journal of Antibiotics, 74: 1. https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1_44-95.pdf