Dear Sir / Madam

We are petitioning on behalf of a small but significant group of people in Singapore who should be protected against Covid-19, and not discriminated against. This group consists of those who, for medical reasons, are not eligible for our national vaccination programme e.g. those who experienced adverse reactions to their 1st mRNA dose, who had allergies to vaccines, very frail, etc. It also consists of those, who for religious and personal reasons, would not inoculate themselves with new vaccines.

We estimate this group to make up 20% to 29% of our population aged 15 and above ( about 650,000 persons). Therefore, it is imperative that they should have access to prophylactic drugs for their protection, especially those over 50 years old (340,000 persons).

No Basis For Discriminating Against Unvaccinated (“unvaxed”)

1) The vaxed are equally guilty of spreading infections, if not more!
Re table by clicking the link https://www.truthwarriors.info/l/sg-cases-in-last-...
As of 17 July, there are more cases from the vaxed group when compared to the unvaxed.

2) Declining potency of mRNA vaccines - Israel’s health ministry reported on the declining potency of Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Its efficacy in preventing Delta infections is now 39%. For infections from the fully vaxed group, the hospitalization rate is 8.6% and the death rate is 2.1%. At 88% prevention rate, Ivermectin is actually doing better than mRNA vaccines!
( https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fpp )

3) Unreasonable to stop unvaxed from using public amenities such as dine-in outlets and gyms, etc - If the purpose of discriminatory practices is to protect the unvaxed from severe Covid and deaths, then shouldn’t one apply the same logic to stopping motorcyclists and the elderly from using the roads because they face higher risks of injuries and deaths?

The better approach is to protect the vulnerable. Any unreasonable and unfair discriminatory practices against the unvaxed will destroy the unity of our nation and infringe upon our basic human right of personal choice and freedom. Such a policy may cost significant votes in the next General Election.

Ivermectin: A Prophylactic Drug of Nobel Prize Distinction

Experts around the world have found overwhelming evidence of a very safe, cost-effective drug that can successfully prevent, and treat early to severe Covid-19: Ivermectin.

In its 40-year history of human use and 3.7 billion doses administered world-wide, there were only 20 cases of deaths and 5523 adverse events related to Ivermectin’s use. Now, compare this with Covid-19 vaccines that have < 1 year of usage: 7,944 deaths and 1,417,553 adverse event reports ( data source: WHO’s VigiAccess.org as at 26.06.2021). No wonder Ivermectin discoverers won the Nobel Prize for this anti-viral, anti-inflammatory drug!

Critics Against The Use of Ivermectin For Covid-19

To-date, over 100 studies have been published on Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 disease. Many meta-analyses have been done to group these studies together. There are strong indications of its efficacy as prophylaxis and early treatment to prevent the disease from getting worse. However, critics are calling for large scale and better quality RCTs (Random Clinical Trials) to be done. Meanwhile, real world studies are showing dramatic falls in cases in many countries after ivermectin was distributed widely during outbreaks.

The resistance to Ivermectin is troubling because many of these critics are well regarded organizations such as the WHO, FDA, NIH and other health authorities. They have either shown unequal treatment for the use of Ivermectin as an off-label prophylactic, or they’ve dismissed Ivermectin as ineffective. Experimental vaccines are quickly granted EUA with incomplete phase 3 human trials while an off-patent drug of Nobel prize distinction and a 40-year safety record, is being passed over.

Merck is also one of the critics of Ivermectin with a conflict of interest: it is awaiting FDA approval for its new patent drug Molnupiravir which will cost many times more than Ivermectin. ( https://ivmmeta.com/#merck )

Singapore’s Expert Committee for Covid-19 vaccination has earlier cited a NUH study to claim that Ivermectin is ineffective to prevent Covid-19. Upon reading the NUH study, we found the ivermectin dose used in 1 of the 5 control groups, to be severely under the recommended dose for prophylaxis. The participants in the Ivermectin control group were each given a single dose of 12 mg for 42 days. This one-off dose is way below the recommended prophylaxis dose of 0.2 mg/ kg to be taken weekly.

Critics also fail to recognize that most of the human trials and RCTS were done by clinicians trying to save lives, and not by researchers that follow rigorous RCT frameworks and registration procedures. Despite the GRADE framework being applied to one meta-analysis, resulting in moderate to low certainty of evidence, one cannot ignore the vast empirical data of wide-scale applications of Ivermectin in many countries to bring infection cases down.

Real Live World Studies

Epidemiological studies have been done for India, Peru, Argentina, Slovakia, Zimbabwe and Mexico after certain states and cities used Ivermectin to control their outbreaks. Within a month, cases fell dramatically and millions were saved. Contrast these with some states within the same countries who didn’t use ivermectin. Their cases doubled, tripled and thousands died (see appendix for stunning visuals )

Thirty-four countries are now using Ivermectin and the list is growing. Fifteen of these countries have country-wide adoption ( https://ivmstatus.com/ ). Bulgaria has made Ivermectin available, over the counter, without a prescription.

In the appendix of this petition, we present detailed evidence of Ivermectin’s efficacy, its safety profile, live world studies and biased approval process.

Our Petition
1. To approve the emergency use of Ivermectin as an off-label, prophylactic drug for those who are not taking Covid-19 vaccines for medical, religious and personal reasons, and as an early home treatment drug for those infected.

2. To stop unreasonable and divisive discriminatory practices against the unvaccinated.

We understand that our government has to lift the lockdown and open our border as soon as possible for the economic survival of our nation. When this takes place, about 340,000 unvaccinated persons in the high risk group of 50 & above, would be in mortal danger.

Despite time and effort to overcome vaccine hesitancy, there will be vaccine holdouts. So what if larger or better designed RCTs of Ivermectin have not been completed yet? So what if Ivermectin prophylaxis percentage may be below expectation? Is there any harm in allowing our vulnerable people use this very safe and probably efficacious drug, rather than leave them exposed without any protection? It would be against medical ethics to deny them Ivermectin.

Denying the efficacy of any method makes it harder for us to reach our goal of turning Covid-19 into an endemic, and increases mortality, morbidity and collateral damage.

If MOH’s primary goal is to prevent disease severity, then all practical, effective, and safe means should be used to protect the vulnerable.

Don’t you agree?

Yours sincerely

Citizens For Ivermectin & Against Discrimination

Cheryl Lee
Dr Phil PL
Dr Chen Pei Siang
Dr Colleen Thomas
Dr Larry Koh
Dr Poh WT
Dr John Tay
Dr Lim Pin Pin
Dr Chia Ai Mian
Dr Ambika Vidyadharan
Doreen Lo
David Phan
Mike Chia
Peter Lim HK
Pastor Adrian Tan
Jeannette Chan
Phai Kwee Joo

********************

Appendix: please click link https://www.truthwarriors.info/l/appendix-ivermectin-for-unvaxed/ for detailed evidence of Ivermectin's efficacy, safety profile and real live world studies with visuals.

To support similar petition calling for a 3rd front for our battle against Covid-19, click on http://ipt.io/YUPIH