Ivermectin - Australia bans it, 34 other countries approve it
In a Press Release issued on September 10th 2021, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) “placed new restrictions on the prescribing of oral ivermectin” for Covid-19 treatment.
This follows banning doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine as an alternative treatment to combat COVID-19 in February 2021.
These new restrictions were justified because of concerns that individuals seeking alternative prevention and treatment would impact the vaccine rollout and that self-administered “higher doses can be associated with serious adverse effects, including severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures and coma” as well as there being “national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections” due to increased demand.
Doctors Claim New Restrictions Are Illogical
Dr John Campbell was compelled to address concerns being raised about the TGA’s announcement, producing a YouTube video for his 1.14 million subscribers, pointing out the absurdity of the TGA’s decision.
One doctor commented on the video “As an Australian GP I am absolutely appalled by these latest TGA restrictions. As you rightly point out, the reasons given are illogical”.
Also illogical is the absence of any risk-to-benefit analysis of alternative treatments for Covid-19 by the government, especially taking into consideration the urgent need for additional pandemic management options.
Ivermectin has already been adopted as a Covid-19 treatment countrywide by 15 nations and 19 other states or regions have granted approval for it’s use, as reported by OneDayMD.com.
OneDayMD claims the following nations have seen countrywide adoption of Ivermectin as an alternative Covid-19 treatment: Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.
And the following countries have seen either regional or state adoption or approve GP’s to prescribe Ivermectin: Argentina, Columbia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Philippines, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Paru, Portugal, Slovakia, South Africa, Thailand, USA, Ukraine.
In South Africa, Dr Shankara Chetty successfully applied alternative treatments to 6000 Covid-19 patients, none of whom died or required subsequent hospitalisation or suffered any adverse reactions, including long Covid. In this interview he explains the history of the development of his treatment protocol including some of the specific details.
On 15th September the Gateway Pundit reported that “The 33 districts in Uttar Pradesh, India have now become free from COVID-19” …… “thanks to new rules that promote Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to its massive population” of over 200 million people.
Why Alternative Treatments Are Important
Alternative treatments have saved lives, reduced the number of people requiring hospitalisation and along with vaccinations and other preventative measures (social distancing etc) are another tool that can be used to manage the pandemic, reducing the need for heavy lockdowns and the damage they are doing economically and psychologically. Yet in Australia it is being completely ignored, in fact, it could be argued, intentionally undermined.
Instead of embracing alternative treatments as another tool in the pandemic management toolkit, Australia and other governments from Western nations are doing everything in their power to stop it from happening. The question is, given the potential benefits and comparative safety of alternative treatments, why are they doing this?
The story behind alternative treatments for Covid-19 is crucial to understand because vaccines that haven’t passed Level 4 safety trials cannot be approved for use under Emergency Use Authorisation if there are “no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.”
Before you read on, you need to be aware of the following;
1) the information presented herein is biased in favour of incorporating alternative treatments for Covid-19 as another tool to manage the pandemic, and
2) there are many alternative treatment options being explored for Covid-19, however the information herein focuses on Ivermectin. This Spotify podcast with Dr Peter McCullough provides information on other treatment options and is targeted to an Australian audience.
If a new vaccine cannot be released for emergency use prior to safety trials being completed, or presents itself as a potential competitor to an existing product, it is in the interests of vaccine manufacturers to suppress the development of that treatment. Which, if this paper published by the US National Library of Medicine serves as a guide, is not beyond the scope of possibility.
“Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.”
An internet search reveals that there are plenty of examples where vaccine and drug manufacturers have been found by courts to be guilty of corrupt behaviour and practices. For example “In 2016, AstraZeneca agreed to pay $5.5 million in a settlement over charges they had violated the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. The fact that such legislation even exists should raise alarm bells in itself.
This might explain why, though it is speculation, even when under a court order, hospitals in America refused to administer Ivermectin to patients who had exhausted all other treatment options and were on their deathbed.
Following are excerpts from a SubStack article published June 26th, 2021 on what happened to Covid-19 patients earlier in the year.
An “80 year-old Buffalo-area woman named Judith Smentkiewicz fell ill with Covid-19 ….. and ….had a 20% chance at survival, and even if she made it, she’d be on a ventilator for a month.”
After hearing about Ivermectin, “The family pressured doctors at the hospital to give Judith the drug. The hospital initially complied, administering one dose on January 2nd. According to her family’s court testimony, a dramatic change in her condition ensued.” “After the reported change in Judith’s condition, the hospital backtracked and refused to administer more. Frustrated, the family turned to a local lawyer named Ralph Lorigo.”
“Lorigo immediately sued the hospital, filing to State Supreme Court to force the facility to treat according to the family’s wishes. Judge Henry J. Nowak sided with the Smentkiewiczes, signing an order that Lorigo and one of his attorneys served themselves, and after a series of quasi-absurd dramas that included the hospital refusing to let the Smentkiewicz family physician phone in the prescription — “the doctor actually had to drive to the hospital,” Lorigo says — Judith went back on ivermectin”.
“She was out of that hospital in six days,” Lorigo says. “After a month of rehab, his octogenarian client went back to her life, which involved working five days a week.”
Loringo was then employed by the families of other Covid patients, where he continued to successfully obtain court orders to force hospitals to treat patients with Ivermectin.
“Hospitals fought hard, hiring expensive law firms, at times going to extraordinary lengths to refuse treatment even with dying patients who’d exhausted all other options.”
In light of the persistent corrupt behaviour of vaccine manufactures (discussed further below), one could posit that doctors in hospitals may have been unduly influenced, even bribed. Though it shouldn’t be discounted that there may have been other motivations for their actions.
Russel Brand recently produced this video, critiquing this same article.
Social media platforms and fact checkers went on the offensive, censoring articles and videos discussing Ivermectin.
The news was awash with sensational stories, some of them completely fabricated, like the one about people self-administering an Ivermectin horse de-wormer, poisoning themselves, then taking up hospital beds that should be available for Covid-19 patients.
There is currently an investigation underway of a recent suspected death from self-administered Ivermectin in the US. However, the table below shows that the risks of taking Ivermectin as compared to other Covid-19 prophylactics (preventatives) or treatments, have been greatly over exaggerated.
The table below is from US Senator Ron Johnson’s newsletter on vaccine adverse reactions. It compares 25 years of data on deaths and adverse events from Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Remdesivir, vaccines and other drugs.
When comparing this data, keep in mind that “3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been distributed in mass drug administration campaigns globally over the past 30 years” however this table only refers to American adverse events.
The severity of adverse reactions from Ivermectin as compared to Covid vaccines is another issue to be considered in a risk to benefit analysis.
Corruption and conflicts of interest are rife within the pharmaceutical industry. The funding of regulatory bodies by the industry itself resulting in 1/3 of drugs being approved by the FDA having subsequent safety problems.
And the ‘revolving door’ conflict of interest where individuals move “between jobs in government related to legislation and regulation and jobs at the firm being regulated. In some cases, employees go back and forth between government and private industry as a way for private industry to influence or capture public policy”. An recent example being the former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb joining the Pfizer board of directors in 2019.
Where is the evidence?
Medical authorities around the world are claiming that “There is no reliable evidence to suggest ivermectin is effective against COVID-19”, as advocated in this Yahoo News article.
The Conversation published the article “Ivermectin is still not a miracle cure for COVID-19, despite what you may have read”. The article cites the lack of a credible clinical trial, that the “16 trials investigating ivermectin ……are unlikely to provide the high-quality data necessary to show ivermectin can actually provide its touted benefits”, that the higher dosage rates “resulted in blood concentrations several orders of magnitude times lower than those needed to inhibit the virus” and the increased “risk of side effects such as nausea, rash, dizziness, immune suppression, abdominal pain, fever, raised heart rate and unstable blood pressure”. These are pretty mild side effects when compared to the side effects and adverse reactions of other drugs and vaccines.
The same article links to an observational trial of 100 Covid-19 patients, with no critique or analysis, where the outcome was that after treatment “All patients tested negative and their symptoms improved within 72 hours. There were no noticeable side effects.”
Dr John Campbell reviewed low dosage Ivermectin studies conducted in Mexico, Peru and India concluding that the studies showed promising results and lamenting the deafening silence from authorities and in the media.
In Indonesia philanthropist, Haryoseno, “made ivermectin available to the masses for free or at low cost. As a result, Indonesia has had an extremely low Covid mortality rate. That is until the Ministry of Health decided, in line with the WHO’s recommendation, that ivermectin would only be used in a clinical trial. Haryoseno has been threatened with a fine and a ten-year jail sentence and the supply of ivermectin has dried up. Result? Deaths per million have increased five-fold since withdrawal of ivermectin on 12 June”.
Contradictory information abounds. Two meta-analysis studies were released in July and August 2021.
This study published on PubMed concluded “we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19”.
This is in stark contrast to the study published in The American Journal of Therapeutics, that involved doctors from the FLCCC, which concluded that
“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
In July, another clinical trial found there was “a substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in ivermectin treated groups — by 90%.” However, the trial was discredited with accusations of poor data collection techniques and plagiarism. These accusations may prove false after investigation. And they may not. It doesn’t matter if the desired outcome of vaccine manufactures is to undermine any treatment protocol by delaying the research and development of alternative treatments, to ensure the profits from vaccine rollouts continue unabated.
Another clinical trial has been funded in the Philippines which started in mid-September and will take eight months to complete.
Oxford University is also undertaking a clinical trial which “will likely be the largest study to consider ivermectin (there are more than 5,000 patients enrolled in the trial so far), whatever the results it may not definitively satisfy everyone. Some of the reasons for this are related to the design of the study, which is pragmatic and will enrol people who have symptoms consistent with COVID-19, even without a test to confirm the diagnosis, and is not placebo-controlled.
In Australia, Federal MP Craig Kelly has been criticised for repeatedly making erroneous statements about the effectiveness of ivermectin. This has created an environment where generating good data about ivermectin has been more difficult than needed, with some arguing that ivermectin should already be given as part of routine care while others state that it’s proven not to work and so shouldn’t be considered further, even in research.”
Does Oxford University Have A Conflict Of Interest?
The relative safety of Ivermectin when administered by a doctor has shown extremely promising results. All that is needed is it to determine the efficacy of various treatment protocols with a credible large scale clinical trial. No easy job when every country that has approved Ivermectin have developed their own protocols. Yet the Oxford trial has inbuilt design flaws that are going to enable it to be discredited when completed.
However, one needs to ask the question: does Oxford University have a conflict of interest? They partnered with AstraZeneca to develop the AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine, negotiating a deal for 6% of profits. Would Oxford University want to potentially undermine those future profits with an alternative treatment that they cannot profit from? Might that explain why the clinical trial has design flaws?
Are Governments Doing Everything They Can?
At any point in time ever, have you seen the Australian Government promote a healthy diet (with appropriate vitamin supplementation) and lifestyle as a tool to manage the pandemic? Granted, in Australia there is mental health support for Covid-19 patients and Medicare available to cover the costs of treatment but these are not preventative protocols.
What about free take home medical kits for Covid-19 patients, similar to those issued by the government in Uttar Pradesh, India and many other countries around the world, including Mexico City? What about managing air quality, as discussed in this Juice Media podcast? Or reducing potential exposure on public transport?
American entrepreneur Steve Kirsch is so frustrated by the contradictory stance on alternative treatments for Covid-19 he has offered a $2m prize “to anyone who can make the case that the CDC, FDA, NIH or WHO have done anything to prevent hospitalisation and death with early treatment” according to this interview with Dr Peter McCullough on “........... The Rush To Suppress Alternative Treatments”
Australia’s role in the development and promotion of alternative treatment protocols
The American Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) developed these protocols for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. It has been claimed that these dosage rates are too high and carry an unacceptable risk of adverse reactions. Yet it was developed by qualified experienced doctors on the frontline who have been treating Covid patients. While the critics are academics, researchers, journalists, armchair fact checkers and government departments. Who do you think is a more credible source?
If you want to deep dive into the history of the development of these protocols with one of the pioneering Covid-19 treatment doctors - Dr Pierre Kory, check out this 2.5hr Dark Horse Podcast interview. Kory was criticised and censored for promoting Ivermectin as a Covid treatment, which you will find on his Wikipedia page.
Few are aware of the role Australia has played in exploring the development of treatment protocols for Covid-19. The Australian Spectator published this article on the topic, observing that “It is to Australia’s credit that one of the most effective treatments was identified at Monash University along with the Doherty Institute which showed that ivermectin kills the Sars-CoV-2 virus within 48 hours. Yet to our national shame, the researchers have been starved of resources and the discovery ignored”.
Dr. Thomas Borody from Sydney developed an early treatment protocol that “combines ivermectin with doxycycline and zinc”. His listing in Wikipedia includes a section on the work he did on COVID-19. There is also an extensive reference list on articles written about the risks of taking ivermectin without a prescription.
Australian doctors from the Covid Medical Network were prescribing the protocol. A few weeks ago I sent an email to verify the information however the auto reply says that they are inundated with emails and may not be able to respond for two weeks or more. It is now irrelevant as they can no longer legally prescribe Ivermectin.
In Melbourne, “Australia, one of the few doctors brave enough to use the drug to treat patients and save lives, Dr Mark Hobart, was reported to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)”. However, it was found there had been no infringement of existing TGA policies and, though it is speculation, this could be the real reason the TGA introduced the new restrictions.
The critical role alternative treatments can play to enable natural immunity and contribute to herd immunity
A Professor of Law from George Mason University in Canada recently won a court case against his employer who was imposing a mandatory vaccination policy at his workplace. He won the case by proving that his natural immunity (as he had already caught Covid-19) was superior to the immunity offered by vaccines and carried none of the additional risks associated with being vaccinated after having already contracted Covid-19.
The latest research coming out of Israel comparing natural immunity to enhanced immunity shows that natural immunity has a role to play as another tool to manage the pandemic by reducing transmission and building herd immunity. Meanwhile, the Oxford Vaccine Group has claimed that “Reaching herd immunity is “not a possibility” with the current Delta variant”.
Alternative treatments could play a critical role in preventing Covid-19 patients from developing severe symptoms, while acquiring natural immunity.
The obvious truth that needs to be exposed
Apart from the fact the media are covering up the success that over 34 other countries are having with alternative treatment protocols, is the issue of there being a lack of credible studies.
There are 885 studies of alternative treatments for Covid-19. According to a meta-analysis of 63 of these studies on Ivermectin “statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, hospitalisation, recovery, cases and viral clearance”.
The Australian “National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce” stated objective is “As clinicians work to provide the best possible care for Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re working to keep them up-to-date with the latest evidence”.
The FAQ on Ivermectin states “The Taskforce uses only the best available evidence when developing recommendations. For drug treatments, this means randomised controlled trials conducted in humans, with comparison to placebo or standard treatment. There are currently 18 randomised trials available which meet these criteria”.
Yet, according to the Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies (which is not referenced anywhere on their website) there are 31 randomised control trials involving 6561 patients.
While on the surface it would appear that setting such a high standard is beneficial, is ignoring everything else as irrelevant providing the best possible outcome in a timely manner?
Taking into account all the successful trials, studies and court cases it becomes abundantly clear that
there is absolutely no logical reason why alternative treatments for Covid-19 shouldn’t be being adopted as a matter of urgency and that GP’s should be able to prescribe alternative treatment protocols.
One can hypothesise that the reason for this not happening is yet another example, in a litany of many, of government or bureaucratic incompetence. But that doesn’t wash with the author who believes that there is a much more compelling argument to be put that the pharmaceutical manufacturers are doing what they know best and know works: committing fraud, bribing doctors, suppressing adverse trial results as well as suppressing promising alternative treatments and lobbying governments as a part of that process.
What can you do?
I’m no expert but I follow the ‘prevention is better than cure’ philosophy. I boost my immune system with supplementary vitamins, getting my Vitamin D from sunshine. I manage my stress levels to look after my mental health. I exercise and meditate.
Are you getting enough Vitamin D, Vitamin C, zinc, magnesium and selenium? Dr Bryan Ardis produced a dosage method for some of these vitamins that is specific to your body’s requirements. To find these you need to subscribe to his free newsletter from his website and then you will receive an email inviting you to download the “Covid 19 Disease Prevention Cocktail - Vitamin Supplement Recommendations” for free. The recommendations are on pp19-20.
Stay informed. Do some research on other preventative measures: quercetin (in pine needles), curcumin (turmeric), dandelion, nicotine as well as other treatment protocols: spike protein protocol, niacin cures and others. This is not an endorsement of any of these preventative measures or treatment protocols. It is simply a list of other possibilities.
Develop a personal relationship with your local MP and ask them to lobby the TGA to reverse their draconian measures and give permission to GP’s to prescribe other treatment protocols, as well as demanding that the National Taskforce widen their terms of reference and fast track research into alternative treatments and preventative protocols. If you have concerns for your privacy you can write your MP an anonymous letter letting them know you will vote for them if they publicly support this work.
Send a copy of this article to your GP and ask them what they think is going on.
If you have any clinical questions for the National Taskforce, ask away.
Join decentralised protest groups who are working to end corruption in politics by banning donations to political parties and/or banning political parties altogether and boycotting corporations who are donating money to political parties. Yes, Pfizer donates money to 3 political parties in Australia.
Don’t be a drongo
Ivermectin is also available for pets and livestock. The dosage rates and preparation of these medications is different for animals. Dosage rates are usually based on body weight. Don’t be a drongo and take Ivermectin for horses because horses need higher doses due to having a heavier body weight.
In any event, Ivermectin is reported to be far more effective used as a triple therapy in combination with other medications.
The duration of most treatment protocols is 5 days however some reports have indicated it can be used for as little as 3 days to completely clear viral load in over 85% of patients. (Source required)
In the paper “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents” it was concluded that “there are effective early-treatment strategies for the very few children, adolescents, and young adults of child-bearing age who may be at risk of developing severe COVID-19, such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and budesonide”.
There are concerns about the impact on male fertility after prolonged use, which suggests it may not be suitable for some men as a prophylactic/ preventative.
Research has also been undertaken for the use of Ivermectin as an anti-cancer treatment.
Be wary of right and left wing agendas to win support and votes for their cause, as well as intentional misinformation campaigns to discredit any alternative treatment options. Be open to other possibilities but don’t promote them as the truth to confirm your own bias. Look at what has unfolded with the bat-caused-the-virus conspiracy theory, of which the alternative hypothesis at the time were censored, ironically being dismissed as conspiracy theories.
I hesitate to share this video on how Ivermectin was discovered as a possible Covid-19 prophylactic and treatment because it also posits a conspiracy theory that Ivermectin is being suppressed as a Covid treatment in favour of Remdesivir. You’ll have to fact check it for yourself.
This is an open source decentralised article originally authored by Phillip Stone. No copyright can be claimed by anonymous authors using pseudonyms. It is available for editing, review and/or reprinting in any format by any individual or media entity, with acknowledgement. It cannot be claimed as intellectual property by any future co-authors; however, they can add their name as a co-author or editor. A pdf version of this article accompanies all distributed copies to prevent copyright being claimed.
A wide variety of sources have been cited within this article, some of which are highly credible, while others can be claimed to be of a dubious and/or politically biased nature. The author has not made his best effort to fact check or verify all the sources and/or their content and does not support or condone any bias from any source except his own, which has been clearly stated within the article.