Slovakia Formally Approves Ivermectin

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   2 posts
  • Tue, Feb 02, 2021 - 05:25pm

    #1
    Linden2

    Linden2

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 21 2020

    Posts: 25

    count placeholder3

    Slovakia Formally Approves Ivermectin

Slovakia Becomes the First EU Nation to Formally Approve Ivermectin for Both Prophylaxis and Treatment for COVID-19 Patients

 

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2021 - 07:39pm

    #2
    AcadieQuebec

    AcadieQuebec

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 25 2020

    Posts: 47

    count placeholder1

    Slovakia: Not a good ‘’Poster Child’’ for Ivermectin Approval by Gov’t

Sorry for the long post… but I want to let you know that Slovakia is a far from being an ideal ‘Poster Child’ for Ivermectin Approval by Government. I hope this will not affect its chances of being authorized elsewhere in the EU or North America.

Today, I was happy to see Trial Site News reporting on Slovakia’s approval of Ivermectin for prophylaxis and treatment of Covid-19.

However, in reading the comments posted under the Trial Site News video, I came across one written by a Slovakian. She shared disturbing information about that country’s coercitive approach to mass-testing…

Under another comment that said:

This just in, Slovakia not controlled by the “world powers”

I read this troubling message:

__________________

 

Miroslava Sivakova – 2 days ago

Let me tell you this – I am a slovakian citizen, and I am very very surprised that those totalitarian politicians we currently have in Slovakia had given their approval.

In Slovakia we are in this crazy testing circles where whole country is obliged to take ag (antigen) test and get a “certificate” saying that you are negative. Once you test positive, you cannot just go and do a pcr test, no that is according to our government a criminal act and you can be imprisoned for spreading deadly desease.

So we all know how the ag tests work – nonsyptomatic slovakian people are tested, somehow happen to be positive and cannot even get a second opinion under a threat of imprisoning. without this certificate you cannot go anywhere, you can not go to work or postoffice or gas station or basically cannot do anything, we are trapped like rats.

This is apparteid happening in front of everybodies eyes and nobody cares. Human rights are being ignored. We also Have been misused for an testing experiment without knowing it…now it was discovered https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.02.20240648v1

we are being threatened with fines, the situation is just scary. Other lockdown measures such as not talking in public transport ar comming, and I am wondering what is happening with the world.

And do not think that now that ivermectin has been theoretically approved that it is also being prescribed… I am still hopeing this is not just another game.. we are pushed to get and like the vaccine – the vaccine propaganda is huge and the Theme of the vaccine propaganda is: vaccine makes free – no I am not jokeing, the corellation is clear …

Arbeit macht frei…

_____________________

I clicked on the link Miroslava provided:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.02.20240648v1

The effectiveness of population-wide, rapid antigen test based screening in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in Slovakia
– Posted December 04, 2020.

I quickly went over this manuscript posted on the preprint server called medRxiv and looked at the feedback it got

RESULTS: About 18 comments (as of February 2, 2021) – They are really troubling.

I am presenting them as they appear, ie in reverse chronological order, most recent first

And the last one (which was the first one posted) asked this question:

Could Slovakia’s mass testing programme work in England?

18 comments
Miriam • 15 hours ago

Nobody in Slovakia was informed about this research. And it was not voluntary as they signed. There was and there is still strictly prohibited to go at work and to the nature if we are not tested. The final result of this mass testing is, that numbers of covid positive strongly increase. That is all. I am really afraid about my human rights in future.

__________________________

Igi Dano • a day ago

As a Slovak citizen, I agree with most comments/notes presented here. I could as well add my own experience with “following testing procedure recommended by manufacturer..”, where this testing procedure was conducted outside (of any premise, just an open tent) with temperature well below recommended range.

But that is not the point of my post here. The point is that Slovakia is currently (1.2.2021) ending the second round of another population-wide screening.
I am desperately waiting for another study from the authors, confronting the newest results with original ones.
Without that I would recommend potential readers of this study to use extreme carefulness with interpretations of it..

_______________________

janomila • 8 days ago

None of the citizens of Slovakia was informed about this research.
– nobody signed the informed consent.
– no voluntariness – blackmail under the threat of lost labor.
Are anyone interested in the Nuremberg Codex???
No, money are money.
Who cares about human rights?

_______________________

steel • 10 days ago • edited

This whole decrease was due to minimum PCR testing after this mass testing plus before the testing itself we had a partial lockdown, so telling about any decrease is not fair and not providing whole picture

____________________________

Zdenko Ontek • 10 days ago

I have to express myself as a citizen of the Slovak Republic. Several points in the research conditions do not agree with reality. Test subjects did not sign informed consent or instruction. It is also untrue to claim that testing was voluntary. The Government of the Slovak Republic created direct and indirect pressure, for example, through employers, who conditioned the entry of their employees into the workplace by passing testing. I note that the translation is machine, so I apologize for the English. Affected citizen of the Slovak Republic.

______________________

Dušan • 11 days ago

“All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest”

Have a look at Jarčuška’s organisation Euromedpro which is sponsored by GSK and Pfizer.

___________________________

Martin • 11 days ago

Testing was forced and not voluntary. No ethical guidelines were followed. Slovak citizens were forced to go on testing sites to get tested otherwise they would get fine and can not go to job. Even prime minister Igor Matovic (who made people go to testing by force) said few weeks after testing in national TV, that testing was not voluntary.

There is a lot of sources online, even on Youtube (in Slovak language).

In these days, another forced testing is in progress with more severe penalties for people who not attend. For example – who did not attend this testing, from 27th January cant even go out to the nature alone (with no people around). Violation = 1000 eur fine (averege monthly salary in our country).

This goverment totally ignores rule of law and basic principles of law state.

And one more thing. No one in Slovakia knew that we are testing subjects. It was forced without any formal (or informal) consent of testing subjects.

______________________________

Calogero • 12 days ago

Slovak people were forced to participate to the testing under threat of losing their jobs. One months after testing we were and now still are among the countries with higher deaths rate pro capite in the world. People had to wait per hours outside in severe november weather to be tested and after that wait inside for the results risking to be infected. During the weeks after testing the number of daily pcr tests was significantly lowered, that is reason why there were less new covid cases after testing. And despite whole scientific and medical community is contrary to the wide-testing, it is to be repeated next week, same conditions, not tested not allowed to go to the work, risking unexcused absence standing on the words of minister of labour, without any financial compensation. Unbelievable but true. (sorry for my english)

___________________________

Miroslava Stančíková • 13 days ago • edited

Testing was not voluntary, it was in conflict with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

____________________________

Mirek • 13 days ago

Slovak citizen here.

I quote “All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.” – NOT TRUE. I’ve been to this testing and have given no written consent to be tested. They only wrote my name, address and phone number on a piece of paper.

“I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.” – NOT TRUE. If not tested, you couldn’t go to work. Not even to take a walk outside, just go buy groceries, or go to the drug store and stuff like that.

____________________

Zuzana Kollarova • 13 days ago

This statement is NOT TRUE and the citizens of Slovakia have no idea they are a part of some medical research:
“All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived – Yes”

We have been all forced to this by a number of restrictions and consequences presented by the prime minister and government prior the testing and they let the “choice” to us. If we wouldn´t take part on that testing we couldn´t go to work, to any store, bank, post office etc.. Only basic needs could by fulfilled like grocery shopping, pharmacy etc. Healthy people who refused to take part on this had to stay at home in quarantine like they were infected and could go outside without the risk of getting a fine, if a police would control them randomly on the streets. This lasted 14 days.

They used army, our president found out just from the papers and not officially. She has been called a traitor by the prime minister just one day before the mass operation should start, when she asked for a really voluntary participation for the citizens.

The testing has been done by anonymous, also not always professional medical staff, without knowing their names and place of work.

Those blue papers (test result confirmation) do not contain the necessary legal requirements to be called a “certificate” officially by the law.

And now, we are in the middle of 2nd mass “screening” now, since Jan 18 2021 during the winter, even though the scientist didn´t recommend it at all in current situation.

And again- no one is collecting our written and signed consent. From Jan 27 2021 there will be again 2 groups of people – the “blue” ones and the rest of us. The country will be then split into two half by the results and the worse half of the country has to undergo this procedure 1-2 times again until the Feb 07 2021 and until our prime minister will be satisfied with the results…

_______________________

Filip Hrivnák • 14 days ago

That voluntary. In general, we are losing the last signs of the rule of law

______________________

Monika J. • 14 days ago

As a Slovak citizen I can tell your that they are NOT telling the whole truth. Your can fact check my every single word.
They claim that the testing was not obligatory… NOT TRUE
People where forced to attend this mass testing. Prime minister admitted that they forced us to do this on the Press conference. Our Human rights where oppresed. Without negative test certificate your couldnt go to work, bank, post Office, all shops denied you to enter their premises. All services where denied to your without certificate. Even some doctors refused to treat patients without cerificate. You could only go to grocery store, pharmacy and drugstore without certificate. There were some exceptions, but not important. Some employers called the police on employees who wanted to go to work (they where healthy, had no symptoms) but didnt hlave the certificate. A lot of employees were fired, because they refused to get tested.

Lets talk about the study. They claim that they have participant conset…. NOT TRUE we havent sign anythig. Nobody informed people what kind of test they are using, who will hlave their samples afterwards, who will procesed their personal information..yes they hlave our personal numer and wrote some information from our ID….we dont know which information they collected.

Thay claim that tests where done ONLY by profesionals.. NOT TRUE. Tests where done by non medical personnel too – in some cities – those people braged about it on Facebook. There is NO name of person who tested you.

You can not check if this person is profesionall or not.

In some cities testing was done outside. People where forced to stand for multiple hours in lane just to get tested, in rain, and low tempersture…
I could continue on and on and on….

Now they are going to do the second round od this mass testing. They are again FORCING us to do it Once again. The second round is even worst than the first one. Now they want us to stand in lane to get tested in -10 to -15°C.

Now the police will be controlling us if we have the certificate or not. If your will not have the certificate you will get a fine. And they will oppresed our human rights again. Segregstion od people to two categories is called apartheid and it is illegeal….this is what they are doing. They are creating second category people. First category Has certificate and Can live relatively normaly. Second category is treated like garbage.

________________________

Kasper Kepp • a month ago

I am sceptic about the claim that mass testing October 31-November 1
decreased infection in Slovakia. I find that it at best slowed the increase in
infection for two weeks.

1) While case numbers did go down 50%, they did so immediately or within a
few days. It is hard to understand why it shouldn’t take at least a week for
the newly registered positives to translate into a containment effect
(quarantine) on transmission dynamics measured in the normal PCR regime, which cannot measure new infected immediately.

https://ourworldindata.org/…®ion=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&hideControls=true&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

2) Indeed, the PCR test levels which represent the normal symptomatic +
trace testing, also decreased by 50% in the very same time period. This
suggests that the fall in positives coincided with reduced symptomatic contact
tracing in the normal PCR regime.

https://ourworldindata.org/…®ion=World

3) Objective indicators hospitalizations and deaths (which are not sensitive
to testing dynamics) both independently indicate that infection perhaps
stagnated for 2 weeks, but did not decrease. In the deaths, there was a three-day
decline November 19-21 but it was a 25% fall only 3 days and fits a tendency of
a weekly fluctuation in the death series; in cumulative or smoothed death
series, there is no indication of any decline in infection.

https://ourworldindata.org/…

https://ourworldindata.org/…®ion=World&deathsMetric=true&interval=smoothed&hideControls=true&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc

See also: http://kpje.com/slovakia.pdf

Best regards,
Kasper P. Kepp
Professor MSO, DTU, Denmark
[email protected]

_________________

Peter Novák • 2 months ago • edited

PARTICIPANT CONSENT?

Authors claim, cite: “All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.”

I find this proclamation highly dubious.

I’m not sure how many of the the mass tested people have signed a form of informed consent, and I’d like to see how would the authors prove that. I personally have asked several participants and they insist they did not sign anything. But even in the case some, or even the majority signed something, what weight would that have under circumstances?

The people subjected to the mass testing (that technically means biological material extraction) with consideration, that those who do not subject, will be quarantined for week or two – that means, forced to stay home under threat of penalty as high as 1650 EUR (average monthly income in Slovakia is 1100 EUR brut), with few exceptions (e.q. nearest grocery store, drugstore and necessary health care), but certainly denied the access to workplace with no lost worktime salary compensation at all, neither from state nor employer.[1] A proposition effectively resembling a home prison in my opinion, and what’s even worse in situation of economical crisis – with published threats from some employers that untested employees may lose their job eventually, thus undermining the public confidence in freedom of choice furthermore.[2]

It is known that criminal complaints on the accounts of possible coercion, health care law violations, human rights violations etc have been filled to the public prosecutor office. These are yet to be resolved.
I acknowledge that some of the people have attended the testing voluntarily indeed, probably a minority though, as indicated by low compliance (15%) to the third round of testing where quarantine threat was removed.

Nevertheless, I doubt anyone could assume the actions under such circumstances constitute a “participant consent” by standards of any possibly existing ethical guidelines.

Or maybe I just read the citation wrong and the authors did not mean the 3,6 million people undergoing the biologic material extraction to be the subject of the “necessary patient/participant consent”…?

[1] Public Health Office Edict No. 16 from 30.10.2020. Government Bulletin vol. 30 no. 12. http://www.minv.sk/swift_da…

[2] Dobrovoľne nasilu? Niektorým ľuďom bez testovania hrozia výpoveďou. Pravda, 26.10.2020. https://ekonomika.pravda.sk…

___________________________

Michal Piják Peter Novák • 2 months ago

In your comment, you rightly pointed out that the statement of informed consent is highly dubious. In my opinion this declaration is also dubious: “ I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.“ As far as I know, no test subject has signed an informed consent. How is it then possible that the ethics committee approved such an experiment without informed consent?

It is also worth noting that ethical issues were also present during testing in Liverpool (1): “The queues of people seeking tests in Liverpool suggest the initial acceptability of this pilot is high, at least to some. Its ethical basis, however, looks shaky. The council claims, wrongly, that the test detects infectiousness and is accurate. In fact, if used alone it will lead to many incorrect results with potentially substantial consequences. The context for gaining consent has been tarnished by the enthusiasm of some local officials and politicians. In the case of schools, the programme has been culpably rushed: parents have had to respond unreasonably promptly to a request to opt out if they do not want their child screened.“

1. Gill M. Liverpool’s pilot of mass asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2—for what purpose and at what cost? BMJ Opinion 2020. https://www.bmj.com/content…

_________________________

Michal Piják • 2 months ago • edited

DOUBTS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MASS TESTING OF ASYMPTOMATIC POPULATION FOR CORONAVIRUS (SARS-CoV-2) IN SLOVAKIA

Indeed, it might seem that the number of positive PCR tests / per day, per million inhabitants two weeks after the nationwide testing of the whole country in Slovakia has started to slowly decrease. However, this declining trend may be skewed by significantly less testing. For example data from Monday 9.11.20 show that if as many tests were performed in Slovakia as on Thursday 29.10.20 (when the highest number of positives in the second wave was reached), we should have about 3x times higher number of positives on Monday 9.11.20. cases, i.e. about 3150, instead of 1050.

The cause of the lower number of tests is not known and one of the reasons could be the lack of RT PCR tests or staff in other days. After extensive testing with antigen tests, we had a big problem in Slovakia. This is that so far we have evaluated the situation according to the positivity of PCR tests. However, antigen testing made this situation unclear to us because people tested positive for antigens fell out of the statistics. It should also be borne in mind that lower numbers of positive cases could also be explained by the tightening of epidemiological measures and also because most of the persons with positive antigen tests were quarantined and did not undergo PCR testing.

There is evidence that strategies based on a large number of tests may not produce the expected results. A good example is a comparison of the strategies used by New Zealand and Iceland.1-2 In both of these island countries, the first cases were identified at the end of February 2020, but each country took a different path. New Zealand was one of the few countries that openly announced a COVID-19 elimination strategy right at the beginning of the epidemic. This included a gradually strengthened system for monitoring and isolating contacts with the timely and consistent use of lockdowns and border controls. It should also be recalled that some EU countries, such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, France, Slovenia and the Netherlands, have had a progressive decline in the number of positives, despite the fact that they did not have any comprehensive testing of the entire country.

Unlike New Zealand and many other countries, Iceland’s strategy did not include any lockdown period, no official border closure for non-residents and negligible use of quarantine facilities. The cornerstone of Iceland’s strategy was easy access to testing and mass screening, along with quarantine and contact tracking. According to data from October 21, New Zealand had 6 times fewer deaths, despite 4.5 times fewer tests than Iceland. Similarly, Slovakia, despite more than 8 times lower number of tests, had half less deaths per million inhabitants than Iceland. It should be recalled that, despite the large number of tests in Iceland, this was not a full-scale test and PCR tests were used. Taken together these findings are further evidence that nationwide antigen testing in a country with low prevalence is ineffective.

References
1. Jefferies S, French N, Gilkison C. COVID-19 in New Zealand and the impact of the national response: a descriptive epidemiological study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e612-e623

2. Murdoch, D, Gottfreðsson M. COVID-19 and small island nations: what we can learn from New Zealand and Iceland., The conversation, published, September 23, 2020, https://theconversation.com…

_____________________

Iveta Nagyova • 2 months ago

Might be interested to read also our article published in The BMJ Opinion „Could Slovakia’s mass testing programme work in England?“ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2…

________________________

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

Login or Register to post comments