Australian Parliament – Ivermectin

  • Updated:6 months ago
  • Reading Time:65Minutes
  • Post Words:16361Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Just want to keep up-to-date whenever Ivermectin is mentioned in parliament.

June 2021

June 29 2021

  • Federal Department of Health
  • Senator Gerard Rennick submits questions on notice relating to many COVID questions including the use of Ivermectin
Click to Expand (Transcript & Links)

  • Speaker: Senator Gerard Rennick, Liberal National Party
  • Rumble Video Link (Interview Senator Rennick discusses COVID 11/06/2021)
  • YouTube Video Link (Interview Senator Rennick discusses COVID 11/06/2021)

Health Submission Letter:

I submitted the following Questions on Notice to the federal Department of Health during the most recent Senate Estimates. I’ll update this page with their response and answers when I receive them:

1. Why can’t rapid testing be used at aged care centres, hospitals etc. for entering workers to try and reduce outbreaks of COVID-19?

2. Was it wise for the Labor Opposition to compromise safety by putting pressure on the TGA to roll out the vaccine before the TGA approved it?

3. Given Swine Flu had a median death rate of 48 and Covid has a median death rate of around 80 plus, why are governments reacting differently now to how they reacted to Swine Flu in 2009 regarding lockdowns, quarantining and vaccinations?

4. Should deaths when people had comorbidities be counted as COVID-19 deaths or comorbidities? I note the Health Department in my prior QoN quoted 91% of people who died from COVID-19 in ICU had comorbidities and a median age of 86.

5. Does mask prevention depend on the quality of mask? If so, which masks should or should not be used?

6. Has the Australian Red Cross taken serology tests on blood taken in Q4 2019 to determine if Covid was in the community at that time?

7. What percentage of the population need to be vaccinated before state governments stop closing borders and locking down residents? i.e. what percentage would achieve herd immunity?

8. What is the normal number of trials a drug or vaccine have to go through before being approved for use? i.e. Phase 1 trials, Phase 2 etc.

9. Has the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines gone through the standard testing or have they been fast tracked?

10. If fast tracked, what testing was avoided?

11. When did testing on these vaccines begin?

12. The Pfizer vaccine is a mRNA vaccine that delivers a genetic code to produce a spike protein and the AstraZeneca vaccine is a recombinant vaccine that puts the code for the spike protein into a complete different virus, both with the aim of stimulating an immune response. Is this correct?

13. How long have these methods been used for therapeutic purposes?

14. The original form of the influenza vaccine developed in the 1960s and still in widespread use delivered the whole virus (rather than just a spike protein), which has been weakened or killed, and then allowed the body to recognise and respond to it. Is this correct?

15. The traditional vaccines given for measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox etc. contain a weakened version of a germ that causes a disease. Is it correct that the mRNA and AZ vaccines use different methods than those vaccines that most people get as a child?

16. How long are the vaccines effective for? Could studies please be cited?

17. Will the population need to be revaccinated on a regular basis?

18. If so, how often?

19. To what percentage do vaccines stop transmission? Could studies please be cited.

20. To what extent has new variants reduced vaccine efficacy?

21. Has testing of the vaccine be performed on people with arrhythmia or hemolysis? If not, given the clotting that’s occurring, would it be wise to do so?

22. In the TGA’s reporting of vaccines, 210 died after receiving the vaccine. What did these people die from – the vaccine or other comorbidities?

23. Has a causal relationship been established as to what these people died from?

24. If they died of comorbidities, why is the TGA excluding them from deaths related to the vaccine given the common practice of reporting people dying with COVID-19 as though they died from Covid?

25. When it comes to comparing deaths from vaccines to a background death rate of the entire population, shouldn’t the bar be higher for vaccines to ensure that a causal relationship is established

26. Are the adverse reactions recorded by the TGA reported on a voluntary basis? Will they include all reactions or only those reported?

27. Have the vaccines received full approval or provisional approval? If the latter, what is the difference?

28. Is the TGA considering allowing two difference vaccines to be used simultaneously? Has sufficient testing been performed to allow this?

29. Why doesn’t the Australian Government hold pharmaceutical companies liable for their vaccines? If the vaccines are safe, then why is their liability waived? Most companies who sell faulty products that aren’t safe are held liable, so why aren’t pharmaceutical companies?

30. Why are drug makers the ones who design and perform the drug testing? Isn’t this a conflict of interest? Shouldn’t an independent body who doesn’t stand to benefit financially from the drugs be the ones who do the testing?

31. Do drug companies pay foreign owned social media companies to regulate posts about vaccines?

32. Who regulates the social media companies to ensure they aren’t censoring valid information and free speech?

33. Why do some vaccines last the best part of a lifetime while the flu shot only lasts for a few months?

34. Why can’t the CSL vaccine be used given it only resulted in false positive? Assuming it has fewer side effects than other drugs, why isn’t that the key benchmark?

35. Is the AMA affiliated with the Immunisation Coalition who along with many of its members are funded by pharmaceutical companies? If so, how can the AMA remain impartial when providing advice regarding vaccines or any other drugs for that matter?

36. Given the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine has been stopped or paused in other countries, why should Australians feel safe getting it?

37. Why isn’t there a standardised testing protocol for COVID-19? Advice from the Health Department says, “It is a dangerous practice to try to generalise the interpretation of a pathology result across different IVDs, unless there is a formal internationally agreed reference standard for that purpose. This does not exist for SARS-COV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR.”

38. The following link here says that, “It should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between ‘live’ virus and non-infective RNA.” Does this mean the PCR tests can show positive results for viruses other than COVID-19? I also note the following comments from the WHO:

“Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity. Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

39. Given the inexact nature of Covid testing, would it be more appropriate to report people with symptoms of COVID-19 rather than just arbitrary PCR figures that may include people who are asymptomatic? Noting the following information 1) A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal explains that PCR tests can be “positive” for up to five times longer than the time an infected person is actually infectious. They explain that up to 75% of “positive” individuals are most likely post-infectious, and; 2) only 44% of the “positive” samples using a Ct of 18 returned a viable lab culture, according to Dr. Jared Bullard, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and a current witness for the Manitoba government, and; 3) The PCR tests are not designed to detect and identify active infectious disease. Instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead?

40. Given the unreliability of the PCR tests, should the number of Covid cases be used as a benchmark for shutting down states rather than say ICU cases?

41. If COVID-19 debris is found in the sewerage, does this mean Covid has been in the community and people have recovered from COVID-19 without detection?

42. Should positive Covid tests be reported by Ct (cycle threshold) number so that the severity of cases can be ascertained by the public?

43. Why did Australians trying to return to Australia from India first test positive to COVID-19 then test negative the following day? Shouldn’t there be a more accurate diagnostic tool for detecting Covid?

44. Ivermectin has been given to millions of people in recent decades and has a proven safety record. Numerous peer reviewed studies based on RCT tests have shown symptom relief and rapid reductions in mortality and hospitalisation. What steps are required in order to make Ivermectin available to those Australians who wish use it, subject to doctor-patient consultation, rather than vaccines?

45. Who can apply to get Ivermectin approved as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Australia?

46. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has dropped its recommendation against Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, and the agency now advises it can’t recommend for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients. Why can’t Australia adopt the same approach?

47. Dr Tess Lawrie, consultant to the WHO, Thomas Borody, Robert Clancy and numerous other health professionals are on record saying that Ivermectin is not only safe to use but is effective. Given these views, why does the National Covid Evidence Taskforce recommend against Ivermectin in consultation with an individual’s GP?

June 22 2021

  • House of Representatives
  • Big speech about the effectiveness of Ivermectin in other countries

Click to Expand (Transcript & Links)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:34): To start my contribution on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, I’d like to pick up from where the member for Dunkley left off about the changing health advice. It is correct that the health advice on the vaccination program has changed. But what that actually shows is how mistaken it would have been to follow the advice of members of the opposition who wanted to rush out the vaccine in the earlier days.

Their call was that we must get more injections into the arms of people. But, because of that rushing out, we now have in this country 800,000 Australians who have been injected with a substance which our Chief Medical Officer now says poses greater risks to them than any potential benefit that they have received. That is historic proportions—that 800,000 Australians would be subject to a medical treatment where the Chief Medical Officer of the country now acknowledges that the risk to those people was greater than the benefits they received. And we know that dozens of those people have suffered from blood clots. This is the mistake that can happen when we panic and we rush, which was exactly the call that we heard from members of the opposition.

When it comes to working out our steps and procedure in tackling COVID, surely we must look at all the evidence. The first place that we might look to is a group called the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. I have been critical of this task force in the past. However, it is interesting to note their latest findings on ivermectin. I know that members of the opposition have called ivermectin snake oil and they have said that it doesn’t work.

Well, let’s have a look at what the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce says about this. They say: ‘Evidence comes from 13 randomised trials in over 1,260 adults.’ So they’re actually getting up there in the number of randomised trials and the number of adults. What does our national evidence task force find? Surprise, surprise, they found a 67 per cent reduction in death in those who were administered ivermectin who caught COVID as compared to those that weren’t—a 67 per cent reduction in death. They’ve also found a 46 per cent reduction in ICU admissions. That’s what they found. Yet, despite those amazing figures, which show an almost 50 per cent decline in ICU admissions and a 67 per cent decline in death, our national clinical evidence task force somehow still recommends against ivermectin.

There is evidence that’s now on the table, including the international peer reviewed evidence published only a few days ago in the American Journal of Therapeutics—a Cochrane standard, peer-reviewed meta-analysis, for the education of the members sitting over to my right—by researchers over in the UK. We’ve heard that apparently some of these studies that are not done in the UK should be discounted, but this is actually a peer reviewed meta-analysis from the United Kingdom by Bryant and Lawrie. What did they find on ivermectin? I’ll quote directly. They said that ‘meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin’ by 62 per cent in their study of 2,438 patients. They also found that ‘ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infections by an average of 86 per cent’.

I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that it is now game over for the ivermectin deniers with this peer-reviewed metanalysis study. All those on the other side who continue to deny ivermectin are putting Australian lives at risk.

The evidence is clear. The evidence is here. These people love to say, ‘We must have peer-reviewed studies.’ Well, here it is: a peer reviewed meta-analysis of 15 studies showing a 62 per cent reduction in the risk of death and an incredible 86 per cent reduction of COVID infections when used as a prophylaxis. Let me read the final conclusion of this meta-analysis, peer-reviewed published study:

Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO ‘Essential Medicine’ already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes.

And those volumes are in the billions of doses. It continues:

Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in covid-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone 1. If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then … two dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.

Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable and feasible global intervention against covid-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.

There you have it. That is the peer reviewed science. The denial of ivermectin must end, because it is costing lives in this country. Those on the other side must take off their tinfoil hats and follow the science, not the superstition and not the rumours. We know that many have spoken out against this drug because it’s low cost. We know that many have invested financial interests in trying to suppress its use and these studies, because there are billions involved in it.

It doesn’t stop there. Not only is there that peer-reviewed study; there is another study which summarises all the ivermectin studies. I’d like to go through what the numbers actually are here. There are 25 early treatment studies, and 23, 92 per cent of them, report positive effects. The random chance of that happening is one in 103,000. For late treatment, there are 21 studies, and 90.5 per cent of them show it’s an effective treatment. The random chance of that is one in 9,000. For prophylaxis, there are 14 studies and all 14, 100 per cent of them, show it’s an effective treatment. The random chance of that is one in 16,000. In total, there are 60 studies and 56 of them, 93.3 per cent, report a positive effect, and the random chance of that happening is estimated at—wait for it—one in two trillion. So, you on the other side, may well be right: this may all just be a lucky coincidence! There’s a one in two trillion chance that you are right that ivermectin is an ineffective treatment, because that is what the numbers, that is what the evidence, that is what the data, actually says!

I would like to conclude: if you want to read one particular peer-reviewed study on the effectiveness of ivermectin, I suggest to you a study published last year in the Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation. In that study, which was across four hospitals in Argentina, they had two groups. They had 407 hospital workers —doctors and nurses and orderlies—in their standard PPE equipment and they had another group of 788, again doctors and nurses and orderlies, which they gave ivermectin to. So we had an ivermectin group and a non-ivermectin group. Of the 407 in the non-ivermectin group, 237 of them, 58 per cent, in a three-month period, contracted COVID. Understand that Argentina is not a wealthy country, not as wealthy as we are here in Australia.

Their hospitals were overcrowded, COVID was rife through their society and, of the nurses and doctors in those hospitals that didn’t take ivermectin in that study period, 58 per cent of them became infected. But of the 788 that took the ivermectin treatment, can you guess how many contracted COVID, remembering it was 58 per cent of the other group? It was zero, a duck egg. Not one single person, not one single doctor, not one single nurse, not one single orderly, contracted COVID, and yet in the other group they had 58 per cent contract it. I think that I have given enough evidence here tonight that ivermectin must be adopted widely in this country. Looking at results across the board in countries like India and at how successful they have been in crushing their COVID curves with ivermectin, it must be adopted widely in this country. It is an effective treatment.

I would like to conclude that, unfortunately, because of the words I have spoken, because of the evidence that I have read out, if I were to put this speech during the proceedings here on the floor of the Australian parliament on YouTube, it would be censored and deplatformed by YouTube. They would take it down. They would look at it and they would question the proceedings of this parliament, question this debate. This speech cannot be put up on YouTube because of their censorship.

June 21 2021

  • House of Representatives
  • Bill (Preliminary) No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Act 2021 put forward by Mr Kelly – includes Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Quercetin, Zinc!
Click to Expand (Transcript & Links)

Download or View Bill using links above, but here is the section that mentions Ivermectin: followed by the transcript from the 2nd reading in parliament to the House of Representatives

No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Bill 2021

A Bill for an Act to protect the right of Australians to make their own health decisions in relation to COVID vaccination, and for related purposes

vaccination includes receiving any of the following for the purposes of preventing or reducing the risk of COVID infection:

(a)  traditional-style vaccines containing a virus or bacterium (or part of a virus or bacterium) as the antigen in a form that is not harmful;

(b)  novel, experimental genetic injectable material that tells the body to make an antigen that in turn tells the body to create antibodies;

(c)  chemoprophylaxis by the administration (whether oral, nasal or by injection) of a medication (including hydroxychloroquine, IOTA-carrageenan, Ivermectin , Povidone-iodine, Quercetin, vitamin D and zinc, or any combination of them).

The principle behind the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Bill 2021 is quite simple: COVID vaccines in this country should be freely available to all, with informed consent of course, but they should be mandatory to nobody. Already, there are 16 US states that have introduced similar legislation to that which I am introducing today. This bill has been modelled on Florida’s bill, introduced by Governor DeSantis, which has been widely accepted by the Florida electorate. I hope that this parliament will move forward and bring this bill on for debate and a vote as soon as possible. This bill is simply about the type of country that we want. Do we want a country where government officials and petty bureaucrats demand that you show your medical papers? That is not the country that I want. Your medical records should be something between you and your doctor.

The entire concept of a vaccine passport is itself inherently misleading. There is little evidence to show that these novel experimental COVID genetic vaccines actually prevent someone from contracting COVID or prevent someone from spreading COVID or prevent someone from being hospitalised with COVID. For the education of the member at the desk, I have the latest data from the US on what they call ‘vaccine breakthrough cases’. These are cases where someone has been injected twice and, after a period of 14 days, still contracts COVID. The number is so many that they no longer count them, but they do count the number of hospitalisations. As at 14 June, the number of so-called breakthrough cases—that is, people who have been vaccinated twice and have ended up in hospital with COVID—stands at 2,622, and the number of deaths of people who have been vaccinated twice in the US and have passed away from COVID stands at 549. However, these numbers, the CDC says, are ‘likely a substantial undercount’ of all SARS infections among so-called fully vaccinated persons, and this surveillance relies upon ‘passive and voluntary reporting’. So we don’t actually know what the true number of breakthrough cases are.

There is also growing concern over vaccine safety. The highly respected and highly credentialed Dr Tess Lawrie recently stated in submission she made that, ‘There is more than enough evidence to declare that the COVID vaccines are unsafe for use in humans.’ This is also a great concern, as we also have data from VAERS in the USA that shows that, as at 4 June, there have been 5,888 deaths that have occurred in people after the vaccine. Now it is true that this VAERS data is questionable. Dr Peter McCullough suggested that the number is more like 50,000 rather than 5,888. But the fact is that we just do not know. Again, this VAERS data is based on voluntary reporting. So we simply have no idea about what the true rate of deaths are after COVID injections and we have no idea whether they were related to them or just a mere coincidence.

I’d say that’s the entire problem, because we have to admit that this is still one giant medical experiment. I’d liked to quote Dr Damian Wojcik of New Zealand. Talking about having his patients injected, he said: ‘Not on my watch. Not with my patients. My patients are living persons with names and families, not laboratory rats to be sacrificed in a global experiment.’ Dr Roger Hodkinson—a doctor from Canada—said recently: ‘This experimental vaccine should never have been released. Mass vaccination is so transparently stupid; medical idiocy of a grotesque degree. The bottom line is that mass vaccination of everybody should stop immediately. And when it comes to injecting this stuff into the arms of children, I call this “state sanctioned child abuse”.’ Dr Peter McCullough has recently stated, ‘I can no longer recommend the vaccines’.

Therefore, as this is a medical experiment, the idea of having a vaccine passport is coercive. It is to coerce people into participating in a medical experiment, of which we simply do not know what the end result will be. We’ve even seen here in Australia how our medical bureaucrats have got it wrong time and time again. Firstly, when it came to the AstraZeneca vaccine, they said that there was no evidence of a relationship with blood clots. They were dangerously wrong. Then it was clear from the data out of Europe, from the European Medicines Agency, that the AstraZeneca should be suspended and most European countries elected for a cut-off date of 60 years of age. So, if you were under 60, in most European countries they did not give you the AstraZeneca vaccine.

But our medical bureaucrats decided that the Europeans didn’t know what they were doing and that we would have the cut-off at 50. Only last week they admitted that they were wrong again, and the result of their error has been that 800,000 Australians have been injected with a substance which our Chief Medical Officer now says has a greater risk than any benefit. This was 800,000 Australians injected, where the risk was greater to them than any benefit because of a mistake by our medical bureaucrats.

The thing is that we should look at that risk-benefit analysis. But we’ve seen that the short-term risks have been grossly underestimated by health officials around the world. That’s why there have been suspensions and recalls. But we have no idea of the medium-term risks, we have no idea of the long-term risks and we have no idea of the intergenerational risks. Therefore, for anyone to stand up and say that they know that the benefits outweigh the risks, well, they simply cannot say that. If you cannot quantify medium-, long-term and intergenerational risks then you simply cannot make that assessment—the data is not there. We’re flying blind into this experiment.

That’s also why we do not need a domestic vaccine passport in this country. It would also be a complete violation of human rights. The UN Economic and Social Council has said, ‘The right to health contains freedoms such as “the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from torture, non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation.’

I’d also like to make special mention of our Paralympic squad. We have bureaucrats there running that Paralympic squad that have decided to discriminate against Paralympians. So we have a situation where athletes are playing the same sport, going to the same country, going to the same city, going to the same Olympic facilities and playing at the same stadiums. If they are a Paralympian they are forced into this experiment—otherwise they are not picked. If they are in the normal Olympics, that does not apply. That is discrimination. That is contrary to the principles of this bill. I would call on Paralympic Australia to end their discrimination against athletes going to the Paralympics. With that, I commend this bill to the House, and I also congratulate my good friend the member for Dawson on being the seconder for this bill.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr Christensen: Seconded.

June 18 2021

  • Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
  • Mentioning Ivermectin for the Indigenous population.

Click to Expand (Transcript & Links - No Recording available)

Dr Casey : I’m on the wider Australian senior primary healthcare plan committee, and we’ve put all our recommendations in there, and it’s been accepted today on the consultation. It’s in the 10-year Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. We’re doing stuff in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Workforce Plan. There’s no medicine policy. So we’ve been talking about it and will, in fact, develop an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander medicine policy over the next 12 months.

Dr FREELANDER: I’ve been on Palm Island and seen people with insulin-dependent diabetes trying to manage their diabetes with no refrigeration. It’s horrific. I think we need some sort of voice.

Dr Casey : It seems to me that, for a small population, it just beggars belief that we can’t have some of these things in the 21st century. It’s just crazy, and it’s not expensive.

Dr FREELANDER: I have one last thing. You mentioned the so-called orphan drugs for the Indigenous population. Can you give me any examples?

Mr Stephens : I think a good one is ivermectin, which is right at the end of its life cycle, I suppose. It’s used for a treatment—

Dr FREELANDER: Sorry. I’m laughing because there is a certain member of the House who promotes ivermectin for COVID-19.

Mr Stephens : Well, maybe it’s not advisable, but it’s been around for a while and it’s used for a few clinical indications. There’s emerging evidence that that product could be repurposed, I suppose, as a first-line treatment for scabies. That’s one example. Eltroxin, the thyroid product that we mentioned, is another one. It’s been around for a long time. It’s approved for use in some other high-income countries. It’s been around for several years.

Dr FREELANDER: And you’re saying it doesn’t require refrigeration?

Mr Stephens : That’s right, yes. They’re two examples. I’d be happy to find some others—

Dr Casey : We can send you back some others.

Dr FREELANDER: Would you mind taking it on notice?

Dr Casey : Not at all.

Dr FREELANDER: That’s important as evidence that we need something.

Dr Casey : Yes, we can do that.

CHAIR: Fabulous. Thank you for your evidence today. We’ll provide you with the Hansard transcript of today’s proceedings. If there are any errors you want to correct or additions you’d like to make to that, please let the committee secretariat know. For the additional information, if you could give it to the secretary by 2 July, that would be very helpful. Thank you for your time.

June 16 2021

  • The Senate – Matters of Public Importance
  • Ivermectin as a Prophylaxis

Click to Expand (Transcript & links)

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:27): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree with the need for ministers to apologise to Victorians and all Australians. This includes ministers from state governments, particularly in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, and the federal government. But let’s dive deeper: after 16 months we still have virtually no data and certainly no plan. People are feeling scared and confused. Some are now terrified about the vaccine because crucial universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, confidence, honesty, leadership, direction, care and competence. Where is the plan for managing this virus and managing our economy? The inconsistent behaviour across states and the nation reveals no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and confusion. Ministers are lurching from event to event and crisis to crisis. The people have been abandoned and there is just confusion and lack of accountability.

There are seven strategies for managing a virus, and I checked these with the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. The first one is isolation or lockdowns. The World Health Organization admits that this is only of limited use to get control. So lockdowns are now an admission that the state governments don’t have control of their states. They’re not managing the virus; the virus is managing the states. We see now in Victoria a 184 per cent increase in attempted suicides by children—184 per cent! Lockdowns are failing.

The second is testing, tracing and quarantine. These are partially in use, but to very poor standards. The third strategy is restrictions—things like masks and social distancing. These are capricious and dubious in benefit. The fourth one is vaccines. We now have deaths from vaccines and thousands of people dying from vaccines overseas. We have a wide variety of side effects, including blood clots, and the health minister himself has been hospitalised with cellulitis as a side effect. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal department of health refused to declare the vaccines 100 per cent safe, and the vaccines fail to prevent transmission.

The fifth factor is cures and prophylactics. Ivermectin: I took it in 2014. There have been 3.7 billion doses around the world, over six decades. It’s proven safe. It’s cheap, because it is off patent, and it’s now being proven successful—highly successful—overseas. We’ve had 655 aged-care residents who’ve died, yet this drug is available, proven and safe.

There are two other factors that I won’t go into, but the main point is that there’s no plan, and governments lurch from event to event and issue to issue. They’re making it up as they go; premiers and prime ministers are hiding behind health officers. Australians have had enough of the fearmongering and the spin. Australians need honest, responsible and competent leadership.

June 15 2021

  • Senate Session on COVID-19: Vaccination
  • Ivermectin & Risky Vaccines

Click to Expand (Transcript & Links)

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (21:19): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I ask: what’s happening to our country? On COVID, due to the overseas deaths early last year, I was cooperative and supportive from the start. On 23 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, on single-day sittings in this Senate, we gave the government a blank cheque. But I added, on behalf of constituents, that we would hold the government accountable and we expected data and a plan. I mentioned the most successful nation was successful without crippling its economy because it did not cripple its economy. I mentioned ivermectin. Yet we never heard back—no data and no plan. Like people across Australia, I now have important questions.

People are feeling scared. Some are terrified, lost, hopeless, daunted and confused. People are feeling unsafe because of the vaccine side effects. People are feeling insecure because crucial, universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, trust, confidence, support, leadership, honesty, competence, care, freedom, ease, calm and direction.

Where’s the plan for managing the virus and our economy? There’s clearly inconsistent behaviour across our states, and the national government has revealed no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and insecurity to win elections and to control people. Governments have abandoned the people and removed accountability. I asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department to confirm my list of strategies that should be part of a plan for managing the virus.

Isolation is one. Testing, tracing and quarantining is another. Then there are restrictions, cures and prophylactics, vaccines, personal behaviour, and health and fitness. That’s seven I’ve raised with them. They’ve agreed with all seven. But we only see three in use, and then only partially, with crude and limited impact on the virus and a huge economic and social cost.

In response to my question in Senate estimates in March, I received data on the severity and transmissibility of this virus. The mortality is known by the health authorities to be low to severe. In fact, Senator Rex Patrick didn’t even know he had the virus. Others with comorbidity, though, can die. Just like with the flu, there’s a huge range of symptoms. So why do the Chief Medical Officer and the health department not publicly separate out each of the group’s mortality rates? Is it because people need to be kept in fear?

Now our taxes are being given to big pharma for unproven and risky vaccines. Let’s consider some of those risks and facts. There have been deaths from the vaccine. Thousands of people overseas have died from it. There have been a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, such as blood clots. The health minister, Mr Hunt, had cellulitis, reportedly a known vaccine side effect, and was hospitalised. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department refuse to declare the vaccine as 100 per cent safe.

So my first question is: how did the vaccines get provisional approval? They said there were no alternative vaccines available. But wait—once the first was approved provisionally, the others faced an approved alternative. So how did the others get provisional approval? The vaccines fail to prevent transmission of the virus. The vaccines fail to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. Intergenerational effects are not known at all. The vaccine’s effect against mutations is still unknown. The dosage is unknown. Vaccine frequency, number and time between jabs are still all unknown. Are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions on our lifestyle. The vaccine fails to open up international borders.

The vaccine makers all lack integrity. They have been fined billions of dollars—not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars—for misrepresenting their products. The health minister himself said, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ I am not a lab rat. Australians should not be treated as lab rats. This is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that could kill them—and yet, on ivermectin, this is the first time that sick people have been denied medicine that is safe and successful for COVID, as multiple overseas jurisdictions prove.

Let’s move on to ivermectin. I took it successfully in 2014 for something else. Some 3.7 billion doses have been given over six decades. It is prescribed for many ailments. There’s no risk. It’s safe. It’s cheap because it’s off patent. It’s affordable. It is being used successfully overseas to treat COVID en masse, regionally and nationally. There are 250 medical papers in support of ivermectin—proven successful with COVID. In times of emergency, when four vaccines are provisionally approved, and adults are vaccinated—and now kids, despite the early warnings, and now pregnant mothers, apparently—why isn’t a proven, safe and affordable treatment like ivermectin provisionally approved? If no-one has made application, why didn’t the government get off its hands and do it? The government has blood on its hands.

My second question is: why have four unproven, untested and risky vaccines been given provisional approval, yet one known, safe treatment has not been given provisional approval, despite extensive medical papers and successful widespread use overseas? What happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to Australia? I received a letter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration last week threatening me because I shared some facts publicly. I dared to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration calls that ‘advertising’—in an effort, apparently, to control me. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate. Without that there can be no informed consent, and without informed consent there can be no vaccination or treatment. People are free in our country to make what they want of the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration seems to think that discussing facts and data is advertising. Whose side is the TGA on—the people or Big Pharma?

My third question is: what are the connections between Big Pharma, Monash University, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Gates Foundation, Google and Facebook? Think about this. Google’s parent company is Alphabet. It owns YouTube, which took down one of my videos on the topic. Google owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? Another possible conflict of interest is surely Sequoia Capital, a venture fund known for making millions from early funding of Google, YouTube and Apple. Sequoia owns 10 per cent of Vaccitech. I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers, ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is ensuring that we protect people’s health and safety—our nation’s health and safety. So what happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to our country? Coercion seems widespread and primed for stronger, wider, more extensive coercion. Let’s have a look at some of the types of coercion: letters from so-called authorities intimidating people; threats to doctors; threats to employees of withholding employment or livelihood—a basic means of survival; media intimidation from the legacy media; journalists labelling and misrepresenting people. It’s no wonder that mainstream media is rapidly becoming the legacy media. There is also government funding of media companies on vaccine propaganda. But I do want to single out one journalist. Adam Creighton, in the Australian, has done a fabulous job of exposing and sharing the facts.

We move on now to what the government is calling a ‘digital certificate’. Is that going to become a digital passport? Will there be the withdrawal of people’s basic access to amenities, transport, travel and jobs unless they get the jab? Will there be the withdrawal of livelihood—the ability to live? This is not a digital passport; it’s a digital prison. Social media threats: Facebook and YouTube take down posts and threaten shutdown. Always, beneath control, there is fear. So my fourth question is: of what are authorities afraid? Clearly, it’s not the virus, because they have no plan. They’re afraid of people, the truth and freedom. Freedom is so easily squashed.

The key question is: why is there no government action to approve ivermectin? I call on the government not to wait for an application for approval and to get on with the job of inquiring about, and investigating, ivermectin and approving it. Australians, I call on you to decide for yourselves. Compare ivermectin and the vaccine. Consider the actions of federal and state governments. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?

June 1 2021

  • House of Reps Notice Papers
  • Why has the taskforce given a conditional recommendation for remdesivir & not to Ivermectin when the evidence reviewed on ivermectin shows superior efficacy to that of remdesivir?

Click to Expand (Copy of Notices & Links)

579 MR C. KELLY: To ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care—

  • Is it a fact that the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce’s advice on the medication, ivermectin, is currently, ‘not recommended’.
  • Is it a fact that the taskforce’s findings on ivermectin, based on the evidence they have reviewed to date (as at 27 May 2021), are that treatment for COVID-19 with ivermectin compared to ‘standard care’ reduces:
    • (a) all-cause mortality (within 28 days of commencing treatment) by 67 per cent (54 per 1000 for standard care versus 18 per 1000 with ivermectin);
    • (b) the need for invasive mechanical ventilation by 78 per cent (46 per 1000 for standard care versus 10 per 1000 with ivermectin); and
    • (c) the need for admission to intensive care units by 47 per cent (115 per 1000 for standard care versus 61 per 1000 with ivermectin).

580 MR C. KELLY: To ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care—

  • Is it a fact that the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce’s current findings and recommendations (as at 27 May 2021) on the medication ivermectin (recommended against) are based on evidence from 13 randomised trials in over 1260 adults with COVID-19.
  • Is it a fact that the taskforce’s current findings and recommendations for the medication remdesivir (a conditional recommendation for) are based on evidence from 2 trials in 781 people.
  • Why has the taskforce given a conditional recommendation for remdesivir, but has given a recommendation not to use ivermectin, when:
    • (a) the evidence reviewed on ivermectin shows superior efficacy to that of remdesivir; and
    • (b) the evidence reviewed by the taskforce on ivermectin is across a greater number of trials (13 versus 2) and a greater number of people (1260 versus 781).

June 1 2021

  • Community Affairs Legislation Committee
  • Why Ivermectin not approved by TGA? Why should Australia be lab-rats of vaccine trial?

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that has been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complementary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and its historical safety?

Dr Skerritt: Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, ‘Why haven’t you folks approved?’ We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There is no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor.
But we have said to people, ‘If you come with a dossier of information, we will review it as a priority.’ So it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval.

Click to Expand (Transcript & Links)

Dr Murphy : Just to start with, of the nine cases, six of them were actually reported yesterday by Victoria. So it’s only three that have appeared overnight.

Prof. Kelly : In answer to a previous question, I have been in direct contact with Victoria this morning. They were able to provide information. Apologies I wasn’t here at the beginning to provide that. The Victorian update is that there are 54 cases in total in this outbreak. There were nine cases reported today. Six of them were actually mentioned yesterday, so there’s only three new cases. So there are nine cases total, but three new cases today. They are all either household contacts. One of those cases is related to a workplace close to that Port Melbourne cluster. I think, importantly, of those 54 cases, there’s only four cases where it is not clear where that link is at this stage. So all of the rest are very closely linked, either in families or that Port Melbourne workplace that we’ve heard about in the last few days. I think that is the update for today.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator WATT: None of these nine new cases, including the six yesterday, involved an aged-care resident or worker?

Prof. Kelly : Correct.

CHAIR: We’re going to go to Senator Roberts for his questions on whole of portfolio.

Senator GALLAGHER: Before we do, could we have the table that was promised after the break?

Ms Edwards : I have the residents table. The staff one, they are trying to print now. If you want to go to Senator Roberts, we can do it immediately after that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID and that, if we do get it, we could still infect other people. Is that true?

Dr Murphy : Professor Kelly might answer that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person with COVID compared to an unvaccinated person with COVID?

Prof. Kelly : Can you repeat the question?

Senator ROBERTS: What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person who has COVID compared with an unvaccinated person with COVID?

Prof. Kelly : Well, it’s lower. I’m not sure I can give you an exact amount. I think Professor Murphy earlier talked about the issue and Senator Colbeck about the issue of transmission and how the vaccine affects that. We’re getting more information. It seems like there is a definite influence on transmission, decreasing transmission. It is somewhere between 30 and 60 per cent less likely.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a mass figure? If you had COVID and you were vaccinated compared with if you had COVID and weren’t vaccinated, would I have the same risk or lesser risk?

Prof. Kelly : You would have a much lower risk, but it’s not zero.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What decrease in transmission of infection would stop restrictions such as lockdowns, masks and social distancing?

Prof. Kelly : That is a matter that the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, which I chair, has been tasked by national cabinet to look at. It is a matter for national cabinet. There is a series of papers that we are preparing exactly to answer those questions. Some have been produced already and presented and there will be more in the coming meetings.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected with the vaccine for it to be effective? For each time, how long does the effect last?

Prof. Kelly : As I mentioned earlier in the hearing, there is very good protection from one dose of vaccine, either the AstraZeneca or the Pfizer, particularly in relation to severe infection but also symptomatic infection and, to a lesser extent, asymptomatic infection. So that is a single dose. The second dose is important for both those vaccines. Most of the vaccines currently being used around the world require two doses to give a longer and more deep effect, if you like, in terms of protection. I think it is very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine program. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future, particularly in relation to the variants of concern, of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. Some of those we already know do affect the vaccine efficacy. It is likely we will need to have boosters into the future. How long that two-dose effect works we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months, because the studies have been looking at it for six months. It is almost certainly longer than that for the original strain. But the variants of concern adds another complexity to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you guarantee Australians that all the vaccines you have obtained are 100 per cent safe?

Prof. Kelly : I can’t say that they are 100 per cent safe, no.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your honesty. How many years will it be before we know the long-term and intergenerational effects of these vaccines that have only provision approval?

Prof. Kelly : I might ask my colleague from the TGA to come up to answer that.

Dr Skerritt : TGA, unlike the US and the UK, for example, did a provisional approval of a vaccine as opposed to an emergency use authorisation. The reason why it is a provisional approval is that we don’t have, for example, as Professor Kelly has just said, information on the duration of protection from these vaccines. We require the companies to give us that sort of information in the coming years. No-one has those answers now. There are some encouraging results. As Professor Kelly has said, it is likely that further vaccinations will be required. As part of the approval of any medicine or vaccine, the company, together with us, are involved in very extensive safety monitoring. We publish results of the safety monitoring of that vaccine every week, including mild or 24-hour adverse events right through to those that might be much more serious and require hospitalisation. No medicine or vaccine is without adverse events. On balance, the number of adverse events, especially serious adverse events with these vaccines, is comparatively low. The overwhelmingly majority of people vaccinated with them at worst suffer a 24-hour or 48-hour sore arm, tiredness or fatigue et cetera.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That is a very comprehensive response. To summarise, we don’t know yet, but you’re relying upon the vaccine makers to feed you back information as time moves on?

Dr Skerritt : No. The information on safety comes from a wide range of sources. It comes from the states and territories and GP vaccination agreements. The GPs make an undertaking to also report any adverse events. The companies are legally bound to report adverse events, not only in Australia but also globally. Of course, we share—in fact, at nine or 10 o’clock tonight we will be having one of our regular fortnightly video conferences—information on adverse events with all the major regulators globally. The final source is from the medical scientific literature. So while the companies have this legal requirement to report, it’s only one of a number of inputs to understanding adverse events. Many of our adverse event reports come directly from doctors or even individuals. Any individual can report an adverse event directly to us.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will move to another topic away from vaccines for a minute. The vaccine has only provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?

Dr Skerritt : Provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available for that group of patients. So if there had been an approved vaccine that had, say, been on the market for several years fully approved, it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine. But at the time of the submissions of those vaccines—indeed, we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine—it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ivermectin» is an antiviral that has been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complementary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of «Ivermectin» in light of the emerging evidence and its historical safety?

Dr Skerritt : Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, ‘Why haven’t you folks approved?’ We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There is no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people, ‘If you come with a dossier of information, we will review it as a priority.’ If you go to the broader community, including the main originator company that is a sponsor of «Ivermectin» , they do not believe that the overwhelming balance of evidence actually supports «Ivermectin» being effective in the prophylaxis, prevention or the treatment of COVID. However, our doctors and scientists would look at that evidence with open eyes. So it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for «Ivermectin» to the TGA for regulatory approval.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will move back to the vaccine. The government has provided an indemnity to vaccine suppliers, as I understand it, and multinational pharmaceutical companies that have caused harm in the past. What is the nature of the indemnities that the government has provided? Are they full indemnities?

Ms Edwards : I will go to your question. I understand it. You want to know exactly the nature of the indemnities provided. Obviously—

Senator ROBERTS: That the government has provided to the vaccine manufacturers and suppliers.

Ms Edwards : In the first instance, I will say that the actual detail of the indemnity is part of the commercial-in-confidence contracts. I can provide you with some information about the nature of what is provided. We have agreed to certain indemnities with the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers. They are contained in commercially confidential contracts. The indemnities are designed to operate if there are problems with the flow-on from the vaccines themselves as opposed to the manner of administration and so on. They don’t cover that. Details of the agreement are commercial-in-confidence. But nothing in any of the contractual agreements from individual companies would stop individuals from seeking to litigate should an individual seek to do so in the future.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you repeat that, please?

Ms Edwards : The actual detail of the indemnity relates to the nature of the vaccine itself as opposed to the manner of administration or any other issue to do with how it’s transported and so on. But it is absolutely the case that nothing in the indemnity prevents an individual from taking an action against the manufacturer or against anybody if there is an issue that arises from the impact of the vaccine. The summary of the arrangements are that they ensure that manufacturers have significant indemnities in place to allow them to come into the marketplace and provide protection. They don’t prevent any action being taken by an individual who might be affected by a vaccine.

Senator ROBERTS: So why would they need an indemnity if they can still be sued? I don’t understand that. I’m not a lawyer.

Ms Edwards : I was once, but it was a long time ago.

Senator ROBERTS: You became honest, did you! We’ve got lawyers who are good friends.

Ms Edwards : It’s to do with the relationship between the government and the company.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the nature of that relationship?

Ms Edwards : They are the things that are confidential in the contracts. You would appreciate that in order to get vaccines into Australia so we have access to them, there are strict requirements in the way the contracts are done with the companies and confidentiality. The nature of the indemnity is a part of that confidentiality.

Senator ROBERTS: In the event of an injury or death from the vaccine, who pays compensation?

Ms Edwards : That is not a question I can answer in the abstract. It would depend on the circumstances and so on and how the legal process would go on. As I say, the indemnities with the manufacturers relate only to the flow-on from the vaccine itself. In the event that negligence happens in any mechanism, it could be actionable against the person who did the negligence. But there is no simple answer to who pays compensation because compensation would have to be found to be payable and attributable to someone and so on.

Senator ROBERTS: So it would be pretty challenging, Ms Edwards, for an individual to sue over just losing their spouse, son or daughter. I will go through some of the settlements and fines in the past. Pfizer paid the second largest pharmaceutical settlement in history—US$2.3 billion in 2009 for off label promotion and kickbacks—plus US$430 million in 2004 for off label promotion. AstraZeneca paid US$520 million in 2010 for off label promotion and kickbacks and US$355 million in 2003 for Medicare fraud. Johnson & Johnson paid US$2.2 billion in 2013 for off label promotion and kickbacks plus millions in Australia last year for defective pelvic mesh implants. It would be a pretty brave person who would hope to get anything out of this if they tried to sue any of these companies. These guys have a history of dodgy.

Ms Edwards : I’m not aware of any of the instances you’re referring to. Clearly, there have been instances in which action has been taken against these companies.

Senator ROBERTS: Are these companies appropriate to be entered into an agreement in this way? Look at the history.

Ms Edwards : The Australian government and Australian consumers have the advantage of pharmaceutical products produced by companies such as these and many others. Obviously, it is enormously important to the health of Australians that they have access to medicines, including vaccines. We rely heavily on the scientific advice from the CMO, the TGA and experts as to the appropriate vaccine to be approved and used in the country. They are the vaccines which we have purchased and are administering.

Senator Colbeck: I might comment on this. The approvals for the vaccines have been based on a considerable amount of data. The approvals haven’t been provided lightly. We have had the advantage of the visibility of the application of the vaccines in a number of other jurisdictions. It is an important question that you ask, I think. It’s not a company reputational issue; it is actually the data that supports the application of the vaccines that is assessed by not only our regulatory authorities but also the regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions and the fact that, as has already been indicated, there is a lot of discussion between those authorities in relation to that data. So it’s interrogated as a part of the approval process not only in this jurisdiction but in others.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand. Perhaps you could also include reference to this, Professor Skerritt, where some of the overseas nations using these vaccines have suspended their use.

Dr Skerritt : Well, there are several questions. I will return to the suspension of use, although it’s been relatively limited in countries such as Norway. I will talk about those fines for companies. I should clarify that it is a consequence of one of the things that personally I hope Australia never follows, and this is the US widespread advertising of prescription medicines directly to the public. It is legal and extremely commonplace. You have to have a TV on only for five minutes in your hotel room in the United States to see an advertisement for a prescription medicine. However, it is tempting for some of these companies. They’ve been fined with major fines in court cases when they push what we call the indications for which a medicine is approved. A medicine may be approved for certain sorts of arthritis. Their marketing people think it is a great idea to talk about arthritis in general. That is where they get these multi hundred million-dollar fines. If you go into those cases in the US, it is not about them providing defective vaccines or cheating with their quality data or cheating with their clinical data. Almost all those cases come down to inappropriate promotion. I guess the temptation of the United States system is that it allows the advertising of prescription medicines directly to the public. Thank god we don’t have that system in this country.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s still a matter of ethics, though, isn’t it? The companies are pushing that. It’s their marketing people they employ.

Dr Skerritt : It’s their marketing people. Of course, we could mention well many-known Australian corporations who have also had challenges with marketing, including telecommunication services.

Senator ROBERTS: Do they also go to the essence of the integrity of the company?

Dr Skerritt : In Australia, we do look closely at promotion, including to doctors. Recently, we fined a particular company over $300,000 for what we concluded was the inappropriate promotion of opiates to doctors. This wasn’t to the general public, but it was still inappropriate, in our view. So we will take action if we believe the promotion of a product is inappropriate. With regard to companies and countries that have suspended vaccines, there were a number of short-term suspensions of vaccines, for example, when some deaths in aged care were reported very early in the new year. They were then lifted after further investigation, when it was found that, sadly, people die in aged care and the death rates were not all that different from the expected death rates. There were then short-term suspensions in some countries after the initial clotting cases were found with AstraZeneca. Most countries, although Norway, for example, was an exception, have reintroduced those vaccines. Like Australia, many of them have age recommendations. Those ages vary between countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have just run out of time. You have one more question.

Senator ROBERTS: After the TGA had already provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, Minister Hunt said of the vaccines:

The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever.

Australians later died of blood clots due to the vaccine, a side effect that was not known prior to provisional approval. Why should Australians be the lab rats of a drug trial?

Dr Skerritt : The treatment of COVID—none of us has a crystal ball showing in a year or two where we will all end up, be it opening borders or making changes to the way we live our lives—has required probably one of the biggest societal trials we’ve had since World War II. It’s true to say that because we don’t know whether vaccines are 100 per cent, 90 per cent, 80 per cent, 70 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent effective in preventing transmission. Because we don’t know about the duration of protection and all those things, it is a trial in the sense that anything is new. That is the wider context in which the minister made those comments.

On the issue of benefit versus risk, every medicine or vaccine has significant risks. There have been many dozen deaths due to Panadol in this country, yet if we didn’t have that drug for relief of simple fever and so forth, there would be a lot of people suffering. So every medicine has its benefits and its risks. Because the clotting is very rare, even though the trials were extremely large as trials go—20,000 to 30,000 people, and there has been another 30,000 people on a follow-up trial of the AstraZeneca—those numbers were still too low that you would predict something would be seen 10 in a million times. So that is why the clotting was not picked up.

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t there still something really big, outstanding, though, and these are an RNA vaccine.

Dr Skerritt : No. The AstraZeneca vaccine is—

Senator ROBERTS: Some of them, sorry, are RNA.

Dr Skerritt : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How long before we know the intergenerational effects?

Dr Skerritt : There is no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have received regulatory approval, and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: So what you are saying is that it is okay to have a few deaths?

Dr Skerritt : I am saying that every medicine or vaccine is assessed both before it goes on to the market and once it is on the market based on benefit and risk. In Australia, we’ve had, sadly, one death. We’ve had a number of cases of this clotting syndrome. The really encouraging thing is that many of our cases seem to be milder than in other countries. That is because there’s such widespread awareness and these cases are picked up early. They are put in hospitals, even if it is minor clotting. The really good news is that the overwhelming majority of those people are already out of hospital.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

May 2021

Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015
—Financial assistance to support the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities 2018-2020—Report, May 2021

Click to Expand (Document Refence & Links)

Monash University Ivermectin as an antiviral against SARS-CoV-2 344,459

Feb 2021

February 23 2021

  • House of Representatives
  • Graham Perrett attacks Ivermectin & HCQ as unproven dangerous treatments – clearly has not spent a few minutes doing the research, and just wants to make things political instead of save lives.
  • I’m particularly disgusted with the ignorant inference that Ivermectin & HCQ are considered “unproven, dangerous treatments” when the fast-tracked experimental vaccines have been around less than a year and have already caused more deaths and injuries than both of these treatments which have been around for decades.

Click to Expand (Transcript & Link to Video)

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:48): So the member for Hughes has resigned from the Liberal Party. Apparently his views don’t accord with Liberal Party policy, despite his spruiking his views for years without any effective sanction by the Prime Minister.

The views of the member for Hughes is so dangerous that just last week Facebook banned him from their platform. His posts spread dangerous misinformation such as championing the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID despite reputable global studies finding it ineffective as a treatment; advocating the use of ivermectin , another drug not recommended by the National COVID-19 evidence institute; questioning the effectiveness of face masks and saying that having children wear masks is akin to abuse; and promoting conspiracy theories about the Washington riots.

The Prime Minister allowed the member for Hughes to spread dangerous misinformation that could actually kill people. The Prime Minister’s response to all this misinformation coming from the member for Hughes when he was in the Liberal Party was: ‘He’s not my doctor.’ The Prime Minister was ineffectual in reigning in the member for Hughes while he was in his government. Now that the member for Hughes has jumped ship he’ll be off leash, if I could mix metaphors. But the Prime Minister is still accountable. He’s still the Prime Minister, and, when it comes to votes in this House, he’ll still be able to have a say in whether he accepts the member for Hughes’s vote. A fair dinkum leader would not accept the vote of the member for Hughes. Let’s see if this Prime Minister is fair dinkum.

February 21 2021

  • Senate Hearing: Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021
  • Senator O’Neill used the line “Debunked cures such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were promoted in the face of scientific evidence” in her message about Facebook & Google censorship regulation.

Click to Expand (Transcript Excerpt & Link to Video)

Senator O’NEILL (New South Wales) (19:28): I thank you, Senator Roberts, for your courtesy in allowing us to alter the order here this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill today. I’ve received much correspondence on it, and it’s one that is going to have dramatic implications if it is passed. I speak, of course, of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021.

I want to say at the outset that I support adequate regulation of big tech platforms. That’s needed for accurate information to flow through our democracy. The swift rise to global dominance of the internet and social media industry now can be compared to the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century. Australians growing up today have never had so much information at their fingertips but with less confidence about where it comes from. As traditional news has withered, particularly local and regional news, fake news and click bait has metastasised with, often, terrible consequences. We saw the horrifying effects of Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election, with the Capitol riot, the domestic terrorism sponsored by the proliferation of the deranged QAnon theory and online message boards, and the incitement of religious and ethnic violence in Myanmar and Sri Lanka prompted by incendiary and false social media posts. As we saw in the course of the pandemic, even basic facts about the virus and simple measures such as wearing masks became political and debated facts. Debunked cures such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were promoted in the face of scientific evidence, and the wearing of simple cloth masks was called ‘child abuse’. Almost all my colleagues in this place would recognise this as an untenable situation. We cannot continue to let lies spread across the search and social media platforms. We cannot continue to watch public interest, local and regional journalism decline. Yet this bill is so threatening to Facebook that Facebook has threatened to take its toys and go home at the slightest threat of regulation.

February 17 2021

  • Senate Hearing: Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021
  • Mr Kelly on being banned on Facebook for Sharing Ivermectin, HCQ, & Vitamin D.
  • We must protect our rights to Freedom of Speech.

Click to Expand (Transcript Excerpt & Link to Video)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:11): I’m pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020.

This is a most interesting piece of legislation which reflects the change in the media environment that we are facing. Fundamentally, the argument that some of these large social media companies should pay other media organisations for their content has to be based on standard intellectual property law and it simply has to be based on a copyright provision.

I know that many times when things have been posted, whether it’s a cartoon or a picture or a news article, I’ve thought that there is, in some way, an infringement of that creator’s copyright by that being posted upon one of these digital platforms. The principle that we have for this legislation is sound. It is based upon the recognition that an original creator of content should be compensated for their work and have their work, that would otherwise be protected by copyright legislation, protected.

However, having said that, one of the great issues that we have goes to the freedom of speech when it comes to these large social media companies, and about what they should allow on their platform and where they should draw the line about what should be blocked. This is where I have some significant concerns—

An opposition member interjecting—

Mr CRAIG KELLY: I take the interjection from the helpful member across the chamber. It is correct, that as I stand here, I am—I think—the first person in this federal parliament that has actually been banned from posting things to Facebook.

Some people may disagree with what I’ve been posting; I’m sure some people do. The fact is, we would hope that those on the other side of the chamber may agree with the concept that I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my death your right to say it. It is the importance of freedom of speech that we should protect here and not be so flippant about it. It was one of Australia’s greatest ever Prime Ministers, Sir Robert Menzies, who said:

… today’s truth is frequently tomorrow’s error. There is nothing absolute about the truth … if truth is to emerge and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate—the untrammelled clash of opinion—must go on.

Sir Robert Menzies

In terms of these social media platforms, I’ve heard it said that anything posted contrary to World Health Organization advice should be taken down. But the problem with that is that we’ve had advice from the World Health Organization during this pandemic that has changed 180 degrees. Originally, we had the World Health Organization saying that masks were not necessary. That was the original advice. If someone had posted that the World Health Organization is incorrect and you can protect yourself from coronavirus by wearing a mask, at the start of the pandemic, that would have been ruled by these social media giants as misinformation and taken down. Yet now it’s commonly accepted wisdom.

Similarly, when we in Australia first decided that we would ban flights from China, the World Health Organization at that stage said there was no need to ban flights from China, from Wuhan Province. They said that was not needed. If someone had gone to a social media platform to argue the case that, because of the scale of the infections in China, especially in Wuhan Province, we should stop flights, that would have been contrary to World Health Organization advice. It would have been taken down, and that debate wouldn’t have gone on.

Now we see, to use Menzies’s words, that what was today’s truth was tomorrow’s error. The truth that the World Health Organization once said we know now was error. That’s why we are on a very slippery slope when we have people from these social media giants being the arbiters of truth and of what can and cannot be posted.

In my case, I have been banned because of four posts out of over 1,000 posts I posted in recent months. One of those posts was nothing more than an article that I had copied and pasted from The Spectator magazine—a credible magazine that is available online and is available in every newsagent in this country, that you can go and buy—written by a highly credentialed and credible journalist about Australia’s Professor Tom Borody.

In that speech, Professor Borody recommended ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. Facebook have ruled that as dangerous misinformation and had to remove that post and give it as the reason I should be banned. Yet what Professor Borody wrote is accepted by health authorities in many countries around the world. If I were in India in the state of West Bengal, in their official recommendations about how they should treat COVID is what Professor Borody recommends, yet here we have Facebook deciding that this was dangerous misinformation.

What is dangerous about this is someone from one of these social media giants deciding that that issue should not be debated or should not be publicly discussed. If Professor Borody is wrong, the way to do that is not to censor him and to cancel his views, but to do it with an opposing point of view. Argue the facts. That is the way we get the best result in a society.

The second post that they decided must be ‘taken down’ was again a direct quote from a professor of immunology out of Ireland, Professor Dolores Cahill, talking about vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine and zinc. Recent studies show that Professor Cahill is most likely 100 per cent correct. So, again, the real danger is not the views themselves but the censoring of these views. The third one was again a direct cut and paste from a Dr Hodkinson in Canada. Yes, he did express views that were contrary to the current accepted wisdom of the World Health Organization, but who is to say that he is wrong and the World Health Organization is right when we have seen example after example of the World Health Organization changing their position 180 degrees.

The fourth example is that I put on my Facebook page a German study on mask wearing by children. That study found—beyond all reasonable doubt—that forcing young children to wear masks caused them significant psychological and physical harm. Causing children psychological and physical harm is, in itself, a definition of child abuse. The World Health Organization themselves say that when you make a recommendation or a government makes a decision on whether masks should be compulsory for children between six and twelve years of age, you have to consider those sociological and psychological facts. That is exactly what this study does.

I don’t know if the conclusions of that study are 100 per cent right, but we must be free to debate these issues. If we’re not, this is a very dark day for freedom of speech. I may be banned today—and it may be my colleagues next week or next month or next year or next decade who are banned because they may have a point of view that is contrary, at that time, to accepted common wisdom—but we have to remember that every single bit of progress we have made in our society, over the last several hundred ideas, has come about because someone has said the accepted wisdom of doing something is wrong and there’s a better way of doing it.

That is why we must protect freedom of speech. We know from our history how important it is. I would hope that as we develop the legislation—and there’ll be more legislation required to govern the impact of these large social media organisations that are developing almost a monopoly position in the marketplace—we do so in a way that, if they are going to have that position in our society, guarantees and protects freedom of speech. We must protect the clash of ideas. We must protect open and free debate, because, at the moment, the social media companies are failing to do so. And that may well require further government intervention down the track. I thank the House.

February 17 2021

  • Federation Chamber: COVID-19: Ivermectin
  • Kelly pleads the National COVID task force to look at the evidence of Ivermectin.

Click to Expand (Transcript Excerpt & Link to Video)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:21): Six months ago, on 20 August, Australia’s Professor Borody put out a press release, which I would like to read out so it is recorded in Hansard. These are his words, not mine:

We have a therapy that can fight COVID-19. The medications have been around for 50 years, they are cheap, FDA and TGA approved, and have an outstanding safety profile … To save lives we should be using whatever is safe and available right now.

That was 20 August last year.

He said:

We could lead the world in this fight. Australia has some of the best medical and science people in the world – indeed the Ivermectin connection was first discovered by Dr Kylie Wagstaff’s team at Monash University in April. How long do we need to wait before Australian politicians get behind Australian medical science and use ‘war room’ tactics with safe and approved medications.

To continue to quote Professor Borody:

No trial has shown Ivermectin-based therapy to be ineffective. In fact, international data reports an almost 100% cure rate and a symptom improvement within 4-6 days. We should share Australian findings from this triple therapy with the world.

He continued, and, again, I am quoting his words directly:

An Ivermectin tablet can cost as little as $2 – which could make it by far the cheapest, safest, and fastest cure for Australians and the Australian economy. This needs to be available for aged care facilities and frontline health workers today.

That’s not my quote; that’s Professor Borody’s quote from August last year, six months ago.

He continued:

There is mounting worldwide clinical literature pointing to a 100% cure rate using Ivermectin Triple Therapy.

As I said, it was August 20, six months ago, when Professor Borody said there is mounting worldwide clinical literature pointing to 100 per cent cure rate. The latest evidence is we now have 40 Ivermectin trials, 40 studies and all 100 per cent of those studies are shown as effective. The random probability of an equal chance of a positive result from such an ineffective treatment to get 40 out of 40 are one in one trillion. So I call again on our national COVID evidence task force: for God’s sake, please look at the evidence. Look at the evidence. We are six months late. Look at the evidence and make recommendations based upon the science.

Petition Response: February 15 2021

(Petition Ended: 04 Nov 2020)

  • Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, responds to Petition calling for the use of Vitamin C, Zinc, HCQ, Azithromycin, and Ivermectin with “no definitive clinical trial research evidence”

Click to Expand (Petition & Response)

Petition Reason

1. Policy re covid19 has been based on misrepresented statistical data showing the virus to be broadly far deadlier than it actually is. Specifically protecting and quarantining the at risk population ONLY is far more sensible.

2. The government appears reliant on misleading direction from the WHO and the TGA who persist in demonising effective treatments that with overwhelming experiential evidence now ought rather be embraced.

3. By utilising the treatment options that ought to be available and promoted, the virus poses even less of a real threat. A combination of the above three points logically leads the argument towards a better public health policy approach going forward. The consequences of continuing in the current vein is with massive personal, health and macroeconomic cost far exceeding that justified to successfully deal with this relative health threat.

Petition Request

We therefore ask the House to

1) Disband the objective at aiming for zero cases and preserving or creating “the bubble”.
2) Set a new objective of developing herd immunity with safeguards for the elderly and at risk.
3) Act to immediately remove all impediments to the prescription and use of hydroxychloroquine.
4) Proactively implement effective treatment protocols for prevention and early treatment utilising zinc, vit c, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, doxycycline, azithromycin and others as evidenced.
5) Therefore with optimism and confidence, incrementally relax distancing restrictions and open up our lives and the economy.


Dear Chair

I refer to your correspondence of 9 November 2020 concerning petition EN1884 – Urgently Needed Changes to Public Health Policy Regarding Covid-19.

The Australian Government is taking a strong and decisive approach in responding to COVID-19. The relatively low number of COVID-19 cases in Australia is the result of the swift and successful implementation of public health measures. It is also evident that countries where public health measures were either not implemented at all, or were implemented later in the pandemic, have experienced very high case numbers and mortality, which is in stark contrast to Australia’s current epidemiology.

Letting the virus transmit through the majority of the community has not been adopted for a number of reasons:

  • herd immunity via large scale natural infection across the population is not guaranteed by adopting this approach
  • the length of immunity after natural infection remains largely unknown and reinfection in healthy individuals with a subsequent and more serious bout of the disease cannot be ruled out at this time
  • although data indicate that increasing age and co-existence of chronic disease are the factors that place a person at higher risk of severe disease, there is no clear delineation between those who are vulnerable and those who are not
  • being young and healthy does not guarantee that you would have a full recovery if infected with SARS-CoV-2.

In Australia, we continue to pursue an ‘aggressive suppression’ approach with the goal of no local community transmission, at least until a vaccine or effective treatment is widely available. This has led to periods of elimination in parts of the country.

Our national strategy balances the economic and social costs of suppression against the potential costs associated with widespread disease, such as the number of lives lost and an overwhelmed healthcare system. This has also bought Australia valuable time to enhance its hospital and public health capacity to manage the disease.

Currently, there is no cure or treatment to prevent COVID-19, although a number of medications can help people who are very seriously ill. The Government is closely monitoring worldwide research of treatments for patients with COVID-19. Obtaining robust evidence in the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic is essential in ensuring public safety and we encourage administration and collection of data via clinical trials.

There is currently no definitive clinical trial research evidence that Vitamin C and/or Zinc has a role in preventing or treating COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and ivermectin (either alone or in combination with other medications) for the treatment of COVID-19 is not recommended outside of randomised trials. Although a medicine may be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to treat a particular condition, it does not automatically mean that it is safe to treat another condition ‘off-label’.

The health and safety of all Australians is of paramount importance to the Government. The Government is committed to also opening up in a COVIDSafe way, alongside strategies of widespread testing, isolation of cases, contact tracing and quarantining of people who are close contacts.

Yours sincerely

from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt

Petition Response: February 15 2021

(Petition Ended: 23 Sept 2020)

  • Petition EN1753 – Allow doctors to prescribe Hydroxychloroquine and other COVID treatments
  • Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, responds to Petition requesting the removal of restrictions for prescribing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (Zithromax) 

Click to Expand (Petition & Response)

Petition Reason

These restrictions began just after America’s Frontline Doctors video went viral discussing treatments to Coronavirus and noted that Hydroxychloroquine added with Zithromax and Zinc are the cure to Covid 19. How can we as free men and women not potentially use an easy, low risk, widely used, historical medicine and not be allowed to be prescribed. The medicine has been used for 60 years for everything from Malaria to Arthritis and even in a study from 2005 saying that it added in corona virus medication. Why are you as a government not trying your best to allow a cure to be found.

Petition Request

We therefore ask the House to remove the restrictions on doctors in Australia to prescribe Hydroxychloroquine and Zithromax and other treatments.


Dear Chair

I refer to your correspondence concerning a petition requesting the removal of restrictions for prescribing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (Zithromax) (Petition Number EN1753). I regret the delay in responding.

The circumstances under which medicines can be accessed by the Australian public are determined through a classification process known as ‘scheduling’. Medicines and chemicals are classified into schedules, which are published in the Poisons Standard. Classification is based on the risk of harm and the level of access control required to protect public health and safety. The scheduling process is managed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which is part of my Department. Scheduling decisions are made by a senior medical officer at the TOA, acting as a delegate of the Secretary of my Department. These are not decisions of the Minister for Health or the Australian Parliament.

In Australia, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been assessed as prescription only medicines because they are used for conditions that require the diagnosis and intervention from a medical practitioner.

Azithromycin is approved to treat infections in different parts of the body caused by bacteria, such as chlamydia. No restrictions have been placed on the prescribing of azithromycin due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hydroxychloroquine is approved to treat malaria and certain autoimmune conditions, including lupus. It is important to be aware that hydroxychloroquine can have serious side effects, including cardiac toxicity (potentially leading to sudden heart attacks), irreversible eye damage and severe depletion of blood sugar (potentially leading to coma).

After COVID-19 emerged there was a sudden increase in demand for hydroxychloroquine in the community which resulted in some patients not being able to fill their regular prescriptions. As such, prescribing restrictions were introduced to ensure an ongoing supply of hydroxychloroquine to patients who need it to treat the conditions for which the product was approved. More information is available at:

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is closely monitoring clinical studies in Australia and around the world that are investigating the use of potential COVID-19 treatments, including hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

This taskforce comprises 29 peak health professional bodies whose members are providing clinical care to people with COVID-19. The taskforce undertakes continuous surveillance to identify and rapidly synthesise emerging research in order to provide national, evidence-based guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19. You can view the taskforce guidelines at:

Based on the current available evidence, my Department strongly discourages the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent COVID-19, unless the patient is enrolled in a clinical trial, which will have safety monitoring protocols and oversight by a Human Research Ethics Committee. Information on clinical trials for hydroxychloroquine being undertaken in Australia can be found on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trails Registry at: using the search term ‘hydroxychloroquine’.

Similar to my Department and TGA’s current position on the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19, the United States Food and Drug Administration has cautioned against the use of hydroxychloroquine outside of hospital or clinical trial settings, due to the risk of adverse effects. The United Kingdom medicines regulator has suspended recruitment to all studies of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

The TGA continues to publish updated information on hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 on their website at:­hydroxychloroguine-covid-19.

Thank you for writing on this matter.

Yours sincerely

from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt

February 2 2021

  • Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
  • Approval processes for new drugs and novel medical technologies in Australia

Click to Expand (Transcript & Links)

Dr FREELANDER: I have one last question for this round. Professor Skerritt, there has been a lot of talk about treatments other than immunisation—

CHAIR: Really!

Dr FREELANDER: has there been any approval for the use of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19?

Dr Skerritt : None of the comparable OECD regulators have provided regulatory approval for hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin as treatments. There are still some trials going on for both drugs. There were a number of early trials, but more rigorous, controlled, randomised-controlled trials undertaken in the top medical centres didn’t, unfortunately, support some of the early optimism. That’s why at the moment, the national evidence taskforce does not recommend the use of hydroxychloroquine. The evidence is not there for ivermectin. There’s some evidence in vitro, but the actual concentrations that you might use in a test tube in a laboratory were actually a fair bit higher. There is research going on globally. I think you’ve raised an important point that, if we look at the management of viruses, some viruses such as HIV/AIDS and hep C have actually required a therapeutics approach rather than a vaccine approach. I do believe therapeutics will have an important role in COVID, especially if it becomes endemic, and they will complement the use of vaccines for prevention. The development of therapeutics has been slower than we would have liked although, in this country, we approved Remdesivir on label and also the steroids used off label—dexamethasone and others.

Dr FREELANDER: Great. Thank you very much.

Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.