Lie Number 2
There are no safe and effective Covid-19 treatments

This is simply untrue. A more open public debate would expose this fraud. There are many well-credentialled, intelligent and capable medical professionals who are excluded by media. Unsocial Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google play their part too.

For example, you may well find links blocked by the Google’s Chrome or its partner YouTube on this site. If you do, choose another browser.

Essential and obvious questions are neither asked nor tolerated; even questions our excluded experts might easily answer. Instead, we get the bleating of well-connected celebrity medics and a media committed to stenography rather than investigative journalism.

Official medical advice in my state of New South Wales ends one step before treatments. The infamous Australian policy of going for your PCR test …. isolate _______________ until your lips turn blue and go to ICU is the standard.

A critical variation on this practice was announced a couple of days ago at the daily 11am Covid Update. After isolating, self-diagnosing and finding yourself sick enough, one should call an ambulance. My experience in trying to understand this mad policy is recorded here.

The ambulance arrives

The ambulance innovation is probably due to recent deaths of people isolated at home. There have also been reports of people waiting 5, 8 and now 14 days or more after a positive PCR test before contact from the Public Health Unit.

This is the body responsible for monitoring people who are perceived as infected with Sars-Cov-2. A positive PCR test results in the command to isolate and you are then to await daily follow up calls

But there is no treatment. Why do these delays in treating people matter? What is evident in all the literature is the need to confront the virus early to prevent it from progressing to the inflammatory phase.

This is exactly what a drug like Ivermectin achieves. There are other effective treatments but for the sake of illustration, in this article we will be focusing on this product.

So why is there such a seemingly careless approach to fighting this virus in its early stage? We have observed the reason for that in recent days. More people end up in hospital and some even in an intensive care unit. What benefit is this?

None that I can see other than its scare value. Are numbers of hospitalisations being used to scare people into vaccinating? Is that a plan? If it is, it is an exceptionally cynical one. If it’s not, an explanation would be helpful.

Why do we ignore expert advice?

Meanwhile, our media, politicians and celebrity medics turn their backs on a potentially less disruptive and less expensive solution. They disregard the work of people like internationally recognised experts Pierre Kory, Paul Marik, Peter McCullough, Ryan Cole and Tess Lawrie.

We might also look to local authorities like Thomas Borody and the Covid Medical Network, David Jans of Monash University and Robert Clancy of Newcastle University (listen to a wonderful interview with Clancy on ABC Newcastle).

Listening to the advice from such people might even end the need for vaccines in other than the most extreme and particular cases. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe that is why we can’t discuss anything. My reading and experience tells me that is exactly the problem.

Conversely, the drive to have Australians vaccinated has become fervorous for our leadership class. A recent report by the Doherty Institute set the goal of 70-80% vaccination for the adult population after which the dutifully vaccinated will be unshackled. The report has given politicians a goal that is now repeated in every second sentence.

We note this institute seems to have strong links with the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is an observable fact. The benefits of these relationships may be remarkably efficacious. It would be nice to discern for whom.

Even so, the name Ivermectin bobs up occasionally as a way of creating disinformation.

We are told it is dangerous.
We are told it is ineffective.
We are told it is untested.
We are told it is for animals.

What we are NOT told is that had these treatments been acknowledged for their efficacy, vaccines would have been illegal. The vaccines were only produced under Emergency Use Authority on the basis there was NO existing alternative. That is the biggest lie.

We are not told that Ivermectin has proven safe and effective over 40 years. The public trashing of hydroxychloroquine means the name cannot even be mentioned in polite company. Other effective treatments are similarly dismissed or ignored.

Let’s talk about India

The champions of vaccines love to point to India and the USA. Let’s pick one of them and see how Ivermectin has worked there. Firstly, the WHO was no help.

Its role resulted in the Indian Bar Association seeking to prosecute WHO chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan for mass murder in preventing the application of this lifesaving drug. Thankfully, sanity won out and Ivermectin is widely used and valued in India. It still has a way to go in Australia.

Dr Lenny DeCosta explains the remarkable
Indian experience with Ivermectin.

Media and social media are playing a particularly devious role in distorting information. If these treatments were human they would have an unbeatable case for defamation. We had a number of fine examples last week. Mainstream outlets gorged on the story of a young man who overdosed on Ivermectin. They made it sound an easy thing to do but so is overdosing on chocolate.

ABC’s Radio National, a relentless pro-vaccine proselytiser, saw this as too good an opportunity to miss running stories on the dangers of Ivermectin till WE were sick. Newsreader, Helen Tzarimas described the event: “The patient overdosed on an anti-parasitic medication believing it would help treat the virus”.

Well, presuming the person who is the subject of this story actually exists, Ivermectin may well have helped if he had received appropriate advice and dose. You shouldn’t just start swallowing the stuff.

Professor Brendan Crabb was then called to the microphone and told us: “It hasn’t stood up in any clinical trial”. For a start, asking Ivermectin to stand up is a bit outside Ivermectin’s skill set.

Someone like Tess Lawrie would have set the professor straight. Assessing the quality of meta-analysed randomised trials is Ms Lawrie’s specialty.

A brief check of Brendan’s links quickly established that he is on the WHO Malaria Vaccine Advisory Committee in Geneva. It is truly remarkable how uniformly pro-vaccine and anti-treatment anyone connected with the WHO is.

Why would Australian media, political and medical leaders allow an attack like this to stand?

We have discussed Professor David Jans and Monash University’s great work elsewhere. We might still ask, why would Australian media, political and medical leaders allow an attack like this to stand? It should be celebrated as Sydney University’s Professor Angela Webster did here.

The ABC has produced a program called “Question Everything”. We expect this to prove a vital source of misinformation despite debunking misinformation being its claimed purpose. It will ensure Australians get the lies they need. This is a great example of the sort of drivel it serves up:

Even silly programs like Channel 10’s The Project had a go. Here we met Associate Professor, Chris Freeman, of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

He told us, breathlessly, of a new treatment that has just been released. He was talking about Molnupiravir, owned by Merck, and recently approved by the TGA.

Favipiravir made by Fujifilm is another treatment being presented as one of the “new” welcome antivirals that will be introduced at some point. Presumably, well after the current vaccine manufacturers have made their money or found a way to commercialise antivirals.

ABC’s 7.30 ran a similarly facile discussion of treatments that we plan to review at a later date. It featured Favipiravir and described Ivermectin as controversial. The kidney poison, Remdesivir, was well reviewed.

As explained above, vital to this game of deception is that the medication must be new because an existing medication would have prevented the Emergency Use Authority from being granted. I am sure there would have been applause all round at the Pharmaceutical Society for Associate Prof Chris’s performance.

Molnupiravir gains some extraordinary support

The appearance of Molnupiravir is particularly interesting. Prior to Ivermectin coming out of patent, it was produced by Merck. The lead author of the Doherty Report, Professor Peter Doherty, celebrated its arrival earlier this week.

What he didn’t tell you is that prior to Ivermectin coming out of patent, it was manufactured by Merck. This clip is an excellent discussion of the two products. It also explains the recent commercialising of Molnupiravir.

Bringing the story up to date, Merck has just sold it to the US Department of Defense for $1.2 billion. Professor Doherty also gives Molnupiravir a leg up here.

In contrast, in this twitter frenzy he performed a comprehensive assassination of Ivermectin. Doherty’s intervention on behalf of Merck’s commercial product while trashing its competitor, Ivermectin, seems extraordinarily earnest. What makes it even more remarkable is that anyone would endorse a company that killed 60,000 people in 2004.

For all this, maybe I am missing something. Perhaps everything is in perfect order and I am blind to its beauty. A sane person reflects in this way. If we could just get the microphone back from the people sitting next to the Big Pharma executives for a few minutes. We could probably clear up this confusion in a few minutes.

This is part 3 of a 6 part series. Please see links to part 1 and 2 below:

A new set of lies – Part One – What Happened to the surplus?
A new set of lies – Part Two – Vaccines are for your own good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *