Australian Doctor who advocated Covid-19 therapy including Ivermectin applied for patent on same unproven treatment

The Guardian ^ | 10/18/2021 | Melissa Davey

[SeekAndFind]

A Sydney gastroenterologist who has been enthusiastically promoting an unapproved Covid-19 treatment, including to Australian politicians and general practitioners, has filed a patent in the US for the same treatment, allowing him to commercialise and profit from it, if approved.

Prof Thomas Borody has been quoted in medical newsletters and publications, and in news outlets including the Financial Review, the Daily Telegraph and the Australian, promoting what he describes as a “triple therapy protocol” to treat and cure Covid-19.

The protocol involves a combination of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, zinc and the antibiotic doxycycline.

In December 2020 Borody filed a patent in the US for therapeutic combinations of drugs, including a combination of ivermectin, an antibiotic and zinc. Patenting a treatment means the owner of the patent is allowed to exclusively manufacture, market and profit from the drug until the patent expires, usually after 20 years.

Borody did not declare in numerous media interviews, or in his appeals to state and federal governments for funding and adoption of the treatment, that he also sought to potentially profit from it. While this is not illegal or in breach of professional regulations, medical and research experts Guardian Australia spoke to expressed concern that it may be unethical and a conflict of interest.

In a statement to the Guardian sent via lawyers, Borody denied any wrongdoing and said: “My client has never hidden the fact that he applied for patents over his -19 treatment. That is a matter of public record for some time now.”

On 23 August 2020, four months before filing the patent, Borody wrote to the Australian health minister, Greg Hunt, requesting funding for the therapy. Hunt responded that Borody should apply for funding through independent processes to study the ivermectin treatment as part of a clinical trial.

[SeekAndFind]

When asked if Borody had declared his intentions to patent the therapy, or made them aware once it was filed, a spokesperson for Hunt told Guardian Australia: “We are not aware of Prof Borody’s private interests and to the best of our knowledge have no record of having received any such declaration.”

Borody has been lobbying the federal government for more than a year to support the treatment, both before and after the filing of the patent.

[datura]

Well, he can’t patent Ivermectin used with zinc and quercetin.

There really isn’t much need of the antibiotic.

[ransomnote]

The FDA and the NIH formally allow their scientists to develop drugs with tax payer money and then personally patent them and profit from them without compensating tax payers.

Anthony Fauci knew Remdesivir was too damaging to use on anyone because he was trialing a drug in Africa and Remdesivir AND fauci’s drugs were removed from the trial because they were too damaging. So if it’s FINE for Fauci to trial and patent drugs, fine for the CDC to hold numerous patents and function like a drug company, FINE for the FDA to be in bed with pharma and patent drugs on taxpayer money, I don’t see how it’s suspicious if a private citizen does it.

[Cold Heart]

OK, I read the last sentence in the article that he should apply for funds for Ivermectin studies under Climate Trial.

He probably could if he worded it right.

[kiryandil]

This potential thousandaire Borody is crowding the turf of the vaxx billionaires...

   

[monkeyshine]

I wish him well, and I wish him good bankruptcy attorneys.
The only good thing is he already lives in a penal colony.

[Bob434]

here’s what i posted in another thread about what you talked about:

Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs

“A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!”

https://ugolini.co.th/ugolini/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs/

[Hostage]

Good grief, Dr. Zelenko in NY has been prescribing HCQ, Zinc, zPak since practically the beginning of the plandemic.

How the USPTO would approve a patent of three widely available off-patent ingredients is a mystery. Something isn’t right and that’s usually the case when the source is the Guardian who are rabid leftists.

I have IVM in tablet form, I have Zn in tablet form too. I would need a a prescription for Doxycycline. Nothing stopping anyone from following a regimen of these things together.

I fail to see how a patent would stop people from getting the individual ingredients and following a prescribed regimen.

Something tells me that if I dig into the Guardian’s references, I will find they spun something out of context which is what they usually do when they target something that’s a threat to the globalist agenda like IVM.

I don’t have time right now to find what the Guardian is BSing about here. If someone can dig and find it, please post it to this thread.

[metmom]

A Sydney gastroenterologist who has been enthusiastically promoting an unapproved Covid-19 treatment, including to Australian politicians and general practitioners, has filed a patent in the US for the same treatment, allowing him to commercialise and profit from it, if approved.

Just like big pharma has profited from their poison clot shots?

It’ll never be approved as they will not tolerate any competition or anyone or anything cutting into their profits.

[ransomnote]

ted Covid-19 therapy including Ivermectin applied for patent on same unproven treatment, Bob434 wrote:

here’s what i posted in another thread about what you talked about:

Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs

Thank you for the link, Bob434. Great article. I posted it as a thread.

HOROWITZ: THE $CIENCE OF REMDESIVIR VS. IVERMECTIN: A TALE OF TWO DRUGS
ugolini.co.th ^ | October 18, 2021 | David Horowitz

Posted on 10/18/2021, 10:49:36 PM by ransomnote

[H/T Bob434]

[Organic Panic]

Unapproved by whom? Bureaucrats?

[Adder]

allowing him to commercialise and profit from it, if approved.

GAY-ASP!

The cheeky bassturd!

It should be free like the Pfizer and Moderna treatments!

/s

[Pollard]

unapproved Covid-19 treatment

Gee, I thought a treatment was whatever your doctor gave you to get better and that YOU are the one to approve it.

[Bob434]

No worries, glad I ran across it, as it is proof that fauci and ilk don’t want people cured, they want to line the pockets of big pharma and themselves in the process.

Imsually don’t subscribe to an “evil big pharma” conspiracy on most issues, but my goodness, this whole cover up with vaccines, and drugs to treat covid, while demonizing safe and effective over the counter meds, doesn’t look good at all. There are reams of studies now, even peer reviewed that show ivermextin is working and working well, but the means that the left are going through to demonize it, and downplay it, show that something just ain’t right. And now doctors refusing to treat unvaxxed people? Something very evil,is going on.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It should be free like the Pfizer and Moderna treatments!

Errr... are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines really free? Or have we already paid for them with our tax dollars?

[Adder]

Yeah...I know...I was being sarcastic...sorry...

[Freedom56v2]

BUMP