Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Simpsons predicted the pandemic, Apocalype Meow

Club Z Pão

Original image shows the words “Apocalypse Meow” and was present in episode 6 of the 22nd season of the series, entitled “The Fool Monty”, in which a conglomerate of TV channels come together to spread a new deadly virus that would infect the population through cats

September 20, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Advice for Parents Concerned About the Vaccination of Their Healthy Children

By Michael Curzon | The Daily Sceptic | September 2021

The Covid vaccine roll-out for healthy 12-15 year-olds is due to begin this week, but scientists remain concerned about the likely side effects. Some teachers tell me their schools still aren’t fully aware of the role they are supposed to play – “I can see it becoming a minefield”, said one teacher at a school in Yorkshire – and there seems to be some confusion among parents about the power they hold. Can they withhold their consent for the vaccination of their children or not?

Parents will be sent consent forms but only, it seems, as a formality since children who are deemed ‘competent’ (the assessment of which contains no set of defined questions) will be able to overrule the decisions of their parents anyway. This is of a piece with the Government’s decision to push ahead with its roll-out despite being told by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) that “there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms” of Covid vaccination in healthy teenagers and that – given the small risk Covid poses to healthy 12-15 year-olds – the “margin of benefit… is considered too small”.

The JCVI is “generous” in its assessment, according to an executive at a pharmaceutical company writing for the Daily Sceptic. (He, by the way, believes vaccines are among the “three greatest medical innovations”, so could hardly be labelled “anti-vax”!) Responding to the data, he says there is a “serious enough” risk of children developing myocarditis after vaccination (inflammation of the heart muscle, the long-term consequences of which aren’t fully understood) whereas the benefits of vaccination are “not well quantified” by the JCVI. The body also fails to properly consider the risk of other conditions following vaccination.

Professor Adam Finn sums up the situation by saying the vaccination of children would not – in normal times – have been approved because of the possible risks. He believes that parents are justified in waiting to allow their children to get ‘jabbed’ until these risks are better understood. But therein lies the problem. What – if anything – can parents do to delay the vaccination of their children?

I’ve been trying to find the answer to this question over the past week – and the prospects for concerned parents are fairly bleak.

It’s probably best to start by ruling out protesting, given that schools have been told to call the police if “anti-vaxxers” plan demonstrations outside their gates. (I’m not sure that seeing their parents being dragged away by the police will be great for children’s mental health, which the vaccine roll-out is supposed to protect, but that’s a matter for another article.) One also has to question whether protesting would be worth it even if there wasn’t the risk of arrest.

The main tool in the parent’s armoury seems to be the written – or, perhaps, the spoken – word. You can’t be arrested for telling your local headteacher (either in a letter or at a meeting) that you disagree with your child being vaccinated without your consent (though you might be removed from their Christmas card list). The Yorkshire teacher mentioned above tells me that he gets the impression his school will do all it can to wash its hands of responsibility on this matter, preferring to say that the important decisions (i.e., “who should be vaccinated at school”) will be made by health professionals who use the school site (School Age Immunisation Service (SAIS) officials), not by the school itself. The school would, in this case, be wrong. Lawyers For Liberty (LFL), a group of non-partisan lawyers, made this point quite clear in its recent letter to the heads of regulatory bodies concerned with the protection of children and safety in schools:

If schools are intended to be the ultimate setting for the child vaccination programme, then school leaders will be deemed to have approved the Vaccination against the JCVI Advice. This has a variety of potential legal ramifications for school staff. Certainly many are concerned that there may be a serious safeguarding concern that would not align with the legal duties of schools, as outlined in the Department for Education document “Keeping Children Safe in Education”.

In another letter that LFL has drafted for parents to send to schools (see more details here), heads are given notice of their (and their school’s) potential legal liability on the matter of Covid vaccination.

If a parent communicates to you that their child will not to be included in the vaccination programme or does not provide consent, then that decision must be respected, without any further consequences for the child, including direct or indirect discrimination or coercion. Failure to do so may result in possible legal claims against you personally and for your School.

(It is worth noting here that Government guidelines say if a child gets ill following vaccination and the SAIS team has left the school, the situation should be managed “according to existing policies for pupil sickness in school”. In other words, it will be the responsibility of the school.)

Given the likelihood that schools would sooner “wash their hands” of responsibility on this tricky and confusing matter than face an array of expensive legal challenges (schools could be “vicariously liable for any harm which may come to any child receiving the vaccination whilst in your care leading to financial sanctions between £180,000 to £20 million”, according to LFL), simply presenting (personally or through the LFL letter) the head of your child’s school with the above information could be enough to prevent your child from being vaccinated without your consent. Imagine raising a question about the school’s insurance policy coverage for vaccination on school sites in the case of side effects. Staff are likely to respect your wishes, but it goes without saying that responses will differ from one school to the next.

Perhaps concerned that their words won’t be enough to block the vaccination of their children, some parents have decided to go one step further and keep their children away from school to stop them from being peer-pressured to accept the vaccination, according to the Telegraph. If you do decide to do that, it’s worth bearing in mind that the SAIS providers will likely only set up in your local school for one to two days, depending on the number of students, and that parents will [allegedly] be notified of the specific date(s) beforehand.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Britain’s “Diverse and Reliable” Electricity System

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | September 19, 2021

According to Kwasi Kwarteng, we have a diverse and reliable electricity system:

image

image

Well, we used to anyway!

The chart below sums up exactly how we and Europe got into the mess we are now in:

 image

BP Energy Review

Because coal power capacity has been squeezed out of the system, we are now ultra reliant on natural gas when renewables fail to deliver, with the inevitable impact on power prices which we are now seeing.

Meanwhile if the government is serious in getting energy prices back down, I would suggest the following actions should be taken immediately:

  • Abolish carbon pricing forthwith
  • Support the opening of new oil and gas fields in the North Sea
  • Impose an Intermittency Tax on wind and solar farms, so that they carry the full cost of intermittency, instead of the consumer.
  • Take action to increase the UK’s natural gas storage capacity
  • Abandon all spending plans for Net Zero, allowing money to be returned to taxpayers or energy users.

These actions would have an immediate impact on energy prices, as well as providing longer term energy security at little or no cost to the Exchequer.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

This Week in the New Normal #6

This Week in the New Normal | OffGuardian | September 19, 2021

1. IS THE UK HEADING FOR A WINTER BLACK-OUT?

This week it was reported that a fire at a power relay station has damaged a cable running electricity from France to the UK. The cable apparently can’t be fixed until March (although I have yet to see any explanation as to why), which means electricity prices are set to jump up this winter.

Real fire or no, you can be sure the power companies don’t mind the bump in revenue. But is there more to it?

We’re already seeing warnings of potential “blackouts” this winter, as the electrical supply fails to keep up with demand. Power shortages during cold weather could easily cause a heavy spike in the number of elderly or vulnerable people dying over the winter.

Those deaths, as pretty much all deaths are these days, could then be attributed to “Covid”, and used to enforce booster shots or another lockdown… or anything else they want.

Further, it’s conceivable that, just as lockdowns were sold as being good for the environment, any blackouts could be accompanied by news stories talking up the idea of living with less electricity.

Can’t you just picture the Guardian’s opinion section? “In the future rolling blackouts will be the new normal. And that’s a good thing.” or “temporary electricity outages are a small price to pay for healing the earth” and even “Back to nature: How the blackouts forced us outside to reconnect with our planet and our neighbours.”

It’s also possible, of course, that there was no fire, and there will be no blackouts, and that they’re just freaking people out to make them worry and stop them complaining when their electricity prices are hiked for no reason.

2. DOCTORS SHOULD “GIVE PRIORITY” TO VACCINATED PATIENTS

Ruth Marcus, a deputy editor at the Washington Post, has had enough of people pussy-footing around this issue and is going “come right out and say it” – unvaccinated people deserve healthcare less than vaccinated people.

She at least admits this “conflicts radically with accepted medical ethics”, which is completely true but for some reason that doesn’t seem to change her mind:

under ordinary circumstances, I agree with those rules. The lung cancer patient who’s been smoking two packs a day for decades is entitled to the same treatment as the one who never took a puff. The drunk driver who kills a family gets a team doing its utmost to save him

To be clear then – Ruth considers the unvaccinated as morally inferior to a drunk driver who ran over some kids. Which says a lot more about her, than the unvaccinated.

This is one of the feeler pieces. An antennae article, gently feeling the ground to see if it can bear the weight of the agenda coming behind it. It’s setting up the conversation. Because once we’ve established “anti-vaxxers” don’t deserve healthcare, those other people she’s so careful to mention – smokers and drunk drivers – they’re next. Along with the obese, or the clumsy, or the religious, or the politically inconvenient.

If you don’t believe me, just check the comments under the article. The WaPo has one of the most scripted comments sections on the internet, whose usual job is to play the “bad cop” to the author’s “good cop”. And, sure enough, BTL is full of hundreds of supposedly real humans saying the author doesn’t go far enough, and we should ration all kinds of healthcare based on personal choices.

This particular talking point is already being aired on CNN and by late-night talkshow hosts too. Expect it to spread quickly, especially when the flu season starts.

3. THE CAMPAIGN TO DE-FUND INDEPENDENT MEDIA CONTINUES

A Guardian article from today is warning that big companies might be “funding misinformation” through internet advertising. There’s a lot of words there, but you don’t need to read most of them, the agenda is clear from the headline:

Nike and Amazon among brands advertising on Covid conspiracy sites

The article is based on a report from the Bureau of Independent Journalism, which claims to be an “independent” non-profit, but which is funded by an entirely predictable list of billionaires. Seriously, check their “about us” page and play NGO Bingo with their donor list.

According to this “independent” report, internet advertising is too “opaque” and we need to increase the “transparency” of the system so that major companies don’t unintentionally back “misinformation” and only give money to “benign” websites.

This is a continuation of an ongoing campaign to make it harder for any independent content creators to exist. We’ve already seen PayPal team up with the ADL to “Fight Extremism and Protect Marginalized Communities”. You don’t need me to tell you what that means.

It’s not just political either, YouTube demonetises basically everyone for basically anything these days, turning their formerly public platform into a corporate desert devoid of individuality or creativity.

There’s a reason OffG has always resisted putting ads on the site, over the years that decision has cost us a lot of money, but we have our independence and don’t live under threat. For any independent media out there who do rely on advertising income, now might be a good time to develop a plan B.

… More at OffGuardian.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Hamas calls for revoking Abraham accords with occupation state

Palestine Information Center – September 19, 2021

GAZA – The Hamas Movement has called for renouncing the shameful Abraham accords and ending all forms of normalized relations with the Israeli occupation state, urging the Muslim and Arab nations to restore their role in defending Palestine.

In a press release on Saturday, Hamas stressed the need “to swiftly correct such wrong political trajectory and respond to the aspirations of the peoples in the region who reject any sort of normalization with the occupation state.”

“The so-called Abraham accords are a Zio-American project par excellence, aimed at establishing regional openness and normalization with the Zionist entity, integrating it into the region and forging alliances with it to shift the conflict priorities, instead of being with the Zionist entity that is occupying Palestine and considered the greatest danger to the region,” the Movement said.

“The US administration and the Zionist entity are working on deceiving our nations and anesthetizing their awareness through an intensive marketing and promotion campaign for the Abraham accords that have been brokered with rogue regimes working against the region’s history, present and future,” it added.

“Those accords are aimed at consolidating and achieving the Zionist hegemony over the region militarily, politically and economically, plundering its wealth, marginalizing the Palestinian cause and isolating our Palestinian people from its Arab and Islamic surrounding and depth,” the Movement underscored.

On September 15, 2020, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain officially signed normalization deals (Abraham accords) with the occupation state under the auspices of the previous US administration. Sudan and Morocco followed suit soon later.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Elderly Australian woman knocked down & Pepper-Sprayed by police during protest against lockdowns

RT | September 19, 2021

An elderly woman believed to be in her 70s was attacked by Melbourne police and pepper-sprayed while she was on the ground during a protest against Covid-19 lockdowns on Saturday.

As she held an Australian flag and stood on the road facing toward a group of approaching police, one officer shoved the woman, sending her tumbling to the ground. Another officer then pepper-sprayed the woman as she laid motionless and unable to protect herself.

Seconds after the attack – with the offending officers having already moved on – another group of police officers came to the woman’s aid and attempted to help her up.

Videos of the attack from multiple angles went viral on social media this weekend, with many Australians accusing the Melbourne officers of police brutality.

Australian MP Craig Kelly called the attack “despicable,” “disgusting,” and “ILLEGAL,” and tweeted, “This is not my Australia… We cannot accept Police in Australia pushing to the ground an unarmed 70 yr old woman (or anyone) who presents no threat & then have 2 officers pepper spray the unarmed, defenceless person in the face while on the ground.”

Former New South Wales Senator David Leyonhjelm also condemned the attack, calling the officers “gutless,” while journalist Ky Chow wrote, “I’ve watched several videos of this, and it’s hard to see how the Vic cops defend this.”

Several other incidents of violence between police and protesters broke out during the protest in Melbourne on Saturday and 235 people were reportedly arrested.

Melbourne police were also caught on camera pepper-spraying dozens of other Australians who were involved with the “unauthorized protest.”

Both Melbourne and Sydney have experienced repeated protests over the past few months in response to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions in the two cities. In August, a man from the state of Victoria was sentenced to a maximum of eight months in prison for helping to organize a protest in Sydney, New South Wales.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment

New Study Shows Vitamin D3 Can Inhibit COVID-19

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 19, 2021

A study using active forms of vitamin D3 has shown that the vitamin’s metabolites can inhibit replication and expansion of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Summarized by Newswise, “researchers on this study say their findings help explain a possible mechanism for why low vitamin D levels seem to promote COVID-19 infection and poor outcome in certain individuals. This correlates to other studies showing a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and poor disease outcomes. More studies and clinical trials are planned to test the efficacy of vitamin D and lumisterol as an antiviral therapeutic for COVID-19 in animals and humans.”

Study authors commented, “Active forms of vitamin D and lumisterol can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication machinery enzymes, which indicates that novel vitamin D and lumisterol metabolites are candidates for antiviral drug research.”

In September 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he believed that vitamin D could help fight COVID, although he didn’t elaborate at the time on how he knew that to be true.

SOURCES:

Newswise September 9, 2021

Endocrinology and Metabolism July 27, 2021

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

ROBERT MALONE INTERVIEWED BY JIMMY DORE

anti_republocrat | September 15, 2021

Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, is interviewed by Jimmy Dore. Malone is not “anti-vax,” but he is “pro-ethics” and believes that all medical procedures require truly informed consent, with absolutely no coercion. He shares the view of Geert Vanden Bossche, whom he mentions in the interview, that the vaccines help to generate the variants because they are non-sterilizing. He says they should be targeted toward those who are at highest risk from the virus, seniors and those with multiple co-morbidities. I personally disagree with that. I think they should be taken off the market altogether, but at least he is adamantly against mandates.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Are you undercover?’ Riot cops at Justice for J6 rally detain masked man with a GUN… and a badge

RT | September 19, 2021

Among just four people detained during the remarkably nonviolent Justice for J6 rally in Washington, DC, was an armed man who flashed a badge, raising speculations that he was an ‘undercover fed’ accidentally outed by colleagues.

Despite weeks of constant media reports fueling fears of imminent violence, the Saturday protest proceeded peacefully. It attracted only a few hundred activists – and several times as many police and other law enforcement agents. Authorities reported only a handful of minor disturbances, and a total of four arrests, one of which was particularly curious.

In a video captured by independent journalist Ford Fischer, around half a dozen officers in full riot gear surround a man suspected of carrying a concealed handgun.

“Are you undercover?”, police are heard asking the suspect, as they check his pockets only to find what appears to be a badge. “I’m just here,” he responds when asked again whether he was “undercover” or a “part of the event.”

The man was then escorted away, without being handcuffed or disarmed at the scene, Fischer noted, triggering many speculations about whether he was an undercover fed, an off-duty cop, or if the badge was even real at all.

While the Capitol Police acknowledged the incident in a tweet, they never mentioned the badge.

“The man did have a gun,” police said. “At this time, it is not clear why the man was at the demonstration. Officers charged him with 40 U.S. Code § 5104 – Unlawful activities.”

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

FEC rules Twitter shadowbanning Congressman Matt Gaetz wasn’t election interference

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2021

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) unanimously rejected a complaint by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz against Twitter, alleging the social media company shadowbanned him in 2018. The complaint accused Twitter of election interference.

In 2018, Vice reported that Twitter subjected Republican legislators, including Gaetz, to shadowbans, which limited the visibility of their accounts in search results. Following the report, Gaetz filed a complaint against Twitter with the FEC in July 2018.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

The FEC also recently ruled that Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden corruption story was not election interference.

Last month, all six FEC commissioners agreed that Twitter’s shadowban did not break election interference laws.

Twitter explained that Gaetz’s account was shadowbanned because of being “associated with other accounts that already had high indicia of misuse or abuse.”

In the original complaint, Gaetz said that Twitter’s shadowban amounted to “making an in-kind contribution to [Gaetz’s] political opponents.”

He used a “free billboards” analogy to make his point: “Imagine the following: a billboard company in Florida wants to get involved in the political process, so it offers all candidates running for office… free billboards to promote their campaigns.”

“If the company did not randomly assign locations, but rather, offered large billboards in premium locations within the district to Democratic candidates, but only offered billboards stuck behind dumpsters, outside the district, to Republican candidates, it could not credibly argue that it was not giving an “in-kind” donation to the Democratic candidates.”

The complaint also argued that Twitter was a debate platform, and, therefore, it is supposed to follow FEC’s regulations on political debates.

“Twitter, as a self-identified news organization, and as a recognized debate platform, is a staging organization for candidate debates,” the complaint said.

The FEC rejected the argument, Business Insider reported, referring to a 2019 legal analysis by its general counsel that found out that Twitter could legally limit an account’s activity if it is concerned about “divisive content.” The analysis also concluded that Twitter messages are not “debate within the meaning of the Commission’s regulation,” as its definition of debate means “face-to-face appearances or confrontations.”

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

NONE OF THE ABOVE: THOUGHTS ON TWO ELECTIONS

BY PAUL ROBINSON | IRRUSIANALITY | SEPTEMBER 18, 2021

Citizens of Russia and Canada go to the polls over the next few days to elect new parliaments – the Duma in Russia’s case, the House of Commons in that of Canada. It’s fair to say that neither is generating a lot of international excitement. In Russia’s case, because the result is (within certain boundaries) a foregone conclusion; and in Canada’s case because nobody cares.

Insofar as the Canadian press is covering the Russian election, it’s to portray it as fundamentally flawed, if not downright corrupt – a pretence at democracy rather than the real thing. Typical is the latest by the CBC’s new Moscow correspondent Briar Stewart, which starts off by quoting the campaign manager of the liberal Yabloko party in Krasnodar, saying that, “the State Duma election is the most terrible election I have seen since my birth.” The rest of the article then hammers home the point in case any readers hadn’t got it already.

There’s an element of truth to the complaints about the Russian elections, although it’s worth noting that the authorities’ manipulation of the system occurs primarily before votes are cast rather than after. That’s to say that the ‘managed’ party of ‘managed democracy’ mainly involves making life difficult for opposition candidates, limiting their access to the media, and things like that, rather than practices like ballot stuffing or falsifying the count (not to say that these practices don’t happen, but the general feeling is that the authorities prefer to limit them so as to avoid ridiculous results that lack legitimacy).

Nevertheless, although the playing field is far from a level one, when Russian voters head into the booths to cast their ballots, they have quite a lot of choice.

It’s reckoned that four or five parties will gain seats in the Duma via the proportional representation system that assigns half the total to those parties that win over 5% (the other half are chosen by first-past-the-post constituency elections). Most of these likely winners fall, I would say, in the left-conservative bracket, but there’s a lot of variation – from the hard left Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), through the also fairly left wing Just Russia party, the centrist United Russia, the centre-right New People (the least likely to pass the 5% hurdle), and the nationalist LDPR.

If those aren’t to your liking, there’s another 9 parties on the ballot papers. Most are no-hopers, though one or two might win a constituency here or there. For instance, if you’re the kind of person who thinks that the CPRF has sold out communism, you can vote for the more hardcore Communists of Russia. Or, likewise, if you think that the LDPR are a bunch of softies and you want tougher action on issues like immigration, you can throw your support behind Rodina. Or, if you’re liberally-inclined and think that New People are Kremlin stooges, you can put your cross next to the name of Yabloko (also Kremlin stooges according to the bizarre logic of the Navalnyites) or the more free market-inclined Party of Growth.

In other words, despite all the manipulations of the authorities, even if the final result is not in doubt (United Russia will win a majority), once you’re in voting booth ready to cast your secret ballot you actually have a lot of options open to you.

Now, let’s look at Canada.

Outside of Quebec (where you also have the separatist Bloc Quebecois), there’s only three options if you want to vote for somebody who win will a seat: Liberal, Conservative, and NDP (Green might pick up one seat, but overall are somewhere around 3% in the polls). The only other party likely to get a reasonable number of votes is the People’s Party of Canada, which is enjoying a surge (6-7%), primarily, it seems, by appealing to anti-vaxxers. But it has no chance of winning any seats and is thus a wasted vote except as a protest.

In other words, in real terms you have a choice of three parties. Let’s see what distinguishes them. As far as I can see, their platforms run roughly as follows:

Party A: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend. Party B: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend! Party C: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend some more!

Party A: Here’s the list of interest groups I want to throw money at. Party B: Here’s my list. Look it’s even longer. Party C: Hah, you think your list is long – look at mine!

Party A: Woke is good. Party B: Woke is extra good. Party C: Woke is extra, extra good.

Party A: Russia is evil. Party B: Russia is very evil. Party C: Russia is very super evil.

Party A: We’ll be tough on China. Party B: We’ll be extra tough on China. Party C: We’ll be extra, mega tough on China. (Of course, in practice, none of them will!)

By now you get the point. It doesn’t really matter who you vote for, you end up with pretty much the same thing. That’s not to say that there are no differences, but they’re not on fundamentals. Basically, it’s three variations of a theme.

So there you have it. In one country, you have lots of choice, but the system’s fixed to make sure the same guys always win. In the other, it’s a fair fight – anyone can win – it just doesn’t matter who does – they’re all the same. You might say that one is rigged at the micro level, while the other is rigged at the macro level.

Which is better? I’ll leave it to you to decide. Meanwhile, I have the difficult decision as to whether Party A, Party B, or Party C is more worthy of my vote on Monday. What a choice!

SHARE THIS:

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 2 Comments

A Sad and Shameful Day for Australian Medicine

By Professor Robert Clancy | Quadrant | September 13, 2021

September 10, 2021, was a black day,  the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the “Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling”, through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic’s coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates.

The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, “Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick.” In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA’s decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga.

Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been  laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM’s use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for “off-label” indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas.

The driving source of “evidence” that IVM has unproven therapeutic value is the Cochrane Review, which concluded from a single meta-analysis that the benefit in treating COVID-19 was “unproven”. This was out of line with a series of supportive meta-analyses by non-conflicted competent epidemiologists. Yet results from Cochrane have singularly been adopted without criticism or discussion, initially by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET), then by diffusion via various professional and regulatory bodies while being fanned by an even less critical mainstream press. Thus IVM is seen by many, including some medical professionals, as the snake-oil of our age. What is not discussed is the validity of the Cochrane Review and the advisory messages from the NCCET. The influence of vested interest parties on Cochrane has been previously raised. The circumstances of generating the review by an unknown German group when experienced epidemiologists were available needs explanation. More immediately, critiques of the Cochrane analysis and the NCCET by unaligned British epidemiologists show defective methodology, cherry-picked data and exclusion of a raft of supportive data.

The information source used to formulate policy in Australia is both out of kilter with conclusions from over 60 controlled clinical trials and the positive experience recorded when IVM was used in  national and regional programmes. Cochrane is an incomplete and unreliable basis for decision making on COVID-19 management in an Australian context. The views of international experts are trumped by unknown local bureaucrats.

Surprisingly, the reasons given by the TGA for their decision on IVM are not the usual mantra of “unproven”, based on Cochrane, although that is left hanging as a “given”. The reasons are even less defensible: “supply may become limited” (incorrect, but this nevertheless demonstrates there is a need for the drug); “concerns re toxicity due to dosage determined by social media” (this concern is easily remedied by controlling usage through front-line doctors), and, lastly, the real reason: “It may interfere with the vaccination programme”. What an extraordinary statement!

The reason for “vaccine hesitancy” has nothing to do with IVM use. Doctors promote IVM as complementing the vaccine programme, which, given concerns regarding vaccine resistance caused by Delta strain of the virus and waning of post-vaccine immunity, makes early drug treatment more needed than ever. It is irresponsible to exclude IVM as a drug to control high numbers of infections that will be encountered as Australia moves out of its “bubble”, irrespective of the level of vaccination. The only parts of the world not experiencing a “third wave” of infection are those where lockdowns have been avoided, such as Sweden, or where IVM is used throughout the community, as is seen in parts of South America, Mexico and India.

The real cause of “vaccine hesitancy” is lack of transparency and discussion. Where is the discussion that death from COVID-19 is one thousand times greater than reported deaths linked to the vaccine? That is a fact easily understood. There are genuine concerns about experimental genetic vaccines, yet discussion is suppressed, and these issues are treated as “best kept secrets” by authorities. Failure to openly discuss these concerns in the context of a plan for a safe future vaccine strategy is reason in itself for uncertainty and conspiracy theories. It is unacceptable to shift blame onto IVM for “hesitancy”. Both vaccines and IVM are urgently needed, and suppression of IVM simply leads to unnecessary deaths and a postponed public reaction when evidence supporting the value of both becomes more widely known. Have we learnt nothing from the preventable thousand deaths that followed refusal in the US to allow cheap, safe prophylaxis against Pneumocystis infection in AIDS patients until a randomised clinical trial (RCT) was completed in the 1990s?

What is the influence of pharmaceutical companies? They have actively conspired against IVM while accepting hundreds of millions of government dollars to develop their versions of “early treatments”; in this they have been supported by the TGA that has now regulated against IVM. Meanwhile, the TGA recently registered a monoclonal antibody, Sotrovimab, based on a single small trial. This drug has a similar protection profile to IVM but costs $4,000 a dose (I support its registration, although it is hard to see how it could be superior to IVM). The TGA approved Remdesivir following one study showing its only benefit was four days less hospitalisation. Three subsequent RCTs failed to confirm benefit, yet the TGA allows the drug’s continued use in Australian hospitals. Just a week ago, the TGA reported with enthusiasm discussions with Merck about “son-of Remdesivir”, Molnupiravir, which comes with no clear clinical benefit noted from what are incomplete  studies. The US government has bought millions of doses at $1000 per dose. Whose interests are being protected?

Second, the implications for medical practise are a more sinister and subtle consequence of the TGA decision. Preventing general practitioners prescribing IVM for early COVID-19, when there is evidence of safety and benefit, sends a concerning message to community-based doctors. It threatens the “doctor-patient relationship”, as patients with COVID-19 are also aware that drugs are available which could save their lives. It also challenges the traditional role of senior medical advisers, most of whom are hospital-based with no experience of early COVID-19, and are influenced by expert bodies such as the NCCET, and of course Cochrane reports.

Cochrane is promoted as the foundation stone of Evidenced Based Medicine (EBM), the holy grail of contemporary medical practice. Dr. Dave Sackett was the “father of EBM” at Canada’s McMaster University, where he and I led medical-admission teams for five years. We had numerous discussions of EBM, then in its formative stage, anticipating it would have an integrating role in medical practise. Dave died in 2015, which saved him the disappointment of seeing what has happened during COVID-19, where a limited Cochrane review is used as a lever to achieve political outcomes to the disadvantage of patients. The unravelling of well-established professional relationships between community doctors, their medical advisory structures and government bodies has not been helped by the confusion, the lack of organised education activities and the isolation enforced by the pandemic.

The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for “advertising” and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science.  We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage.

Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking.


Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N) is Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical  Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development.

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 3 Comments