With some regular opinion holders allowing themselves to become frightened over some misinformation about a new stain of CV-19 it probably a good time to update them on the use of ivermectin.

It may be confusing to some as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) lifted some of the restrictions on its use earlier this year.

The lifting of restrictions of this drug is not an endorsement for its use in treating CV-19.

If fact the TGA states “…. there was an “overwhelming weight of evidence against the use of ivermectin” with large clinical studies showing no benefit in treating COVID.”

Why the ban then?

Firstly, there were safety fears about the doses being advocated for its use to treat COVID.

Secondly, there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated. This was viewed as a risk to the person as well as the wider public.

Thirdly, it was feared an increase in prescriptions would lead to a shortage for those who needed the medicine to treat scabies and parasite infections.

There are good reasons to listen to authoritative public health information.

What utter tripe.Ivermectin was banned because under legislation they could not approve a basically untested vaccine if there was any effective treatment available. There was so much money, tens of billions with a "B", to be made from covid vaccines, that nothing could be allowed to interfere with it's approval. It would be interesting to have a look at a few bank accounts.

I don't know what clinical trial you require, but Indias largest province Uttar Pradesh, population 220 million gave out Ziverdo kits free based on Ivermectin to all infected & all associated with any infected person, & killed the pandemic totally dead in it's tracks. That is a pretty big trial. There are many other examples of whole smaller countries stopping covid dead with Ivermectin.

Personally I imported at great hassle, 20 Ziverdo kits & 100, 12mg Ivermectin from India, to be able to protect friends & family from Covid. We all refused the jab, & went about our lives normally. When as expected I caught Covid, at 82 I was a candidate to die from it. Using Ziverdo kit containing just 3 12mg ivermectin tablets & an antibiotic I was free of it in just 52 hours. 10 other people have had the same success with our Ivermectin.

Who ever approved the ban of Ivermectin should be on trial for murder in my opinion.

"authoritative public health information".

Actually, AUTHORITARIAN health information that was mostly wrong, and should have put a lot of 'experts' behind bars, but they are still out there, waiting to repeat the same atrocities when Pandemic 2.0 is created for Big Pharma to supply more dud vaccines and make more billions of dollars.

Exactly, Ttbn,

This was an exercise in enforcing authority,
health or no-health plays no role in that.

There are good reasons to reject authoritative "public" health information, even when that particular information happens to be scientifically correct and able to contribute to one's physical health - because not being slaves is more important.

There is of course nothing "public" about government, which has nothing to do with the actual living people, its victims.

WTF?

You're wrong Hasbeen.

The latest clinical guidance for CV-19 treatment form the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 28 March 2023 states specifically (their capitals):

DO NOT USE IN COVID-19 : Ivermectin

India's successes in response to CV-19 are attributed to the public health response not ivermectin.

Pharmaceutical scams can come in many forms when releiving the gullible of their money.

So the big money finally got to them too.

Hasbeen says: "So the big money finally got to them too."

Wrong again - big science, big medical research and big best practice got to them.

"India's successes in response to CV-19 are attributed to the public health response not ivermectin."

Who says? And what exactly was the 'public' response? We can see, feel, touch ivermectin; but 'public response' is a lot harder to identify. Perhaps taking ivermectin was part of that response.

No matter: we look like heading for the same charade again. Big Pharma needs another pandemic to push more you-beaut vaccines, and as Yuyutsu points out, government needs more of the control it got hooked on last time.

The real threat is government, not some sniffle that was invented for vaccine production.

People have proved that they are stupid enough to cop all the inconvenience,loss of freedoms and more control over their lives at any time Big Brother and Big Pharma want to inflict them upon them.

People are also too stupid to twig that influenza disappeared during the Covid reign. Oldies who have been dying every year since year dot, stopped dying of influenza and started dying of the "new" Covid.

We have every reason to believe the contention that Covid is just the flu with another name.

The whole Ivermectin saga is emblematic of the way science and the media have been suborned to politics. The main reason Ivermectin was banned was that it was initially advocated by Trump and that was the kiss of death. If Trump had come out against Ivermectin, science and the media would have been decrying that also.

The notion that Ivermectin was banned because "there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated" as claimed by WTF is clearly bunkum. Ivermectin was banned long before a vaccine was even close to being available.

There has been a campaign by politicised science to discredit the efficacy of Ivermectin by less than honest 'studies'. The claim for Ivermectin was always that it was a prophylactic in that it was best used prior to infection. Yet many studies were done giving the drug to people who already had WuFlu and then, when it didn't cure the infection, they declared the drug ineffective.

But studies where the drug was given to people prior to infection showed that it was indeed effective in reducing the incidence of infection, in this study up to 92%.

http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36196304/

The Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA) has banned the
anti-parasitic drug from being prescribed for illnesses not
described in its licence because it is concerned people
(anti-vaccers) are taking the medication instead of
approved treatment or having the covid vaccines.

The drug is used as a livestock de-wormer and its use has
increased between 3 and 4 times in recent months.

It's become prominent in some anti- vaccine circles in
recent weeks following unfounded claims on social media
as an effective treatment for the coronavirus.

The IGA said there were concerns over possible shortages for
the drug's intended uses such as parasitic infections.

Why on earth would any rational person not listen to medical
professionals? Makes no sense.

ttbn states: "Who says?"

Well the report "Uttar Pradesh: state governance and response in COVID-19 pandemic." says.

ttbn states: " Perhaps taking ivermectin was part of that response."

Well of course it was part of the response.

If you had read and comprehended Hassben's post it is obvious that ivermectin was distributed in Uttar Pradesh that forms an essential part of Hasbeen's argument.

And this is all the report has to say about it "The state government gave the order to distribute free Ivermectin tablets to the affected COVID-19 patients." No further details.

Invermectin is mentioned once only in the report and far more importance is placed on other responses.

Hasbeen goes on to say "...as claimed by WTF is clearly bunkum."

Wrong yet again this information comes from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

While ivermectin may have been part of the initial response the Indian government now saids not to use it for CV-19.

Why? Because the research says "...clinical studies show... no benefit in treating COVID.”

I'm with Hasbeen on this, I want the Ivermectin.
What was the dosage on your ivermectin tablets Hasbeen, just out of curiosity?

The whole thing was a cash cow for pharmacuetical companies, who have sent many to an early grave.
It put nations into billions of debt (loans with interest) and very nearly sacrificed our sovereignty to the WHO.

The government couldn't even manage quarantine right.
The whole thing was a debacle, they even placed gag orders on doctors.

Mexico even had Ivermectin AND hydroxychloroquine in vending machines, apparently.

Mexico City gave ivermectin to thousands of covid patients. Officials face an ethics backlash.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/09/mexico-city-covid-ivermectin/

Ivermectin, Mexico, Peru, India
http://youtu.be/NJSUKDng_Ww?si=liGkeU-D1a3ABcHh

WTF WTF?

>>While ivermectin may have been part of the initial response the Indian government now saids not to use it for CV-19.

Why? Because the research says "...clinical studies show... no benefit in treating COVID.”<<

That's not what the Mexican Ivermectin studies show.
Check the last link in my previous post.

Sorry that should read mhaze.

Mexico City stopped distributing ivermectin in September and now bases its covid-19 strategy on vaccines.

At the height of the great WuFlu scare, my father was in a nursing home apparently with a month or so to live (he actually lasted another year). At the time, the nursing home suffered an outbreak of scabies which isn't unusual in those types of settings. the home was locked down (no visitors) but via a combination of pleadings, cajoling and legal threats, I was able to visit my dying father.... and I caught scabies.

Off to a dermatologist who prescribed Ivermectin (shocked, horror!!). Whilst on that course of drugs, my immediate and intimate family members within our household were inadvertently exposed to the dreaded WuFlu. Upshot...of the eight people exposed, 7 caught the virus. Only I, on my course of Ivermectin, didn't succumb.

Anecdote isn't evidence but I remain convinced the drug was the reason I remained unaffected.

Dear Foxy,

«Why on earth would any rational person not listen to medical
professionals? Makes no sense.»

Well there could be many valid and rational reasons: political, ideological, spiritual, etc.

The apparent welfare of one's physical body is only one dimension to consider - who said it amounts to everything?

Breaking the monopoly of the established conventional medical practitioners and their associations is by itself one good reason: it may not cure or prevent COVID-19 but it can help restoring one's dignity.

mhaze,

Ivermectin is a drug that's used for parasitic infections
like scabies. And it doesn't necessarily follow that you
should have caught Covid just because others did. And that
the parasitic drug helped you against Covid.

I've also been in hospital plus in
a transition care program in an aged care facility where Covid
was rampant. I did not catch it. The same as you. And I did
not take the parasite-killing drug either.

However, it's a mind-thing isn't it. Often a placebo helps
when meds aren't available or a person refuses to take
the prescribed treatment. Lucky for you you took the drug
for scabies.

"And it doesn't necessarily follow that you
should have caught Covid just because others did."

Which is why I said anecdote isn't evidence.

CDC, increased infection risk in vaccinated
http://youtu.be/9RFMQEEmU8g?si=zQjYPt7Wj-LUH4gP

mhaze,

Glad that you agree that anecdotal is not evidence.

Remember that when you next post.

Foxy,

You really are a dill. I said it, you copied. Yet you carry on as though its news to me.

Monumental chutzpah or monumental misunderstanding.... a tough call.

"Mexico City stopped distributing Ivermectin in September and now bases its covid-19 strategy on vaccines."
- That doesn't in any way mean the data on Ivermectin use is wrong.

Sad to see, but not unexpected: the same people are still believing the same garbage from people who are experts alright - expert liars.

Armchair Critic, the Ziverdo kits include just 3 of 12mg Ivermectin, & an antibiotic used to treat respiratory infections. The Ivermectin to be taken one each in the first 3 days.

These were used for treatment of the infected, but also for those in close contact with the infected as a prophylactic.

I gave one kit to a friend who was deep into a cancer treatment, meaning virtually no effective immune system when he test positive. Medical opinion was the infection would prove a death sentence.

Having started the treatment even before symptoms appeared he was free of the virus with very little covid symptoms.

mhaze,

Lets stick with chutzpah for us both - ay?

mhaze,

I should have said - OI.

Yada dai, dai dai.

Armchair Critic states: "That doesn't in any way mean the data on Ivermectin use is wrong."

So why would Mexico City change its mind?

The answers can be found in the Washington Post article that AC provides as a link.

"Mexico City’s government has boasted of confronting the coronavirus with science-driven policies including widespread testing and vaccination."

"An alarmed city government provided medical kits to patients who tested positive for the coronavirus and had mild to moderate symptoms."

These with mild to moderate symptoms are unlikely to be those admitted to hospital so a fall in hospitalisations is unlikely to be due to the drug.

"One was that the medical kits included not just ivermectin but paracetamol, aspirin and oximeters. It wasn’t clear which of the items may have improved patients’ health."

Even with drug distribution "...the densely packed city has been one of the world’s hardest-hit capitals during the pandemic."

"It’s highly unusual for a government body to distribute a medication that even the country’s own drug regulatory body hasn’t authorized to treat an illness."

"In addition, the city government hadn’t declared its conflict of interest — in other words, that it would benefit if the study portrayed the program as a success."

...and "the lead author of the Mexico City study... acknowledged that the ivermectin study wasn’t a clinical trial, but rather an observational study, in which researchers analyze the effect of an intervention without controlling who is affected."

Well I don't know what to tell you WTF
- Next time there's a pandemic you can have all my vaccines and boosters
Go jab yourself until your hearts content,
- or until it stops beating from myocarditis.

I don't want that poison in my body thank you very much!

AC states "Well I don't know what to tell you WTF."

You could tell me that you acknowledge the science.

You could tell me the article you sited to support your point of view actually gives a number of reasons to not support your point of view.

You could tell me that perhaps well intentioned health departments tried a number of options in the early stages of a pandemic only to move away from them when the research became more robust and reliable.

"You could tell me that you acknowledge the science."

What science, the science of coercing people to take untested vaccines and placing gag orders on doctors under threats of fines and banned from practice and firing all the nurses who don't want the jab either putting more strain on the health system which was killing patients with the ventilators?

Why don't I just go Baaaaaaa like a good little sheep to please the do-gooders who don't care who drops dead from vaccine side effects?

Why don't I just go and stand in front of a bus.

Hard pass.

You have your jibby jabby, and don't try to impose your beliefs on others.

My body my choice is perfectly fine if you want to kill your own unborn child, just not ok if you don't want to take an untested vaccine with side effects magnitudes above other vaccines.

It's not my fault the federal government couldn't quarantine the country from an outside contagion.
Not my fault that stupid scientists were involved in gain-of-function research that was making the worst viruses transmissible to humans
Not my fault that lab protocols for containment were as lax as gay people spreading monkeypox and HIV at the mardi gras.

This whole saga has been the lunatics taking over the asylum acting like their own little Hitlers.

http://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1679177280025772046

Armchair Critic

I see you have fulfilled Godwin's Law.

You appear quite frustrated and towards the end of your disjointed discussion, quite powerless.

One of the urban dictionary definitions of "jibby jabby" is a large marijuana joint (as well as an anti-vax definition that you may be using in this case).

Maybe it's time for you to light up a jibby jabby and chill man.

In all seriousness, though, are you O.K?

Ivermectin might be useful against the dreaded WuFlu and might not. The science is now so utterly corrupted and politicised that we'll probably never know.

OTOH, we do know that Ivermectin is entirely safe for human consumption which begs the question why the authorities were so anxious to ban it in the early stages of the great lockdown hoax. It seems to me that there are only two possible reasons, neither of which bode well for our future health needs..... 1. Trump supported it therefore all 'right thinking' people opposed it; 2. it was cheap and not especially profitable for Big Pharma whereas its alternatives were wildly profitable

mhaze

The reasons for the ban has already been explained but in case you missed it.

Why the ban then?

Firstly, there were safety fears about the doses being advocated for its use to treat COVID.

Secondly, there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated. This was viewed as a risk to the person as well as the wider public.

Thirdly, it was feared an increase in prescriptions would lead to a shortage for those who needed the medicine to treat scabies and parasite infections.

Yes we already knew that it was safe when prescribed properly and in the correct dose.

The problem early on was that in the U.S. in particular there was poisoning from this drug when self-medicated for prevention of CV-19.

One can only guess as to why but I have possible explanation.

In one study reported by The New England Journal of Medicine "most were older than 60 years of age".

Once again there is a probable explanation for this.

There where many drugs and supplements tested early on in the pandemic.

Lysine was one of these that showed some promise, for example.

The fact that cheap as chip aspirin is prescribed as a blood thinner and lysine for some viral infections indicates that not everything is a Big Phama conspiracy.

"Firstly, there were safety fears about the doses being advocated for its use to treat COVID."

The drug had already long been approved for human use. We don't ban aspirin or ibuprofen even though they are often overused. This looks more like an excuse than a reason.

"Secondly, there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated."

The ban was instituted long before the so-called vaccine was available. I explained this above. This isn't a reason for banning it, its an excuse after the fact.

"it was feared an increase in prescriptions would lead to a shortage"
Rubbish. The drug is manufactured in the billions and could easily have been scaled up if needed. This is definitely just an excuse after the fact.

"not everything is a Big Phama conspiracy."

No, just some things. Was the vaccine designed to stop the recipient from getting the virus. We were originally told it was. Then they owned up. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be facts.

mhaze says:

"This is definitely just an excuse after the fact".

As stated before this is information supplied from the TGA.

If you do not accept this as a credible source then provide a rebuttal from a different source so that its position and credibility can be assessed.

If you do not believe the TGA then I suggest that you interrogate their data and their findings and get back to this thread with your analysis.

If this is just an evidence-lacking opinion then it only has significance to you and perhaps just a few others.

mhaze says:

"The ban was instituted long before the so-called vaccine was available. I explained this above. This isn't a reason for banning it, its an excuse after the fact."

You are wrong mhaze.

The general covid vaccination started on 22 Feb 2012.

The TGA put the restrictions on Ivermectin on 10 Set 2021.

The other concerns were also raised on this date.

There are no excuses after the fact so wrong again.

Just tanother evidence lacking shout into the wind from mhaze.

Obviously it should rea

"The general covid vaccination started on 22 Feb 2021."

As a layperson I happen to believe Ivermectin to be both harmful and ineffective in preventing or treating COVID-19.

So what?

I may be right, I may be wrong, but my health is my own business alone, certainly not the business of such evil bodies I never asked to have anything with.

If I want to poison myself (which incidentally I don't) then I should be able to do so. Period. What has government to do with this... Actually, if I died then they should be happy to have one less trouble-maker on their hands.

Let alone Ivermectin, they say that it is bad, but they say that the COVID vaccines are good, I say so too (at least for the first variants, before Omicron), so why wouldn't they allow me to get my own vaccine? Either manufacture it myself or import it personally from overseas (even more so when travel overseas to get vaccinated was not allowed either: other countries had it long before Australia!)? Why did they insist (and still do) that I can only obtain my COVID vaccines from their own dirty hands? And why won't they even allow me to pay for my vaccines but rather rob other taxpayers and try to force me to be their partner in crime?

Yuyutsu says

"If I want to poison myself (which incidentally I don't) then I should be able to do so."

You can if you want to. Some may caution against it but it is your decision.

As for all your other questions you should approach whoever "they" are and ask them.

Specific questions about your own personal health on this matter is beyond the scope of this forum.

Hi WTF,
"One of the urban dictionary definitions of "jibby jabby" is a large marijuana joint"
- It would probably be safer than the dreaded vaccines.

"In all seriousness, though, are you O.K?"
- I'm more concerned about your health honestly, after your vaccine and the 26 booster shots

«As for all your other questions you should approach whoever "they" are and ask them.»

I shall never ask them who are a pest and an enemy.

«You can if you want to.»

Yes, I could do so with strychnine since it can be easily obtained as a rat poison, but not with Ivermectin - I guess death by Ivermectin-overdose is not painful enough for their taste and pleasure.

«Specific questions about your own personal health on this matter is beyond the scope of this forum.»

WTF has my personal health to do with any of this?
I never discussed it here, nor would I discuss it either with you or with the regime.

"Secondly, there was a health risk associated with people taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent infection rather than getting vaccinated. This was viewed as a risk to the person as well as the wider public."

What a total load of bullcrap.

You think I don't remember all those chief medical officers running around saying 'we need to get the numbers up to 70%' and
'Australia aims to be the most vaccinated nation'
- Like the whole thing was a damn competition.

Do you think I've forgotten?

Ivermectin has been around for decades, its proven to be safe for use.
Tell me if I drink bleach, is that a risk to the wider public too?

- The risk they were talking about was the belief they needed to get high vaccination rates.

This was an attempt to coerce people to take the vaccines, there was no law that we had to, but they did everything short of holding people down and injecting them against their will.

There was peer pressure and vilification from the vaccinated in the community,
I know of 27 year old women with kids who were coerced into taking the vaccines by their parents and who ended up having a stroke.
My housemate was doing Uber and picked her up and talked to her about it.
How the hell is she going to properly care for her kids now and have a happy dignified life?

DAMN YOU PEOPLE FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

[Cont.]
They also almost killed his father (my housemate) in the hospital.

He was sick in hospital, near death (unvaccinated, age 82) and nursing staff tried to go behind the family's back to vaccinate him, but luckily his daughter was a Head Nurse for many years at the Mater, (and had come to visit him at the hospital he was at (Not her hospital) saw what they were doing and stopped it.

They assumed he had Covid, but misdiagnosed him, he actually had Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)

Also the antivirals have side effects like liver damage.
- Paxlovid and Remdesivir.
I know of numerous people who were forced out of government jobs;
- Nurses, School Principals etc. forced out of their careers because of their stance against the vaccines.

Our nation lost good people from their professions, and many have suffered side effects and death.
Some can't take care of their kids, some even lost their kids.

I even spoke to my own doctor of 20+ years about the gag orders and quickly quipped "Don't even get me started on that".

The one thing you'll learn about this forum is there's always another side of the argument you probably haven't considered, and people rarely change their opinions no matter what info is presented to them, and everyone is their own person and holds a different point of view.

Apparently the next vaccines are already on the way...

I'll finish by adding this meme from twitter again.
You may all want to pretend that we forgot what happened.
I want to remind you that some people haven't forgotten at all.

http://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1679177280025772046

Yuyutsu states:

"WTF has my personal health to do with any of this?"

But earlier state "so why wouldn't they allow me to get my own vaccine?"

So you are talking about your personal health i.e. a vaccine for yourself.

I did not initiate a discussion about your personal health so I did not ask about it - you brought up the subject so I assume it is important to you not me.

My discussion was around the changes and reasons for the lifting of restrictions on a particular drug.

In other words why is the "regime" freeing up access to a drug?

Armchair Critic states: "What a total load of bullcrap."

Probably time to simplify things for you.

The general covid vaccination started on 22 Feb 2021.

The TGA put the restrictions on Ivermectin on 10 Set 2021 after the vaccine was introduced and the public response to that was taking shape.

Three reasons were stated for this and they can be found at the start of this thread.

The public situation was changed so the TGA was able to lift its restrictions.

Restrictions have been lifted on health workers in QLD.

Why? The public situation was changed so the restrictions have changed.

There is no big mystery here.

Dear WTF,

«My discussion was around the changes and reasons for the lifting of restrictions on a particular drug.

In other words why is the "regime" freeing up access to a drug?»

I suppose that particular restriction no longer serves them.

At the height of the pandemic that particular drug was frequently used as a means of protest, so banning it was used to crush and humiliate dissidents and instill fear and obedience in everyone else. Since COVID is no longer an issue, the regime no longer cares to suppress that particular drug.

Mind you, they still punish dissidents for trying to import this and most other drugs and vaccines, both good and bad, if not done through their particular channels and authorised conforming doctors.

Thanks for the reply Yuyutsu.

Receiving coherent input is so much easier to follow than some of the disjointed and rambling off topic responses sometimes posted.

You state: " was frequently used as a means of protest, so banning it was used to crush and humiliate dissidents and instill fear and obedience in everyone else."

The number of dissidents over self-medicating and causing toxic reactions is sited as one of the three reasons for its restriction - it was never banned.

This was initially observed in the U.S. and in highest in those over 60. I believe I understand the reasons for that.

You also say "Since COVID is no longer an issue."

Health experts continue to monitor the ever evolving virus and its many new forms.

"Covid: Here We Go Again" was a discussion topic started by one of the regular contributors just a few days ago - an overreaction I believe but constant monitoring is required.

I wonder, is WTF a labor staffer, preaching from the same hymn book as SR, or just a Useful Idiot, doing it for free.

Doesn't matter as long as they don't harm many, but be careful folks, don't join the lemmings.

Dear WTF,

«The number of dissidents over self-medicating and causing toxic reactions is sited as one of the three reasons for its restriction»

"Sited"? I thought you asked and wanted to know about the true reasons [for lifting the restrictions] - who cares what official propaganda was provided (and who believes it anyway)?

Government is no doubt concerned about dissent, but do you really think that it is concerned about its subjects and opponents poisoning themselves?

« - it was never banned.»

That use of 'ban' is Newspeak, not English: technically yes, people with parasites could still obtain Ivermectin legally, but that was no relief for the ordinary person who wanted it for other reasons.

«Health experts continue to monitor the ever evolving virus and its many new forms.»

Whatever they do between themselves to justify their lavish salaries, at least they no longer disturb ordinary people. As far as the ordinary person is concerned, once COVID-19 mutated into Omicron and government restrictions were lifted, COVID-19 is over.

«but constant monitoring is required.»

Here I agree, monitoring is required, but why need this monitoring be made by the same violent gang that forces its laws on us under threats and constant fear of its police and prisons if we disobey them?