Editor’s note: The letter below was sent by RWA, a reader, and contributor of GumshoeNews to Associate Professor Sanjaya Senanayake. I have attached below further correspondence regarding a video “COVID19 Ivermectin-Saved lives in Canadian Nursing Home. Pandemic Protection-Turning Point?”
Letter from RWA to:
Associate Professor Sanjaya Senanayake,
Infectious Diseases Section, Medical School,
Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT, Australia.
1. I became aware of your existence recently when I saw a TV interview in which you were involved. A Google search then revealed that you are an Associate Professor at the Infectious Diseases Section of the ANU Medical School. I congratulate you on achieving such a prestigious position.
2. The aims & intentions of the Medical School’s Infectious Diseases Section are described inter alia, by the URL above. I would like to discuss one particular phrase in that description which is:
2.1. ” …. (we seek) to understand design of public health approaches to control the (infectious) diseases ….”
3. I assume that in your position, you in particular or the Infectious Diseases Section in general, would be involved in the matters quoted in paragraph 2.1. Given the current Coronavirus pandemic, I assume you would be investigating ways of controlling the highly contagious & somewhat deadly COVID-19 infection. I assume that you also probably advise the Australian Government (AuGov) & other related authorities on such matters.
4. I would like to discuss the medication IVERMECTIN which is sold in Australia as STROMECTOL. Before I go any further, allow me to say that I am not involved in the medical or pharmaceutical profession in any way & do not claim to be a medical expert. My knowledge of Ivermectin however, has been gained from the considerable study of carefully selected entries on the internet. I take great care not to be influenced by false information!
5. There is an ever-increasing amount of evidence from around the world that indicates the efficacy of Ivermectin in combatting COVID-19. The evidence shows that Invermectin has the following properties:
5.1. It markedly reduces the chances of dying from the disease, especially if the patient is an infected senior above about 60 years of age.
5.2. It markedly reduces the period of recovery & therefore the suffering that the patient might endure. As a consequence of this rapid recovery, it will also reduce the chances of being afflicted with various severe after-effects or possible long-term effects of the virus such as the loss of taste & smell, loss of energy, breathing difficulties & even some mental problems. This list is not exhaustive & there are probably more that have yet to be discovered.
6. All of these problems confirm that this is not a disease that should be treated lightly. Consequently, the authorities have introduced certain procedures in an attempt to control the disease’s infectious aspect such as lockdowns, border controls, social separation, mask-wearing, etc. These have achieved varying levels of success, but they have also been very unpopular with the general public.
7. Regardless of these procedures & their success or otherwise, the authorities have failed to introduce any positive means involving a medication by which to reduce or control the deaths or suffering of those who are infected with COVID-19. Their only suggested salvation is to “hope & pray” for the quick development of a successful vaccination!
8. To a realist such as myself, hoping & praying for a vaccination is not a viable solution. This is especially true in the current Critical Emergency Situation which is wreaking devastation on the lives of numerous members of the Australian public & on the Australian economy. A suitable IMMEDIATE SOLUTION is required!
9. I am sure I don’t need to explain to an expert such as yourself, the large number of limitations that exist with the successful development & dissemination of any vaccination. However, for the purpose of recording the information in this document, I will now provide that explanation.
10. The most immediate limitation is the amount of time involved in the development before a vaccination is released. At the very earliest, it is predicted as early 2021. Even then, the amount of time involved in vaccinating all of Australia’s population could take up to a year or possibly more. Meanwhile, the deaths, devastation & suffering continue …….!
11. All this indicates that a vaccination does not provide an IMMEDIATE SOLUTION or even one that will arrive in sufficient time to reduce the current devastation to a reasonable level. IVERMECTIN does provide an IMMEDIATE SOLUTION, yet the authorities continue to maintain a quiet denial of its existence. Why are they doing this?
12. There are a couple of possible reasons as far as I can see, & this is one of them. Generally, the medical authorities whom I assume advise the AuGov, suggest that there is insufficient evidence to support Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. This “evidence” is normally related to the lack of (Controlled) Clinical Trials (CCTs) or Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to confirm the acceptability of Ivermectin to combat COVID-19.
13. Acceptability generally considers:
13.1. In the very first instance, the safety of the medication when applied to a large variety of a population’s members ie the existence of any side-effects, especially those that are severe, long-term or that cause death.
13.2. The efficacy of the medication in combatting the target disease.
14. The CCTs involving Ivermectin’s safety were conducted some 40+ years ago when Ivermectin was first being developed. Initially, it should be confirmed that the medication does not adversely affect a fit & healthy test subject ie one that is or was not infected by anything, including by default the Coronavirus.
15. A total of about 4 billion doses of Ivermectin have been distributed since 1987 to more than 400 million people annually as a preventive / therapeutic drug for tropical diseases such as onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, as well as strongyloidiasis and scabies. It has made a great contribution to the improvement of human health & welfare.
16. During that 33 years, Ivermectin has consistently proven to be an utterly benign medication with virtually no side-effects of any consequence. Only 15 deaths have ever been reported in The Lancet. These deaths were associated with elderly patients given Ivermectin to successfully combat scabies.
17. The deaths that supposedly resulted from this use of Ivermectin are disputed by a later Lancet report. This independent report provides a more extensive assessment than given by the original report, & it assesses that Ivermectin was not responsible for the deaths. Nonetheless, when these 15 deaths are expressed as a percentage of the multi-millions of Ivermectin users throughout the world, then deaths attributed to ivermectin become an insignificantly small percentage.
18. To suggest that these results are not acceptable because they don’t conform to CCT or RCT standards indicates a certain narrow mindedness. Further, to continue with this attitude given the current Critical Emergency Situation suggests a certain
callous arrogance. This is especially true given the ever-increasing human & economic toll involved when Ivermectin is not available to halt it!
19. Professor Sanjaya, you appear to be an intelligent, progressive & considerate individual, so I trust this description of callous arrogance does not apply to you & that therefore, you have had nothing to do with this or similar inconsiderate statements.
20. Let me now consider item 13.2 from above ie the efficacy of the medication in combatting the target disease. In this case, we are now considering the efficacy of Ivermectin to combat COVID-19.
21. It is certainly true to say that just because a medicine is useful for one purpose, we cannot automatically assume it’s a miracle cure for another disease. This statement or similar ones have been used by one or more Ivermectin-vs-COVID-19 detractors. I doubt any intelligent medical practitioner or similar individual involved in prescribing various medications, has ever held such an opinion. Nonetheless, in the short period of the Coronavirus’ existence, many random off-label applications of Ivermectin to patients infected with COVID-19 have proven to be amazingly successful & without any side-effects, or certainly none of any consequence.
22. The fact that these results have been achieved by casual processes then reported as anecdotal experiences or observational studies & not conducted or reported as officially recognised CCTs or RCTs, is totally inconsequential! That’s because Ivermectin has already been proven to be a particularly benign drug over some 33 years of use. It is already known not to adversely affect all sorts of individuals with all sorts of pre-existing conditions, so the chances that it will adversely affect a patient with the formerly unknown disease called COVID-19, are extremely remote!
23. As it so happens, each random application of Ivermectin vs COVID-19 has unfailingly demonstrated that not only was the assumption correct of no adverse effects but also that Ivermectin vs COVID-19 was amazingly successful, often 100% successful! Even the most arrogant skeptic would find these results difficult not to accept as a very reasonable replacement for any CCT or RCT, especially in an emergency situation as currently exists.
24. I now wish to consider risk versus reward. For this purpose, I will consider two 70-year-old individuals, each of who has been confirmed by testing to be infected with COVID-19, or where infection is suspected because of the existence of 2 or 3 relevant symptoms. The pertinent questions are:
24.1. What are the risks to the 70yo individual who takes a Standard Single Dose of Ivermectin. A Standard Single Dose consists of 1× 3mg Tablet of Ivermectin per 15kg of body weight.
24.1.1 The answer is: “There is absolutely no risk. Otherwise, if there is any risk, it is so infinitesimally small that it is not worth considering,”
24.2. What are the risks to the 70yo individual who doesn’t take any Ivermectin?
24.2.1. The answer is: “The risk is extremely high that the individual will suffer from some or all of the problems given in paragraphs 5.1 & 5.2 above In addition, the risk of dying is medium to high, especially if the individual is obese or has some other pre-existing condition.”
25. The next question is: “What is the reward for each individual?”
25.1. The rewards for the Ivermectin individual are enormous. They include a quick recovery, far less pain & inconvenience because of the shorter recovery period, the probable avoidance of all the long-term effects of the virus, a quick return to work & a normal life, & the avoidance of death associated with well-meaning medical staff being forced to use often inadequate attempts to aid the recovery without Ivermectin.
26. When more than one infected individual receiving Ivermectin is considered, such that each individual in a community or in the Australian population is able to immediately utilise Ivermectin when COVID-19 infection occurs, then the lockdowns, etc can be removed, Australian businesses start to recover, unemployment decreases, the economy recovers, etc. It’s hard to believe that such a remarkable series of results could start to take effect IMMEDIATELY with the simple AG action of making IVERMECTIN available IMMEDIATELY …. and I haven’t even mentioned that very recent tests have demonstrated Ivermectin’s ability to effectively act as a Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) for COVID-19, but more of that on another day.
27. There is absolutely nothing that the Australian population has to lose by using Ivermectin. There are, however, many millions of dollars that could be lost by the pharmaceutical companies & associated organisations involved in developing a Coronavirus vaccine, & whose sales could be severely reduced due to Ivermectin’s success. Perhaps this financial loss might include those Governments that have taken the risk of backing them …. but that’s another story …. or is it?
28. Perhaps the potential negative effect on vaccine sales is the real reason why Ivermectin is being restricted. Does the AuGov have a logical reason not to allow Ivermectin to be readily available to those members of the Australian Population who wish to use it now or in the future, potentially at their own risk & not that of the AuGov or that of Merck, to combat COVID-19? (Merck is the license owners & manufacturers of Ivermectin.)
29. Did AuGov’s logic consider the foreseeable risk of Australia’s seniors dying when they became infected with COVID-19, & that the AuGov was & still is responsible for preventing Ivermectin being available for use to combat COVID-19?
30. I wonder if the grieving relatives of all those senior citizens who have died unnecessarily from the virus because they weren’t given Ivermectin, will accept the logic of the AuGov for not allowing access to Ivermectin? in this regard, I believe a class action is under development right now, with probably more to come in the future, claiming AuGov negligence leading to unnecessary death & suffering from the virus. “Suffering” could include physical suffering from the virus, or mental suffering from the lockdowns, loss of jobs, etc. How inconsiderate & lacking in empathy must the authorities be, to allow this situation to continue? IVERMECTIN must be made available IMMEDIATELY before too much more death & devastation occurs, & before the Australian public gets even more irate than they already are!
31. With every passing day, the number of people who have good reason to join a class action, will increase. Do the authorities really want to become the defendants in not just one, but many class actions? If the AuGov is not concerned with the results of the class actions, then perhaps they need to be concerned with the results of the next election.
32. Prof Sanjaya: Allow me to make the following comments specifically for your attention:
32.1. for your further reading, I have included two URLs below which provide some additional information on the Ivermectin situation. The information provided in one URL has been written by myself & probably involves a repeat (in part) of the details herein.
32.2. I would appreciate your honest response to the following queries:
32.2.1. Please confirm that you personally are involved in directing or investigating ways of controlling the COVID-19 infection, & in advising the AuGov & other related authorities on such matters.
32.2.2. Have you or the Infectious Diseases Section ever suggested to any AuGov authorities or similar entity, that there is insufficient evidence to support Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment & that only CCTs or RCTs will suffice as acceptable evidence?
32.2.3. Given what I have revealed in this document & in the included additional information, do you or the Infectious Diseases Section continue to agree with the suggestion made in paragraph 32.2.2? If so, please explain why. If your opinion has changed to conform more to mine, will you immediately contact the relevant authorities with the intention of having them IMMEDIATELY revoke the restrictions on Ivermectin when used to combat COVID-19 with the intention of making it IMMEDIATELY available to infected seniors, frontline medical staff, carers, & eventually the general public?
32.2.4. If my suggestion of paragraph 32.2.2 is incorrect, can you suggest what is the REAL reason for the following situation, or what is the POSSIBLE reason for this: why does the AuGov not allow any seniors, frontline medical staff, carers, or the general public access to Ivermectin to combat COVID-19?
32.2.5. If none of the above items apply to yourself, will you please forward this email to the relevant individual or authority, then advise me accordingly.
33. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, & my thanks in advance for your potential help. Please reply ASAP before more deaths occur & more damage is inflicted on the Australian population & its economy. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss any matter.
[Name and address supplied]
UPDATE by RWA
Watch “COVID19 Ivermectin-Saved lives in Canadian Nursing Home. Pandemic Protection-Turning Point?” on YouTube.
An Outbreak of Scabies
Here is a video that I’ve literally just discovered, even though it is some three months old. Its subject matter is so strongly linked to that of the email that I have just dispatched today (TITLE: Ivermectin: Immediately Needed vs COVID-19 date stamped 21/09/2020-0514 AustEST), that I felt obliged to forward it to all the recipients of my earlier email.
In this video published 23 June 2020, a remarkable story is told by a woman which involves Ivermectin and the woman’s elderly mother. The mother is a resident of the Advent Valleyview Nursing Home, North York, Ontario, Canada. In early 2020, before the advent of COVID-19 in that country, an outbreak of scabies occurred on two floors of the multi-storied Valleyview building.
Various topical creams were tried, but without success. Eventually it was decided to try oral Ivermectin because it was known to be benign so wouldn’t adversely affect the extremely elderly residents. The scabies problem was quickly resolved, but the most remarkable result was to follow shortly after when the whole of Valleyview became a COVID-19 infected area. By default, the two floors that had received the Ivermectin became the equivalent of a double-blind study of Ivermectin versus the Coronavirus.
If this doesn’t oblige the hard-nosed sceptics to reverse their demands for CCTs & / or RCTs before accepting Ivermectin as a viable medication to combat COVID-19, then it is only reasonable to assume that something more sinister is afoot. This is supported by the fact that the Valleyview authorities have suddenly become tight-lipped about a subject that could only be described as good news from their perspective …. but NOT good news for the “Vaccine Mafia” who stand to lose $$$$ millions!
Enjoy this enlightening story.