Damning admission on Coronavirus development

While health experts are now demanding serious studies on the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) that was initially touted as a cheap and effective way to control COVID-19, Ivermectin advocates say that the drug can treat all stages of COVID-19 and reduce hospitalisation and mortality rates due to its anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties

As the search for the truth regarding the origin of the virus responsible for the global pandemic continues, journalist Natalie Winters (TheNationalPulse) has found evidence that Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, had admitted in 2016 that his “colleagues in China” were working on “killer” SARS-like coronaviruses. Daszak was speaking at a forum discussing “emerging infectious diseases and the next pandemic.”

This contradicts Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent denials of funding gain-of-function (increase infectivity, lethality) research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on research funded by Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. (Watch: Fauci Pal Daszak Admits “Chinese Colleagues” Developing “Killer” Coronaviruses, Tyler Durden, June 9, 2021)

A news clip shows Daszak describing how EcoHealth Alliance sequences deadly viruses by “insert[ing] spike proteins” into viruses to see if they can “bind to human cells”. Elaborating, he said, “Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells…. my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people.” In the end, he said, “You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers.”

Daszak’s statements lend heft to mounting evidence that Fauci’s NIAID had secret financial and personnel ties with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and EcoHealth Alliance was a major front for sending funds to the Chinese lab. Shi Zhengli, director of the Wuhan Lab’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases co-authored over a dozen research papers with Peter Daszak with grants from the NIAID. The grants figure in her resume. The Wuhan lab had listed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as one of its “partners,” but quietly removed the mention in March 2021.

IPR attorney Navroop Singh scrutinized US government databases and found evidence of Pentagon funding for EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020 to the tune of roughly $39 million. It also received grants from USAIS ($64.7 million); Health and Human Services ($20 million); National Science Foundation ($2.6 million); Department of Homeland Security ($2.3 million); and Department of Commerce ($1.2 million). Further bounty came from the Department of Agriculture ($0.6 million), and Department of Interior ($0.3 million). This takes the total US government funding for EcoHealth Alliance to $123 million, of which around one-third was directly from the Pentagon.

EcoHealth Alliance’s links with the US military were not limited to funding. David Franz, a ‘policy advisor’ to EcoHealth Alliance, is a former commander of Fort Detrick, the foremost US government biowarfare/biodefense facility. Beijing had initially pointed fingers at Fort Detrick when the pandemic broke and many demanded accountability from China. David Franz was a member of UNSCOM which inspected Iraq for alleged bioweapons, or what US called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

As the second wave of COVID-19 peaked in India and treatment became controversial in the wake of swiftly changing advisories from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Indian Bar Association on May 25, 2021, served legal notice against WHO’s chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan for “spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India” on the use of ivermectin to treat the disease. It accused her of pursuing an agenda.

The association pointed out that Swaminathan ignored research and clinical trials from two organizations, viz., the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD). Both organisations have presented solid data showing ivermectin prevents and treats COVID-19.

However, in a tweet on May 10 (since deleted after notice was issued), Swaminathan asserted, “Safety and efficacy are important when using any drug for a new indication. WHO recommends against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 except within clinical trials.” (WHO Chief Scientist Served Legal Notice In India For Allegedly Suppressing Data On Drug To Treat COVID-19, Tyler Durden, June 08, 2021).

Swaminathan’s tweet came soon after Goa’s health minister announced that every resident of the state (18 years and above) would be given ivermectin as prevention regardless of COVID-19 status, as part of a government program to check the spread of the virus. The association demanded a clear response from Swaminathan on several key points, failing which it would initiate prosecution under sections of the Indian Penal Code and Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The WHO chief scientist included a link to the statement of the Pharma major Merck, on ivermectin. Merck held a patent on the drug until 1996, and claimed in February 2021 that available data did not support the efficacy and safety of ivermectin beyond what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved it for. Merck is conducting trials on an anti-viral drug, Molnupiravir, for COVID-19 outpatients, but it has not shown any benefits in hospitalized patients.

Merck hopes that the new drug will impair the virus’s ability to replicate and thus inhibit severe illness and hospitalization. Ivermectin has already done this in a meta-analysis of 57 clinical trials involving more than 18,000 patients, according to ivmmeta.com, a website that provides real-time meta-analysis of ivermectin studies. In 23 early treatment studies, ivermectin showed 78 percent improvement in patients, and in 14 preventative trials, there was 85 percent improvement. In late treatment studies, there was 45 percent improvement in 20 studies.

 Ivermectin advocates say the drug can treat all stages of COVID-19 and reduce hospitalization and mortality rates due to its anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. But US federal health authorities and the WHO are reluctant to approve ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. In its Living Guideline, the WHO advised against the use of ivermectin except in a clinical setting, citing inconclusive data.

However, Dr. Pierre Kory, president and Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance (Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance) alleged that there are strenuous efforts to censor information on the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID-19. He admonished, “We have randomized [trials], you have observational [studies], you have case series, you have epidemiologic analyses, and then the clinical experience of doctors. You can’t find a doctor who has incorporated ivermectin into their treatments who will come back and say my patients didn’t get better, you can’t find that doctor.”

Indeed, doctors across the world, including the United States, are offering ivermectin to their patients. Doctors who refused to administer the drug to patients suffering severe COVID-19 were ordered by judges to do so. Indian Bar Association’s legal notice cites the case of 80-year-old Judith Smentkiewicz who made a full recovery after being on a ventilator and told she only had a 20 percent chance of survival. Her family obtained a court order so she could receive additional doses of ivermectin. They believe this saved her life.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, director, Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. and co-founder of BIRD panel, observed that though the anti-viral drug, Remdesivir, is the only FDA-approved therapy for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients, it showed no effect on mortality and minuscule benefit on time of recovery. Eventually, WHO removed it from the approved treatments for COVID-19. It is pertinent that a course of Remdesivir costs over $3,000, while ivermectin costs $3 to $12, according to Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC.

Indian States such as Goa and Uttar Pradesh that used ivermectin preventatively or as early treatment saw a sharp decline in COVID-19 cases. However, Tamil Nadu essentially banned ivermectin in favour of Remdesivir, which resulted in a steep hike in cases and deaths. The Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering noted that Tamil Nadu saw 20,421 new cases and 434 deaths on June 6, while Goa recorded 403 new cases and 16 deaths, and Uttar Pradesh reported 1,037 cases and 85 deaths. Uttar Pradesh has been distributing free medical kits with seven days’ worth of medication, including ivermectin, for COVID-19 positive patients under home isolation.

Health experts are now demanding serious studies on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) that was initially touted as a cheap and effective way to control COVID-19, until the pharmaceutical majors succeeded in pushing it off the list of approved treatments.

Organiser, 14 June 2021


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.