Julian Assange
631 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
631 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
This article, which describes why certain drugs are favored over others, generally discredited, is essential for understanding how health care works in our capitalist societies. Point of concern for this one indeed. Above all profit, to the detriment of… health.
Céline Deluzarche, journalist at Futura-science, is delighted that « after the resounding failures of ivermectin, a phase 3 clinical trial has finally confirmed the efficacy of an oral drug against Covid-19: Molnupiravir. This molecule is, according to her, destined to become a mainstream treatment for Covid-19.
Leïla Belkhir, an infectious diseases specialist at Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, considers Molnupiravir, a drug as old as Ivermectin, known for 40 years as MK-4482, to be a « very promising molecule » in the treatment of Covid-19. Molnupiravir is out of the dungeon… Ivermectin is now being thrown in… Why?
Let’s try to answer this question objectively by freeing ourselves from the opinion of experts under influence and journalists under control who forget that in any health crisis, a lie is always synonymous with « death »!
The molecule on the left is a nucleoside: cytidine. A nucleoside is one of the building blocks of the genome, whether viral, plant, animal or human. Cytidine is one of the 5 codes of the nucleic acids, primordial element of the living.
Let’s play the « game of seven errors » for a moment on the other two molecules. Cytarabine differs from cytidine in that a hydroxyl (OH) is transferred from a cis to a trans position relative to the osidic ring. By taking the place of Cytidine in the genome due to this similarity, cytarabine disrupts the mechanism of nucleic acid copying and replication. The resulting blockage of cell reproduction makes this molecule an effective anti-cancer treatment: a chemotherapy for leukemia.
Antivirals in general are structurally very similar to some anti-cancer drugs. Molnupiravir also mimics cytidine with a hydroxyl (OH) on the aromatic ring amine. Due to the maintenance of cis-hydroxyls, it is more active on RNA than on DNA. It therefore theoretically impedes the replication of RNA viruses such as SARS CoV2.
It is therefore very likely and even possible that this molecule is useful in the treatment of Covid-19, but like anti-cancer drugs, it is also very likely and even possible that it is responsible for mutagenic or carcinogenic side effects. Similar experimental drugs in this class are known to be teratogenic in animals, with offspring born without teeth and with missing skull parts.
Dr. Rick Bright, director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the US government’s pandemic countermeasures office, denounced the dangers of continuing to develop molnupiravir. In particular, Bright opposed the granting of a major financial boost that Merck was seeking. He claimed that Robert Kadlec (White House) had helped Merck circumvent the government contracting process 1. Bright was up against some tough opponents, with Molnupiravir being supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by the very mysterious Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The debate was brief. Dr. Bright was immediately removed from his position. In a related development, the U.S. Department of Health committed to purchase $1.2 billion worth of molnupiravir from Merck if the product received emergency use authorization (EUA) or FDA approval. Let’s bet they’ll get that approval soon since Dr. Fauci said it would be done as quickly as possible.
In anticipation of FDA approval, Merck has already begun large-scale production of molnupiravir and plans to manufacture the doses needed for 10 million treatments by the end of the year. Merck has no doubt about the accreditation of its product and does not care about the mutagenic effects of its darling child, despite the study 2 Recent report by Dr. Shuntai Zhou (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), who draws attention in the Journal of Infectious Diseases to the risks of molnupiravir to humans and emphasizes the need for monitoring for potential long-term genotoxic side effects.
Ivermectin, an FDA-approved macrocyclic lactone whose Phase IV study was completed in 1975, is listed as an essential drug by the WHO. We know from half a century of experience that its toxicity to mammals is zero.
Abhigyan Choudhury shows in a paper published in March 2021 in Future virology 3 that ivermectin can bind strongly to the S2 subunit of the SARS-CoV‑2 spike protein, producing by allosteric effect a change in its conformation, which explains its action on SARS CoV2. This mechanism does not affect the genome, which makes it an excellent candidate for the treatment of Covid19.
It is therefore difficult to understand how a molecule whose efficacy is praised by many doctors and whose safety is total, could be disqualified by Molnupiravir, unless it is shown to be ineffective!
However, there are many studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Among them, the study published in The Journal of Antibiotics in June 2020 by Fatemeh Heidary, which reviewed the main publications since 1970, showing the wide range of DNA and RNA viruses against which ivermectin is active. Kory’s meta-analysis is well known. It credits Ivermectin with unquestionable effectiveness.
Many field physicians, supported by these studies and their personal experience, consider that the combination of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc is currently the best early outpatient therapeutic alternative to Covid, especially since it produces no side effects whatsoever. A recent paper published in July 2021 by the Institut Pasteur supports this view: « We report that ivermectin, used at the standard anti-parasitic dose of 400 µg/kg, protects infected hamsters from developing clinical signs and from losing the sense of smell during SARS-CoV‑2 infection. »
Of course, no one has mentioned this study, or any of the others for that matter, in the media. Pasteur’s study was pasteurized on the spot and put in the fridge!
Here we enter the Black Novel! Ivermectin is produced by Merck, the same company that produces Molnupiravir. What interest does Merck have in scuttling itself? It is very simple! Ivermectin is now in the public domain and costs less than $10 for a full course of treatment, while molnupiravir, which is patentable, will apparently be offered at $700. Merck has therefore every interest in scuttling its old product which it will continue, in any case, to sell in turns to doctors and veterinarians, to treat many parasitosis! So in order to sell molnupiravir, it was essential that ivermectin not work. Who would choose a potentially toxic treatment at $700 if a harmless treatment does the same thing for $10? Studies discrediting Ivermectin have thus flourished.
Experts are very keen on randomized, double-blind studies. I prefer double-deaf studies, carried out by researchers who hear neither the call of gold nor the song of sirens and who strive, in all simplicity, to see clearly and to serve the truth.
I will continue to prescribe the combination of Ivermectin-Hydroxychloroquine-azythromycin-Zinc to all patients who wish to do so, as I have done until now with constant success, until serious scientific evidence modulates my point of view.
However, the proof will be slow in coming. It cannot come from a world ulcerated by money. As an indication, lawyer Kenneth Frazier, the CEO of Merck, is the 66th highest paid boss of publicly traded companies. He comes in 7th in the pharmaceutical industry with an annual salary in 2016 of $21,781,200! Frazier gets in one day what professor Didier Raoult gets in one year! Which one will you trust?
Ivermectin and Molnupiravir may each have a specific role to play in the treatment of Covid19, but unfortunately their respective places will never be studied.
The discrediting of Ivermectin has been organized by all those who have a vested interest in blocking it, including the experts of the task forces, chosen because of their conflicts of interest in political, academic and university circles, where the corrupt abound. Medical corruption is now an « Open Secret 4″. All honest physicians have been shouting this for years, but they are shouting in the wilderness.
The total absence of rigor of journalists on the conflicts of interest which constitute however a serious problem is on this point very evocative of a setting under guardianship of the press and the big media. Some, sometimes abandoning their mission, close their eyes to what will one day be called the greatest health scandal in history.… Maybe one day!
Alain Colignon, vascular surgery.
