This is the common sense we can’t listen to.
Give this video 5 minutes.
Yesterday, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) banned general practitioners from prescribing Ivermectin as a treatment for Sars-Cov-2 and Covid-19.
This decision was made by the Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS).
This committee comprises three pharmacists, a pharmacologist, a sports physician, an accountant and a pharmaceutical company tout. No clinician or infectious disease expert appears to have been directly involved in this decision. There is nothing on the TGA website to contradict this understanding.
There has been a large, coordinated and curiously uniform attack on Ivermectin for all of this year despite a growing number of countries using it for its anti-inflammatory properties in the early stages of Sars- Cov-2 infection.
The committee has a pharmacologist on the committee but across the hallway at Newcastle University is a senior clinical immunologist. Here, Robert Clancy talks to the ABC about the wonders of Ivermectin.
The similar banning of Hydroxychloroquine early last year has removed the main two treatment options espoused by world experts on treating Covid-19 such as Pierre Kory, Paul Marik and Peter McCullough.
The message is clear that medical authorities, with the support of governments, are closing off any option other than the provisionally approved vaccines. In the UK, USA and Canada,, the Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson and Moderna vaccines were only approved under Emergency Use Authority (EUA).
Denial of the effectiveness of existing treatments was essential before an EUA could be given. Some argue this is the reason for a cynical attack on Ivermectin and other treatments.
Federal Government adopting “rolling data” approach to vaccine approval
According to this Federal Government press release, it seems our TGA has chosen the “rolling data” approach:
“The TGA has engaged early with pharmaceutical companies about their vaccines and is accepting rolling data. This means that the TGA can assess clinical trial data as it becomes available, rather than at the end of the three clinical trial phases. This speeds up the review process”.
As this clinical data “becomes available”, presumably, this will allow victims of the vaccines to learn what has gone wrong.
The decision to close off these treatments is being sold in the language of public concern and protecting people from self-harm. A strange notion in this age of neoliberalism which is built on the notion that all success or failure is personal. Suddenly, we have governments wanting to protect us from ourselves.
It also forms part of a well planned pincer movement that includes increasingly authoritarian lockdowns and threats of public exclusion that will deny the uninjected the right to work, travel, shop or even leave the house. Variations on this ban include singing and dancing.
There are even thinly veiled threats of denial of medical treatments. Pity the unvaccinated person that faces this humiliation.
With the removal of treatments, the question remains, what will fill the gap between test … isolate ………………………. and lips turn blue …… go to ICU. People in isolation, after identifying as infected, are placed on the phone contact list for the Public Health Unit.
The 11am NSW Covid updates, last week, reported cases of people waiting as long as 14 days and even longer for contact. This is just the sort of thing treatments are meant to address as the video above explains. Now, this is closed off.
How many people have ended up in hospital and then in ICU because treatments cannot be discussed, let alone implemented?
How many more will end up there now they are banned?
How many people who have chosen not to vaccinate will suffer from this decision?
Does anyone in authority care or is this part of the plan?
It looks like it.
One day later the TGA comes up with this
Two days ago, one day before banning Ivermectin, the TGA published a bulletin headed: COVID-19 treatments: Provisional determinations.
regdanvimab, sotrovimag and casirivimab / imdevimab are monoclonal antibody treatments that are expensive and are administrative within the hospital system. This was part of Donald Trump’s treatment protocol. I wonder whether this will be offered under Medicare.
The other two are very interesting.
remdesivir costs somewhere between 100 to 1000 times more than Ivermectin and there are many reports that your kidneys may not come through the relationship.
molnupiravir is produced by Merck. This company used to manufacture Ivermectin before it came off patent in 1996, though it has been extended for different periods in various countries. From a commercial point of view, Ivermectin is a problem because it is cheap. Merck recently attacked Ivermectin and to everyone’s surprise has come out with a competing product that has the endorsement of Peter Doherty of Doherty Report fame. The related Twitter link seems to have disappeared. This new product was recently sold to the US government department for $1.2 billion.
Merck is a company with a mixed record. Before we jump at this one as a replacement for Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine. we might look at the company’s past record:
“Tragically, Merck’s manipulation of its data—and the FDA’s resulting approval of Vioxx in 1999—led to thousands of avoidable premature deaths and 100,000 heart attacks. Dr. David Graham, the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, testified in 2004 before the Senate Finance Committee that the FDA’s failure to recall Vioxx earlier had resulted in as many as 55,000 premature deaths from heart attacks and stroke, calling it the equivalent of allowing “two to four jumbo jetliners” to crash every week for five years”