Back to main page


Correspondence on MATH+/I-MASK+

In case someone finds this informative or has trouble remembering who needed to wake up who to see what in fact was going on.

(Mikäli joku kokee aiheen kiinnostavaksi tai jollakulla on vaikeuksia muistaa, kenen tarkalleen piti herätellä ketä mihinkin)

Abbreviations:

  • STM: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
  • THL: Finnish institute for health and welfare
  • HUS: Helsinki University Hospital
  • VNK: Prime Minister's Office
  • AVI: Regional State Administrative Agencies
  • Metropolitan area coordination group (pääkaupunkiseudun koronakoordinaatioryhmä): consists of members from HUS, THL, AVI and cities of Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa
  • LPSHP: Länsi-Pohja healthcare district, southwestern Lapland

MATH+, the Finnish experience

  • 2020-05-04: with the Prime Minister's office (vnk.fi): sent an informative memo about MATH+ and other possibilities. The secretary redirected the message to the registry of STM. Outcome: no response from STM, no followup from PM's office.
  • 2020-05: with several MDs: One responded that despite being a chief of a department he's not in a position to influence treatment guidelines. No responses from others.
  • 2020-06 to 2020-09: with no-one: the lack of interest was frustrating and the pandemic kind of disappeared in June, to reappear in October. I assumed the protocol would be picked up by others by the end of the summer. At the beginning of the second wave, however, the knowledge of MATH+ was exactly the same as in May, i.e. nonexistent.
  • 2020-10-22: with the Prime Minister's office, STM, THL (vnk.fi): an inquiry about the non-response. Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-10-30: with THL: director, professor Mika Salminen, Hanna Nohynek (thl.fi): Outcome: Nohynek responded that THL does not give treatment guidelines but they benefit from being aware of new methods of treatment and their influence on COVID-19 related societal effects. A follow-up question: is there any party that is responsible for treatment guidelines? Answer from Nohynek: talk to Asko Järvinen (HUS) who has the best perspective and experience on the issue.
  • 2020-10-30: with STM: director Tuija Kumpulainen (stm.fi): Responded the next day that she will forward the message to their experts. She also stated the following: "In practice, the Ministry usually does not take a stance in treatment protocols, as they are part of the work of the clinicians."
  • 2020-10-30: with Mika Valtonen (TYKS), Juha Koskenkari (PPSHP), Maarit Hult (Essote), Ville Jalkanen (PHSP), Johanna Karttunen (KUH) (sthy.fi): Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-10-30: with the President's office: Outcome: no response.

I-MASK+, the Finnish experience

  • 2020-11-02: with head physician, head of infectious diseases Asko Järvinen (HUS): discussed the ivermectin protocol with Asko Järvinen (HUS) on the phone. Järvinen was not aware of the method. Sent documents to Järvinen and Hanna Nohynek (THL) by email. Outcome: no response, no followup.
  • 2020-11-02: with director Tuija Kumpulainen (STM) (stm.fi): Sent FLCCC reviews and other documents about I-MASK+/ivermectin for information. No additional response (see MATH+ 2020-10-30).
  • 2020-11-05: with the Prime Minister's office (vnk.fi): A secretary informed that there is no possibility for a meeting about the subject. Sent my review and FLCCC reviews to Maria Vanhanen, Päivi Saarimaa, Neea Hurme, Tarja Haapakoski, Johanna Sumuvuori. Outcome: no responses.
  • 2020-11-05: with Osmo Soinivaara: He replied that he has neither expertise on the issue nor a possibility to advance the idea.
  • 2020-11-05: with Kirsi Varhila / Nina Tuominen (STM) (stm.fi): The highest ranking public servant in the ministry is Permanent Secretary Kirsi Varhila. Nina Tuominen is her secretary. Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-11-05: with director Liisa-Maria Voipio-Pulkki (STM) (stm.fi): Outcome: redirected to an unit that will respond later.
  • 2020-11-05: with mayors (Jan Vapaavuori, Anni Sinnemäki, Pia Pakarinen, Sanna Vesikansa, Nasima Razmyar) and other representatives (Minerva Krohn, Maija Alina Anttila, Ari Oksanen) of the city of Helsinki (www.hel.fi): suggested that the administration should consider the new ivermectin treatment protocol. Outcome: no responses.
  • 2020-11-10: with Sari Ekholm (STM) (stm.fi): in response to the message to Voipio-Pulkki on 2020-11-05, Ekholm responded that the proper protocol for suggesting new treatments is through FinCCHTA. She asked me to prepare a proposal to the FinCCHTA website, after which it will be swiftly evaluated and redirected to the proper office. She stated that treatments given in hospitals must go through this prearranged pathway of chief medical officers and that even STM cannot bypass this procedure.
  • 2020-11-12: with Lausuntopalvelu (www.lausuntopalvelu.fi): prepared a comment to VN/24131/2020 (STM). Sent the documents also by email to Liisa Katajamäki (STM), Jari Keinänen (STM), Outi Leinonen (raja.fi), Mika Salminen (THL). Outcome: no responses. Also sent the comment also by email to five people at VNK. Outcome: no responses. In addition, sent the documents to a few other ministries. Outcome: one response about redirecting the message to STM.
  • 2020-11-16: with FinCCHTA: posted two separate suggestions for new treatments to the FinCCHTA pathway: first one about ivermectin outpatient and prophylaxis, the second one about MATH+ inpatient protocol. Informed Ekholm (STM) that I had prepared the documents to FinCCHTA, as suggested.
  • 2020-11-16: with unnamed representatives at the parliament (www.eduskunta.fi): informed a couple of representatives at the parliament. Outcome: one response thanking for the documents and wishing a good end of the year.
  • 2020-11-17: with Sari Ekholm (STM) (stm.fi): Ekholm thanked for the documents but noted that as she stated earlier, treatment of patients and giving treatment guidelines do not belong to responsibilities of STM.
  • 2020-11-17: with Jyri Taskila (LPSHP) (www.lpshp.fi): sent the FinCCHTA documents to Jyri Taskila (Länsi-Pohjan sairaanhoitopiiri, LPSHP). Tried to contact him by phone. Got an SMS reply to send email. Sent email; no response. Tried to call again; no answer.
  • 2020-11-17: with research specialist Antti Pelkonen, Prime Minister's office (VNK), strategy department: talked on the phone. Some interest. Sent FinCCHTA documents. No followup.
  • 2020-11-17: with NESA (www.nesa.fi): emailed to suggest they should familiarize themselves with ivermectin. The registry responded that product suppliers should contact Hansel. Responded that this is not about masks but about medicines. No followup.
  • 2020-11-17: with the President's office (www.presidentti.fi): emailed, just in case.
  • 2020-11-17: with Kustaa Piha and Timo Lukkarinen (city of Helsinki): contacted Kustaa Piha (city of Helsinki) by phone. Very rude reception. Emailed documents to Piha and Lukkarinen. Piha responded that they only follow "national guidelines set by THL". Replied by forwarding THL's earlier message (by Nohynek) stating that "THL does not give treatment guidelines". No response.
  • 2020-11-17: with head physician, head of infectious diseases Asko Järvinen (HUS) (www.hus.fi): informed Järvinen about new RCTs about ivermectin and the FinCCHTA documents. Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-11-17: with THL (thl.fi): informed THL about new RCTs about ivermectin and the FinCCHTA documents. Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-11-17: with the Prime Minister's office (vnk.fi): informed the prime minister's secretary (VNK) about the FinCCHTA documents. Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-11-17: with professor Vapalahti (University of Helsinki): talked with professor Vapalahti on the phone about ivermectin. He was aware of the earlier in-vitro study and the suggestion that it is not possible to achieve the necessary plasma levels by oral administration, so he did not assume the method would be useful. I commented that the RCTs show effects regardless of that, and proposed to send him the up-to-date research. He said he will look at them in the next few days. Sent the documents by email. Follow-up email 2020-11-19; no response.
  • 2020-11-17: with MD Ronkainen (LPSHP): contacted Ronkainen by phone. Initial interest. Sent him and Pekka Ylipalosaari (LPSHP) the documents.
  • 2020-11-18: with chief medical officer Markku Mäkijärvi (HUS) (www.hus.fi): contacted the secretary by phone. She promised to make sure Mäkijärvi notices the message when he returns. Sent the documents by email.
  • 2020-11-19: with infection control unit of the city of Pori (www.pori.fi): Outcome: Luotolahti-Pitkäranta responded that the method seems interesting.
  • 2020-11-19: with a professor (University of Helsinki) (www.helsinki.fi): Mr. Daniel Dahlbo who had earlier contacted me saying he has privately surveyed "everything written on ivermectin treatments related to COVID-19" pointed out a professor who had previously researched ivermectin and suggested I could contact him. I sent an inquiry by email. The professor replied that his studies were mostly in vitro and he doesn't have something to add to the documents I sent him, commenting that since all of his time has gone to reorganization of teaching due to COVID-19 restrictions he has not had enough time to keep up with current state of COVID-19 research.
  • 2020-11-19: with MD Ronkainen (LPSHP): contacted Ronkainen by phone for followup; he called back later. He pointed out a mistake I had made: a preprint in SSRN's "Preprints with the Lancet" category does not indicate the preprint has been accepted by Lancet. They have been submitted to the Lancet family of journals by the authors but are "not necessarily under review with a Lancet journal". However, Ronkainen also claimed my statement about the preprint had been false. According to him, the summary said "there was no difference between the groups", thus ivermectin would have no effect. I didn't immediately remember what read in the summary. I later checked it. The summary said there was no difference between the placebo group (1) and the ivermectin groups, of which there were two: (2) ivermectin < 160 ng/mL, and (3) ivermectin > 160 ng/mL. There was no difference between groups 1 and groups 2+3 together. However, if one compared group 3 to either 1 or 2, there was a difference. In group 1, the reduction in viral load was 40%, in group 3 it was 72%. This was actually stated in the same sentence: "There was no difference in viral load reduction between groups but a significant difference in reduction was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59 – 77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31 – 73) (p=0·004)." I sent that and additional clarifications by email. No response.
  • 2020-11-19: with news (www.hel.fi): The Metropolitan area coordination group stated the metropolitan area was now in the "spreading phase". Voipio-Pulkki (STM) stated: "Now is the time to act, really." Also, minister Krista Kiuru (STM) stated that "sufficiently drastic restrictions" are necessary. I finally realized STM has really outsourced the whole issue (except supervision of restaurants) to the local coordination group. Of the members of the group I have previously contacted Mika Salminen (THL) and attempted to contact mayor Vapaavuori (city of Helsinki) and Markku Mäkijärvi (HUS).
  • 2020-11-20: with news (www.ndtv.com): WHO no longer recommends remdesivir for COVID-19.
  • 2020-11-20: with news (www.hel.fi): Metropolitan area coordination group (pääkaupunkiseudun koronakoordinaatioryhmä, including HUS, STM, THL, AVI, cities of Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa) decided on measures to control the epidemic. There was no mention about outpatient treatments or prophylaxis of any kind. The city of Vantaa states that air traffic related testing proposed by STM is "impossible to implement". The Prime Minister says the new restrictions implemented by the coordination group are not drastic enough and wishes for stronger lockdown measures.
  • 2020-11-20: with the President's office (www.presidentti.fi): A Special Adviser of the President replied, thanking for the information and suggesting I would contact STM and THL which are "competent (toimivaltaisia) in this matter". I replied commenting that STM and THL state that they are not, although FinCCHTA apparently is. I added that it appears to me that there is no instance that is responsible for following treatments research: VNK monthly review sometimes briefly mentions some details related to treatment research but is very superficial and sporadic, THL and STM appear to not research the issue, the professors I have contacted are not up to date (and assumedly not officially responsible). The chief MDs at HUS and city of Helsinki appear to not be up to date with the current status of research. In summary, it seemed to me that developments in treatments may be a somewhat overlooked issue and that I consider it a problem.
  • 2020-11-20: with Yleisradio (areena.yle.fi): Markku Mäkijärvi (HUS) at 13:13: "This set of means is the best that we could end up with using the best expertise available in Finland."
  • 2020-11-23: with news: Markku Mäkijärvi (HUS) says number of COVID-19 patients in HUS area hospitals have almost doubled in two weeks. HUS hospitals move to 'full alert'. The Prime Minister says that if the cities do not implement sufficient measures she will declare a state of emergency again. The national airline says they are losing 1.8 million euros every day.
  • 2020-11-24: with FinCCHTA: one week since posting the proposals to FinCCHTA. No response, not even a confirmation of receiving the proposal, and the proposals are not listed on their page. Fimea's list of works in progress dated 2020-11-23 does not contain another COVID-19 related proposal dated 2020-09-16 that is listed at 'sent to Fimea'. When inquired by phone, FinCCHTA informed me that they aim at processing the two proposals in a meeting later this week. STM's deadline for VN/24131/2020 ended yesterday with over 100 comments to the proposal.
  • 2020-11-24: with chief medical officer Markku Mäkijärvi (HUS) (www.hus.fi): contacted the secretary by phone. She responded Mäkijärvi has probably not read the message yet and said she'll inform Mäkijärvi about the message again.
  • 2020-11-24: with news: The metropolitan area coordination group declares that a set of stronger restrictions will be applied starting from 2020-11-26.
  • 2020-11-25: with VNK: ivermectin research is not mentioned in the new research brief (COVID-19 tutkimuskatsaus 7/2020) published by the Prime Minister's office (VNK). It is edited by Antti Pelkonen and the medical section is coordinated by professor Vapalahti (HY).
  • 2020-11-25: with news (www.bloomberg.com): Jan Vapaavuori (the mayor of Helsinki) states that the actions of minister Krista Kiuru (STM) are "completely implausible". Bloomberg ranks Finland at 5/53 with regard to resilience in handling the pandemic. Among the others are Brazil (37/53), Peru (51/53) and Argentina (52/53). The ranking appears to ignore e.g. increases in public and private debt.
  • 2020-11-25: with the Metropolitan area coordination group (www.hel.fi): Sent all members of the group the I-MASK+ documents and my review by email. Requested that in case the group does not consider the method suitable they would give an official statement which would include a rationale for their opinion.
  • 2020-11-25: with Päijät-Häme area coordination group: Tuomo Nieminen (PHHYKY), Marina Erhola (PHHYKY) (www.phhyky.fi): Forwarded the message sent to the Metropolitan area group (I-MASK+ documents and my review) to Päijät-Häme coordination group.
  • 2020-11-25: with Pirkanmaa area coordination group; all members including Juhani Sand (PSHP) and Eija Tómas (PSHP) (www.tays.fi): Sent I-MASK+ documents and my review to all members of Pirkanmaa (TAYS) area coordination group. Requested that in case the group does not consider the method suitable they would give an official statement which would include a rationale for their opinion.
  • 2020-11-25: with Pohjanmaa area coordination group: Marina Kinnunen (VSHP), Peter Nieminen (VSHP): Sent I-MASK+ documents and my review to two members of Pohjanmaa (Vaasa) area coordination group. Requested that in case the group does not consider the method suitable they would give an official statement which would include a rationale for their opinion.
  • 2020-11-25: with Kymsote area coordination group: Marja-Liisa Mäntymaa, Kari Kristeri: Sent I-MASK+ documents and my review to two members of Kymsote area coordination group. Requested that in case the group does not consider the method suitable they would give an official statement which would include a rationale for their opinion.
  • 2020-11-25: with the Prime Minister's office (vnk.fi): Asked the registry of the Prime Minister's office to forward a message with the same information as the message to the Metropolitan area group (I-MASK+ documents and my review) to the Prime Minister, adding that STM and THL have repeatedly stated the issue does not belong to them and that forwarding the message to STM or THL is not applicable.
  • 2020-11-26: with the Metropolitan area coordination group (www.hel.fi): Sent all members of the group a new meta-analysis presentation slides from professor Marik. Asked for an official statement of the group on the applicability of the ivermectin prophylaxis and outpatient treatment.
  • 2020-11-27: with news: the Metropolitan area coordination group and AVI release a new set of regulations. There is no indication of anything related to treatments or ivermectin.
  • 2020-11-27: with FinCCHTA: on the FinCCHTA webpage I found that my two proposals have been listed in the "no further action" category: the methods are described as "unsuitable for hospital-grade health technology assessment. Forwarded for information to Suomen Infektiolääkärit ry" (Finnish association for doctors specialized in infectious diseases). It was unclear to me why STM said this is the only route, and FinCCHTA now seemed to indicate this was not the correct route for advancing the issue.
  • 2020-11-27: with news: Helsingin Sanomat wrote that "interviewed experts estimate that it is difficult to name any single method [that might have helped to keep the situation in control] – except maybe enforcing stricter restrictions for a longer period". Professor Olli Vapalahti (HY) stated that the main reason for increased spreading is people's weariness about COVID-19 and that there should probably have been stricter restrictions earlier on. Associate professor Tarja Sironen (HY) stated she is unaware of any single method or action that would have prevented the situation.
  • 2020-11-27: with Eeva Ruotsalainen (HUS): as Ruotsalainen was featured in Helsingin Sanomat and I have previously met her personally, I sent her the ivermectin documents including professor Marik's new meta-analysis by email for information.
  • 2020-11-28: with the Päijät-Häme area coordination group: Tuomo Nieminen (PHHYKY), Marina Erhola (PHHYKY) (www.phhyky.fi): forwarded Marik's meta-analysis also to this group and asked for comments.
  • 2020-11-28: with associate professor Tarja Sironen (HY) (researchportal.helsinki.fi): forwarded Sironen the previous two messages to Metropolitan area coordination group and asked for comments. On 2020-11-30 she responded thanking for interesting papers and said she will look into the issue.
  • 2020-11-29: with a search engine (ivmmeta.com): searched for something, found a site with a meta-analysis of all ivermecitn studies. The method undeniably works, and it's all there, clear as a day, in graphs that one can go through in one minute. No need to read complicated papers.
  • 2020-11-30: with the Päijät-Häme area coordination group: Tuomo Nieminen (PHHYKY), Marina Erhola (PHHYKY) (www.phhyky.fi): forwarded the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with Kymsote area coordination group: Marja-Liisa Mäntymaa, Kari Kristeri: forwarded the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with Eeva Ruotsalainen (HUS): forwarded the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with Raija Uusitalo-Seppälä (Satadiag): Luotolahti-Pitkäranta informed me that the responsible person is Uusitalo-Seppälä. Forwarded her the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with Jyri Taskila (LPSHP), MD Ronkainen (LPSHP), Pekka Ylipalosaari (LPSHP) (www.lpshp.fi): forwarded the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with the Metropolitan area coordination group, Liisa-Maria Voipio-Pulkki (STM), Sari Ekholm (STM), Antti Pelkonen (VNK), Asko Järvinen (HUS), Hanna Nohynek (THL), Olli Vapalahti (HY), Tarja Sironen (HY) (www.hel.fi): forwarded the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis, noting that I have tried to inform various people and institutions about the treatment for one month already, without noticing any effect. I also noted that considering the costs of waiting being in tens of millions per day I don't consider the non-response an adequate administrative response.
  • 2020-11-30: with director Liisa-Maria Voipio-Pulkki (STM) (stm.fi): Voipio-Pulkki responded that she will forward the message for processing at STM.
  • 2020-12-01: with Mr. Dahlbo: he suggested I should contact companies most affected by the restrictions. Responded that I already tried that.
  • 2020-12-02: with FinCCHTA (www.ppshp.fi): FinCCHTA informs me by email that they discussed the proposals and forwarded them to Suomen infektiolääkärit ry. FinCCHTA network will not evaluate the proposals. Asked for more information on the rationale behind the decision. Miia Turpeinen responded that FinCCHTA has forwarded the materials to specialists that treat COVID-19 patients in Finland; they have an existing network for sharing treatment protocols coming from abroad, and a possibility to start experimental treatments or research project. A hospital-grade HTA would not methodically answer to the question presented in the proposal and would not in itself result in changes in clinical practice.
  • 2020-12-02: with the President: the President had dropped his phone on the street. Accidentally met him nearby, gave back the phone and asked if I could have a word, saying there is a now a working treatment for COVID-19. He asked whether I had talked about it with the officials. I said I had but the treatment is still not adopted to practice, gave him the address to this website and asked him to read it. Should probably have stayed longer to show it personally instead of just giving the address. Yet another marketing failure.
  • 2020-12-11: with Suomen Infektiolääkärit ry (infektiolaakarit.yhdistysavain.fi): On request, the president of the association to which FinCCHTA forwarded the proposal informs me that he is not convinced by the existing research and the only way ivermectin could be used in Finland would be to have a preapproval of either the European Medicine Agency or the WHO (by inclusion into the SOLIDARITY trials), or that trials would be carried out in Finland (not possible according to him).
  • 2020-11-16: with Prime Minister's office (VNK), strategy department (api.hankeikkuna.fi): VNK publishes COVID-19 research review 8/2020 without any mention about ivermectin.
  • 2021-12-17: with National Audit Office of Finland/Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto (www.vtv.fi): An inquiry on the dismissal of early treatments/ivermectin in Finland.
  • 2020-12-18: with director Liisa-Maria Voipio-Pulkki (STM) (stm.fi): I inquired about process started due to my 2020-11-30 request. No response.
  • 2020-12-20: with Esa Rintala, Mikko Pietilä, Harri Marttila (TYKS) (www.vsshp.fi): Forwarded FLCCC's ivermectin review, my brief review, ivmmeta.com Dec 18 meta-analysis, and links to ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com and covidcare.fi.
  • 2021-01-14: with Prime Minister's office (VNK), strategy department (api.hankeikkuna.fi): VNK publishes COVID-19 research review 1/2021 without any mention about ivermectin.
  • 2021-01-22: with Paula Tiittala (STM) (stm.fi): Chief Inspector Tiittala responds to my November 5th, 2020 message about ivermectin to Nina Tuominen (STM). "Thank you for your message. The Ministry of Health is responsible for national preparedness and coordination of health care related disturbances or their threat. The Ministry aims at taking all feedback into account in its actions."
  • 2021-03-09: with Klaus Naumanen and Kimmo Metsä (National Audit Office of Finland/Valtiontalouden tarkastusvirasto) (www.vtv.fi): The National Audit Office of Finland sent an email including a document dated February 17, 2021, saying that the office has investigated the issue but it does not have the necessary competence to take a stance on it, thus it abandoned the issue.

I-MASK+, the Swedish experience

  • 2020-11-10: with Anders Tegnell: emailed Tegnell about the protocol. Tegnell responded that the Swedish MPA (Läkemedelsverket) handles this kind of information.
  • 2020-11-11: with Läkemedelsverket: informed Läkemedelsverket about the protocol.
  • 2020-11-13: with Läkemedelsverket (www.lakemedelsverket.se): Läkemedelsverket informs me that they do not have any research on their own, that they only work with approval of medicines and drug safety, and referred me to their informational webpage.
  • 2020-11-13: with Anders Tegnell: informed Tegnell that Läkemedelsverket was not interested. Suggested he could pay attention to the issue himself. No response.
  • 2020-11-17: with Läkemedelsverket: informed Läkemedelsverket that I am not able to figure out the details of the Swedish government and asked them to forward the information to the right places.
  • 2020-11-18: with Läkemedelsverket: Läkemedelsverket informs me that they have already told me the issue does not belong to them and the information is "better given to researchers".
  • 2020-11-18: with Norrbotten (www.norrbotten.se): newspapers say Sweden has asked for help with testing from Finland. Sent ivermectin documents to Norrbotten regional goverment. Outcome: no response.
  • 2020-12-02: with Anders Tegnell: forwarded the ivmmeta.com group's meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-12-20: with Swedish Government; Folkhälsomyndigheten (www.gov.se): Sent a letter with information about the I-MASK+ and MATH+ protocols and ivmmeta.com meta-analysis. No response.

Others

  • 2020-11-13: with Statens legemiddelverket (legemiddelverket.no): informed covid19beredskap at legemiddelverket.no about my ivermectin review. No response.
  • 2020-11-16: with Estonian Agency of Medicines (www.ravimiamet.ee): informed the agency about my ivermectin review and website. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with Statens legemiddelverket (legemiddelverket.no): informed covid19beredskap at legemiddelverket.no about the ivmmeta.com meta-analysis. No response.
  • 2020-11-30: with Estonian Agency of Medicines (www.ravimiamet.ee): informed the agency about the ivmmeta.com meta-analysis. No response.

Press

  • 2020-06-26: with The Guardian: offered a story about MATH+. No response.
  • 2020-11-02: with Suomen Kuvalehti: "Hello there, thank you for your offer. We have no use for this at SK. Have a nice beginning of the week."
  • 2020-11-05: with The New England Journal of Medicine: desk-rejected "after considering its focus, content, and interest".
  • 2020-11-06: with the Lancet journals: desk-rejected: "because we are receiving unprecedented numbers of COVID-19 related submissions we are unable to prioritise it for publication".
  • 2020-11-15: with major newspapers: offered a story to Helsingin Sanomat, Hufvudstadsbladet, Kaleva, ESS, Turun Sanomat, Lapin Kansa, Vasabladet, Maaseudun tulevaisuus, Aamulehti, Ilkka-Pohjalainen, Kymen sanomat, Savon sanomat, Salon seudun sanomat, Satakunnan kansa, Länsi-Suomi, Keskisuomalainen, Keskipohjanmaa, Ålandstidningen, Österbottens tidning, Hämeen sanomat, Karjalainen, Uusimaa. Outcome: no responses.
  • 2020-11-17: with The Guardian: offered a story about I-MASK+. No response.
  • 2020-11-18: with Helsingin Sanomat: offered a story to M. Puttonen and A. Mutanen (email and phone call). Got a reply that if they make a story they will write it themselves (without compensation to me, of course).
  • 2020-11-18: with Helsingin Sanomat: attempted to comment two news articles in HS. The comments contained information about the ivermectin option. The comments were censored (never published) by HS.
  • 2020-12-18: with Suomen Lääkärilehti (www.laakarilehti.fi): offered a short article to a biweekly Finnish medical journal.
  • 2021-01-13: with Suomen Lääkärilehti (www.laakarilehti.fi): the journal responds that the article is unsuitable for publication because it is far too optimistic in comparison to NIH (US) guideline from August 27, 2020 that recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial.

Contact information: info _ covidcare fi