https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/575402

We respectfully disagree with Health director-general Dr Noor Hisham Abdullah when he stated on May 16, 2021, that there is no conclusive evidence for the use of Ivermectin against Covid-19.

We understand that the officials and staffs of MOH are currently overwhelmed with the rising infective and mortality rates of the disease. Our team of researchers are pleased to do the homework pointing to the numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies showing Ivermectin is effective prophylaxis and treatment for Covid-19.

Ivermectin has already been proven to be very safe as it has been used safely and successfully (to treat other tropical diseases) for over 40 years and by four billion people.

We feel that many people are dying every day and getting infected with Covid-19 so unnecessarily.

What have we got to lose in trying out a tried and tested medicine (Ivermectin), which is increasing being used in other countries against Covid-19 and its new variants, that has been proven very safe over and with many recent credible studies around the world confirming that it can reduce the risk of infection against Covid-19 by 88 percent and reduces the mortality rate by 83 percent? There is no official treatment protocol against Covid-19 at the moment.

The studies listed below are randomised controlled trials (RCT), considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine, peer-reviewed, reproducible, using only Ivermectin and no add-on. Randomisation circumvents the problem with confounding, while the single investigative agent used without the add-on, ie, only Ivermectin, should leave no doubt that any positive result shown is specifically due to the investigative agent.

Most of the RCTs conducted on Ivermectin were of small and medium scale studies. This is not an issue if the trials were well designed and properly conducted, and the results show statistical significance.

Individual doctors who have no ulterior motive or vested interest other than altruistic intent, funded most of the studies. The above points answer the Health DG’s criticism of the Ivermectin studies.

The following RCTs show positive results of Ivermectin on Covid-19:

Babalola et al (2021) in a double-blinded RCT of 62 patients found a significant difference in viral clearance between both the low-dose and high-dose treatment groups and controls.

Chaccour et al (2021) in a small double-blind RCT, randomised 24 patients to Ivermectin and placebo, found statistically significant decreases in viral loads, patient days of anosmia, and patient days with cough.

Elgazzar et al (2020) randomised four treatment groups of 100 hospitalised patients in each group. Groups 1 and 2 were mild to moderate illness patients given either ivermectin plus standard care or hydroxychloroquine plus standard care. Groups 3 and 4 were severely ill patients, either given Ivermectin plus standard care or hydroxychloroquine plus standard care. In both the groups given Ivermectin the rate of disease progression was lower. The mortality rate for the Ivermectin groups was also significantly lower.

Niaee et al (2020) in a randomised placebo-controlled multicenter trial at five hospitals found a dramatic reduction in mortality with Ivermectin use and also improvement in several other clinical parameters.

There are also observational controlled trials (OCT), although not considered the gold standard, nevertheless contribute significantly to the body of scientific knowledge regarding Ivermectin and its therapeutic usefulness. The followings are the OCTs:

Rajter et al (2020) performed a retrospective OCT on 280 consecutively treated patients and compared those treated with Ivermectin to those without and found statistically significant lower mortality among Ivermectin-treated patients. In a subgroup of patients with severe pulmonary disease, mortality was much reduced when treated with Ivermectin.

Khan et al (2020) compared 115 patients treated with Ivermectin to a standard care cohort of 113 patients and found that those receiving Ivermectin became SARs-CoV-2 negative more quickly, fewer developed respiratory distress, and had a shorter hospital stay. There was lower mortality rate in the Ivermectin-treated patients.

Portmann-Baracco et al (2020) in a large OCT that included nearly 1,500 patients reported that in 704 hospitalised patients treated with a single dose of Ivermectin, compared with 704 controls, overall mortality was reduced. For those patients on mechanical ventilation, mortality was also reduced (7).

There are a number of studies showing Ivermectin’s ability to prevent Covid-19. The followings are the prophylaxis studies:

Elgazzar et al (2020) randomised 200 healthcare workers and households who had contact with Covid-19 patients where the intervention group of 100 was given Ivermectin and wore personal protective equipment (PPE), and control of 100 wore PPE. The study found a large and statistically significant reduction in contacts testing positive by RT-PCR when treated with Ivermectin versus control.

Shoumann et al (2021) conducted an RCT involving family members of patients PCR-positive for Covid-19. The Ivermectin group included 203 contacts, while the non-intervention group included 101 contacts. Fifteen in the Ivermectin arm developed Covid-19 compared to 59 in the non-intervention arm after a two weeks follow up. The result also showed a large and statistically significant decrease in Covid-19 symptoms among household members treated with Ivermectin.

Alam et al (2020) conducted a prospective OCT at a hospital with 118 healthcare providers evenly divided into an experimental group receiving a single dose of Ivermectin 12 mg per month for four months, and the control group. Both groups were exposed to Covid-19 positive patients. Results of the symptomatic subjects and tested positive with RT-PCR showed 73.3 percent in the control group were positive for Covid-19 compared to only 6.9 percent in the experimental group.

Hellwig and Maia (2021) studied countries with routine mass drug administration including prophylactic Ivermectin and found that these countries have a significantly lower incidence of Covid-19. This reported correlation is significant to show a possible causal connection.

A few countries in South America provided good information supporting the role of Ivermectin in Covid-19 decreasing transmission rates. Countries like Peru, Brazil and Paraguay initiated the Ivermectin distribution programme for their citizens after their countries were hard hit by the pandemic in April 2020. Some cities started the Ivermectin programme earlier than others. Large decreases in the case count for the cities soon after receiving Ivermectin in comparison to those cities that started the campaign late.

In evidence-based medicine (EBM), the systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs occupy the top hierarchy of evidence. The study of Bryant et al (2021), Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis, included 21 RCTs involving 2,741 participants and meta-analysis conducted on 13 trials. The result showed Ivermectin reduced the risk of death compared to no Ivermectin. Ivermectin prophylaxis reduced Covid-19 infection by an average of 86 percent.

Dr Tess Lawrie (2021) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 RCTs and 6 OCTs and confirmed that Ivermectin substantially reduced the risk of a person dying from Covid-19 by 83 percent. When used as a prophylaxis among healthcare workers and contacts, Ivermectin substantially reduced Covid-19 infection by 88 percent.

The studies mentioned above are all well-designed studies, peer-reviewed, and mostly RCTs, Not ‘circumstantial hype’ as mentioned by the Health DG. There are several other studies, many of them RCTs that also include add-on therapeutic agent, case series, and poorly designed studies, studies having a certain degree of bias, and studies that did not consider for confounding factors; were omitted.

In short, the studies mentioned are all of high quality. There are also two systematic reviews and meta-analysis of RCTs. These are studies of the highest quality, the gold standard, and occupy the highest order of evidence in the evidence-based medicine.

With regards to dosage of Ivermectin, most of the studies mentioned used around 12mg in a single dose or an additional dose after a few days for the duration of the study. None used mega doses of Ivermectin, as news report quoting the Health DG had unwittingly implied.

Looking at the conclusion of the studies mentioned above, the evidence is compelling and appear conclusive that Ivermectin has prophylactic and therapeutic value.

The Health DG chose to look at two studies showing negative results on Ivermectin – Chaccour et al (2021) (2), and Lopez-Medina et al (2021) (16); of which we are happy to give counter views.

Chaccour and colleagues conducted a pilot RCT with the Ivermectin arm (a single dose of 400 mcg/kg (n=12) or placebo (n=12). All the subjects recruited had some mild symptoms of Covid-19. Although the Ivermectin group had non-statistically significant lower viral loads at day four and day seven, and also non-statistically significant lower IgG titers at day 21 post-treatment, the study results had clinical significance. Patients in the Ivermectin group recovered earlier from anosmia (loss of sense of smell), had reduced cough, lower viral loads and lower IgG titers, which are all positive signs. The reason for non-significant result is because the sample size was too small to show a large difference. Had the sample size ranged into thousands, the result would have been positive.

Lopez-Medina and colleagues conducted an RCT that included 476 patients with mild disease symptoms randomised to receive Ivermectin, 300mcg/kg of body weight per day for 5 days (n=200), or placebo (n=197). The primary outcome was time to resolution of symptoms within a 21-day period. The median time to resolution of symptoms was 10 days in the Ivermectin group compared with 12 days in the placebo group. By 21 days 82 percent in the Ivermectin group and 79 percent in the placebo group had resolved symptoms. The results showed no statistical significance.

The media had quoted the Health DG as saying “the results (of Lopez-Medina study) showed there was no significant improvement in Covid-19 symptoms resolution time”. This is incorrect. There is a big difference in the meaning of the word "significant" and "statistical significant". The proper words to use was the latter as it was a scientific study to compare one arm with the other, a relative comparison. The study also showed slightly less adverse events reported in the Ivermectin group compared to the control group – 77 percent vs 81.3 percent. For clinical purpose, the two days difference in symptoms resolution and the lesser adverse events are all significant.

Both the leading authors of the study disclosed they received grants and fees from two conglomerates that are also producing the mRNA vaccines that have been delayed in approval. From the way the trial was designed – relatively small sample size, types of outcome measure, age group of subjects, study duration; it appears the study was destined to turn negative.

Officials from our Health Ministry should look at the current scientific information pertaining to Ivermectin. Many RCTs on ivermectin and Covid-19 only got published in February and March 2021. The BMJ article, "Drug treatments for Covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis", that was mentioned in the Health DG’s statement was published in July 2020 with updated data as of April 6, 2021, as claimed.

However, in the report, there is no mention of Ivermectin trial results for mortality, adverse events leading to discontinuation, duration of hospital stay, ventilator-free days, and time to symptom resolution. Clearly there is selection bias in this BMJ report.

We have no malice in being critical of Health DG’s statements. We are saddened to see the pandemic has claimed many lives, caused so much hardship, and used up so much of human and financial resources.

We genuinely believe, and are confident that if Ivermectin is mass-distributed, the epidemic in our country will be quickly brought under control.

The above statement is endorsed by:

Captain (Rtd) Wong Ang Peng, research scientist
Prof Mustafa Ali Mohd, senior pharmacologist & toxicologist
Dr Saifuzzaman Yusoff, medical doctor
Dr Zawawi Abdullah, medical doctor
Dr Durairajoo Govindarajoo, medical doctor
Nadzim Johan, chairperson, Coalition on Integrity of Vaccines & Drugs Against Covid-19 (Civdac)
Brig Gen (Rtd) Mohd Arshad Raji, Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan (Patriot)
Abd Kadir Warsi Mohamad, Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM)
Police Commissioner (Rtd) Shabudin Abdul Wahab, Covid Research Centre (AHM Group)
Tunku Azwil Tunku Abd Razak, Gabungan NGO Islam (GNI)



This post has been edited by cranx: May 29 2021, 12:21 PM

Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19

With reference to the open letter to Health DG by our ten esteemed colleagues, MAAFIM and its members supported by many other doctors in Malaysia would like to establish that Ivermectin has been in use in many countries with good results in the treatment of COVID-19, especially in prophylaxis.

Ivermectin is a medication that is included in the Malaysian drug formulary as an antihelminthic and yet there is resistance to allow the drug for use for its intended purpose or for emergency use for COVID-19 disease.There is an abundance of research to show its safety, as the drug has been in use for decades. And now many countries or states are adopting Ivermectin despite the advice of world bodies simply because people's lives matter more.

MAAFIM has perused the published data, and additionally kept in close communication with many doctors around the world who have used Ivermectin in the management of COVID-19. The informal feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.Hence, there is sufficient evidence to add Ivermectin to the arsenal against COVID-19 disease.

If there is a drug that can be used to avoid the COVID-19 disease prophylactically or improve the outcome in treatment with minimal side-effects, and it is cheap to obtain and distribute, then it behoves the appropriate governments including the Malaysian government to expeditiously implement a drug that can thwart the negative outcome of the current pandemic.Ongoing clinical studies can be done for pharmaceutical approval but in the meantime Ivermectin can be released as under "Emergency Use Authorization", since there is sufficient data coming from other nations and it could be lifesaving or reduce the morbidity of COVID-19 disease for the Malaysian rakyat.

(EXCO, Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (MAAFIM), signed by 136 doctors from MAAFIM and other concerned doctors.)

Dr A.Rani a/p A.Arokiasamy
Dr Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Hamid Ahmad
Dr Abdul Majid Abdullah
Dr Abdul Rasid mohamed Ali
Dr Abdul Wahab Khalid Osman
Dr Abiram A/L T S Ramalingam
Dr Adlina Suleiman
Dr Ahmad Azuwar bin Mohd Adib
Dr Ahmad Hassan Bin Masduki
Dr Ahmad Khalis bin Mohamed Munawar
Dr Aina Othman
Dr Ameen Shaik Bin Sehu Mohamed
Dr Aminah Kassim
Dr Amir Shahmi Bin Md Ali
Dr Anura Gnanasothi Kandasamy
Dr Arifah
Dr Ashok Kumar Vikyomal
Dr Aziz Alsafi
Dr Azlina Ishak
Dr Badrulleasham Ismail
Dr Balachandran A/L sKrishnan
Dr Balasundram Palany
Dr Balbinder Singh
Dr Baljit Singh
Dr Balkis Hanoom
Dr Balwant Singh a/l Partap Singh
Dr Benjamin George
Dr Chia Hong Soong
Dr Chuah Teong Chye
Dr Dalina Abdul Majid
Dr Denesh Sinnathamby
Dr Durairajoo Govindarajoo
Dr Edwin Chang Yoke Poi
Dr Elina binti Mohtar Rasali
Dr Emilia Kasturi
Dr Erman Syah Abdul Hamid
Dr Farhat Afroze binti Ayaz
Dr Fatma Hidayati Bt Zakaria
Dr Fauzanah Binti Ishak
Dr Fouziah Hamzah
Dr Gurdial Singh
Dr Gurdial Singh
Dr Hanif Zuhdi Bin Mahmud Pathi
Dr Haridas a/l NarayananSreedharan
Dr Hisham Harun
Dr Husna Binti Hashim
Dr Jasveer Kaur Sidhu
Dr Jeyaseelan Nachiappan
Dr Joann Wen Law
Dr Kamesah binti Omar
Dr Kenny Yong YeanSirn
Dr Khor Ying kim
Dr Krishen kumar Devaser
Dr Kuan Tuck Wah
Dr L Ganesh Loganathan
Dr Lee Cheng Lok
Dr Lee Yoke Kwan
Dr Lily Abu Bakar
Dr Lim Ching Chiet
Dr Lim Wu Yee
Dr Loriot Kenson
Dr M A Salaam Jemain
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed
Dr Maizurah Omar
Dr Majezan Yaacob
Dr Marisa Amilia binti Ismail
Dr Misnah Binti Ponamin
Dr Mohamad Haniki Nik Mohamed
Dr Mohamed Farook bin Raj Mohamed
Dr Mohd Anuar Osman
Dr Mohd Arbaai Shawal
Dr Mohd Jamil Hamid
Dr Mohd Saifulhaziq Noorman
Dr Mustafa Ali mohd
Dr Nadzri Mokhtar
Dr Narjit Singh
Dr Navdeep Kaur
Dr Nicholas Lim Jeng Cherng
Dr Nila Ratna Binti Suien
Dr Noordin Darus
Dr Nor Aisham B Mohd Nor
Dr Nor Amalina Ismail
Dr Norasiah binti Mohd Mansor
Dr Norhaslinda
Dr Norizah Amiruldin
Dr Nurhayati Mokhtar
Dr Nurulhuda Mohammed Zabidi
Dr Mohd Zahlulazham Bin Adam
Dr Molly Cheah
Dr Paramjit Kaur
Dr Paul vijayaratnam stephens
Dr Perminder Kaur Dhillon
Dr Peter Chan Teck Hock
Dr Prem Kumar Gopakumaran Nair
Dr Pushpa Devi
Dr Rosmawati Mohamed
Dr Rosnah
Dr Rozimah Binti Osman
Dr Radha Krishna
Dr Rajasvari
Dr Ramanathan a/l Annamslai Chettiar
Dr Redzuan Abdullah
Dr Revin
Dr Richard Chai
Dr Roland Victor Amerruddin
Dr Salim Ismail
Dr Sani Ashari
Dr Sanjeev
Dr Selva Kumar S
Dr Selva Kumaran
Dr Selvam Rengasamy
Dr Selvarani M.Shelladurai
Dr Sendhil Kumar
Dr Sevellaraja Supermaniam
Dr Shah Reza
Dr Shahrol Khairudzi Bin Abdul Rahim
Dr Shaiful Hazmeer bin Jakariah
Dr Sharan Jeet Kaur A/P Karam Singh
Dr Sharifa Shahreen Bt Syed Sultan Ahmed
Dr Sharifuddin M Zain
Dr Siti Aniza Basir
Dr Siti Zariah Jali
Dr Suresh Mahendra
Dr Suriaty Abdull Rauf
Dr Swesh Kaur
Dr Syed Alif Fikri bin Syed
Dr Tay Ju Lee
Dr Vatsala Devi Nagalingam
Dr Vijaendreh Subramaniam
Dr Wan Rosiah Ab Rashid
Dr Yee Teck Ji
Dr Zarihah Mohd Zain
Dr Zawawi Abdullah
Dr Zazali Othman
Dr Zulkafperi Bin Hanapi (Dato)

https://www.sinchew.com.my/content/content_2482977.html

are we killing covid-19 patients unknowingly, using a wrong treatment SOP all along?



https://www.facebook.com/DGHisham/posts/ive...26030730754118/



https://www.bitchute.com/video/IqAEWua56eRF/

DR COLE'S CREDENTIALS
EDUCATION:
Mayo Clinic School of Medicine
Board Certified Anatomic and Clinical Pathologist, Anatomic and Clinical Pathology Fellowship (1997 – 2002)

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine
Doctor of Medicine (MD), Medical student
(1993 – 1997)

LICENCES & CERTIFICATIONS
Board Certified Anatomic and Clinical Pathologist
The American Board of Pathology (ABPath)

EXPERIENCE:
Dermatopathologist CEO/Lab Director
Cole Diagnostics - Full Time (Jul 2004 – Present)

Dermatopathology Consultant
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Full-time (Jun 2003 – Jun 2004)

Chief Fellow, MD
Ackerman Academy, NY (Jul 2002 – Jun 2003)

This post has been edited by cranx: Jun 25 2021, 10:06 AM

long list of FDA related scandals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_..._Administration

current treatment method

Mainstream news will never endorse the use of Imermectin against covid19. This goes against the plan to vaccinate the entire planet.

Ivermectin for Covid-19: a cheap drug with a remarkable effect

Numerous clinical trials with ivermectin in Covid-19 have shown consistent, large improvements in clinical outcomes. It must be authorised for use in the UK, argues Dr Christine Clark.

Ivermectin has been widely used to treat a variety of human parasites since its introduction in 1981. The drug also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. It is estimated that some 4 billion doses have been taken over the past 40 years and it has a good safety record with minimal toxic effects.

Ivermectin is included in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines as a 3mg tablet.

A recent independent meta-analysis of 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational controlled trials shows that ivermectin is remarkably effective both for prophylaxis and treatment of Covid-19.1

When used prophylactically – for example, taken by healthcare workers or relatives of confirmed cases – it was shown that ivermectin reduces the risk of transmission by 88 per cent compared to control.

When used to treat Covid-19 infection, ivermectin reduces the risk of death by 83 per cent compared to ‘no ivermectin’. It also reduces the risk of deterioration by about 50 per cent. Almost 4,000 patients were included in the trials used in the meta-analysis. The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Group has now recommended the immediate roll-out of ivermectin for prevention and treatment of Covid-19.

More than 20 countries, including Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic in the EU, have now included ivermectin in their Covid-19 management strategies. Several South American countries have seen Covid-19 infections fall sharply following the introduction of mass treatment with ivermectin.

In the US a group of intensivists – the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance – has called for the rapid introduction of ivermectin to stem the tide of infections.2

In Belgium, a plan has been put forward to eradicate Covid-19 in six weeks by using ivermectin.3 Similar results could be expected in other countries if the same protocol was followed.

Dose regimens vary but prophylactic treatment can be given with two doses of 0.2mg/kg, 48 hours apart, once a month. For early out-patient treatment, a daily dose of 0.2mg/kg for a maximum of five days is recommended.2
Why is ivermectin not being used more widely?

Some regulators have said that more trials are needed to determine the drug’s effectiveness. Dr Tess Lawrie, systematic reviewer and director of the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, and other reviewers, argue that all the trials included in meta-analyses show positive results and the only question is exactly how large the positive effect is.

This is hardly a reason to block the use of a life-saving drug. They also point out that several other drugs, such as remdesivir, have been authorised on the basis of far less evidence. In some countries ivermectin can be purchased OTC in pharmacies.

In others ‘Covid treatment kits’ have been issued with instructions to start treatment after contact with an infected person or when symptoms develop. The kits typically contain ivermectin tablets, vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc and sometimes azithromycin or doxycycline.

In the UK, the best way forward would be for the MHRA to authorise use of ivermectin for prophylaxis and treatment of Covid-19 on the basis of the published evidence to date. Next, the drug could be made available through community pharmacies either using a PGD or by making ivermectin a P medicine.

Ivermectin would then help to save lives and reduce suffering until the majority of the population can be vaccinated. Failure to use a cheap, safe drug that reduces the severity and duration of infection as well as the risks of death and transmission seems incomprehensible.

https://www.pharmacymagazine.co.uk/ivermect...markable-effect

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

Newswise — WASHINGTON, D.C. – Peer reviewed by medical experts that included three U.S. government senior scientists and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the research is the most comprehensive review of the available data taken from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies. Led by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), a group of medical and scientific experts reviewed published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts, expert meta-analyses, and epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution efforts all showing that ivermectin is an effective prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.

“We did the work that the medical authorities failed to do, we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on ivermectin,” said Pierre Kory, M.P.A., MD, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that ivermectin can end this pandemic.”

A focus of the manuscript was on the 27 controlled trials available in January 2021, 15 of which were randomized controlled trials (RCT’s), the preferred trial of the World Health Organization, U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the European Medicines Agency. Consistent with numerous meta-analyses of ivermectin RCT’s since published by expert panels from the UK, Italy, Spain, and Japan, they found large, statistically significant reduction in mortality, time to recovery and viral clearance in COVID-19 patients treated with ivermectin.

To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing COVID-19, 3 RCT’s and 5 observational controlled trial’s including almost 2,500 patients all reported that ivermectin significantly reduces the risk of contracting COVID-19 when used regularly.

Many regions around the world now recognize that ivermectin is a powerful prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19. South Africa, Zimbabwe, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Mexico, and now, India, have approved the drug for use by medical professionals. The results as seen in this latest study demonstrate that the ivermectin distribution campaigns repeatedly led to “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality.”

“Our latest research shows, once again, that when the totality of the evidence is examined, there is no doubt that ivermectin is highly effective as a safe prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19,” said Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, founding member of the FLCCC and Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. “We can no longer rely on many of the larger health authorities to make an honest examination of the medical and scientific evidence. So, we are calling on regional public health authorities and medical professionals around the world to demand that ivermectin be included in their standard of care right away so we can end this pandemic once and for all.”

https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/review...50513&ta=ticker

Cause we are obediently following 'the authorities' namely WHO, CDC, FDA. There is no interest on treatments and innate immunity (hence no test on antibodies prior to vaccination)

We skipped that and jumped straight to mass vaccination with vaccines that are still undergoing clinical trials.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it kills a wide range of internal and external parasites in commercial livestock and companion animals. It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found.

If there is an effective treatment, is there still a need to mass vaccinate, annual booster etc?

Please do not put it out of context, this was a petition from professionals on the medical use of ivermectin to treat covid-19.
No one is advocating dosage meant for animals to be used on humans.

Captain (Rtd) Wong Ang Peng, research scientist
Prof Mustafa Ali Mohd, senior pharmacologist & toxicologist
Dr Saifuzzaman Yusoff, medical doctor
Dr Zawawi Abdullah, medical doctor
Dr Durairajoo Govindarajoo, medical doctor
Nadzim Johan, chairperson, Coalition on Integrity of Vaccines & Drugs Against Covid-19 (Civdac)
Brig Gen (Rtd) Mohd Arshad Raji, Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan (Patriot)
Abd Kadir Warsi Mohamad, Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM)
Police Commissioner (Rtd) Shabudin Abdul Wahab, Covid Research Centre (AHM Group)
Tunku Azwil Tunku Abd Razak, Gabungan NGO Islam (GNI)

curious to know how cheap it is?



https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-97...2506-6/fulltext

‘Literally criminal’: Suppressing data on ivermectin cost ‘half a million lives’, doctor charges

In a recent Zoom call, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance outlined numerous details showing the World Health Organization (WHO) knowingly suppressed data on the effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus in order to benefit the vaccine interests of Big Pharma.

“It’s criminal,” Kory said. “It’s literally criminal.” The drug “could have saved half a million lives this year if it had been approved.”

The WHO, Kory contends, is simply taking part in the tactics of a time-worn “Disinformation Playbook.” The term was coined by the Union of Concerned Scientists 50 years ago to describe the strategies corporations have developed over decades to “attack science when it goes against their financial interests.”

It consists of five parts:


1)The Fake – Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
2)The Blitz – Harass scientists who speak out with results reviews inconvenient for industry.
3)The Diversion – Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
4)The Screen – Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
5)The Fix – Manipulate government officials or processes to influence policy inappropriately.

In the full Zoom call, since removed by YouTube but available on Bitchute, Kory describes how the five tactics have been deployed against the scientific findings on ivermectin. One example is the corruption of leading medical journals, whose editors refuse to allow ivermectin studies to advance to peer review. The most egregious institutional participant, however, is the WHO.

Kory is the lead author of a scientific review of the studies on ivermectin worldwide, which was published in the May-June edition of The American Journal of Therapeutics.

As reported on the FlCCC website, there have been a total of 56 trials involving 469 scientists and 18,447 patients. Of these, 28 were randomized control trials (RCT), the type of trial considered highly authoritative in the medical community.

Together these have shown an 85 percent improvement as a preventative against the disease when taken before exposure. There has been a 78 percent patient improvement when administered early and a 46 percent improvement when delivered late. A 74 percent improvement in mortality was found and a 66 percent improvement across multiple areas in the 28 randomized control trials.

Within only 10 days of publication the paper on ivermectin was rated number 13 most-read among the more than 200,000 other scientific publications that appeared during that time, Kory reports.

Out of the 17.7 million papers that have been tracked by the rating source since it began, the ivermectin study is already ranked 246.

Kory believes the response to the paper is a good sign, and says he sees “a see change happening.”

Kory notes his team is hardly alone. “Dr. [Tess] Lawrie is one of the world’s experts in making guidelines and doing systematic reviews. Just her group alone and their independent effort, the BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) consortium, they arrived at the conclusion that it should be the standard of care. Our article also arrived at that same conclusion. We are not alone. Prof. [Satoshi] Omura, the Nobel prize winner, his group from Japan, published their paper concluding the same. Another independent group from Spain and Italy” did so.

Most importantly, he said, “the key about all of these groups… is that we are independent expert panels. None of us are conflicted. None of us have any other interests than the oath that we took as physicians which is to the care of our patients.”

Part of the problem is that the WHO’s corporate donors not only provide funds, they determine all aspects of research and even provide the research teams.

“Look at where the money is coming from. Now the money has strings attached,” Kory said. “People give the WHO money, but they say ‘we want you to do this or study that. We want you to use our consultants and our experts, and our scientists.’ Many of them come from pharma. Pharma has pretty much completely infilatrated this organization.”

When “you look critically at the medicine, especially in a pandemic, you can’t help but arrive at an objective conclusion that it is the standard of care,” Kory said. “And it really is doing phenomenal impacts around the world.”

In Mexico and India for example, “the death rates and hospitalizations just absolutely plummeted” where ivermectin was used.

The real problem with the drug, Kory believes, is that in addition to being effective, safe, and easily available, it is very cheap. Ivermectin costs only a few dollars per dose. This pits the drug against financial interests of over 100 billions of dollars to be made from vaccines.

“I can’t imagine in the history of pharmaceuticals, a competing interest as deep and as vast as is arrayed against little ivermectin,” Kory said. “It is truly almost incalculable the interest against it.”

Once trusted healthcare agencies such as the WHO, have become the chief advocates of the interests of their Big Pharma, vaccine-driven donors. As a result, Kory said, the WHO and others, are actively suppressing the vast evidence for ivermectin in order to keep it out of public view.

The evidence for this claim is startling. Looking at the WHO’s panel report on ivermectin, he said, “The stuff that they are doing is not subtle. It is so clear that whoever was in charge of that panel had a nonscientific objective.”

“Number one, there was no protocol for excluding data. So they were basically free throw out any trial that they found inconvenient to their purpose,” Kory noted. “And guess what? They did that. They threw out a lot of the trials that their own Unitaid team had uncovered and amassed over the last few months.”

The most egregious thing, Kory found, is a sentence in the WHO report their researchers did not even bother to defend, “it just simply says, ‘We did not look at randomized controlled trials and the prevention of COVID-19.’ No reason why, no reason not why. We just didn’t do it.”

One of the most important indicators of effectiveness in a drug is dose response data, Kory explains. “They deliberately avoided mention” of dose response data. “They completely omitted really important data, because if that’s there, that’s a huge scientific pillar showing efficacy.”

They also did not include epidemiological studies, such as that by Juan Chamie’s research that has been going on for a year “showing every place that does widespread distribution and adoption you see case counts and death plummet,” and which was presented to the WHO.

“So when I read that, I know this data. My head was in my hands and I was just like these people or criminals. They’re literally are criminals,” Kory said.

When the report examines whether ivermectin is safe or not, Kory remarked, “it’s just absolutely comical.”

Speaking of a drug used for over 40 years with billions of doses delivered and a better safety track record than aspirin or Tylenol, he says, the WHO found three studies that contain a suggestion that there might be adverse effects. The panel then determined, Kory said, “‘it doesn’t work, because we threw out all the data showing that it works. But you know what, we are seeing that it could be harmful. I mean, [it is] absolutely ludicrous what they’re doing.”

By contrast, the WHO allowed remdesivir for COVID-19, which costs between $2340 and $3120, on the basis of a single study performed with 800 patients. That study found remdesivir does not reduce mortality, and reduces length of hospitalization among survivors by an average of two days.

In 2018, the WHO recommended ivermectin for the treatment of scabies on the basis of 10 randomized control trials with only 852 patients. It did the same for ivermectin as a treatment for strongyloides, a parasitic infection, on the basis of five randomized control trials and 591 patients.

However, 28 randomized control trials consisting of almost 3,000 patients have not been enough for the WHO to approve this life-saving therapy for COVID-19.

“The WHO essentially committed a criminal action,” Kory said. “This is clearly not science going on here.”

https://www.worldtribune.com/literally-crim...doctor-charges/

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/let...6a290ee105.html

Ivermectin crushes Delhi cases

Just three weeks after adding Ivermectin, Delhi now leads India out of the deadly second surge of the COVID pandemic. Cases that had peaked at 28,395 on April 20 plummeted nearly 80% to just 6,430 on May 15. Deaths peaked May 4, and now they are also down 25%.

On May 10, the Indian State of Goa adopted an even more ambitious policy of preemptive Ivermectin for all adults in the state. The Chief Minister of Goa is Dr. Pramod Sawant, a progressive 49-year-old physician persuaded by science. In particular, he read Dr. Pierre Kory's and Dr. Andrew Hill's robust meta-analyses. As a direct result, Goa has seen a drop in cases from 3,124 the day after the announcement to 1,314 five days later.

Meanwhile, three other Indian states have followed Goa's lead in adding Ivermectin: Uttarkhand, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh. And, as expected, they have seen a drop in new daily cases as well, with Uttar Pradesh down nearly 75% from a peak of 37,944 just four days after they began following the April 20 AIIMS guidance to just 10,505 on May 16.

The tragic story in all this is that the Indian state of Tamil Nadu installed a new leader on May 7, 2021. He suddenly reversed their state's decision to adopt Ivermectin. Readers of my book all know about Peruvian President Sagasti's fateful decision to outlaw Ivermectin. Before taking power, the COVID deaths had dropped 14 fold to almost nothing with Ivermectin use. However after Sagasti was elected, Ivermectin was stopped, and deaths roared back at 13 fold.

Peru paid the price in skyrocketing cases and 78,000 preventable deaths. Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister, MK Stalin, also chose to forgo Ivermectin. Instead, he ordered tens of thousands of doses of Remdesivir, a drug that sells for 3,000 dollars per dose. So now Tamil Nadu's cases are rocketing as well.

In contrast to Goa's young physician Chief Minister who had read the latest science on Ivermectin's dramatic effect on reducing COVID death, MK Stalin is a 68-year-old non-physician socialist and atheist who is towing the party line by forbidding Ivermectin.

Stalin now requests allocations for some 20,000 daily doses of Remdesivir for the Tamil Nadu citizens despite the science that shows no reduction in COVID death with this drug. Remdesivir is an anti-viral agent given late in the disease, only after hospitalization when the Cytokine storm has set in and when anti-virals have lost their effectiveness.

At that later stage, steroids, anticoagulants, and oxygen are crucially important. Also, Ivermectin has shown a remarkable ability to reduce inflammation at that stage, with some being liberated from the ventilator with just one dose.

Tamil Nadu cases have continued to rise from April 20 to May 15. During the same time, Delhi's cases eased 78% while Tamil Nadu's cases tripled.

Twenty thousand doses of Remdesivir cost 60 million dollars, while 20,000 doses of Ivermectin go for a few hundred. Where is a developing country getting the 60 million dollars a day to purchase the Remdesivir? Why is their leader throwing away a cheap drug, Ivermectin, that has saved lives in other countries?

Why would Stalin choose money over lives?

As a humanitarian and a board-certified practicing physician, I know we can influence other Indian states to adopt Ivermectin. With the help of groups like C19, the FLCCC, and the EBMC led by scientists of the caliber of Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Tess Lawrie, let us all join together to get the word out. Ivermectin must be instituted globally to end not just the carnage in India but for the rest of the world.

This is life-saving information that everyone must learn now about how this Nobel Prize-winning drug, Ivermectin, can immediately bring an end to the pandemic. Tamil Nadu citizens have a right to know the truth. It is everyone’s human right to access it, and it is a drug for all of humanity. So help us fight the corruption and censorship. Please share the book, Ivermectin for the World.

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/1409...esakit-Covid-19


SHAH ALAM - Pengarah Perubatan, Universiti MAHSA, Profesor Dr Mustafa Ali Mohd menyarankan supaya kerajaan menggunakan ubat Ivermectin untuk merawat pesakit Covid-19.

Menurutnya, ubat tersebut terbukti berkesan apabila sekumpulan penyelidik di Australia telah mengkaji dan berjaya memulihkan ramai pesakit Covid-19.

“Saya ingin beri pandangan dan cadangan kerana keadaan kini telah kritikal dan kita masih terkial-kial mencari jawapan. Sedangkan, kita ada alternatif dengan menggunakan ubat Ivermectin.

“Ia bukan vaksin Covid-19. Ini adalah ubat cacing. Pada April tahun lalu, lebih daripada 50 ujian klinikal dijalankan di serata dunia yang menunjukkan keberkesanannya.

“Kajian ini dilakukan oleh mereka yang berpengalaman dan pakar dalam bidang ini,” katanya pada Khamis.

Beliau berkata demikian semasa menjadi panel dalam program Wacana Sinar edisi ke-260 yang bertajuk, Covid-19: Malaysia di Ambang Kritikal yang disiarkan di platform Sinar Harian.

Turut menjadi panel adalah Ahli Majlis Tertinggi Bersatu, Datuk Suhaili Abdul Rahman, Pengarah Pusat Penyelidikan dan Pendidikan Penyakit Berjangkit Tropika (TIDREC), Profesor Dr Sazaly Abu Bakar dan Profesor Ekonomi dan Polisi Kesihatan, Universiti Kuwait, Profesor Datuk Dr Syed Mohamed Aljunid Syed Junid manakala Ismail Adnan sebagai moderator.

Mengulas lanjut, Dr Mustafa berkata, ubat tersebut juga telah digunakan di beberapa negara di dunia dan boleh digunakan secara selamat.

Setakat ini, sebanyak 3.7 bilion dos suntikan telah diberikan kepada pengguna dan tiada sebarang kesan sampingan serius.

“Ubat ini antara alternatif ubat-ubatan yang selamat di dunia. Ia telah digunakan lebih daripada 30 tahun.

“Kita boleh bergantung kepada apa yang ada. Namun, ia tidak memberi apa-apa harapan yang cerah pada masa depan. Kita perlu alternatif lain seperti Ivermectin. Harganya hanya AS$ 0.02 (RM0.83 sen) sahaja untuk setiap satu dos.

“Kenapa kita keberatan hendak menggunakannya? Jika terlebih dos atau sebagainya pun ia tidak memberi implikasi besar kepada pengguna,” ujarnya.

https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters...ring-ivermectin

Letter of the Day | Bring on Ivermectin

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Once again prominent medical practitioners in Jamaica have called for the use of Ivermectin in the COVID-19 battle. In an open letter to Health and Wellness Minister Dr Christopher Tufton published in The Gleaner last Thursday, titled ‘Doctors back Ivermectin COVID-19 fight’, the highly regarded professionals stated, “It is widely agreed that there is enough evidence to support the use of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 at the discretion of doctors and with the agreement of their patients. We need not await WHO approval of the use of Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. The WHO, unfortunately, has been slow, and sometimes incorrect, in its assessment and advice on various aspects of the pandemic and specifically so in relation to its current stance on Ivermectin.”

The views of our respected doctors are not new or peculiar to them. The University of Liverpool’s Andrew Hill and others carried out a meta-analytical breakdown of 18 studies that found that Ivermectin was associated with reduced inflammation and a faster elimination of SAR-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In six of these trials, the risk of death was reduced by 75 per cent in a subset of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

The question which needs to be answered is, why is there such a reluctance to officially sanction the use of Ivermectin despite scientific studies and personal reports of people who have benefited from this drug? I think we got an important clue recently. According to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a booster COVID-19 vaccine may be needed for people who have already been vaccinated as soon as eight to 12 months after their second shot.

BAD TIMING

I found the timing (May 2021) of this information extremely troubling. Didn’t these esteemed gentlemen know earlier that a booster shot would be required? Why wait to share this information when millions of persons have already received a first or second shot? It is definitely not wrong to question whether or not profits are driving the constant pushback against the use of Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

The pharmaceutical companies are making billions in profit through the manufacture of these vaccines while there would be little or no profit to be made from long-existing medications such as Ivermectin. Pfizer said it expects global sales of its coronavirus vaccine to reach $26 billion in 2021, a milestone that would make it the biggest selling pharmaceutical product in the world. Both Moderna and Pfizer have said they expect their vaccines will remain in demand for at least several years as coronavirus variants proliferate around the world and people require booster shots to maintain immunity after their initial doses.

Can the lack of interest in Ivermectin be traced to financial considerations rather than medical efficacy? I commend our local doctors who have gone against the grain to tell of the importance of Ivermectin in the fight against COVID-19; however, sadly at this time, it seems to be “all about the money, baby!”

MARSHA THOMAS

https://manilastandard.net/news/national/35...es-by-half.html

Defensor says ivermectin use cut QC COVID cases by half

A party-list lawmaker on Thursday said the use of COVID-19 experimental drug ivermectin in Barangay Matandang Balara in Quezon City has reduced virus infection cases there by more than half in less than a month.

Anakalusugan Rep. Mike Defensor, who with Sagip Party-list Rep. Rolande Marcoleta distributed ivermectin to residents of the area last April 30, said the Barangay Health Emergency Response Team reported 138 cases the day before, or on April 29.

He said by May 22, or less than a month after the distribution, infection numbers were down to 59, or by 57.2 percent, he said.

Two days later, on May 24, cases further decreased to just 39, he said.

“The significant decline is a tremendous achievement in the fight against COVID-19 and further bolsters our appeal to undertake mass distribution of ivermectin to our people,” Defensor stressed.

The decrease in Matandang Balara is “far larger” than the 34.2-percent reduction in District 3, to which the barangay belongs, he added.

Defensor and Marcoleta have urged the Department of Health and the Department of Science and Technology to expedite clinical trials on ivermectin, which President Rodrigo Duterte has ordered the two agencies to conduct.

“We could save many lives with the use of this wonder drug,” Defensor said.

Ivermectin is still not registered in the country for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. The Food and Drug Administration earlier gave six hospitals compassionate special permits to administer the anti-parasitic drug to coronavirus patients.

Earlier this month, the FDA announced it approved a company’s application to register ivermectin as an anti-nematode (roundworm) drug.

Still, Defensor and Marcoleta lamented that while they and other concerned citizens, including volunteer doctors and other health professionals, are helping communities fight COVID-19, other public officials in Quezon City are reportedly violating health protocols in distributing aid.

They cited last Tuesday’s distribution of food packs in Matandang Balara and last month’s P1,000 “ayuda” to qualified city residents, which they said might have been virus infection super-spreader events.

They blamed the Quezon City government for failing to enforce such protocols.

“The crisis the pandemic has brought us really requires the highest form of altruism, especially among public servants, to address the dire needs of the citizenry. But one must ensure that one’s good intentions do not unwittingly cause more harm,” they said.

“Gathering several thousand people to give them food assistance is a laudable intention, but the potential to spread the virus is also high. One should think of better ways to give the assistance in a much safer manner, without compromising the established health protocols,” they said.

They urged the Department of Interior and Local Government to crack down harder on violators of health measures, including local government units and public officers.

“We are afraid that without sending clear signals to those responsible, we will continue to see the rise in cases of COVID-19 and the policy of lockdowns will be a never ending cycle,” they said.

https://www.heraldgoa.in/Goa/Ivermectin-red...gh-Court/175454

Ivermectin reduces mortality rate, State tells High Court

Team Herald
PANJIM: The State government has said that the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment reduces mortality rate, however, it is not advisable for all without doctor’s consultation. In its reply submitted to the High Court of Bombay at Goa, the State has said that the government has decided to give all suspected and symptomatic cases the medicine. Likewise, home isolation patients are also being provided this medicine in the home isolation kits.

“After deliberation (by the State Expert Committee for COVID-19), it was recommended to use the medicine once daily for five days to the population over 18 years of age. However, pregnant/lactating women as well as those persons with allergy and those having liver/kidney disease are advised to consult a doctor before taking the medicine,” the reply states, in response to a petition filed by South Goa Advocates Association on COVID-19 management in the State. The Bench will hear the matter on Friday, when other issues related to concerns raised by the petitioners and the Court will also be heard.

The High Court had asked the government to reply on the use of Ivermectin despite WHO and regulatory agencies advising against it.

The government also states that some reports have found that analysis by WHO on this medicine is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxis.

On the issue of oxygen supply in hospitals, the government reply denies its shortage or any instances of interrupted supply of oxygen. “Daily requirement of oxygen for Goa is about 55 MT… On request of State government, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India letter dated May 13, 2021 has allotted 20 MT additional LMO from LINDE Belloxy Bellary with effect from May 15, 2021,” it said.

The LMO through Bellary has now been changed to Jindal Steel Works, Dolvi. Additionally, 15 MT per day oxygen is generated by four units and the State government is in the process of installing PSA plants which have been sanctioned by the Central government at various sites in the State. These plants are mainly for the purpose of serving as a backup and would not be the primary source of oxygen to the hospitals.

The Union government’s reply to the High Court, on the vaccination drive, states that it is supplying vaccines to the States and Union Territories for priority population of health care workers, frontline workers and those above 45 years of age. As on May 26, 7.47 lakh doses have been provided to Goa of which 4.97 lakh doses have been consumed and 2.50 lakh doses are available with the State currently.

A total of 45,700 doses are likely to be available in Goa from June 1 to June 15. For June, a total of 36,580 doses are likely to be made available for direct procurement to cover the 18-44 years population of Goa, the Centre said.

Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19

With reference to the open letter to Health DG by our ten esteemed colleagues, MAAFIM and its members supported by many other doctors in Malaysia would like to establish that Ivermectin has been in use in many countries with good results in the treatment of COVID-19, especially in prophylaxis.

Ivermectin is a medication that is included in the Malaysian drug formulary as an antihelminthic and yet there is resistance to allow the drug for use for its intended purpose or for emergency use for COVID-19 disease.There is an abundance of research to show its safety, as the drug has been in use for decades. And now many countries or states are adopting Ivermectin despite the advice of world bodies simply because people's lives matter more.

MAAFIM has perused the published data, and additionally kept in close communication with many doctors around the world who have used Ivermectin in the management of COVID-19. The informal feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.Hence, there is sufficient evidence to add Ivermectin to the arsenal against COVID-19 disease.

If there is a drug that can be used to avoid the COVID-19 disease prophylactically or improve the outcome in treatment with minimal side-effects, and it is cheap to obtain and distribute, then it behoves the appropriate governments including the Malaysian government to expeditiously implement a drug that can thwart the negative outcome of the current pandemic.Ongoing clinical studies can be done for pharmaceutical approval but in the meantime Ivermectin can be released as under "Emergency Use Authorization", since there is sufficient data coming from other nations and it could be lifesaving or reduce the morbidity of COVID-19 disease for the Malaysian rakyat.

(EXCO, Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (MAAFIM), signed by 136 doctors from MAAFIM and other concerned doctors.)

Dr A.Rani a/p A.Arokiasamy
Dr Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Hamid Ahmad
Dr Abdul Majid Abdullah
Dr Abdul Rasid mohamed Ali
Dr Abdul Wahab Khalid Osman
Dr Abiram A/L T S Ramalingam
Dr Adlina Suleiman
Dr Ahmad Azuwar bin Mohd Adib
Dr Ahmad Hassan Bin Masduki
Dr Ahmad Khalis bin Mohamed Munawar
Dr Aina Othman
Dr Ameen Shaik Bin Sehu Mohamed
Dr Aminah Kassim
Dr Amir Shahmi Bin Md Ali
Dr Anura Gnanasothi Kandasamy
Dr Arifah
Dr Ashok Kumar Vikyomal
Dr Aziz Alsafi
Dr Azlina Ishak
Dr Badrulleasham Ismail
Dr Balachandran A/L sKrishnan
Dr Balasundram Palany
Dr Balbinder Singh
Dr Baljit Singh
Dr Balkis Hanoom
Dr Balwant Singh a/l Partap Singh
Dr Benjamin George
Dr Chia Hong Soong
Dr Chuah Teong Chye
Dr Dalina Abdul Majid
Dr Denesh Sinnathamby
Dr Durairajoo Govindarajoo
Dr Edwin Chang Yoke Poi
Dr Elina binti Mohtar Rasali
Dr Emilia Kasturi
Dr Erman Syah Abdul Hamid
Dr Farhat Afroze binti Ayaz
Dr Fatma Hidayati Bt Zakaria
Dr Fauzanah Binti Ishak
Dr Fouziah Hamzah
Dr Gurdial Singh
Dr Gurdial Singh
Dr Hanif Zuhdi Bin Mahmud Pathi
Dr Haridas a/l NarayananSreedharan
Dr Hisham Harun
Dr Husna Binti Hashim
Dr Jasveer Kaur Sidhu
Dr Jeyaseelan Nachiappan
Dr Joann Wen Law
Dr Kamesah binti Omar
Dr Kenny Yong YeanSirn
Dr Khor Ying kim
Dr Krishen kumar Devaser
Dr Kuan Tuck Wah
Dr L Ganesh Loganathan
Dr Lee Cheng Lok
Dr Lee Yoke Kwan
Dr Lily Abu Bakar
Dr Lim Ching Chiet
Dr Lim Wu Yee
Dr Loriot Kenson
Dr M A Salaam Jemain
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed
Dr Maizurah Omar
Dr Majezan Yaacob
Dr Marisa Amilia binti Ismail
Dr Misnah Binti Ponamin
Dr Mohamad Haniki Nik Mohamed
Dr Mohamed Farook bin Raj Mohamed
Dr Mohd Anuar Osman
Dr Mohd Arbaai Shawal
Dr Mohd Jamil Hamid
Dr Mohd Saifulhaziq Noorman
Dr Mustafa Ali mohd
Dr Nadzri Mokhtar
Dr Narjit Singh
Dr Navdeep Kaur
Dr Nicholas Lim Jeng Cherng
Dr Nila Ratna Binti Suien
Dr Noordin Darus
Dr Nor Aisham B Mohd Nor
Dr Nor Amalina Ismail
Dr Norasiah binti Mohd Mansor
Dr Norhaslinda
Dr Norizah Amiruldin
Dr Nurhayati Mokhtar
Dr Nurulhuda Mohammed Zabidi
Dr Mohd Zahlulazham Bin Adam
Dr Molly Cheah
Dr Paramjit Kaur
Dr Paul vijayaratnam stephens
Dr Perminder Kaur Dhillon
Dr Peter Chan Teck Hock
Dr Prem Kumar Gopakumaran Nair
Dr Pushpa Devi
Dr Rosmawati Mohamed
Dr Rosnah
Dr Rozimah Binti Osman
Dr Radha Krishna
Dr Rajasvari
Dr Ramanathan a/l Annamslai Chettiar
Dr Redzuan Abdullah
Dr Revin
Dr Richard Chai
Dr Roland Victor Amerruddin
Dr Salim Ismail
Dr Sani Ashari
Dr Sanjeev
Dr Selva Kumar S
Dr Selva Kumaran
Dr Selvam Rengasamy
Dr Selvarani M.Shelladurai
Dr Sendhil Kumar
Dr Sevellaraja Supermaniam
Dr Shah Reza
Dr Shahrol Khairudzi Bin Abdul Rahim
Dr Shaiful Hazmeer bin Jakariah
Dr Sharan Jeet Kaur A/P Karam Singh
Dr Sharifa Shahreen Bt Syed Sultan Ahmed
Dr Sharifuddin M Zain
Dr Siti Aniza Basir
Dr Siti Zariah Jali
Dr Suresh Mahendra
Dr Suriaty Abdull Rauf
Dr Swesh Kaur
Dr Syed Alif Fikri bin Syed
Dr Tay Ju Lee
Dr Vatsala Devi Nagalingam
Dr Vijaendreh Subramaniam
Dr Wan Rosiah Ab Rashid
Dr Yee Teck Ji
Dr Zarihah Mohd Zain
Dr Zawawi Abdullah
Dr Zazali Othman
Dr Zulkafperi Bin Hanapi (Dato)

https://www.sinchew.com.my/content/content_2482977.html

added to first page, second post.

This post has been edited by cranx: May 28 2021, 03:58 PM

WACANA SINAR 260, 27 MEI 2021

Berikut merupakan petikan Wacana Sinar Siri 259 bertajuk `Covid-19: Malaysia di ambang kritikal` bersama Profesor dan Pengarah Perubatan, Universiti MAHSA, Prof Dr Mustafa Ali Mohd.