The unelected, unaudited and unaccountable Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia has decided that consenting adults and fully qualified doctors should not be allowed to use a drug so cheap and safe the discoverers won a Nobel Prize. Something like 200 million people use ivermectin each year. After 33 years and 3.7 billion doses of use, it qualifies as one of the safest drugs around.
The TGA hasn’t found any evidence that ivermectin is useful against Covid, but then we have to ask, has the TGA looked?
Ivmmeta.com lists 60 studies involving 25,000 people that show its useful and 3 that don’t:
In the end the TGA appears to be banning it for psychological reasons, not medical ones — always a risky game to play when a group is trying to look like a medical agency, and not a marketing team. It may have the opposite effect the TGA intends. If we want more people to stop using agricultural chemicals (and surely we do want that?) then don’t we want the punters to get treatments under supervision from their GP and Pharmacist instead?
If they want more Australians to trust them with the vaccines, they need to explain and justify their decisions better than this.
Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) stops GP’s prescribing ivermectin for Covid-19:
Sept 10, 2021
These changes have been introduced because of concerns with the prescribing of oral ivermectin for the claimed prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in COVID-19 in Australia or in other developed countries, and its use by the general public for COVID-19 is currently strongly discouraged by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, the World Health Organisation and the US Food and Drug Administration.
As for The WHO — they told us there was no human to human transmission and no reason to stop the flights last February. Tedros has an obvious potential conflict of interest. Whatever the WHO says, it’s almost good national practice to do the opposite.
Firstly, 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. Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of COVID-19 infection throughout the community.
People may get false confidence, and choose not to get tested or seek medical care, but exactly the same can be said of vaccinated people. How many vaccinated people ignore social distancing, or falsely believe they can’t catch Covid or pass it on to their friends? We could hardly blame them after months of hearing how those who get vaxed are helping the community.
If social media gets it wrong, why ban the doctors that get it right?
Secondly, the doses of ivermectin that are being advocated for use in unreliable social media posts and other sources for COVID-19 are significantly higher than those approved and found safe for scabies or parasite treatment. These higher doses can be associated with serious adverse effects, including severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures and coma.
The symptom list looks frightening, but high enough doses of anything have bad side effects. Most of these bad things will also occur if you drink too much water.
Dangers of overhydration: headaches, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, muscle weakness or cramping, increased blood pressure, double vision, confusion and difficulty breathing with cerebral edema, seizures, brain damage and coma.
If supplies are low, perhaps order more supplies?
Finally, there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months, leading to national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections. It is believed that this is due to recent prescribing and dispensing for unapproved uses, such as COVID-19. Such shortages can disproportionately impact vulnerable people, including those in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
We’d all understand if supplies need to be conserved for some patients. But a year after HCQ was banned to keep it available for Lupus patients, why haven’t we solved that? Trust means acting consistently…
In comments on the RACGP site some doctors are glad this takes the pressure off them when patients ask for ivermectin, but most docs are very unhappy:
The contempt we are held in by our bureaucracy is palpable.
…If our goal is to keep Australian safe from dying, shouldn’t we give alternatives to those who for whatever reasons will rather die than take the vaccines. Two or three people died in their homes in NSW recently and they were reportedly positive posthumously. India saved their nation with Ivermectin . Do we want people to die in their homes in the name of promoting vaccination? GPs should stand up for choice. I am in no way against vaccination. please.
This is disgusting. Is medicine only about money and power now?
…how on earth can we back up advice such as it’s fine to give these experimental vaccines to pregnant women? Who has any idea what long term side effects will occur? One case of someone with some GIT side effects from taking a wrong dose of ivermectin, and meanwhile we’ve had a significant number of deaths and serious morbidity from these vaccines. Ivermectin is low risk, may be effective, doesn’t mean you have to stop administering vaccines, and should be available on prescription from GPs.
…We at this moment are not treating patients and only isolate them till they worsen and went to hospital ( which is late). I am surprised to see that ivermectin was unsafe …
The TGA? Are they the same people who approved a Covid vaccination for adolescent boys , a recent study from Univ of Ca has shown, has a 6 times greater chance of them being hospitalised with myocarditis after administration than being hospitalised with Covid. (which has a 99.999…% survivability in that healthy demographic)
And the TGA didn’t read the fine print in the emergency use of the vaccine in pregnant women.The study supporting its use in pregnancy lasted 3 months. When I was in school, pregnancy lasted about 9 months. Any chance of longterm cognitive, behavioural or other effects in offspring. Is informed consent even possible?? We do need an inquiry into ATAGI and TGA when all this is over.Their advice has been abysmal.
I’m not aware of a single study where mortality increased with ivermectin therapy. so I’d love to see the data supporting the “it’s not safe” advice. The metanalysis conducted by Prof Tess Lawrie shows about a 49 – 84% reduction in mortality.
There are so many big questions going unanswered. If ivermectin is not approved, why isn’t it? If the correct study has not been done, why hasn’t it? And most of all, why is no one, apart from bloggers and people like Craig Kelly, and Malcolm Roberts asking these questions? Where is the legacy media… Where is our PM?
Bryant, Andrew MSc1,*; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD2; Dowswell, Therese PhD2; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD2; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS3; Hill, Sarah R. PhD1; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP4 (2021) Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection, A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines, American Journal of Therapeutics: June 17, 2021 – Volume Publish Ahead of Print – Issue – doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402
0 out of 10 based on 0 rating
September 13, 2021 at 02:02PM