Alec Hogg’s Inbox: Passionate views around Ivermectin

A career in observation has taught me there are always at least two sides to every story. Including, it seems, when none assess the efficacy of Ivermectin against Covid-19, a subject which evokes passionate views.

The most rational contribution comes from healthcare professional and community member Dr Liz Hart who writes:

"I am so tired of the constant furore around Ivermectin. This drug is not the cure-all some would have us believe. It is one drug in an arsenal of different treatments that we have to treat this disease. It may be useful in treating an active COVID infection, but is certainly not a prophylactic – in fact it probably does more harm than good, as it destabilises your whole microbiome and gut and makes you more vulnerable to infection. The only real prophylactic is vaccinations, which have been shown to be safe, albeit with a small percentage of complications."

Also hitting my inbox yesterday was this email from Dr Duncan du Bois:

"Dr Anthony Fauci wrote in the US medical students' handbook, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 1985, that Hydroxychloroquin – HCQ – was effective as an anti-viral agent. In 2005 he confirmed its efficacy. But in 2021, as a loyal friend of the drug industry, he does not allow Science to conflict with Big Pharma's interests.

Ivermectin has been positively peer-reviewed in 50 separate studies. Mexico City uses it and has reported a 76% drop in hospitalisations and Covid deaths. In May 2020 the government of Peru officially endorsed its usage in treating Covid patients. Its usage saw a 75% decrease in deaths.

A personal acquaintance of mine told me that Ivermectin saved her life. She was given hours to live in a Durban hospital as her lungs were failing from excess Covid fluid. Her Doctor told her husband to get hold of Ivermectin as he could not legally treat her with it. Ivermectin was smuggled into her ward and applied externally to her. She recovered.

The various vaccines, it needs to be emphasised, are all on trial. Cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough told the US Senate in May that at least a further 30 months of testing is needed before they can be certified. That is the reason the US FDA has not approved any of the vaccines.

Section 12(2) of our constitution specifies the right to bodily integrity and that no one may be subjected to scientific experiments without their informed consent. On that basis, it is unacceptable that people are being subjected to appeals from medical aids and the media to have the vaccine. The same applies to teacher unions herding their members into having the jab.

Amazing how in spite of unprecedented access to information, people readily exhibit a Pavlovian reaction to certain calls."

Then there is another rational response, this time from leading SA entrepreneur Mark Lamberti (Massmart, Transaction Capital) who wrote:

"An obvious omission in the debate on why Big Pharma is hesitant to endorse products such as Ivermectin without acceptable trial levels is their fear of litigation, which in the case of a US class action might be just as costly as the profits on vaccines."

To receive BizNews founder Alec Hogg's Daily Insider every weekday at 6am in your inbox click here. You can also sign up to the weekend's BizNews Digest for a wrap of the best content BizNews has to offer, for a leisurely Saturday read.