Word about Ivermectin is spreading in Australia, so much so that our Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly, and “news” outlets felt the need to fire shots across the bow. As predicted the drug was labeled as a horse dewormer used by fringe people and crazies. If the drug didn’t threaten sinecures and profits, it could have been called a Nobel Prize winning Wonder Drug used by 200 million people.
In an extraordinary turn, the Chief Medical Officer staked his reputation on something that is obviously flat out wrong and easily shown to be so. In another remarkable move, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia advised pharmacists to refuse legal prescriptions if the patient didn’t answer in a politically correct manner. (Who needs doctors?)
Here’s the Chief Medical Officer of Australia, who has apparently not read many papers on Ivermectin:
There’s no evidence to support the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19. Don’t look for magic cures online, and don’t rely on what’s being peddled on the internet, because none of them work.”
Australia’s chief medical officer, Prof Paul Kelly, pleaded with the public not to take unproven medicine like ivermectin to treat Covid-19.
“The reality is, there are many trials that have been done into ivermectin, not a single one of them have shown to be effective,” he said.
–– The Guardian, but also the ABC national news
There is not a single trial, there are 63 trials involving more than 26,000 people, often medical workers, that show that ivermectin may help prevent infection in around five out of six people if used prophylactically. If used as an early treatment it may help 60% of people or more.
Paul Kelly wants us to trust him with our lives but he has not taken the time to read even one study on Ivermectin?
And none of the journalists at the press conference today have apparently read one either.
Ivermectin is so safe it’s been handed out en masse by illiterate non-medical staff in remote Africa:
Ivermectin has continually proved to be astonishingly safe for human use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on human health and welfare around the globe, especially with regard to the campaign to fight Onchocerciasis.
— Crump and Omura, 2011, . doi: 10.2183/pjab.87.13
Like all drugs, ivermectin has side effects, risks and conflicts with other medications, so seek medical advice. But given the low cost and safety, all of us should be able to go to our doctor and talk about it. Surely the lockdowns would end sooner, and people could travel more, lives would be saved, fewer mutants would arise, and more ICU beds could be kept free. The only thing that goes badly are Big Pharma profits.
Doctors have the right to prescribe this “off label” — Health Minister Greg Hunt said so. But the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia is even suggesting that pharmacists do not supply a legal prescription?
h/t to Brenda Spence
Chemists Come Between Doctor and Patient
Phillip M. Altman Quadrant Magazine
… the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia [PSA], …has decided your local neighbourhood chemists can trump prescribing doctors if they suspect the drug is being used for other than its primary designated purpose, the treatment of roundworm parasites.
PSA recommends that pharmacists do not supply ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Should pharmacists be unable to establish intended use of an ivermectin prescription, supply should be declined.
— Pharmaceutical Society of Australia alert to members
Altman has written to the PSA:
The directive by the PSA instructs pharmacists not to supply ivermectin on prescription if they deem the prescription has been written for the management of COVID-19. This is disturbing in that the PSA has taken upon itself, for the first time of which I am aware, to interfere with the sacred doctor-patient relationship by denying a medication, considered necessary by a doctor and legally prescribed, for a potentially serious infection.
The PSA has clearly overreached the boundary of the profession and should immediately withdraw this advice.
Phillip Altman BPharm(Hons), MSc, PhD
Clinical Trial and Regulatory Affairs Consultant
Read it all at Quadrant, and if you are a member of the PSA, send them an email.
There might be some interesting legal cases arising from relatives of any injured party who was refused a legal script…
—————–BACKGROUNDER ON IVERMECTIN————————-
The wonder drug that disappeared
If you only email friends one link — make it this story. It’s the biggest medical scandal since 1850— Why is a cheap safe drug being ignored? Could it be that there would be no medical emergency and no need to rush out other riskier new treatments which are still classed as “experimental” if there was a safe alternative? There are billions of reasons to ask this question but newspapers wouldn’t publish the story. In desperation, some Americans are going to court to get rulings to order doctors to use Ivermectin on their loved ones. Even if they win, sometimes hospitals still refuse to use it on patients with few options left. One family hired a helicopter to take their mother away from intensive care in a hospital that refused to give Ivermectin (and had a happy ending). The debate is so suppressed, there are rumours the US President was treated with it in secret last year.
For peer reviewed studies read: The BIG Ivermectin Review: It may prevent 86% of Covid cases.
Ivermectin has also been used, with apparent success in India, Peru and Mexico (and so many other places). Covid cases fell in the states of India that approved Ivermectin use but rose in Tamil Nadu where it wasn’t permitted. Despite the success, India’s Health dept suddenly stopped Ivermectin use again and people in India are suing the WHO in disgust. In Peru, Ivermectin cut covid deaths by 75% in 6 weeks.
The FDA and others will say there is little evidence of success so far, but that’s a scandal in itself. Why are there no large trials? And why are other drugs like Remdesivir approved with only one trial? Ivermectin is so safe some 3.7 billion doses have already been used around the world. The inventors won a Nobel Prize for its discovery in 2015. We’ve known it might be useful since April last year, when an Australian group searched through many cheap safe drugs looking for any that might help against Covid. The news then was “Another possible cure for coronavirus, found in sheep dip: Ivermectin”. This was just a lab study, and it suggested doses would need to be too high. Even so, successes keep turning up in the real world? By July last year there were already signs Ivermectin could save as many as 50%. Why were large trials not started then? The UK trial is hobbled from the start.
Bryant, Andrew MSc1,*; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD2; Dowswell, Therese PhD2; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD2; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS3; Hill, Sarah R. PhD1; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP4 (2021) Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection, A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines, American Journal of Therapeutics: June 17, 2021 – Volume Publish Ahead of Print – Issue – doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402
September 2, 2021