Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova; A simple tried and tested generic medical treatment which may reduce Covid deaths by 80% is slowly winning grudging acceptance.
Hunt goes off script with ivermectin
Health minister endorses doctors’ right to treat Covid
17 July 2021
…
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.
Not so in Indonesia where an enterprising philanthropist, Haryoseno, leapt into action and 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.
In 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). Thankfully, AHPRA advised that there had been no infringement. Indeed, federal Health Minister Greg Hunt wrote to one of the doctors in Australia who prescribes ivermectin confirming that he was aware that some physicians are prescribing ivermectin off-label for Covid and that they were quite within their rights as the practice of prescribing registered medicines outside of their approved indications is not regulated or controlled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), it is at the discretion of the prescribing physician. Yet the silence persists. Ivermectin is the drug that dare not speak its name.
…
Read more: https://spectator.com.au/2021/07/hunt-goes-off-script-with-ivermectin/
Regardless of your views about vaccination, there will always be a core of people who refuse vaccines. Having a cheap and effective generic therapeutic available would take the heat out of the debate, about whether vaccines should be mandatory.
I am not disputing that more work needs to be done, to establish the effectiveness of drug therapies, but denying therapies which appear to be well supported by anecdotal evidence could cost someone their life. President Trump understood this, when he established the right to try – a principle which in my opinion should be unequivocally extended to treatment of Covid-19.
So I applaud Health Minister Greg Hunt for standing up for choice, and hope he finds the courage to stick to his position, given the immense pressure he may be facing from vested interests, to shut down cheap generic alternatives to expensive patented treatments.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fair warning . . .
https://rumble.com/vk5jd0-dr.-peter-mccullough-urgent…
The blinkered naivete of the vaccination-only crowd would be amusing if not so dangerous. Anyone with a passing familiarity with our species understands well that we are prone to gross errors of judgement on a vast scale. We’re also greedy and selfish.
The Naked Emperor in this scenario is the fact that American law only permits Emergency Use Authorization for therapies such as the current mRNA vaccines if no safe and effective alternative treatment exists. From a legal perspective, if Ivermectin really does prevent 80% of Covid deaths as appears to have happened in several jurisdictions already, then use of the mRNA vaccines would be halted immediately. The swine flu vaccine was halted suddenly after only a relative handful of severe adverse reactions (far fewer than the minimum estimate with mRNA) despite the fact that swine flu killed millions of people.
That’s just reality. The vested interests know this and respond accordingly. The millions of useful, erm, people, simply amplify this message.
It’s almost as if the authorities don’t want progress to be made so they can keep everyone locked down.
Must Watch!! Mike Wallace 60 Minutes Exposes Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine Fallout of 1976
https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/om8di2/must_watch_mike_wallace_60_minutes_exposes_swine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Oh, and it gets better – a peer reviewed paper describing a meta-analysis of 60 International studies, that indicates a clear efficacy signal for Ivermectin, both prophylactically and therapeutically has been published in the American Journal of Therapuetics
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
One of the more astounding highlights – of 788 Argentinian front line Health Care workers provided Ivermectin, and in daily close contact with COVID positive patients – ZERO infections. Of the 340 in the same study that did not take it – 57% Infection rate.
I seriously doubt that big tech will be able to quash this, and a WHO official that tries has already been sued, successfully, in India for trying to poo poo the results. Currently NIH is nuetral about it, although FDA and CDC still have feet of clay, and have not acted on the info. With wider dissemination, it’s a good bet that it might light a fire under a few cushy chair posteriors. And throw a massive batch of cold water on the “vax is the only way” cheerleaders. Because it appears Ivermectin may work significantly better at prevention.
boo. yah.
Ivermectin has already gone through clinical trials, just not for COVID. It has been used since 1987 to treat infections caused by certain parasites. It is proven to be safe when administered correctly – just like every other prescription drug. Per NIH “Many agents approved for other uses already have been tested in humans, so detailed information is available on their pharmacology, formulation and potential toxicity. Because repurposing builds upon previous research and development efforts, new candidate therapies could be ready for clinical trials quickly, speeding their review by the Food and Drug Administration and, if approved, their integration into health care”. So why aren’t clinical trials speeding through the process and why aren’t people who are infected given the “right to try” as Eric pointed out? Could it be that Ivermectin is inexpensive and readily available? Could it be that Fauci and the Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in the vaccine but not so much for Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorquine? And, o/t, has anyone else noticed the commercials (in the US anyway) popping up now with children scolding adults to do something about climate change? I don’t watch a lot of TV particularly network TV, but I’ve noticed these ads popping up and I would not be surprised if they are popping up a lot on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSLSD.
Ivermectin has already gone through clinical trials, just not for COVID. It has been used since 1987 to treat infections caused by certain parasites. It is proven to be safe when administered correctly – just like every other prescription drug. Per NIH “Many agents approved for other uses already have been tested in humans,
so detailed information is available on their pharmacology, formulation and
potential toxicity. Because repurposing builds upon previous research and
development efforts, new candidate therapies could be ready for clinical trials
quickly, speeding their review by the Food and Drug Administration and, if
approved, their integration into health care”. So why aren’t clinical trials speeding through
the process and why aren’t people who are infected given the “right to
try” as Eric pointed out? Could it be that Ivermectin is inexpensive and
readily available? Could it be that Fauci and the Pharmaceutical companies have
a vested interest in the vaccine but not so much for Ivermectin and
Hydroxychlorquine? And, o/t, has anyone else noticed the commercials (in the US
anyway) popping up now with children scolding adults to do something about
climate change? I don’t watch a lot of TV particularly network TV, but I’ve
noticed these ads popping up and I would not be surprised if they are popping
up a lot on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSLSD
Tomorrow will be World Ivermectin Day. Apparently, there are a number of ICU doctors in several countries that are backing it’s use since they have had success in treating patients.
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2021/07/19/world-ivermectin-day/
now they can apologise to Craig Kelly;-) Ivermectins a far safer option than the damned vaccines.
Regardless of your views about vaccination, there will always be a core of people who refuse vaccines.
Yes Eric, maybe because the TGA own reports on tga.gov.au casually mention that deaths of Australians post jab are at 399 and increasing at about 3 per day and that the amount of ‘Adverse Events’ from the jab is now about 130% the running total of Fauci Flu cases.
(yes, more people in Australia have been made sick from the jab than the total number of Wu Flu cases, and while our Government tries to guilt trip people by saying you might have COVID and not even notice – in which case are you even sick? – Adverse Events from the Jab is putting people into hospital.)
Also, once you remove all the deaths that the TGA casually writes off under the ‘yeah, they were probably about to die anyway, so… not the vaccine’s problem’ you get the Thrombosis victims they DO admit are a direct result of the Jab.
So the Jab in Australia has now killed more women under 50 that the China Virus AND, if people would pay attention to the original statements, the Jab is NOT A CURE. All the jab is claimed to do is reduce the chance of catching Fauci Flu.
Village? Must destroy to save!
Have not read all the post, but first hand knowledge three weeks ago I was infected. After several days and building temp and worsening cough treated myself with Ivermectin and it took care of it in three days.
Have you considered that is about the likely time a mild dose of this usually lets up?
https://www.sott.net/article/455867-Pfizer-vaccine-efficacy-drops-to-39-in-preventing-infection-Israels-Health-Ministry
at 50% or under efficacy it shouldnt BE marketed for being much use
especially considering the side effects. and definitely NOT for kids!!!
Someone seems to have appropriated my name in this thread, so I will switch to using my full name.
My wife and myself both had both Moderna jabs, we both had enough factors that we would probably die if we contracted COVID-19. I was more convinced by the argument that the jab was 100% effective in preventing death than preventing infection. I don’t believe that has been disproven at this point?
I have never been a big follower of the media panic over number of cases. That is too easily manipulated. More interesting is the death rate from COVID-19, but that too seems to have been … shall we say … manipulated.
So excess deaths is a more reliable indicator, much harder to fudge. The data fro England is shown in the attached graph. Note that beginning this year, the death rate (from all causes) is running below the average of the five years preceding COVID-19. The large number of cases is not affecting the death rate.
I attribute this to two things: 1) Those more susceptible to COVID-19 having already died, and 2) immunization, both from vaccination and recovery from COVID-19 infection.
I didn’t appropriate any name. I got this one at birth. Blame my parents. 😁
How many deaths could have been prevented if doctors hadn’t been discouraged and prevented from prescribing ivermectin?
Will anyone be held responsible for this? Unlikely.
I remember when advocates of HCQ were claiming ivermectin is ineffective, including claims that ivermectin only got advocated because Big Pharma gets big bucks from ivermectin getting used. Notably, Donald Trump used both and still had to get hospitalized for COVID-19.
A minority, perhaps. The available evidence always supported the HCQ cocktail from the beginning as 80% effective, Ivermectin a few months later as 90% effective, and other treatments to mitigate symptoms to complement body systems and immune function.
“Notably, Donald Trump used both and still had to get hospitalized for COVID-19.”
I don’t think Trump was taking either drug at the time he got the Wuhan virus. He took HCQ as a preventative, but the dose he took only lasted for a month, and he got infected after that month was over.
For any Australians reading this thread read the documents at this link to see how unlawful the actions of state premiers are, it’s a real eye opener.
https://commonlaw.earth/covid-downloads
Corruption Check the finiancils of all involved with promotion of vaccines and those that blocked the antivirals its either blacmail or bribery there is no other explanation We could consider incomptence but i very much doubt that
Dr Tess Lawrie has completed analysis Google
“tess lawrie ivermectin meta analysis” paper shows some clear results
“tess lawrie ivermectin meta analysis” paper shows some clear results:
IVERMECTIN META-ANALYSIS – THE FINDINGS
Written by Christine Clark | 26 Jan 2021 |
https://medicalupdateonline.com/2021/01/ivermectin-meta-analysis-the-findings/
Conclusion
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 36 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 69 billion (p = 0.000000000015). As expected for an effective treatment, early treatment is more successful, with an estimated reduction of 82% in the effect measured using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.18 [0.10-0.34]
57 Medical Experts From 19 Countries Call For Halt In Covid Vaccine Use If Safety Systems Are Not Put In Place
by brianpeckford
This was published near the end of May. None of the safety systems recommended have been put in place.
Abstract
Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the race for testing new platforms designed to confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2, has been rampant and unprecedented, leading to conditional emergency authorization of various vaccines. Despite progress on early multidrug therapy for COVID-19 patients, the current mandate is to immunize the world population as quickly as possible.
The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding vaccine safety. The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce endogenous production of Spike.
Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in groups excluded from clinical trials.
Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. As for any investigational biomedical program, data safety monitoring boards (DSMB) and event adjudication committees (EAC), should be enacting risk mitigation.
If DSMBs and EACs do not do so, we will call for a pause in mass vaccination. If DSMBs and EACs do not exist, then vaccination should be halted immediately, in particular for demographic groups at highest risk of vaccine-associated death or serious adverse effects, during such time as it takes to assemble these boards and commence critical and independent assessments. We urge for pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers, particularly if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.
The authors and Their Locations
Roxana Bruno1, Peter A. McCullough2, Teresa Forcades i Vila3, Alexandra Henrion-Caude4, Teresa García-Gasca5, Galina P. Zaitzeva6, Sally Priester7, María J. Martínez Albarracín8, Alejandro Sousa-Escandon9, Fernando López Mirones10, Bartomeu Payeras Cifre11, Almudena Zaragoza Velilla10, Leopoldo M. Borini1, Mario Mas1, Ramiro Salazar1, Edgardo Schinder1, Eduardo A. Yahbes1, Marcela Witt1, Mariana Salmeron1, Patricia Fernández1, Miriam M. Marchesini1, Alberto J. Kajihara1, Marisol V. de la Riva1, Patricia J. Chimeno1, Paola A. Grellet1, Matelda Lisdero1, Pamela Mas1, Abelardo J. Gatica Baudo12, Elisabeth Retamoza12, Oscar Botta13, Chinda C. Brandolino13, Javier Sciuto14, Mario Cabrera Avivar14, Mauricio Castillo15, Patricio Villarroel15, Emilia P. Poblete Rojas15, Bárbara Aguayo15, Dan I. Macías Flores15, Jose V. Rossell16, Julio C. Sarmiento17, Victor Andrade-Sotomayor17, Wilfredo R. Stokes Baltazar18, Virna Cedeño Escobar19, Ulises Arrúa20, Atilio Farina del Río21, Tatiana Campos Esquivel22, Patricia Callisperis23, María Eugenia Barrientos24, Christian Fiala25 , Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse5,*.
From the article: “President Trump understood this, when he established the right to try – a principle which in my opinion should be unequivocally extended to treatment of Covid-19.”
I think Ivermectin and every other current drug comes under the “Right to Try” law.
I don’t know why doctors are not suing the federal government when the federal government tries to prevent doctors from prescribing these medicines.
Nothing in the Right to Try law excludes Ivermectin or any other drug from being prescribed. The law not only applies to currently available medicines such as Ivermectin, it also applies to experimental medicines and treatments not currently approved by the government.
The only requirement in the law is that your doctor approves of the treatment. It doesn’t say anything about the goverment being required to approve the practice. The decision is left in the hands of your doctor, according to the law.
WHO statements about Ivermectin have been very misleading. And they have been expending large amounts of effort fighting Ivermectin when they should be looking for treatments for COVID. It is hard to understand the actions of the WHO without seriously considering incompetence or corruption. Ivermectin is on the WHO list of most vital drugs. It has been safely used by over 2 billion people. The developers were awarded the Nobel prize in 2015 for their work. Ivermectin is also vital for treating children with parasites in less developed nations. It is also recommended by the Australian government for treating Aboriginal children with parasitic infections. So why is the WHO claiming that Ivermectin is too dangerous? Because Ivermectin is no longer patented by the drug industry the major threat from Ivermectin is the profits of the major drug industry companies. Ivermectin should be prescribed by a doctor for safe use. As with most of our drugs. Doctors know how to prescribe Ivermectin safely. The FLCCC doctors alliance website has plenty of information on Ivermectin, Fluvoxamine, vitamin D and other treatments for COVID 19. Most of the drugs used for COVID 19 are not anti-viral drugs. COVID disease is very complex and is presenting new medical challenges. Doctors should have more ability to try new medications for their patients. Without threats from the WHO or the Australian government.