The Lying Harlot Media has peddled a lot of conspiracy theories about ivermectin since Covid-19 got on the first flight from Wuhan and became a global pandemic.
I’ve avoided getting into the weeds on the science because I really don’t care about that debate. No one does. Everyone’s convinced they’re right, and just isn’t listening to the other side. I think the much more important conversations are how the fundamentals of human rights have been abused by self-described liberal democracies, and far more importantly, how many people have been harmed and killed by incompetent and arrogant government policies.
What cure is there for the pandemic of suicidal behaviours, self harming and eating disorders currently swamping the public health system and national charities? Of course, prevention is far easier than cure, and the oppressive governance of this young decade is the real problem.
Anyway, it’s time to give articulating a common sense approach to ivermectin a crack, and here’s to hoping the aggressive opponents can open their minds to the science just a crack for five minutes.
Many people have known for some time that the results of ‘off-patent’ pharmaceuticals are far more encouraging than those of novel medical technologies now being forced upon us. We know from ever increasing, real-world data that the mRNA vaccines have “waning effectiveness”, to use the language of their chief proponents.
“Waning,” as in, not effective.
We’re often told by the morally superior mRNA apologists that we should remember polio, measles, smallpox and other infectious diseases long forgotten (as if everyone who doesn’t want the Covid jab is automatically a dope-smoking hippy with six toes on each foot and a rope belt living in an off-the-grid, Nimbin commune).
Well I don’t remember the effectiveness of those vaccines “waning”.
People claiming governments can do no wrong should remember the 1955 polio vaccine which actually infected 40,000 American children with polio, despite the “trust me, I’m a government expert” assurances of the then Surgeon General. It took another five years to develop an actually safe polio vaccine.
Intellectually-atrophied journalists and self-righteous keyboard warriors alike reflexively use the label anti-vaxxer to disqualify dissenters from any debate. The insinuation is any hesitation or argument can only be the result of irrationally held delusions and exaggerated fears. People who dutifully followed the government vaccination schedule for themselves and their children for decades – up until the novel mRNA mechanism burst onto the scene – are forced to begin sober statements with the disclaimer, “I’m not an anti-vaxxer,” as if there is no room for positions between militant anarchist preppers living in lead-lined fallout shelters, and mindless government drones like themselves.
There is room for a nuanced and rational approach, though.
It is possible and not unprecedented for widely used drugs to be safely used ‘off-label’ to solve prevalent medical dilemmas. German pharmaceutical giant Bayer synthesised Aspirin first in 1899, and in the 1960s the wider medical profession began discovering its additional use to not only relieve symptoms of pain, but blood clotting as well. It now enjoys widespread use as a preventative treatment for heart attacks and strokes. But according to the American FDA, there are still no directions on the label for using aspirin to reduce the risk of heart attack or clot-related stroke.
What I find strikes an ironic resemblance to labels like “anti-science” and “conspiracy-theorist”, is the current hysteria surrounding ivermectin promulgated in media and bureaucracy, and aggressively regurgitated by the type of people who appear to love the government telling them gilded cages are “safe”.
There is a near-hysterical narrative in the mainstream which is quite simply irresponsible misinformation.
The very least an intellectually honest person must concede is that many highly credible experts in relevant fields find the use of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 rational and justified.
In the context of the government wanting to not just make available but mandate the use of a vaccine unlike anything ever used before – mRNA technology – despite the complete absence of long term safety data, concerns about the safety of ivermectin are entirely hypocritical and beyond belief.
But unlike the novel vaccine technology, ivermectin is remarkably safe. It has three decades of human safety data and has been prescribed to hundreds of millions of people globally, allowing for comprehensive review. An independent expert analysis in March this year of over 500 publicly available articles and sources on the medical safety of ivermectin concluded that:
“The safety profile of ivermectin has so far been excellent in the majority of treated human patients so that ivermectin human toxicity cannot be claimed to be a serious cause for concern.”
A meta-analysis of randomised trials of ivermectin to treat Covid-19 infection by a group of respected experts in pharmacology, infectious diseases, intensive care and other relevant medical disciplines was accepted in July this year for publication by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
“Ivermectin treatment reduces inflammatory markers, achieves viral clearance more quickly and improves survival compared with standard of care. The effects of ivermectin on viral clearance were stronger for higher doses and longer durations of treatment. These effects were seen across a wide range of randomised controlled trials conducted in several different countries.”
It has to be noted, these are not random YouTubers, bloggers or government bureaucrats, but global leaders in their fields. Dismissing them all as “anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists” is the conspiracy you may not be looking for.
There is no shortage of reports & papers like this. The American Journal of Therapeutics published another paper in June this year called, “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines”. It concluded:
“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 Covid-19 pandemic globally.”
The researchers argued that:
“Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a W.H.O. “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single randomised controlled trial of dexamethasone. If a single randomised controlled trial is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then, a fortiori, the evidence of two dozen randomised controlled trials supports the adoption of ivermectin. Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against Covid-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.”
Slovakia and European countries, as well as some nations in South America and parts of India have officially implemented ivermectin for treating Covid-19. Others are waiting for guidance from the World Health Organisation, while others like Australia’s TGA have banned its use for Covid-19 in a purely political move to make people think the novel vaccine technology is the only way to manage the Covid risk.
Announcing their decision to place restrictions on the prescribing of oral ivermectin earlier this month, the TGA claimed:
“There are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection rather than getting vaccinated.”
By “significant public health risks”, they mean a small percentage of people not taking a novel vaccine technology with proven “waning effectiveness”. That’s as scientific as the Queensland Chief Health Officer closing schools simply to make sure everyone took her seriously.
Where does the TGA get off demanding insertion into the doctor-patient relationship, as if doctors can’t be trusted to know their patients, can’t know the safety data for a drug so wonderful the World Health Organisation calls it an “Essential Medicine”, and can’t make sure their patients understand how much and how often to take in their unique medical circumstances?
Instead they impose a one-size-fits-all, centralised decision that it shouldn’t be a choice available to any doctor in care of their patient. Informed consent is an ethical standard thoroughly trashed by the TGA, with more basis in preferred political outcomes than objective scientific rigour.
Ivermectin is a well-known, anti-parasitic drug which is approved by the TGA for human use and has been given 3.7 billion times worldwide in more than 40 years of history. It is well known as one of the safest drugs in existence. It is on the World Health Organisation’s list of essential medicines, and even won the Nobel prize.
There is a large and rapidly growing, published medical evidence base demonstrating ivermectin’s high efficacy in inhibiting all variants of Covid-19 to replicate, and suppressing inflammation.
Despite the TGA’s recent politicised restrictions, based on this growing evidence, America’s NIH changed their recommendation in January this year for the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 from “against” to “neutral”.
There is more evidence for the drugs the TGA is banning than the new and expensive drugs we are using in Covid-19. If you are wondering why, that is an excellent question without a plausible scientific answer. I could only speculate.
What I am confident in stating is that the government which doesn’t even permit use of this wonder drug in close consultation with your personal physician, let alone prioritise trials the scale of its more speculative mass-vaccination program, is lying through its teeth when it says it cares about stopping Covid-19.
If you want to know what information you can take to your doctor so they can have access to the publicly available studies, papers and data the Australian bureaucracy is denying exists at all, I have a website reference which not only in turn provides it all, but provides doctors with tested protocols so they can be confident in which drugs and dosages are safe and effective.
Do not, under any circumstances, treat yourself with internet advice or against your GP’s advice. If your GP is not interested in the research, find someone who is, but do not go to a vet or the internet and get your own source for prescription drugs and choose your own dosages. If you’re a hemophiliac and take aspirin without a doctor’s supervision you’re an idiot, and you can get that at a servo or supermarket. Do not take any prescription medication without a doctor’s supervision.
The website with everything your doctor needs to know, and everything your local politician needs to know, is Covid19CriticalCare.com. Their website is kept up to date with the latest research and studies, and they are honest about problematic trials as well as the overwhelming body of positive evidence.
The founding members and developers of the treatment protocols are highly respected in their various relevant fields in both clinical and research medicine, and their impressive CVs are available on Covid19CriticalCare.com. There’s some great videos and regular updates there discussing these protocols and research as well.
Science and journalism can save lives if there is just enough humility and honesty to welcome a debate. Bans on doctors’ treatment discretion and public voicing their concerns and are arrogantly anti-science. Claims there is scant evidence that ivermectin works is maliciously deceitful if not murderous.
I believe in the separation between Medicine and State like I believe in the separation between Church And State. The later phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson who said, in its full context and meaning:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ?make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,? thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
In the same way, which known safe therapies and protocols to prefer or avoid is a matter which lies solely between a patient & his doctor, and they owe no account to anyone for their choice, and there is no legitimate grounds for the government to interfere in the free access or abstinence of medical therapies. In a liberal democracy with any respect for natural rights there must be a wall of separation between private medical decisions and the State.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD.