© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Horowitz: Australia admits it is banning ivermectin for COVID because it interferes with universal vaccine agenda
Sergio Yoneda/Getty Images

Horowitz: Australia admits it is banning ivermectin for COVID because it interferes with universal vaccine agenda

Why in the world would anyone want to ban a medicine that is listed as a WHO essential safe medicine, won the Nobel prize, and has turned around millions of people with COVID from death's doorstep? The Australians have now let the cat out of the bag. The reason is because it works, and it will eradicate COVID, along with the agenda — from control to vaccination — that they have built upon its existence.

Last Friday, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia officially banned the prescribing of ivermectin for COVID-19 or any other use besides parasitic infections. One would think that a country that forged a policy of "zero COVID" would want to aggressively treat this virus with everything that has proven to work and actually achieve literal zero COVID, as the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh did with the use of ivermectin. But indeed, this is not about getting rid of COVID, but about perpetuating the control and cronyism harnessed through COVID.

The three reasons given for the TGA's decision were as shocking as they were revealing. "Firstly, there are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin," begins the statement. If you stop reading at that point mid-sentence, you are likely wondering how a drug that was praised more than any other drug in recent decades and was used safely billions of times could suddenly cause such terrible problems. However, when you complete the sentence, you will understand what sort of "risk" they are referring to. Here is the full explanation:

"Firstly, there are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection rather than getting vaccinated. Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of COVID-19 infection throughout the community."

That's it! That is the reason they not only oppose ivermectin here and in Australia, but oppose hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, fenofibrate, and any and all forms of preventive and outpatient treatment. Doctors have even told me they have had prescriptions blocked by pharmacists for antibiotics or prednisone, if they think they are being used for COVID. This is the most evident admission yet from the Australian government that it can't afford to get rid of the virus with something so cheap because it will obviate the need for the vaccine ... and the totalitarian agenda accompanying it.

The irony is supremely rich, given that they are falsely projecting on ivermectin a weakness that is doubly true of the vaccine. Unlike ivermectin, the vaccine absolutely does not work to stop community spread and its protection against critical illness even wears off after about five to six months, according to Israeli studies, which is why they are pushing third and even fourth shots. These people have been silently spreading the virus for months thinking they are enjoying the protection traditional vaccines have afforded.

I have personally connected dozens of vaccinated people with competent doctors to get treated with therapeutics because they got very sick from the virus. It's the vaccine that is giving people false hope and preventing them from isolating early on and getting the virus treated from day one, as they should. A recent Oxford study showed that Vietnamese health care workers who were vaccinated were carrying a viral load 251 times greater than those sick with the virus in past months. To the extent that the vaccine still works to ward of serious symptoms for those people, it allows them to become silent superspreaders.

Next, the TGA complains that while it can't assail the underlying safety of one of the safest drugs, officials don't like the dosage being used by doctors prescribing for COVID. "Secondly, the doses of ivermectin that are being advocated for ... are significantly higher than those approved and found safe for scabies or parasite treatment," writes the TGA in the press release. "These higher doses can be associated with serious adverse effects, including severe nausea, vomiting, dizziness, neurological effects such as dizziness, seizures and coma."

That sounds valid on the surface, but their very next sentence contradicts the assertion when they complain in their third reason for banning the drug that "there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months." Gee, don't you think that if your relative, friend, or neighbor who was just prescribed ivermectin suffered terrible side effects, the market forces would work pretty efficiently and dissuade people from using it? Doesn't the fact that prescriptions skyrocketed in Australia, and even more in the United States, indicate that everyone who saw their friends recover so effectively with ivermectin wanted to experience that same pleasant recovery?

In reality, studies have already been done for years showing that ivermectin is safe to take at much higher doses than the 0.2-0.6 mgs per kilogram of weight that most doctors are prescribing. A 2002 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ivermectin use for head lice in Miami found zero evidence of toxicity even for people talking 30-120 mgs of ivermectin, exponentially higher than any COVID dosing.

The study further found, "All clinical adverse experiences were transient and mild, and no adverse experience recurred with repeated dosing." Any side effects from these gargantuan doses were in line with what we typically tolerate from basic medications, antibiotics, and even zinc. It's certainly better than dying from COVID and, even at very high doses (higher than what anyone is advocating to be used today), any side effects were less severe than what many experience from the vaccines. I have not heard of a single person appropriately prescribed ivermectin by a doctor coming down with even transient symptoms, but if those side effects are now a concern, then all the vaccines should be banned. Remember, according to Pfizer's own trial data, within the first few days after the second shot, 66% of the 12- to 15-year-olds developed fatigue, 65% developed headaches, and 42% developed chills.

Contrary to the speculative musings of politicians, this 2002 high-dose ivermectin study concluded almost 20 years ago that because of the results, ivermectin has "a significant safety margin" in terms of dosing compared to other drugs.

A more recent safety trial of high-dose ivermectin in malaria patients from 2020 published by the American Society for Microbiology found that patients given 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 mg/kg daily of ivermectin for 7 days tolerated it well with no adverse events.

In other words, there's a reason why Rolling Stone had to fabricate a story of people being hospitalized from ivermectin use!

Then again, the fact that anyone who uses ivermectin swears by it for its efficacy and lack of any side effects is exactly why the "system" is opposing it. The last point made by the TGA is that now they are suddenly concerned that ivermectin is such an amazing medicine that the skyrocketing prescriptions for COVID will dry up supply … for those who need it for parasitic infections!

"Finally, there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months, leading to national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections."

So we have gone from ivermectin being a subhuman horse dewormer to being such an indispensable human medication that use of it for the worst pandemic of our lifetime that shut down the entire country when we have no other options might prevent its use for much rarer parasitic infections? Really?

Not to mention the fact that this rationale is all the more reason for the world to easily ramp up, not down, ivermectin production. It's cheap and off-patent and can end the pandemic with pennies on the dollar relative to the cost of the vaccines, remdesivir, lockdowns, welfare, and expensive hospitalizations.

Then again, that is the point. If ivermectin is guilty of something, it's that it actually works.

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?
Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz

Blaze Podcast Host

Daniel Horowitz is the host of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz” and a senior editor for Blaze News.
@RMConservative →