Ivermectin proved to be even more of a ‘Wonder drug’ in human health, improving the nutrition, general health and wellbeing of billions of people worldwide ever since it was first used to treat Onchocerciasis in humans in 1988.
The narrator explains that Ivermectin, discovered in the 1970s,
treats river blindness caused by a parasitic worm and caused untold suffering
and even death in Central and Southern America and much of Africa.
Instead of Ivermectin, Fauci endorsed
Remdesivir, which has a lousy effect on mortality. In fact, in the study that initially began to
examine mortality, Fauci switched the results or endpoint of the study from
Remdesivir’s impact on mortality to Remdesivir’s impact on “time it takes to
recover.”
So why would Dr. Fauci and NIH
continue to endorse a drug that costs $3,100 per course of treatment [unlike
Ivermectin, which is narrowly free] and that has shown to have no impact on
mortality? Who makes Remdesivir and how
are they related to who gets to decide which drugs can be used to treat
COVID-19?
Remdesivir is made by Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company located in Foster City, CA. From 1997-2001, the chairman of Gilead was Donald Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the War in Iraq.
When Ford lost the 1976 election, Rumsfeld returned to private business and financial life, and was named president and CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation G. D. Searle & Company. He was later named CEO of General Instrument from 1990 to 1993 and chairman of Gilead Sciences from 1997 to 2001.
During the same period, one of the board members of Gilead was George Schultz, a long-time Bush Family ally who was instrumental in convincing George W. Bush to run for the United States.
In order to understand why the NIH treatment panel is so pro-Remdesivir, it’s essential to understand the financial ties between Gilead Sciences and members of that treatment panel. Looking at the treatment panel’s financial disclosures, you will see that no fewer than 7 members disclosed financial support from Gilead Sciences. Interestingly, the 3 co-chairs who select the other members of the panel, do not disclose support from Gilead. However, two of the Chairs, Roy Gulick and Henry Masur, both receive financial support from Gilead. Even more interestingly, the third co-chair, Clifford Lane was actually was one of the authors of the NIAID study on Remdesivir, but you won’t see his name in the list of the article’s authors. You have to look at the financial disclosure form that accompanied that article.
It’s also worth noting that 7 out of 12 of these co-authors on that study disclosed funding from Gilead Sciences. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Two of the three chairs of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Panel, the people who put the panel together, received financial support from Gilead Sciences, while the other was intimately involved in the study that attempted to and failed to prove that Remdesivir was an effective treatment of COVID-19.
Given
these professional and financial ties, is there any way that we could reasonably
expect them to impartially judge the best treatments for COVID-19? Or choose panel members who advocate for
repurposing cheap, off-patent drugs that would completely undercut the market
for one of the main products of a company with which they enjoy close financial
and professional ties?
This seems like good news.
— Stephen W. Carson (@RadicalLib) September 5, 2021
Curious what Ivermectin skeptics have to say about these results.
Thanks to Ryan Dawson. https://t.co/QvGIEbwq1S
No comments:
Post a Comment