By Jo Nova

After a 628 day ban the Australian TGA has decided that our doctors will be allowed to prescribe ivermectin “off label” again, like they did for decades without a problem. Apparently, they don’t have to worry now that crazy people will use it to avoid getting injected with a barely studied, radical new form of drug which had no published data.

From 1 June 2023, prescribing of oral ivermectin for ‘off-label’ uses will no longer be limited…

…there is sufficient evidence that the safety risks to individuals and public health is low when prescribed by a general practitioner in the current health climate.

This considers the evidence and awareness of medical practitioners about the risks and benefits of ivermectin, and the low potential for any shortages of ivermectin for its approved uses. Also, given the high rates of vaccination and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 in Australia, use of ivermectin by some individuals is unlikely to now compromise public health.

Ten years before this decision they knew it was no threat to public health. Ivermectin was known to be so safe researchers fed it to children in a trial to kill head lice in a Canberra primary school in 2010. Back in those medieval days, people were giving horse dewormer to kids, and nobody cared.

In September 2021 the TGA pretended Australia might run out of ivermectin due to the new demand driven by consenting taxpayers with their doctor’s recommendation. This is a drug that is so mass produced, it costs six cents a tablet and that same month, Indian suppliers sold nearly $3 million USD worth. Yet no one in the Australian government thought to phone Indiamart and put in an order? The shortage was never the problem was it?

How many people died because ivermectin was banned?

One study of 8,300 people in Brasil showed that taking ivermectin regularly before catching Covid halved the odds of catching it, and reduced mortality by 92%. Prophylactic use reduced hospitalization by 98%, and in a dose dependent manner.

If unvaccinated people were threatening our hospital system, it was only ever because they were denied ivermectin by unaccountable, unelected government committees.

Over 20 countries adopted ivermectin for COVID-19. The evidence base is much larger than typically used to approve drugs.

In the end, about 20,000 people died of Covid in Australia, many of who might have been saved, but there have also been some 15,000 Australians who died unexpectedly in 2022, who theoretically might not have died, if their doctors had had the freedom to treat them the way they felt was best. And then there are the businesses destroyed, the billions of dollars wasted, and those who live on, but suffer long term spike related injuries via either long covid or the TGA approved “carrots”.

Craig Kelly: this may have something to do with the former TGA head being sued for malfeasance:

Someone asked “why now”? Craig Kelly replied:

“… the TGA couldn’t hold out forever, as their senior management were risking being personally sued for Malfeasance given the tsunami of evidence rolling in, showing that Ivermectin is highly effective against Covid. Although this is a time for celebration, we should stop and spare a thought for the thousands of Australians that lost their lives in this war, that died unnecessarily from Covid because the TGA denied them access to this life saving Ivermectin. It’s now time for the war crime trials and reparations. –@CKellyUAP

“I think the fact that the recently retired head of TGA was being sued personally for his conduct. It put the new head of the TGA on notice, that they were potentially personally liable – plus the weight of recent studies showing Ivermectin was highly effective. If they maintained the ban, there was a real personal risk, and they’d have no chance defending the ban on merit. — @CKellyUAP

The former TGA head is named in the Class Action. Professor Skerritt (head of the TGA) retired on April 18.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondents’ actions to advance the acceptance and use of the various approved Covid-19 vaccines constitutes negligence and/or misfeasance.

Click this link if you want more information on who is eligible to join that class action.

The ivermectin studies continue to roll in, now up to trials involving  135,000 people:

https://c19ivm.org/

Photo: Thuoc    Skull Art by Reimund Bertrams from Pixabay

This little piece is addressed to people who won’t see it. I speak of those who are paid to write about energy, but don’t know what it is. It was prompted by a couple of pieces in Norfolk’s local newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, or rather its web presence. The first was this from December last year, in which the following is said:

More than 10pc of the UK’s domestic energy will be supplied from a wind farm set to be built off the north Norfolk coast. Vattenfall, the firm behind the Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone, has increased its capacity to 4.2GW and will now power 700,000 more homes compared to its original design. This will see the turbines supply electricity to 4.6m houses across the country.

Wrongness abounds here. This can all be ascribed to being imprecise with language; there is no intent to deceive. Nevertheless it may give rise to a false understanding of the facts by the audience. The second was more recent. It cuts and pastes (and links back to) the first, and says:

Once completed, the 4.2GW wind zone will supply more than 10pc of the UK’s domestic energy.

As an aside, the article is actually about the cabling. No it is not manufactured in the UK. In fact:

Vattenfall, the company behind the Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone, has signed an agreement with Greek firm Hellenic Cables to provide the inter array cables for the project. Hellenic Cables will supply around 528 miles (850km) of aluminium cables – as far as from Great Yarmouth to Aberdeen – to connect the wind turbines with the offshore substation, helping to power the wind zone.

Let us begin with the obvious point. The UK’s energy consumption does not solely consist of electricity. If it did, then the EDP would not be so obviously wrong – it would be on the right planet at least. Last year, according to the March 2023 update of Energy Trends, the (provisional) energy consumption of the UK was:

170.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe).

I prefer to use joules. Naturally this is “wrong” in the sense that not all the oil and gas will be used for its energy content. However, it has that potential at least. According to the internet, 1 toe = 41,868,000,000 J, so the number is:

7.16×10¹⁸ J

Or if you prefer, 7.16 EJ. It does not include energy sent to “marine bunkers,” which is fuel for ships. It does include a small amount of electricity exports.

The pie chart shows what that energy consists of. Here the electricity exports are missing, so the total is slightly higher than 7.16 EJ. The lion’s share is fossil fuel; note the small share of primary electricity from our “zero carbon” friends. Data from Energy Trends Table 1.3, except there they give the numbers in mtoe, as mentioned.

Of course, the end user does not obtain all that energy goodness. Some of it is thrown away by converting the energy from one form to another (e.g. by generating electricity). The final energy delivered was 127.364 mtoe, or in joules…

5.33 EJ

This does not include non-energy uses of energy. (Huh? Well, it means things like turning fossil fuel into plastic.) Of this, 0.98 EJ was the final energy consumed as electricity. This is smaller than the quantity of electricity generated. It does not include electricity used by power generators or losses. It means that electricity is 18.5% of final energy consumed. [It’s 273 TWh, if you prefer it that way. Energy Trends does.]

How much of this is domestic electricity? The next pie shows the breakdown of the UK’s final electricity consumption, provisional, for 2022. Data this time from Energy Trends Table 5.2; I have not bothered to convert into joules. The pie shows that domestic electricity is about 37% of all electricity. That means it’s roughly 7% of all energy (0.37 * 0.185 as a proportion).

So, making the assumption that our correspondent meant domestic electricity when he spoke of domestic energy, to reach “more than 10pc” of that number, the Norfolk Offshore Wind Zone (NOWZ) needs to generate roughly 100 TWh * 0.1 ~ 10 TWh. Once all 4.2 GW is operational, NOWZ will cover an average of 10% of domestic electricity if its capacity factor exceeds about 27%. [4.2 GW * 8766 hours in a year * 0.27 = 9.94 TWh.] This is obviously achievable for an offshore wind “zone”, or maybe a more appropriate term would be an offshore wind “defeatherisation.” Of course, we know that the actual delivered power is likely to swing from 0.42 GW to 3.8 GW, but that’s another story.

If we wanted to build a wind farm to actually produce 10% of UK domestic energy, not just electricity, how big would it have to be? Well, about 4 times larger than if you wanted to just cover 10% of domestic leccy. [The proportion of domestic energy that is electricity is usually given as 0.2, e.g. by Ofgem, but it has been creeping up over the past 25 years on my look at the numbers and is now closer to 0.25. Of course, it is eventually intended to reach 1. Given that increase in leccy – from 20% of all domestic energy to 25% – in 25 years, it might take a while for that to happen.] You would therefore need a wind farm of about 16.8 GW.

Incidentally, the first part of NOWZ, Boreas, has been awarded a CfD at a ludicrous price:

Government has awarded Vattenfall a CfD at £37.35/MWh (2012 prices) for the 1.4GW Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm

According to power-technology.com, it will cover 1,300 km² when completed:

The Norfolk offshore wind zone will cover an area of 1,307km² in the southern North Sea.

An elementary sum would show that if NOWZ produces <1% of the UK’s energy, then to produce 100% from this source, we will need 130,000 km² of offshore wind farms.

The NOWZ belongs to Vattenfall (Swedish). As noted, the cabling is Greek. The turbines are Spanish-German. A Dutch company did the surveys. The HVDC converter stations are from a Norwegian-German consortium. Some British companies helpfully arranged pieces of paper. (I don’t know where the turbines will be made.)

There is much more to be said on this topic, but this post is already long enough.

Please alert me if I have missed a decimal point somewhere…

Data tables and the Energy Trends report available via this link.

Featured image: “A power engineer juggling pie charts in front of an offshore wind farm” – Dall.E.