Source: World Brazil News

The president of the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM), Mauro Ribeiro, said that the claim that early treatment against covid-19 is ineffective is not true.

The statement was granted on Thursday 25, during the program Jornal da Manhã, of the radio station Jovem Pan.

According to the CFM president, ‘certain matters’ are being prevented.

“Unfortunately, certain subjects have been banned. This story that it is established in the literature that early treatment has no effect in the initial phase is a lie ”, he declared.

When expanding the subject about early treatment, which has been constantly attacked by the press, but defended by thousands of doctors in the country, Ribeiro said that there are, yes, studies that point out benefits of early treatment in the initial phase.

“There are studies that show the benefits [of the therapy] in the initial phase, and others, not. This is the reality. We have a list of jobs,” added the specialist.

According to him, despite the Covid-19 outbreak spreading more than 1 year ago, there are still many doubts about the disease.

Ribeiro made strong criticisms, even, to the document of the Brazilian Medical Association, which was against the use of medicines in the fight against the coronavirus.

“Whoever has a legal assignment in order to define what can or cannot be used is the CFM”, he said.

The President of the Federal Council of Medicine made a point of defending and strengthening the autonomy of health professionals:

What was our stance on early treatment? Letting the doctor define what is best for his patient ”, he maintained, stressing that“ CFM does not encourage early treatment or condemns it, nor does it ban ”.

Finally, Mauro Ribeiro denied the narrative adopted by most media outlets in the country, which insists on associating deaths around Covid-19 with the use of early treatment.

“To say that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin kill is a fallacy. Who wants to do the early treatment, do it. Whoever doesn’t want it, don’t do it ”, he declared.








Related:

Ivermectin for Covid-19: Database of all Ivermectin COVID-19 studies – 35 trials and growing

Malaysia to run trials for 2 drugs in Covid-19 treatment, including Ivermectin

Not Using Ivermectin, One Year In, Is Unethical And Immoral

COVID-19: A realistic approach to community management – HCQ & IVM in concert with vaccination

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

Stark madness to ban ivermectin

Buried in the note is the real reason for making ivermectin inaccessible – the fear that persons taking it ‘may elect not to be vaccinated as part of the national Covid-19 vaccination program’. This is outrageous. When someone is infected with Covid, it is too late to bother with vaccination. They need early treatment. To deny it to coerce them into accepting a vaccine, one of whose side-effects is death, is immoral.

Read More »

Australia’s TGA Bans GPs from Prescribing Ivermectin

Australia’s medicine and therapeutic regulatory, the Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA) recently took the gloves off with Ivermectin, the economical anti-parasitic drug associated with at least 63 completed clinical trials involving SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Now TGA formally places a national prohibition on off-label prescribing of ivermectin to all general practitioners. A comparable move as to what TGA did with hydroxychloroquine in 2020. Clearly further evidence of tightening encroachment of the critically important doctor-patient treatment relationship allowing consent to medical treatment using off-label medications. Of course, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum—it’s part of an unfolding, integrated and what have the signs of a coordinated and orchestrated government action to stop any and all treatments other than those the government declares acceptable.

Read More »