Updated: Possible coronavirus drug identified (Ivermectin)

Gerry

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
534
Wouldn't a few of the zealots on this thread PLEASE pause a moment on the arguments and insults and listen / watch this.


Yip they communicate with Dr Kory : https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...g-identified-ivermectin.1077929/post-26665874
They work off : https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...g-identified-ivermectin.1077929/post-26783074

South Africa has moved much faster than the UK with regards to Ivermectin testing and research.
I don't think the UK climate necessitates the use of the drug that much, so it's n bit more
foreign to colder climate countries, I think, than it is to Africa

Few clips in there I already saw. I stick to what Dr Kory has put on paper so far, his work
I think is the most comprehensive.
 
Last edited:

zolly

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
3,587
But one thing is pretty clear, that there is NOTHING that stops anyone from importing a substance registered under the Act for personal use. You are only in contravention IF you import for the purposes of "sale" as defined in the Act, the definition of which is broader than the normal meaning of the word "sale".

And my reply above showing the complete opposite is why I have taking the stance of "opposition" to you and Gerry.

I'm actually pro-ivermectin from what I've read and seen online, but I'm not happy with people pushing a drug that hasn't finished being tested yet, and that people have to import or purchase themselves (from probably shady people). Folks are scared right now and they're going to put themselves at risk to get medicine that is at best, what they asked for, maybe a placebo, or worse, some nonsense that could kill them anyway.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
Took me less than 5 minutes to find otherwise from multiple other sources, so you might want to be careful:

Edit. Sorry, copied and pasted the wrong section.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPORTATION OREXPORTATION OF MEDICINES OR SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES

ORDERING MEDICINES FROM ABROAD

No person shall order any medicine from abroad for personal use unless the Authorityhas granted the said person an authorization in terms of section 21 of the Act to import during a specified period a specified quantity of the particular medicine, which is not registered with Council.Purchasing a medication from an illegal Website or supplier puts you at risk. You may receivea contaminated, counterfeit or substandard product. Taking an unsafe or inappropriate medication puts you at risk for dangerous drug interactions and other serious health consequences



Older documentation:

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF MEDICINES OR SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES 2.1 ORDERING MEDICINES FROM ABROAD

No person shall order any medicine from.abroad for personal use unless the Medicines Control Council has granted the said person an authorization in terms of section 21 of the Act to import during a specified period a specified quantity of the particular medicine, which is not registered with Council. Purchasing a medication from an illegal Website or supplier puts you at risk. You may receive a contanlinated, counterfeit or substandard product. Taking an unsafe or inappropriate medication puts you at risk for dangerous drug interactions and other serious health consequences.



2.1 ORDERING MEDICINES FROM ABROAD
No person shall order any medicine from abroad for personal use unless the Medicines Control Council has granted the said person an authorization in terms of section 21 of the Act to import during a specified period a specified quantity of the particular medicine, which is not registered with Council.
Purchasing a medication from an illegal Website or supplier puts you at risk. You may receive a contaminated, counterfeit or substandard product. Taking an unsafe or inappropriate medication puts you at risk for dangerous drug interactions and other serious health consequences.



You FAILED to READ what I posted! I said a substance that is registered under the ACT
As Ivermectin IS registered with the Council AND listed as a schedule 3 drug, your point is moot. I would like to see the outcome of a challenge of this in Court.

Of course, there IS a risk that what you try and import is NOT the pure form but a compound that may be dangerous and THAT is precisely why the section 21 procedure exists and is in place.

BTW, We will see what the Courts do with these Acts and rules and regulations that SAHPRA has dreamt up and created when the current case of the businessman who imported Ivermectin finally gets to Court.

SAHPRAs regulations and subsequent "Rules" might well be found to be in contravention of the very ACT they use to justify their rulings, guidelines and regulations.
 
Last edited:

JohnStarr

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
2,642
The 2 Gs have completely pushed this thread off topic.
2 couch docs who have pushed people into believing this is the miracle drug based on their home research and then said they can import the drug, and then had to put in waivers with everything they say thereafter.

Credibility meets door.
 

Gerry

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
534
The 2 Gs have completely pushed this thread off topic.
2 couch docs who have pushed people into believing this is the miracle drug based on their home research and then said they can import the drug, and then had to put in waivers with everything they say thereafter.

Credibility meets door.
You poor victim
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
For the record, I have NOT, repeat NOT recommended or suggested that anyone should try and import anything for their own use. I have simply stated my interpretation of the Act and its clauses.

Why bother? When all they have to do is go and get virtually the same thing from the nearest unregistered horse doctor?

The issue is SAHPRA HAS driven this drug underground AND created a huge black market in the process which means there are now people who are at risk instead of LEAVING well alone and in the hands of medical practitioners.

In fact, my fight is NOT about any of this at all BUT about the entirely irrational rulings that SAHPRA has issued regarding Ivermectin.
 
Last edited:

zolly

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
3,587
You FAILED to READ what I posted! I said a substance that is registered under the ACT
As Ivermectin IS registered with the Council AND listed as a schedule 3 drug, your point is moot.

Okay, so the act isn't very clear about it from what you've read (I've just started reading it so I'll see what I can find). However, there are other laws that very clearly define what we can or cannot do that are far simpler to make sense of. Unless what SAPHRA says isn't legally binding in which case why are people getting arrested for illegally importing and selling Ivermectin?

I would like to see the outcome of a challenge of this in Court.

Regarding the import of Ivermectin for personal use?

BTW, We will see what the Courts do with these Acts and rules and regulations that SAHPRA has dreamt up and created when the current case of the businessman who imported Ivermectin finally gets to Court.

SAHPRAs regulations and subsequent "Rules" might well be found to be in contravention of the very ACT they use to justify their rulings, guidelines and regulations.

Don't know enough about the specifics of this but if there was a loophole that allowed for this I'm sure people with deeper pockets and lawyers who wanted to make money would have exposed this by now. Seems like a great way to bypass a whole bunch of legislation and make some cash.
 

zolly

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
3,587
In fact, my fight is NOT about any of this at all BUT about the entirely irrational rulings that SAHPRA has issued regarding Ivermectin.

I don't disagree entirely, but SAHPRA also has to let science take its course. Most of us can look at the arguments appearing online and the studies and go "it seems safe considering the drug already has its uses". An institution like SAHPRA cannot afford to go "well, it SEEMS okay". They have to put the drug through its paces, or wait until there are enough studies from other people who've tested it out. The absolute shitstorm that would follow if they failed to do that and it turned out that there was some crazy unknown side effect would be insane!
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
Okay, so the act isn't very clear about it from what you've read (I've just started reading it so I'll see what I can find). However, there are other laws that very clearly define what we can or cannot do that are far simpler to make sense of. Unless what SAPHRA says isn't legally binding in which case why are people getting arrested for illegally importing and selling Ivermectin?
That is why I started my post about the legalese in the Act. It is by no means easy to read and follow, open to many conflicting interpretations.
Regarding the import of Ivermectin for personal use?
Yes. If it ever came to someone importing something for personal use and assuming the person has the money to employ a competent lawyer, the matter could turn into a huge bun fight.
Don't know enough about the specifics of this but if there was a loophole that allowed for this I'm sure people with deeper pockets and lawyers who wanted to make money would have exposed this by now. Seems like a great way to bypass a whole bunch of legislation and make some cash.
The businessman was for sure looking to make a killing. It would be particularly sad IF it is found that SAHPRA issued their ban in December as a knee-jerk reaction when they realised just how weak their case against the businessman is or would be when it finally gets to court.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
I don't disagree entirely, but SAHPRA also has to let science take its course. Most of us can look at the arguments appearing online and the studies and go "it seems safe considering the drug already has its uses". An institution like SAHPRA cannot afford to go "well, it SEEMS okay". They have to put the drug through its paces, or wait until there are enough studies from other people who've tested it out. The absolute shitstorm that would follow if they failed to do that and it turned out that there was some crazy unknown side effect would be insane!
Yes agreed. BUT that is why SAHPRAcould just have easily ruled under the emergency regulations in the Act. that Ivermectin prescribed under tight controls by medical professionals is allowed instead of an outright ban. They could have demanded Any controls and checks and balances and special monitoring also.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
Wouldn't a few of the zealots on this thread PLEASE pause a moment on the arguments and insults and listen / watch this.

Thank you for the link. I found it very informative and very interesting. Now, as usual, we wait to see what our lot are going to do.

Aspects that are crucial to appreciate:
1. You cant run trials if you have low numbers of infected people ---- we definitely don't have an issue here.
2. You cant run a trial if you don't have the drug available --- we are really in a good position here, we HAVE Ivermectin already listed for use ( schedule 3) AND we have the mechanisms available to produce the compounded drugs and we have the legislation in place.
3. Now all we need is for the authorities to MOVE.
 

RonSwanson

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
4,785
For the record, I have NOT, repeat NOT recommended or suggested that anyone should try and import anything for their own use. I have simply stated my interpretation of the Act and its clauses.

Why bother? When all they have to do is go and get virtually the same thing from the nearest unregistered horse doctor?

The issue is SAHPRA HAS driven this drug underground AND created a huge black market in the process which means there are now people who are at risk instead of LEAVING well alone and in the hands of medical practitioners.

In fact, my fight is NOT about any of this at all BUT about the entirely irrational rulings that SAHPRA has issued regarding Ivermectin.
Agreed, SAHPRA's sole active contribution to date has been to drive the drug underground.





And I believe that this is the reason why

 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
Took me less than 5 minutes to find otherwise from multiple other sources, so you might want to be careful:

Edit. Sorry, copied and pasted the wrong section.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPORTATION OREXPORTATION OF MEDICINES OR SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES

ORDERING MEDICINES FROM ABROAD

No person shall order any medicine from abroad for personal use unless the Authorityhas granted the said person an authorization in terms of section 21 of the Act to import during a specified period a specified quantity of the particular medicine, which is not registered with Council.Purchasing a medication from an illegal Website or supplier puts you at risk. You may receivea contaminated, counterfeit or substandard product. Taking an unsafe or inappropriate medication puts you at risk for dangerous drug interactions and other serious health consequences



Page not found today??? Coincidence??? Or deliberate???
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758

zolly

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
3,587
Can't access. So a summary of what its article says would be helpful.

Sorry. Forget about that. Here's two screenshots from the article. It does address both sides of the argument to varying degrees.

Extract 1:

Clip 1.jpg
Extract 2:

Clip 2.jpg
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
18,758
Still accessible to me.
That page as down this morning. I accessed it early, about 06:00, the tried again later and it was down for at least 3 hours. Be that as it may, look at the wording of the Act, then the "guideline'.

A competent lawyer will tie SAHPRA in knots IF they ever try and use this to prosecute someone for importing medicine or substances used for compounding medicine for personal use.

The Law:

14. Prohibition on the sale of medicines, medical devices or IVDs which are subject to registration and are not
registered.
—(1) Save as provided in this section or sections 21 and 22A, no person shall sell any medicine, medical
device or IVD which is subject to registration by virtue of a declaration published in terms of subsection (2) unless it is
registered.

“sell” means sell by wholesale or retail and includes import, offer, advertise, keep, expose, transmit, consign, convey or deliver for sale or authorize, direct or allow a sale or prepare or possess for purposes of sale, and barter or exchange or supply or dispose of to any person whether for a consideration or otherwise; and “sale” and “sold” have corresponding meanings;

Absolutely NOTHING in that definition as complicated as it is says ANYTHING about for personal use.

Now read their guideline:

In terms of section 14(1) of the Act, no person shall import and supply any medicine, which is subject to registration by virtue of a resolution published in terms of section 14(2) unless it registered with Council.

See anything about for personal use?

SAHPRA will be hard-pressed to prosecute anyone buying medication overseas and bringing it into the country if the purpose is for personal use no matter what their guideline tries to convey.


Would I put it to the test? No, not unless there is a very specific and urgent need for medication that just is not available here and which SAHPRA refuses to allow. (ie, such as Ivermectin)

At the moment Ivermectin fits this scenario completely. The ONLY way they could do anything about it was to ban the substance/medication, which they did.
Do they have the power to do this? Probably not, but we will have to see what the courts say about it.

We all have the absolute right to preserve our own life.
 
Last edited:
Top