Grotesque conflicts of interest on NIH ivermectin non-recommendation

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. This article is currently FREE to read and share without paying.

The National Institutes of Health provided a non-recommendation for the use of ivermectin in COVID-19, stating that there was:

“insufficient evidence … to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”

The process for reaching that non-recommendation, however, is opaque. The Panel members responsible for therapy recommendations are disclosed and also that:

… working groups propose updates to the Guidelines based on the latest published research findings and evolving clinical information.

However, NIH has gone to extreme efforts to avoid stating whether a vote was held to endorse the ivermectin non-recommendation. This includes fighting a Freedom of Information Act request in federal court. A deceptive non-vote would constitute an atrocity. NIH has also been secretive about the composition of the working group that proposed the ivermectin non-recommendation. The names of those individuals were redacted by the NIH from a document obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request for the agenda of a meeting considering ivermectin.

However, the group responsible for the ivermectin non-recommendation has been discovered through a FOIA request to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The FOIA response shows that the working group has nine members. Three members of the working group, Adaora Adimora, Roger Bedimo, and David V. Glidden, have disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Merck has campaigned against the use of ivermectin in COVID-19. A fourth member, Susanna Naggie, had an extraordinary potential conflict of interest. She received a $155 million grant for the study of ivermectin following the non-recommendation. Funding for the study would have been difficult to justify if the drug was recommended for use in COVID-19. It is not known, however, if the panelist was aware of that opportunity or was planning to apply for that grant at the time of the deliberations on ivermectin.

The deception and secrecy surrounding the NIH ivermectin non-recommendation should have raised serious doubts about its integrity. The grotesque conflicts of interest of Panel members should make it clear that the NIH, as the FDA with its slandering of ivermectin as a “horse dewormer,” should not be taken seriously.

Responses

  1. ALL IVERMECTIN DISPENSING HAS BEEN CUT OFF!

    The “Pharma-Government
    Complex’s” 9/11 sneak attack! Overnight, as of September 1, ALL Ivermectin (otherwise hugely available) has suddenly been cut off! No pharmacies in the United States will dispense Ivermectin!

    Like the Berlin Wall, it closed overnight, trapping close to 100,000 present patients, and potentially millions, without an essential life-saving medical treatment. In concert, EVERY drug store chain, large and small, has suddenly instructed its pharmacists not to dispense the medicine. No prescriptions are being filled!

    Here is a video made just a few days before by one of its eminent medical experts proponents from the FLCCC Alliance, Dr. Pierre Kory (who treated thousands of ICU patients, testified in the US Senate, which has been removed by YouTube)

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Big+Pharma+blocking+treatments+YouTube&t=iphone&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0GAIA8Ml328

    Ivermectin is a threat to “experimental“ vaccines, and to Merck and Pfizer have been rushing to develop competitor drugs (for which they have still not been able to receive FDA approval) at thousands of times the price.

    They are murdering millions to make billions!

  2. Where is the oversight? Who has oversight responsibility? If a private sector firm did something analogous to this regarding a product offering, heads would roll.

    1. Again, I think it’s tantamount to Underwriters Laboratories coming out with a statement from 5 people with financial ties to Tylenol calling Asprin a dangerous treatment. In addition to the clear conflict of interest, they don’t have regulatory standing to even make such a statement . It should be roundly met with derision, but most of the media gives them the gravitas of FDA.

  3. The amount of corruption is disgusting 🤮
    People are suffering & dying and all they care about is profits when early treatments are available. Very sad world we live in!!

  4. Has NIH ever made treatment or vaccination recommendations before COVID? Is this something that is even in their charter, or do they find themselves in this position because they’ve weighed in where they have no jurisdiction and don’t know quite what to do now?

  5. Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH, has disclosed that he has received grants for clinical research from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Schering, and Tibotec, and has received grants for educational activities from Gilead and Monogram. Dr. Gulick has also disclosed that he has served as an ad-hoc advisor or consultant to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Schering, and Tibotec.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20141129110534/https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/523643
    (not shown in live version: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/523643)

    Principal investigator on A5391 funded in part by Merck:
    https://actgnetwork.org/2021/07/29/actg-launches-study-evaluating-the-effects-of-an-arv-change-among-people-living-with-hiv-who-experience-excessive-weight-gain/

  6. I know you don’t have to be a genius to become a doctor, but are there not enough senior physicians with the morality and courage to organize and stand up to the money-grubbing corporations and bureaucrats inflicting so much death and suffering on a trusting public?

  7. It’s been banned in Australia also! Very disappointing, as our T.G.A., equivalent of the F.D.A. have no early treatment protocols at all. If you get infected you’re told to go home, rest & take panadol (paracetamol). Which is disgraceful seeing as we’re 18 months into this, but surprising as they are just pushing vaccination. Our doctors have been ordered not interfere in any way i.e. offer early treatment options, with the vaccination roll out, by their licensing body. Which, to me, it’s not allowing the medical profession from doing their job.

  8. This is a major scandal. Anyone on a panel making decisions at this level must declare conflict of interest, and recuse themselves. This brings back memories of “Arrowsmith” which I read on my own when I was 15! Sinclair Lewis, where are you when we need you?