The ugly, silent war rumbling and raging through society right now is common sense versus conformity. The rebels among us are now those who dare to stand up and say, “No, I will think for myself”, rather than meekly nodding along with the approved script on any given topic.
If you dare to question the script, chances are you’ll be swiftly labelled a “racist”, “misogynist”, “climate denier” or, in the case of those of us eagerly seeking out the facts regarding COVID-19 vaccinations, “anti-vaxxer”.
All of these transparent labels are hollow, desperate, absolutist attempts to shame individuals into compliant silence rather than allowing them to make up their own minds.
I’m certainly not an anti-vaxxer; I had vaccinations when young and have continued throughout adult life.
Will I have the COVID-19 vaccination?
Probably… after reading, questioning, researching and making up my own mind as a responsible adult who answers to myself, not hysterical, totalitarian leftist mobs that dwell and thrive on social media.
Grown adults believe in freedom, are pro-truth, pro-science, and pride themselves on making informed decisions as autonomous, liberated individuals. They weigh up realistic risks, consider performance and prioritise personal responsibility.
While we may, on this rare occasion, thank Big Tech for hiding vaccine conspiracy theory comments from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (who claimed vaccines imported from the US or UK were “completely untrustworthy”), we don’t want our information censored.
And so, to prepare this feature I went down the COVID-19 rabbit hole, read a wide range of research, spoke to those who have chosen to educate themselves, watched videos, listened to testimonies, and, shock horror, dared to engage my very own brain.
I have to tell you, I have some questions. In particular, I would like to know why mainstream media is not providing all the available evidence to allow individuals to make up their own minds.
I would like to know why scientific research from all around the world is being silenced.
And I would like to know why health bureaucrats are making decisions seemingly based on making mega bucks for Big Pharma rather than looking out for everyday Aussies doing it tough, across the country.
As it turns out, the answer may not be in lockdowns or one-size fits all vaccinations. There may well be various options in front of us as we attempt to restart and redesign life after COVID.
The largest vaccination program in this country’s history is now underway. There’s lots of talk about the highly anticipated Pfizer BioNTech drug and AstraZeneca.
In mid-January, The Australian and New Zealand Society for Immunology called for the federal government to immediately pause the planned rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine because it may not be effective enough to generate herd immunity. Phase three of clinical trials have shown it only to be 62 per cent effective in preventing COVID-19.
This is a moving challenge. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is, frankly, either deluded, a liar, or has an agenda.
A vaccine may well be our best strategy to ending the current pandemic, but the fastest time frame scientists have ever managed to create a vaccine in history is four years. Any vaccine takes years of research.
Current scepticism around the safety and effectiveness of the proposed jabs right now is common sense.
Just one day after Steven Salzberg, a researcher and biostatistician at John Hopkins University in the US penned an opinion piece in Forbes calling for a limited rollout of experimental vaccines to the public, he did an about turn, writing the follow up piece, “I was wrong: We Can’t Skip Phase 3 Vaccine Trials”.
Of course we can’t skip trials. Remember, in Australia there is no COVID-19 emergency that would be used to fast track through approval’s red tape. All the fear mongering have been proven incorrect when it comes to Australia’s infections and COVID death rates.
At this point, we don’t know the medium, long term or very long term side effects of vaccines.
The question we should all be asking is: in the fight for our lives, are all the cards really on the table?
Grown adults believe in freedom.
Let’s talk about ivermectin
You may well have not heard about it, it certainly hasn’t had the PR of Pfizer or AstraZeneca, but ivermectin is not a new drug. In fact, this wonder drug was discovered in the 1970s, and won the Nobel Prize in 2015. It has proven, highly potent, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. In 1987 it was approved in humans to treat river blindness, caused by blackfly-transmitted parasites.
Ivermectin is the active ingredient in medicines that treat human and animal diseases caused by parasites, such as lice and mites. As an Ionophore antibiotic, it acts by generating pores in biological membranes that dramatically alter the ionic household of cells.
In Australia, ivermectin is an approved treatment for scabies, the tropical diseases onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis, as well as a skin condition called rosacea. It is only available on prescription.
In April 2020, Australian researchers published results from a laboratory experiment showing that ivermectin could stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus from multiplying in animal cells under a microscope. This one study, researchers warned, was not enough to prove it would work in humans.
Drug repurposing or drug re-profiling can be a clever opportunity in medicine, enabling clinical trials to bypass testing phases and reduce the length of time in development.
Around the world, numerous controlled clinical trials have reported large, consistent improvements in COVID patient outcomes.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has produced a simple one-page summary of the ‘Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19. It states, “Ivermectin prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either pre or post-exposure. Ivermectin hastens recovery and decreases hospitalisation and mortality in patients with COVID-19”.
In addition ivermectin “leads to far lower case-fatality rates in regions with widespread use.”
And, the report states, “a meta-analysis recently performed by an independent research consortium calculate the chances that ivermectin is ineffective in COVID-19 to be 1 in 67 million.”
Yes, you read that correctly, 1 in 67 million.
“I can’t keep doing this”
Noting that ivermectin has been approved in “dozens of countries”, in an interview with Dariknews.bg in Bulgaria, Professor Ivo Petrov said, “The results are encouraging. It is important to note that the study was conducted in patients with mild to moderate symptoms in the relatively early stages of the disease. And in such patients ivermectin has a beneficial effect in terms of faster reduction of symptoms and reduction of positivity of the virus, faster clearance of the virus from biological fluids and also much faster, between 4-5 days, in contrast from the control group, in which there is a reduction of inflammatory factors after the 7th day.”
He added, “The main advantage of this drug is that its effect is on our cells. It protects our cells from the penetration of the virus.”
He also cited a study of 800 hospital workers, which showed that those who took the drug without getting sick had a lower incidence of the disease, and symptoms were milder.
Interestingly, Petrov also spoke about the fact that in medicine, doctors often first expose themselves to see the side effects first-hand.
“It is the colleagues to whom we first gave it, who are now the biggest proponents of ivermectin treatment, as they have felt the effect on themselves,” he said.
Plus, in compelling, powerful testimony in December 2020, Pierre Kory, Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in the US pleaded for a review of data during a COVID-19 Senate hearing. “I can’t keep doing this”, he said, as he publically asked for ivermectin to be approved. “It basically obliterates this virus,” he says, adding that denying this treatment is “the most severe discrepancy I’ve seen in my career.”
Why isn’t Australia leading the world?
If we’re honest, this should have actually been a glittering, great Australian success story. Professor Thomas Borody, from Sydney’s Centre for Digestive Diseases is famous for inventing the cure for peptic ulcers. What he should be famous for right now, is finding the cure for COVID-19.
Borody combines a triple therapy with zinc and the antibiotic Doxycycline to attack the virus from multiple angles.
Back in August Borody stated, “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. We could lead the world in this fight.”
Barody added, “No trial has shown Ivermectin-based therapy to be ineffective. In fact, international data reports an almost 100 per cent cure rate and a symptom improvement within 4-6 days. We should share Australian findings from this triple therapy with the world.”
And then, possibly the key to this mystery emerged when he clearly stated, “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. We have written to the Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt and Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews for an urgent medical briefing to bypass the raft of ‘advisors’ who need to know TGA-approved medicines do not require animal studies and prolonged clinical trials already done to approve them in the first place.”
What happened to Professor Borody? He was threatened into silence by our Health Bureaucrats, notably Labor’s Chris Bowen, Shadow Health Minister of Australia who applauded Borody’s opinions being censored. Bowen appears to be a fan of throwing around the label ‘conspiracy theorists’ and claiming misinformation is being spread. Other doctors calling for ivermectin to be considered in the fight against COVID-19 have been censored by YouTube, Facebook, other Big Tech as well as mainstream media.
Trials are rolling in
Doctors who are actually treating COVID patients are pleading that Ivermectin be adopted. Trials are underway in 32 countries and are about to start in California.
To date, five months after Borody’s statement, there are now 28 Ivermectin controlled published studies. All of them have found ivermectin to be effective against COVID. And all of them support Borody’s recommendations.
HCQ around the world
On the other hand, perhaps the biggest hurdle to pursuing the truth about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19, was positioned when outgoing US President Donald Trump dared to trumpet its potential.
As soon as Trump dropped the h-bomb last year, the war on HCQ was on; the drug became politicised, mainstream media widely demonised it and silenced emerging positive research. At best this reaction was shameful, at worst its cost millions of lives.
Indeed, studies have been pouring in from around the world on the effectiveness of HCQ - but you have to go hunting for them.
A real-time analysis of 227 HCQ studies, 163 peer reviewed, show that HCQ is effective.
Studies from Turkey, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, China, Spain - the list goes on and on - all show patients with a lower mortality rate with HCQ treatment.
Looking around the world, there are various positive strands to the HCQ story.
Last May, for instance, the health system in Brazil was pushed to virtual collapse; patients were dying in chairs, ICUs and wards were full.
Testimony of infectious disease physician Vania Brilhante, coordinator of the Unimed Belem Supply Center provides a fascinating insight into the impact of HCQ.
On 8th May, they opened their drive-thru clinic and Brilhante notes “an abrupt drop in our curve… we did more than 5,000 treatments… after we started the treatment early, we had no more than 5 per cent hospitalisation.”
Yet, our health bureaucrats in Australia continue to play Russian roulette with Australian lives by denying citizens access to Hydroxychloroquine? What are they waiting for?
Politico recently reported that in Switzerland, where HCQ was banned from May 27 to June 11, daily COVID fatalities jumped substantially during that period.
Fears versus freedom
While vocal sections of society attempt to silence anyone who tries to point out that the vaccines have not been tested on pregnant women, in Singapore, they have specifically announced that pregnant women won’t be vaccinated. The Expert Committee has advised the Government that COVID vaccine should not be given to women who are pregnant, children younger than 16-years-old, people who are immune-compromised, or have an impaired immune system.
The vaccine will not be mandatory but it’s promised to be free.
Is anyone surprised to learn that behind closed doors, senior government officials are themselves discussing that they’re personally concerned about the safety of the vaccine and pregnancy?
Well, it’s one thing using the public as human guinea pigs in this great experiment; it’s quite another when the syringe is set to pierce the skin of their own family’s arms.
And, ultimately, that is precisely why none of us should feel shamed out of researching all of these options ourselves, rather than slavishly opting out of decision-making when it comes to matters of our own health, family, life and death.