Indian Bar Association vs WHO  re disinformation about Invermectin

Interesting development, lets see what happens!

This is a conversation about the Indian Bar Association’s decision to issue legal notice on WHO chief scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan

“The 51 page notice, served 25th of May, claims as its legal basis alleged WHO’s ‘disinformation and censorship’ on the Ivermectin issue.”

Almost an hour, I will wait for some written reports on the story.

 

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Indian Bar Association vs WHO  re disinformation about Invermectin

  1. Hoogan says:

    The Indian Bar Association has served legal notice on World Health Organization’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, 2021, claiming that she was suppressing information about the use of Invermectin and “spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfill her agenda.” It further sought to prevent her from “causing further damage.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/who-chief-scientist-served-legal-notice-india-allegedly-suppressing-data-drug-treat-covid

  2. Hoogan says:

    As a friend of mine said recently: “ Isn’t it amazing that an effective treatment has always been available, but no one wants to touch it, because Great Reset?”
    There’s no greater scandal in the world today than the attempt by unelected health bureaucrats to ignore or suppress the fact that Ivermectin has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to both cure and prevent transmission of the Wuhan Flu, despite the fact that the “vaccines” have been shown not to prevent transmission or reception of the virus, and unlike Ivermectin, has caused at least 4,000 deaths worldwide so far… Ivermectin has been used billions of times and has hurt practically no one.

    Good on India! I hope she’s successfully prosecuted!

  3. Tel says:

    The lawyers have been sitting for 15 months watching the doctors get all the money and attention … about time they pulled finger and got some of this action.

    Then again, Indians have a tendency to revert back to summary justice mode when they get impatient with the legal process.

  4. Xenophon says:

    IBA is an attention seeking group of lawyers trying to promote their interests. Not to be confused with the Indian Bar Council.

  5. flyingduk says:

    IBA is an attention seeking group of lawyers trying to promote their interests

    Goodo ….Ivermectin is debunked then ….thanks for clearing that up!

  6. Steve trickler says:

    Another from the Fuaci-Grady ( And Others ) NIH WEF WHO cesspool.

    Transcript from a clip posted on the W.H.O website. Clip link at the link.
    8 January 2021 | Science conversation

    Transcript
    Vismita Gupta-Smith

    We’re hearing about variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. How concerned should we be? And do vaccines provide protection against these variants? Welcome to Science in 5. I’m Vismita Gupta-Smith and this is WHO’s conversations in science. Answering these questions today will be WHO’s chief scientist, dr

    Soumya Swaminathan.

    Welcome, Soumya.

    Dr Soumya Swaminathan

    Hello Vismita, nice to be back with you again on Science in 5.

    Vismita Gupta-Smith

    Soumya, tell us what we know about these variants. How concerned should we be? And is it unusual for viruses to change?

    Dr Soumya Swaminathan

    From the beginning of the year, we’ve been tracking this virus and we know that it’s gone through a lot of changes and there’ve been variants before. Now this particular time there have been two particular variants that have been reported to WHO. One was identified in the UK and one was identified in South Africa. They do have one change in common, we call it the N501Y mutation. But otherwise the two are different. And the reason there’s concern is that both of these variants were associated with an increase in the number of cases in both of these countries.

    And scientists have now studied this and have found that these variants do tend to spread faster, they’re more transmissible or more infectious. So that’s the worrying part. However, so far, they do not seem to cause more severe illness or a higher death rate or any sort of different clinical manifestations.

    They seem to behave pretty much as the previous viruses were behaving and cause a pretty similar kind of disease.

    Vismita Gupta-Smith

    Soumya, a number of countries are rolling out vaccines as we speak. Do these vaccines protect us from these variants? And is this something that is kept in mind when vaccines are being manufactured?

    Dr Soumya Swaminathan

    Yes, this is a very important point that vaccine developers keep in mind. And as you know, we have some vaccines, like measles, which you don’t need to change at all. You make the vaccine, it works pretty much all the time. But you also have vaccines like against the influenza virus, where you have to change the structure of the vaccine every year, based on the circulating strains and WHO coordinates this global network that actually identifies which strain should be used every year.

    Now for SARS-CoV-2 we’re still learning, we’re still observing and our knowledge is evolving. But at this point in time, most scientists believe that the vaccines that are currently in development and a couple that have been approved should provide protection against this variant and other variants because these vaccines elicit a fairly broad immune response, a host of antibodies and cell-mediated immune responses.

    And so a couple of changes or mutations in the virus should not make these vaccines ineffective. But right now there are studies going on in labs around the world to actually confirm that. And in the small possibility that perhaps these are less effective against one or both of these variants, nowadays the way vaccines are developed, it will be possible actually to also change the composition of the antigens and the vaccines quite quickly.

    Vismita Gupta-Smith

    Soumya, in this pandemic the world is in this situation where new evidence comes in almost every day and we’re learning new things. But at the same time, we have to act in real time to protect ourselves. So tell us how in this new scenario with the new variants, how can people protect themselves and what should governments be doing?

    Dr Soumya Swaminathan

    So what we know about this variant and previous variants is that the virus is still behaving in the same way, it’s spreading in the same way. And the more we give it a chance to spread and to multiply within humans, the more chances it’s going to have to keep changing itself, that’s its natural property.

    So we really need to go and focus now and attack it and make sure that we’re doing everything we can do to reduce transmission. And we know the things that work. We know that testing, that identifying those who are infectious, that being able to provide them supportive isolation, tracking and contact tracing, and quarantining all the contacts, making sure that people continue to comply with the physical distancing, with wearing a mask with avoiding crowded places, avoiding closed settings, where there are a lot of people, washing hands, respiratory etiquette, staying home if you’re sick. All of these things together definitely make a difference in bringing down transmission.

    That’s been shown again and again in country after country. So I think at this time we need to double down because we know the same public health and social measures will work against these variants, as have worked in the past.

    And right now we’re at a very critical stage in many parts of the world, where we really need to be focusing on bringing down the transmission and that in turn will help in reducing how much this virus can actually change.

    Vismita Gupta-Smith

    Thank you Soumya. There you have it, WHO’s chief scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan talking about variants and vaccines. Until next time then. Stay safe, stay healthy and stick with science.

    Link

  7. Helen says:

    two teaspoons for 50-100 kg applied dermally (on the skin)

  8. Xenophon says:

    Flying duk: proves nothing at all

  9. ozman says:

    Steve trickler says:
    June 11, 2021 at 10:04 pm

    We know that testing, that identifying those who are infectious, that being able to provide them supportive isolation, tracking and contact tracing, and quarantining all the contacts, making sure that people continue to comply with the physical distancing, with wearing a mask with avoiding crowded places, avoiding closed settings, where there are a lot of people, washing hands, respiratory etiquette, staying home if you’re sick.

    Domestic Vaccine Certification
    National Cabinet welcomed the Commonwealth’s COVID-19 digital vaccination certificate ….with a future digital wallet version to be made available in July. States and territories may consider the potential future value of COVID-19 digital certificates when considering automatic travel exemptions for interstate travel during state-determined lockdowns and travel restrictions.
    https://www.pm.gov.au/media/national-cabinet-statement-040621

    And everybody thought 1984 was just a fictitious story!

  10. Steve trickler says:

    ozman.

    It will all fall into a heap, eventually. Once a few law suits get some traction, I expect a few pollies to shit themselves. No f&cking way can anyone present a scientific argument to defend this bullshit. Climategate pales in comparison.

  11. Chris M says:

    I feel we may be somewhat under appreciating our politicians here in Oz. Look at what happened to Dan for example, it’s a dangerous and poorly paid job they undertake.

    One measure that would help to protect them besides avoiding all travel is to have monthly Covid vaccine shots, both AZ and Pfiz in each arm, at least they would be safe from this horrific ravaging disease and able to keep nobly leading us and of course protecting us with the safety lock downs.

  12. Steve trickler says:

    Xenophon says:
    June 11, 2021 at 11:13 pm
    Flying duk: proves nothing at all

    You again.

    Any and all information in this thread should be on the MSM.

  13. Steve trickler says:

    Not to be lost on the OT.

    This bloke is making dents. The pricks coming after him continue to spring out of the woodwork. Exposing themselves for all and sundry. Any troll want to start dropping names?

    Do it! It will be a valuable cause.

    Lies on the BBC will Result in Children Dying

  14. mareeS says:

    We have son and daughter age 30s who refuse to have this unproven vaccination, now that heart and blood disorders are becoming evident. I won’t have it at 64 because I am bolshie by a libertarian nature. Whatever is going on, someone else can be the guineapig.

  15. Shane says:

    The good news with the pfizer and possibly the moderna solutions to our pandemic is at least its going to be a lot easier to keep your phone handy as a lot of Mexicans appear to have found out. (Amazing & really strange that youtube hasnt shut it down yet.)
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lXjjOLhFnHA

    And even better, the Punjab state government is talking about disabling the sim card of any vax hesitant anti science people
    https://www.rt.com/news/526262-punjab-pakistan-sim-card-vaccine/

  16. Boambee John says:

    Xenophon says:
    June 11, 2021 at 9:48 pm
    IBA is an attention seeking group of lawyers trying to promote their interests. Not to be confused with the Indian Bar Council.

    You are still spelling your tag incorrectly.

    It’s “Xenophobe)”.

  17. duncanm says:

    btw, for those who think Pfizer is safer:

    https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-graphs

    both about the same at about 30-40 deaths/million vaccinations

    Moderna at about 8/million.

  18. Helen says:

    What are the death rates / bad outcomes for J and J?

  19. Terry says:

    Xenophon says:
    June 11, 2021 at 9:48 pm

    1. Ivermectin has a proven track record (over many decades) of being inherently safe for human use. (1st, do no harm).

    2. Its efficacy as a prophylactic, treatment and/or cure for Covid seems to be very strong. (Further studies will confirm – or not)

    But even if it were a mere placebo, #1 means no one (except pro-vax zealots) should have a problem with its widespread use for whatever a patient and their physician decide is best for them (actually, its just a patient decision).

    Anyone banning its use should be held entirely accountable at Nuremberg2.0.

    I would have no problem placing the pro-vax zealots alongside the Health Fascists in the dock when the time comes. We’re going to need a lot of gallows.

  20. Matt says:

    1. Ivermectin has a proven track record (over many decades) of being inherently safe for human use. (1st, do no harm).

    Safety is dose dependent, and this really gets to the heart of the Ivermectin issue – is it effective at the usual prescribed dose, or dose it require higher dosage which pushes the limit of safe prescribing?

  21. Terry says:

    Matt says:
    June 12, 2021 at 1:50 pm
    ‘Safety is dose dependent…’

    Well, thanks Captain Obvious.

    For what drug (or any substance) is safety not dose-dependent?

    A small dose of paracetamol can break a potentially lethal fever, while too much can fail your liver. Therefore we should ban paracetamol to treat fever? Don’t be obtuse.

    ‘and this really gets to the heart of the Ivermectin issue’
    No, is doesn’t. It misses the point entirely. The Pro-vax Zealot argument hinges on banning its use because of unproven efficacy (itself, a dubious claim). Ironically, such (faux) caution has never been applied to experimental gene-therapy concoctions with not only unproven efficacy but without the decades of safe use! (the cognitive dissonance is breathtaking, even in a world where the stupid now run free and wild).

    THE point is, Ivermectin is safe for human use. Its effectiveness is unproven (but only to the “gold” standard), however, there are myriad studies showing it is effective, particularly in conjunction with other therapeutics, which signal a strong indication of efficacy (and at least something that should be pursued, not banned).

    The Pro-vax Zealots and their brethren in the Health Fascist Industrial Complex have much blood on their hands. They will be called to account (Nuremberg2.0). Many people have died due to their actions (actively banning helpful therapeutics and hunting down those innovating new treatments) and they needn’t have.

    They seized the power (often without being asked). They must wear the consequences of how they (mis-)used it.

  22. Matt says:

    THE point is, Ivermectin is safe for human use. Its effectiveness is unproven

  23. Terry says:

    Matt says:
    June 12, 2021 at 2:55 pm

    THE point is, Ivermectin is safe for human use. (full stop)

  24. Matt says:

    As a general rule we don’t prescribe drugs that are not effective, no matter how safe they are.

  25. Docket62 says:

    We’re going to need a lot of gallows.

    Or firing squads. I’ll volunteer

  26. Terry says:

    Matt says:
    June 12, 2021 at 3:06 pm
    ‘As a general rule…’
    we don’t lockdown free citizens and suspend expropriate their rights. But hey, interesting times I guess.

    In any case, the safety of Ivermectin is clear.
    From nps.org.au
    Safety issues
    Ivermectin is generally considered a safe medicine in the adult population.’

    ‘Ivermectin has been shown to be safe at higher and more frequent doses than required for TGA-approved indications. A dose escalation study found administering ivermectin to up to 10 times the maximum FDA -approved dose of 200 micrograms per kilogram did not precipitate any adverse effects.

    BTW. Saying efficacy has not been proven (yet), is being (very) polite. It just means a wide-scale clinical trial has not yet been done/funded, mainly due to it being cheap and off-patent (and which pharmaceutical company is going to produce evidence that displaces the very profitable experimental gene-therapy they want to flog to you instead).

    However, meta-analysis of dozens of smaller studies show significant improvement of outcomes through use of Ivermectin (prophylaxis, early and late treatment, hospitalisation, ICU prevention, mortality reduction, duration of illness).

    Only an idiot would not want to at least try this drug, if they were infected by Covid, or cared about those that become infected.

  27. Matt says:

    A dose escalation study found administering ivermectin to up to 10 times the maximum FDA -approved dose of 200 micrograms per kilogram did not precipitate any adverse effects.

    Which will get you to a plasma concentration about 1/17 of that demonstrated to be effective in vitro.

  28. Terry says:

    Matt says:
    June 12, 2021 at 5:22 pm

    You’re missing the point again. Stop be obtuse.

  29. Rex Anger says:

    Stop be obtuse.

    That’s going to be difficult- Matty darling is a VikHelf-affiliated bugman.

    So long as there is a VikHelf to be lethally incompetent in its execution (sic) of its duties, there will be shills like Matty darling to try and run cover for it, by vilifying anyone who dares think anything other than the Party line…

  30. Matt says:

    Not really Terry – if a dose 10 times the maximum recommended dose (which does not precipitate any adverse events) is still an order of magnitude lower than that required to be effective, then that suggest that either at the doses being prescribed (and the literature reports varying regimes) it won’t be effective (which is indeed what the evidence suggests), or that a much higher dose is required, which then suggests potential safety issues.

  31. Terry says:

    Matt says:
    June 12, 2021 at 5:44 pmit won’t be effective (which is indeed what the evidence suggests)

    No! Again! Reality is precisely the opposite of what you suggest.

    Unbelieveable. Are you on wrongology commission or something?

    Meta-analysis of multiple studies shows significant efficacy (at all levels).

    Just need the gold-standard wide-scale clinical trial as a rubber stamp (which no one wants to fund apparently – can’t think of why.)

  32. Matt says:

    Can you post a link to said meta-analysis that shows significant efficacy at all levels? These two suggest currently insufficient evidence.

    Outcomes of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Conclusions: There insufficient certainty and quality of evidence to recommend the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat ambulatory or hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/01
    /27/2021.01.26.21250420.full.pdf

    Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies
    This study has several limitations. First, significant heterogeneities were found on most of the outcomes of interests included in this study. This was probably caused by the difference in the given ivermectin doses and the medications used as a standard of care or placebo. Second, the total number of patients included in this study was relatively small because at this time, ivermectin is still considered as new repurposed drug for Covid-19 where early trials still show conflicting results and there is still no meta-analysis study to support its efficacy, therefore it may be difficult to collect the participants and receiving their consent to participate in the trials.
    This study suggests that ivermectin may be the potential therapeutic agents for the managements of Covid-19 to give better outcomes for the patients. However, more randomized clinical trial studies are still necessary and encouraged to be done for confirming the results of our study.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rmv.2265

  33. Terry says:

    ‘there is still no meta-analysis study to support its efficacy’
    Like this one?
    ‘Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 58 studies’

    * 55 of 58 studies (95%) report positive effects.
    * The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 58 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 9 trillion (p = 0.00000000000011).

  34. Matt says:

    Are you serious Terry?
    Unpublished.
    No inclusion criteria.
    No protocol registered.
    No funnel plot.
    They don’t adequately address heterogeneity.
    Claiming p = 0.00000000000011 is laughable.
    Many of the studies they refer to are not publicly available. Of those that are, few have been peer-reviewed.

  35. Rex Anger says:

    Many of the studies they refer to are not publicly available. Of those that are, few have been peer-reviewed

    Oh, Matty darling.

    Just because an echo chamber has approved something and it has gone in a Big Journal, does not mean any of it is valid.

    Remember this big retraction? From the New England Journal of Medicine?
    https://uncoverdc.com/2020/06/06/politicized-science-lancet-nejm-retract/

    And The Lancet?
    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lancet-retracts-large-study-hydroxychloroquine-n1225091

    This isn’t Facebook, dear bugman. Mere appeals to authority and the SCIENCE!(TM) aren’t going to cut it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.