• Post last modified:2022年3月3日
  • Post category:covid-19
You are currently viewing 金銭的・研究的な利害関係が蝕む – イベルメクチンの真実⑦

rumbleで紹介されていた「The Story of Ivermectin」の動画(18:00〜21:00)を翻訳と文字起こしをしています。















このような仕事上および経済上のつながりを考えると このような職業上および金銭上のつながりがある場合、彼らがコロナに対する最良の治療法を公平に判断することを期待するのは無理でしょう。








During the same period, one of the board members of Gilead was George. Shultz a long time, Bush family, Ally, who was instrumental in convincing George w–, Bush to run for president of the United States. In order to understand why the NIH treatment panel is so pro remdesivir. It’s essential to understand the financial ties between Gilead Sciences and members of that treatment panel. 

If you look at the treatment panels Financial disclosures, you will see that no fewer than seven members disclose financial support from Gilead Sciences. 

Interestingly the three co-chairs who select the other members of the panel do not disclose support from Gilead. However, two of the chairs Roy M. Gulluk and Henrry Masur both received financial support from Gilead. 

Even more interestingly, the third co-chair H.Clifford Lane was actually one of the authors of the NIAID study on  remdesivir, but you won’t see his name in the list of the articles authors. You have to look in the financial discloser form that a company that ariticle.

And it’s also worth noting that seven out of 12 of his co-authors on that study, disclosed founding from Gilead Sciences. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Two of the three chairs of the NIH covid-19 treatment panel, the people who put the panel together receive financial support from Gilead Sciences. And while the other was intimately, involved in the study that attempted and failed to prove that remdesivir was an effective treatment for covid-19. Given these professional and financial ties. Is there any way we reasonably expect them to impartially judge, the best treatments for covid-19. Or choose panel members, who might advocate for repurposing cheap off-patent drugs that would completely undercut the market, for one of the main products of a company with which they enjoy close Financial and Professional ties. It’s not necessary for any of them to have said, let’s not promote cheap drugs and promote remdesivir instead. Financial and research interests had already corrupted, their decision-making processes and biases, but we should be clear. 

There are sins of omission and sins of commission. And there’s no way that the members of the panel at least some of them were unaware of the research concerning Ivermectin and yet, no one chose to bring that to the fore in their meetings rather than recommend Ivermectin or at least recommend more studies into Ivermectin.They chose to continue to push the drug Ram disappear, which they knew had no discernible effect on covid-19 survival.