BNR, NOS, OMT, Volkskrant, NRC, yes even the State Attorney uses this argument because top doctors and physicians are begging for the ban on ivermectin to be lifted - and always in vain. see for example here. Hardcore anti-quacks vote against ivermectin because proof really has to come from the pharmaceutical companies, otherwise it cannot be trusted. And those pharmaceutical companies in turn say 'No, we are not going to invest in that'. Even producer Merck doesn't want that. Why not? Topical again, because of the fuss about the column by Marianne Zwagerman. She had to adapt at the insistence of the BNR editors.
[update of article from Dec '21]
BNR radio did not want to publish the column because of the phrase that 'Ivermectin indeed works against corona' according to an article by Reuters.Source Reuterstoned down the headline to 'Ivermectin has an antiviral effect'. BNR wanted it formulated that way. In retrospect, I think Marianne would have been better off citing a different source than changing the headline. Just read.
In their accountability for this editorial intervention, BNR writes:
"Dit is wat er tot nu toe bekend is over Ivermectine. Een Japans bedrijf, dat zijn onderzoeksresultaten nog niet deelde, liet 'een antiviraal effect zien'. Er zijn tientallen studies gedaan naar de effectiviteit van Ivermectine voor coronapatiënten. Eenextensive scientific analysisof all studies show that there is no proven effect of Ivermectin. There is also no evidence that it does not work. Butmanufacturer Merckand theEuropean Medicines Agencyraden gebruik af, omdat als er al een effect is van gebruik van het middel, dat pas optreedt bij hoge doseringen."
BNR claims to know what is known about ivermectin. I would like to supplement that with a selection of what else is known.
"Een Japans bedrijf"
ÅŒmura Satoshi, inventor of the free drug ivermectin distributed in Africa, has urged large pharmaceutical companies to investigate the effectiveness of ivermectin with an RCT (Randomized Controlled Trial, a widely accepted form of research that only large parties with deep pockets can pay for and execute). However, the 86-year-old Nobel Prize winner got the stocking on the head everywhere, including at Merck, which has had the patent on ivermectin. Unfortunately, they were not interested. See also this message from biznews.com.)
"dat zijn onderzoeksresultaten nog niet deelde"
The investigation is ongoing. After all the controversies, no one benefits from spreading rumors too early, no matter how panting the press is chasing. Incidentally, a lot has already been previously demonstrated that ivermectin showed an anti-viral effect in the lab, so that's a bit old news.
"Er zijn tientallen studies gedaan..."
Dozens? There are now 148 studies of which 98 peer-reviewed, including 78 with results comparing treatment and control groups. Below are two websites that keep overviews of almost all ivermectin studies.
https://ivmmeta.com/ (the 78 peer reviewed placebo studies)
https://c19ivermectin.com/ (broader overview)
"Eenextensive scientific analysisvan alle studies"
"Eén" analyse. 1. De bedoelde Duitse analyse behandelt onderzoeken tot Mei 2021. Er is toen al veel over gezegd. We zijn intussen negen maanden verder met veel ontplofte kennis, voortgeschreden inzichten, teruggetrokken studies, censuur en allerlei controverses. Het is wel een beetje gemakkelijk om daar zo overheen te stappen. Desondanks levert deze studie een "onbeslist", na afwijzing van het grootste deel van alle bestaande studies.
So here is the overriding argument:
"Maarmanufacturer Merckand theEuropean Medicines Agencyraden gebruik af"
EMA neemt net als rivm het zwaarwegend (zelfs doorslaggevend) argument over van de FDA: "de fabrikant Merck ontraadt het zelf". Onder andere vanwege veiligheidsredenen. Dat is vreemd voor een medicijn dat al miljarden keren is voorgeschreven (aan mensen, de paarden en kleine huisdieren reken ik niet mee). Dan willen we graag weten hoe, waarom en in welke context.
Something about Merck and the pharma business
Merck is a healthy company and it's their responsibility to keep it that way. If a producer like Merck sees the opportunity to become a co-producer of a vaccine to be rolled out worldwide (semi)annually, then it would be bad entrepreneurship to promote a pill instead whose patent has long since expired. The management would be replaced immediately.
A patent-free drug means competition and therefore suboptimal profit margins. That is not the business model of pharmaceutical companies. They invest large parts of their research budget in developing new versions of a drug that deviates enough to apply for a new patent and is good enough to replace the old one. It is all about the unique patent ownership because that gives the exclusive right and so interesting margins can be realized in negotiations with governments, insurers and healthcare institutions.
Merck itself also worked on a Covid vaccine, but that apparently did not go smoothly. They dropped that development when they could become a co-producer of the Janssen vaccine.
Covid-19 involved 'emergency vaccines' that would be temporarily authorized under very strict conditions due to the emergency situation (EUA). After all, the development time was absurdly short. This was thanks to prior knowledge and a procedure with which there was already experience to combat metastatic cancer in the final phase. Merck couldn't compete with that.
Now a EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) becomes difficult to impossible if other medication is already available. Ivermectin could therefore throw a spanner in the works. Shareholders would ask questions. For example, Janssen had also come up with the idea of getting Merck on board so that they would not promote their ivermectin. See below the development in official press releases of Ivermectin producer Merck.
Merck discourages Ivermectin – timeline. Pay attention to the dates 
I have cited these Merck press releases several times. Given the current events, thanks to the BNR report, the NOS news and ongoing court cases, I repeat them here:
January 25, 2021 6:45 am ETKENILWORTH, NJ – (BUSINESS WIRE) – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, today announced that the company is halting development of its SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine candidates.
Feb. 4, 2021 11:45 a.m. ETKENILWORTH, NJ – Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, today confirmed its position regarding the use of ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that our analysis to date has shown:
- No scientific basis for a possible therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence of clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A worrying lack of safety data in most studies.
2 March 2021 - Merck/MSD will help with the production of Janssen's 'Leiden vaccine'. On March 2, 2021, we announced our partnership with Johnson & Johnson (Janssen's parent company), making production capacity available in the US.
They can be found at https://www.merck.com/media/news
Merck's objections to ivermectin can be questioned:
- There is indeed scientific basis for a possible effect against Covid-19. Sufficient to justify a large-scale investigation. See for example this very recent study with 28,000 subjects, or this with 223,128 subjects, both from January 2021. Much earlier, even at the time, there was already an overwhelming amount of signals. These can also be traced via c19ivermectin.com and the website of the flccc.
- "No meaningful evidence". Daarmee wordt alles van tafel geveegd: wat is 'meaningful'? Het woord significant durfden ze niet te gebruiken (want gewoon niet onderzocht, dus hoezo niet meaningful?). Met wat slechte wil bekeek je begin 2020 alleen de observaties en lokale onderzoekjes die niet voldeden niet aan onderzoeksnormen die alleen de farmaceuten kunnen betalen.
- “A worrying lack of safety data†of the drug of which Merck has already sold and distributed many billions of doses for free, with minimal side effects – fewer than several painkillers used worldwide, for example (see videos by John Campbell).
"Als er al een effect is, treedt dat pas op bij hoge doseringen"
This is if I remember the finding of the first in Vitro Lab studies and examining in seriously ill patients. It is a matter of using early, within a week of contamination. That argument has therefore expired, certainly with developments such as ivermectin administered by inhalation.
In order not to make this article too long, I am not going to make all kinds of other arguments again (such as here). It was now about analysing the motivation and expertise of the BNR editors. And to give Marianne a helping hand.
We ⤠you Marianne!!!
Video's
The new Covid pill from Merck, Molnupiravir, is something less effective but patented. This also applies to the new Pfizer pill Paxlovid, which has (partly) the same mechanism as ivermectin.
Dr. John Campbell on Paxlovid vs ivermectin, 22 minutes:
Dr. John Campbell on Molnupiravir vs ivermectin, 29 minutes:
Sweet junk may strangely enough be used against Covid, while we are still dealing with largely obese Covid patients. ivermectin is strictly prohibited. I really wonder what's worse for those people.
"Zelfs de producent (Merck, red.) zegt dat ivermectine niet werkt tegen Covid-19."
Bouncer of the arguments in the boycott campaign dated 21 Dec. 2021 in the NOS news.
