Our governments have betrayed the citizens. The following is an email from the united Australia Party.
‘More truth is being exposed about the medical and political response to the Covid-19 pandemic with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) yesterday removing restrictions on the prescribing of ivermectin.
Long lauded as a safe, effective and inexpensive treatment, ivermectin was seen by many in the medical profession as way through the pandemic that could have helped treat Covid-19 patients and potentially saved countless lives.
In their statement which can be read HERE, the TGA say the ban has been reversed as “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”.
Many esteemed medical minds – including Dr Pierre Kory who spoke at the UAP Covid-19 Vaccine Conferences – suggested bans on ivermectin were in place purely for political and financial reasons, given that multiple studies, trials and billions of use cases had proved it to be a safe, effective drug.
The TGA’s latest move all but confirms what many believed to be the truth – that ivermectin was removed from use because it threatened vaccine take-up being much cheaper than the vaccines and in plentiful supply.
In reality, the ban removed a legitimate treatment option for the sick, while the government persisted (and still persist) in pushing an experimental vaccine for the healthy, while all the time refusing to address the vaccine’s dangers or provide a plausible explanation for the shocking rise in excess deaths.
After the TGA’s withdrawal of AstraZeneca as an approved Covid-19 vaccine in late March this year and now the lifting of the ivermectin ban, the TGA are effectively shining a spotlight on themselves, their practices and their public messaging during the pandemic.
The restoration of doctors’ rights to prescribe ivermectin is a win for those such as Clive Palmer and Craig Kelly who spoke out bravely in face of relentless attacks from governments and government agencies, along with the millions on social media who were taken in by the myth that ivermectin was a ‘horse worming drug’ and labelled its advocates as ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘cookers’.
As more and more truths are revealed about the lies that were peddled and perpetuated to Australians, along with the role of big pharma and government in the censorship of important safety information that prevented people from making informed decisions, calls for a Royal Commission will surely grow louder.’
‘We know that SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made “paravirus” if you will, created in Wuhan/Moderna laboratories and reinforced by mainstream media propaganda. But in the grand scheme, at least the first iteration released onto the world, so-called COVID-19 is a lightweight illness that is mostly just rebranded influenza.
The mRNA and viral vector injections, along with Remdesivir, combine for a quick two-year, $200 billion global racket for big pharma and Bill Gates. Ivermectin is a proven, powerful drug to treat and prevent so-called COVID-19, according to 108 peer-reviewed studies. The Ivermectin Merck patents are long expired. So the cheap, $1-per-dose, Nobel Prize-winning drug poses a serious threat not only to the emergency use authorizations for the lethal injections, but also to the temporary COVID-19 racket. But those simply cannot be the only reasons for the persistent, petulant, childish mainstream media anti-Ivermectin propaganda.
This blogger has seen scattered studies concluding that Ivermectin not only inhibits cancer cell growth, but also kills cancer cells. Perhaps placing nine said studies into one article can help disrupt the cancer industrial complex and wake up the snoozing masses.
1) American Journal of Cancer Research – 2018
This study by researchers at Unidad de Investigación Biomédica en Cáncer in Mexico concluded:
So far, at least 235 clinically-approved, non-cancer drugs have proven anti-tumor activity either in vitro, in vivo, or even clinically. Among these, ivermectin, an anti-parasitic compound of wide use in veterinary and human medicine, is clearly a strong candidate for repositioning, based on the fact that:
i) it is very safe, causing almost no side-effects other than those caused by the immune and inflammatory responses against the parasite in infected patients, and
ii) it has proven anti-tumor activity in pre-clinical studies. On the other hand, it is now evident that the use of very selective “unitargeted” drugs is commonly associated to early development of resistance by cancer cells, hence the use of “dirty” or “multitargeted” drugs is important to explore.
Some key findings by Chinese researchers at Bengbu Medical College include the following:
Recent studies have also found that Ivermectin (IVM) could promote the death of tumor cells by regulating the tumor micro-environment in breast cancer.
In an experiment designed to screen potential drugs for the treatment of leukemia, IVM preferentially killed leukemia cells at low concentrations without affecting normal hematopoietic cells.
In a study by Hashimoto, it found that IVM inhibited the proliferation of various ovarian cancer cell lines.
Experiments confirmed that IVM could significantly inhibit the proliferation of five renal cell carcinoma cell lines without affecting the proliferation of normal kidney cells, and its mechanism may be related to the induction of mitochondrial dysfunction.
Researchers at Henan University in China concluded:
We have demonstrated that ivermectin may regulate the expression of crucial molecules Caspase-3, Bax, Bcl-2, PARP, and Cleaved-PARP in the apoptosis pathway by increasing ROS production and inhibiting the cell cycle in the S phase to inhibit colorectal cancer cells (Figure 11). Therefore, current results indicate that ivermectin might be a new potential anticancer drug for treating human colorectal cancer and other cancers.
Researchers at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico City concluded the following:
Results from the present study demonstrated that ivermectin preferentially targeted the stem cell population in MDA–MB–231 human breast cancer cells. Ivermectin has been demonstrated to be safe, following treatment of millions of patients with onchocerciasis and other parasitic diseases, which makes it a strong candidate for further studies investigating its potential use as a repurposed drug for cancer therapy.
Researchers at three Chinese institutions concluded:
Those findings provided the potential targeted lncRNA-EIF4A3-mRNA pathways of ivermectin in ovarian cancer, and constructed the effective prognostic model, which benefits discovery of novel mechanism of ivermectin to suppress ovarian cancer cells, and the ivermectin-related molecule-panel changes benefit for its personalized drug therapy and prognostic assessment towards its predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM) in ovarian cancers.
Chinese researchers at Henan University, concluded the following:
We demonstrated that ivermectin effectively inhibit the proliferation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) cells by inducing mitochondrial dysfunction, suppressing NF-κB signaling and promoting apoptosis. Our results suggest that ivermectin may be a potential therapeutic target against ESCC.
Some key findings from researchers at Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia in Mexico City:
Ivermectin reduced both cell viability and colony formation capacity in the stem cell-enriched population as compared with the parental one. Finally, in tumor-bearing mice ivermectin successfully reduced both tumor size and weight. Our results on the anti-tumor effects of ivermectin support its clinical testing.
Some key findings by University of Geneva researchers are as follows:
Constitutive activation of canonical WNT-TCF signaling is implicated in multiple diseases, including intestine and lung cancers, but there are no WNT-TCF antagonists in clinical use. We report that Ivermectin inhibits the expression of WNT-TCF targets, mimicking dnTCF, and that its low concentration effects are rescued by direct activation by TCFVP16.
In vivo, Ivermectin selectively inhibits TCF-dependent, but not TCF-independent, xenograft growth without obvious side effects. Given that Ivermectin is a safe anti-parasitic agent used by 200 million people against river blindness, our results suggest its additional use as a therapeutic WNT-TCF pathway response blocker to treat WNT-TCF-dependent diseases including multiple cancers.
If you live in Australia you still cannot obtain Ivermectin but ‘The New Hampshire House of Representatives has voted to make Ivermectin available at any pharmacy that wants to distribute this drug even without a prescription. It will likely pass the Senate and become law.
It’s a hugely positive breakthrough for medical and pharmaceutical freedom. It’s only tragic that this was not the situation two years ago. The doctors the world over who have rallied behind this treatment believe that many lives might have been saved. If one state in the Northeast had at least made the option available, outcomes might have been very different.
The Epoch Timesreports that “Similar bills are pending legislative approval in Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, Arizona, and Alaska.”
Magnificent! What’s key here is the concept of human choice.
The irony is very bitter: the vaccine mandates have been universal and people have lost careers for refusing or been rejected for participation in public life. People were forced to get shots of doubtful efficacy in most cases that many people did not want or because they did not see the need and feared their side effects.
Meanwhile, a drug they would have chosen to take was denied to them, again by force, and physicians who believed they were saving lives had their licenses taken away for using their professional discretion.
For a good part of last year, many people in the world could freely buy Ivermectin, a generic drug that at least 8 quality studies have shown to be an effective treatment for Covid-19. It has long been part of the alternative treatment protocol for Covid since it was first tried in early 2020, but never recommended by the FDA, CDC, or NIH. At some point, the CDC was tweeting denunciations of it, somehow with the implication that this treatment was distracting from the main push of vaccine fanaticism.
A very strange political war broke out in the US over the drug, however, such that people’s acceptance or rejection of it somehow signaled political loyalties – an absurdist example of how politicized the entire pandemic became. In the end, it works well or does not: biology does not care about party affiliation.
Why did this happen? There are theories. It’s generic. It’s cheap. It’s widely available. Therefore the financial interest did not favor it. Another theory is that early talk of ways to live rationally and humanely with Covid would have distracted from the main and completely implausible message of lockdowns and then mandates: the goal of everyone should be to restructure life to avoid the bug no matter what.
In most parts of Central and Latin America, plus India and Eastern Europe, the drug was freely available to anyone. And the results are suggestively positive – though it would take a specialist fully to sort through all the noise in the data. The experience of on-the-ground Covid doctors, once fully free to prescribe what they believe is best, was positive from many reports.
In the US, however, the situation was very different. Getting a prescription was hard enough. In some states, getting it filled was nearly impossible. You would get a blank stare and a negative head shake from the pharmacist. As a result, the generic became in high demand in gray markets, with people returning from Mexico with stashes and also ordering from abroad.
The situation became utterly bizarre. Meanwhile, the NIH itself, which is supposed to promote randomized trials of repurposed drugs because major manufacturers have no incentive to do so, was in no rush to find out anything about its effectiveness. The NIH’s major study of repurposed drugs is due to show results more than a year from today.
Therapeutics in general have been woefully neglected throughout the pandemic. There was no “warp speed” for them. The NIH had all of February 2020 to kick off the investigations. But this apparently did not happen. People were not only denied access to timely testing but also to basic information about what to do if you got sick! As for ventilators, the waste and mess there deserves an article of its own.
Meanwhile, to get the drug, people had to find alternative paths. The group Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance was formed to find ways around the restrictions. In the interest of saving lives during a pandemic! The group MyFreeDoctor.com formed to get people the therapeutics they needed based on symptoms and checks and contacts with various pharmacists around the country who saw this as a true emergency. They asked only for contributions, which were entirely optional.
The doctors who have rallied around this drug as part of a full suite of therapeutics estimate that tens or hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved. As a complete nonspecialist in this area, I have no idea if this is correct. But we do know that the physicians who held out, stuck to their guns against all smears, and figured out a way to serve their patients, even against regulatory attacks, became models of courage.
One night early in January 2022, I caught up with Dr. Pierre Kory of New York, who sounded absolutely exhausted on the phone. He had been working for 18 hours daily, seven days per week, to see patients and take care of needs with precision and deep care, even as he had faced unrelenting attacks. No question of what drove him and does still: the desperate desire to carry out his vocation to save lives and improve public health.
Meanwhile, on the other side of this stands the CDC, NIH, and HHS. The HHS has actually just produced something of a comic book (though probably not intended as such) designed to train people to recognize “misinformation.” It has no specifics and contains no scientific studies or claims. Instead, it is page after page of hint, hint, nudge nudge. In particular, I was struck by the following frames, which seem directed precisely against all those doctors and organizations that worked so hard during the pandemic to help people.
You are welcome to peruse the entire document, the main message of which is that the government is always correct, always knows the most science at the time, while front-line doctors with experience are very likely quacks, crazies, or ruthless profiteers.
Sometimes it seems like the people who produce such propaganda are forever attempting to live in the world of the movie Contagion, where every alternative treatment is a scam promoted by a corrupt “blogger” and where the CDC knows all. This cartoon is a smear in every way.
Yet even now, after two years of incontrovertible proof of the gigantic age plus health disparity in Covid vulnerability to severe outcomes, after massive demographic data the world over that is highly consistent, Jen Psaki just today said during a press conference that “we don’t know” that Covid affects older people more than young people.
Such is the state of science at the highest levels. The deliberate cultivation of confusion is national policy. And these are the people we are supposed to trust?
This battle is much larger than the legal status of Ivermectin. That’s just one symbol. What’s really at stake here is the idea of medical freedom itself. And freedom is a precondition for scientific inquiry and the search for the truth. It is also essential for public health. This is one of many lessons of the disastrously botched pandemic.
Whenever I heard Mayo Clinic I thought of superb medical care. Well, I guess those at Mayo are perhaps Government PC folk like many others.
‘The family of a man on a ventilator at Mayo Clinic in Florida asked a judge Tuesday to reconsider her decision to deny their request to try ivermectin and other medications and vitamins to help him recover from COVID-19.
“The Mayo Clinic is a fine institution, but it has lost its way,” attorneys Greg Anderson and Nick Whitney, of the AndersonGlenn law firm, and Jeff Childers, of Childers Law, wrote in their motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration.
whatyareckon 