“Chief scientist discredited ivermectin in a series of social media posts.”
The struggle for ivermectin, considered one of the miracle drugs in recent memory, as a possible prophylactic and even a cure for COVID-19 has taken several twists and turns recently after a group of frontline medical workers based in the U.S. openly recommend the use of the drug. to combat infections that are surging around the world. So excited is this group that they even testified before the US Senate about its efficacy that it attracted scientists, public health, and the government to examine all available data on the drug to determine if it could actually be reused against COVID-19. It has since grown in popularity to the point of even being without official endorsement by the World Health Organization (WHO) and despite continued criticism from Big Pharma, a number of governments have included the drug in their COVID-19 treatment protocols. The most aggressive supplier of ivermectin is India, soon after the country suffered unimaginable infections and deaths during a second wave of infections earlier this year. Having endured unbelievable enough for most of last year Indian authorities have struggled for instant treatment to contain the spike after millions were infected during celebrations of one of the religious holidays. This, despite persistent hesitation from WHO and, worse yet, endless and unforgivable tweets and anti-ivermectin advice from WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swarminthan. As far as the Indian Bar Association (IBA) is concerned, the doctor’s actions are equivalent to imposing the death penalty on society especially those who are very poor and uneducated who have no way of getting any other medical treatment supported by WHO and experts. Therefore, it is not surprising that on May 25, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) sued the WHO and its Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, accused the agency and its experts in a short 71 points of causing the deaths of Indian citizens. by misleading them about ivermectin. In an article written by Doctor Justus R. Hope in the publication of The Desert review, IBA through its lead attorney and advocate Ojha accused WHO and Dr. Swaminathan in Points 60 and 61 has misled and misled the Indian people during the pandemic not only from the use of masks but more importantly the use of ivermectin. Says Ohja in his summary: “The world is gradually awakening to your absurd, arbitrary and misguided approach to presenting fabricated facts as a ‘scientific approach.’ While WHO flaunted himself like ‘knows it all,’ it was akin to the Emperor being vain in new clothes while the rest of the world had realized now, the Emperor had no clothes at all. The brief accuses the WHO of engaging in a broad disinformation campaign. Noting at Point 61 that US physicians belonging to the FLCC and British physicians working under the BIRD banner “have demonstrated exemplary courage in building a formidable force to address the challenges of disinformation, resistance and rebuke from the pharmaceutical lobby and powerful health interests such as WHO, NIH, CDC, and regulators such as the US FDA.” Dr Swaminathan was called for irregularities in discrediting ivermectin for preserving EUA for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. Item 52 reads: “It appears that you deliberately chose the death of a person to achieve your ulterior purpose, and this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution against you.” Noting that Dr. Swaminathan has deleted his now-famous tweet, the IBA suggesting that “deleting the tweet will not save Dr. Soumya and his colleagues from the criminal prosecution to be launched by citizens under Section 302 of Indian Penalties. Code with active support from the Bar Association of India…for the killing of any dying person for obstructing the effective treatment of COVID-19 patients by ivermectin…” The punishment under this article 302 is either death or life imprisonment.
Deleting the tweet, added Ohja, only proves the lack of WHO recommendations against ivermectin. That equates to, Ohja noted, the bold dishonesty on the part of the WHO and Doctor Soumya’s deletion of the tweet after it was watched by millions around the world only proves his “mala fide intentions”. Ohja suggested that Doctor Somya be charged “for any death caused by the commission’s acts and omissions” and grave misdemeanor by using his position as a health authority to “continue the special interest agenda to maintain the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for the lucrative vaccine industry.” Ohja noted that the state of Tamil Nadu openly relied on Dr. Swaminathan in revoking their initial choice of ivermectin a day after he recommended it in a May 10 tweet on social media. As a direct result, Tamil Nadu experienced a spike in deaths and illnesses from COVID that continues to this day. He then compared the plight of Tamil Nadu with other Indian states that continue to use ivermectin noting that “the whole world is witnessing the effectiveness of ivermectin against a deadly second wave in India as locations that adopt it see their outbreaks rapidly extinguished. states that do not…” The article notes that among the most prominent examples include the Ivermectin areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa where cases fell by 98%, 97%, 94% and 86%, respectively, different with Tamil Nadu where their cases skyrocketed and rose to the highest in India and deaths increased tenfold. In particular, Ojha noted in Point 56 of his brief that “…a misleading tweet on 10 May 2021, against the use of ivermectin had the effect of the State of Tamil Nadu withdrawing ivermectin from the protocol on 11 May 2021, just a day after the Tamil Nadu government indicated the same. for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.” Among other things, the IBA brief accuses Doctor Soumya and WHO of “running a disinformation campaign against ivermectin and issuing statements on social and mainstream media to falsely influence the public towards the use of ivermectin despite the large amount of clinical data demonstrating its profound effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of COVID -19.” To strengthen the case, Hope’s article notes that the IBA “references publications and peer-reviewed evidence compiled by the ten-member Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) group and the UK Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) of 65. panel led by WHO consultant and meta-analyst Dr. Tess Lawrie.” The IBA also cites an earlier article published in Desert Review that included, among other things, the case of US Attorney Ralph C. Lorigo’s hospital in New York where a court order was required for a dying COVID patient to receive ivermectin. In some cases of such comatose patients, after court-ordered ivermectin, the patient recovered. The brief accuses the WHO of engaging in a broad disinformation campaign. In Point 61 of its summary, the IBA states, “The FLCCC and BIRD have demonstrated exemplary courage in building formidable forces to address the challenges of disinformation, resistance, and reprimand from the pharmaceutical lobby and powerful health interests such as WHO, NIH, CDC, and regulators. like the US FDA.” Dr Swaminathan was called for irregularities in discrediting ivermectin for preserving EUA for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. It appears, the summary emphasized, that “you deliberately chose the death of people to achieve your ulterior motives, and this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution against you.” The punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is death or life imprisonment. With these developments, the way is now open for individuals and even countries to continue criminal prosecutions against public health officials who, either by commission or negligence, caused the death of an individual infected with Covid 19. As the IBA clearly states: “This will send a strong signal that disinformation campaigns that result in death have consequences. Perhaps this pathway will eventually break the grip of disinformation and censorship around the use of drugs being reused to save lives. Perhaps we will see other countries follow India’s example, both in medicine and law.”
DISCLAIMER COMMENTS: Reader comments posted on this Web site are in no way endorsed by The Standard. Comments are the views of readers of thestandard.ph who exercise their right to freedom of expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or point of view of thestandard.ph. While it reserves the right of this publication to remove comments that are deemed offensive, indecent, or inconsistent with The Standard’s editorial standards, The Standard may not be liable for false information posted by readers in this comment section.