Public Health

‘A Total Lack of Therapeutic Perspective’

Dr. Julian Elliott is the Executive Director of the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, a body that advises policymakers and has been staunchly opposed to the use of ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19.

Frustrated and at a loss to understand why a considerable and growing body of evidence in favour of the cheap, off-patent medication is being not merely ignored but actively rejected, Dr Phillip M. Altman, a veteran of the drug-testing and appraisal industry, wrote to Dr Elliott to demand “revised recommendations for the use of ivermectin within 14 days”. That letter is reproduced below.



Call for an Urgent Review of the NCCET Recommendation regarding the use of ivermectin in the management of COVID-19 within 14 days

I refer to the current recommendation by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET) regarding the use of the drug ivermectin for the management of COVID-19.

The NCCET serves an important role in reviewing and recommending treatment for COVID-19 to peak health professional bodies across Australia.  The current recommendation (Communique Ed. 48 – 5.8.21) regarding the use of the drug ivermectin is as follows:

The available research evidence does not yet provide reasonable certainty to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin and therefore the Taskforce recommends ivermectin not be used outside of randomised trials. The certainty of the current evidence base varies from low to very low depending which on outcome is being measured, as a result of serious risk of bias and serious imprecision in the 18 included studies.

 In addition to uncertainty around benefits for patients with COVID-19, there are common side effects and harms associated with ivermectin, including diarrhoea, nausea and dizziness.

Given this uncertainty of benefit, and concerns of harms; we recommend that ivermectin only be provided in research trials, where there is the potential to generate further evidence on the effectiveness, or otherwise, of ivermectin…

This is a high priority recommendation and will be updated as soon as new evidence becomes available.”

Ivermectin has been the subject of more than 60 clinical trials, including more than 30 randomised controlled trials and used successfully in national COVID-19 mass treatment campaigns in India, Mexico and several other countries to reduce the number of cases and prevent serious complications of the disease leading to hospitalisation and death.

“This assertion lacks any logic”: Read the damning appraisal
of two English consultants engaged by Dr Altman to examine and critique
the NCCET’s case against ivermectin

Despite this, and in the absence of NCCET members’ personal experience in treating COVID-19 patients with ivermectin, the NCCET has selected in an arbitrary and imprecise manner a small number of published clinical trials (18) upon which to base its current negative recommendation for ivermectin use. NCCET has failed to apply sophisticated, defined, and detailed meta-analysis techniques as employed in widely discussed published reviews on ivermectin (see references attached).  When lives are at risk, the highest standards of evaluation are required.

The emphasis on minor and generally uneventful “harms associated with ivermectin, including diarrhoea, nausea and dizziness” contained in the above NCCET statement demonstrates a total lack of therapeutic perspective in relation to the much more serious side effects of other drugs used to treat COVID-19, including many over-the-counter non-prescription drugs

The NCCET has sought to respond to critics of its recommendation on ivermectin in the Communique of 5 Aug. 2021 by justifying its limited consideration of the ivermectin literature by posing, and then, answering its own question in the following way:

NCCET: “But hasn’t ivermectin been shown to be effective as an early COVID-19 treatment in randomised controlled trials overseas?”:

NCCET: “Despite some early suggestions that ivermectin may provide both prophylactic and therapeutic benefit, the available research evidence does not yet provide reasonable certainty to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin.  More robust, well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to demonstrate whether or not ivermectin is effective.”

“Some widely discussed meta-analyses of ivermectin studies (e.g. The British Ivermectin Research Development (BIRD) Group meta analysis) have significant weaknesses, for example  they  include a large trial which has been discredited and retracted (Elgazzar et al.).  Even in these reviews, when patient populations are separated by severity and comparisons to active treatments removed, no meaningful effect is found.”

Given the national importance of the NCCET advice on ivermectin, I invited internationally recognised and experienced literature review specialist Tess Lawrie (MBBCh PhD) and Edmund Fordham (PhD FlnstP) of Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (UK) and EbMCsquared, a Community Interest Company located in Bath, England, to comment on the above NCCET interpretations of the literature. Their expert analysis is attached and entitled, “Commentary upon NCCET Statement” dated 7 August 2021.

The analysis reveals and details (with references) serious flaws in the selective NCCET interpretation of the ‘cherry-picked’ literature. It ignores the broad sweep of clinical evidence from other randomised controlled clinical trials, observational trials and national treatment programs and demands (in the NCCET’s own words) as a matter of high priority to review this recommendation in the national interest.

In addition, related to the current NCCET recommendation is the statement by the TGA (18 Aug 2021):

“There is currently insufficient evidence to support the safe and effective use of ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc (either separately, or in combination) for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. More robust, well-designed clinical trials are needed before they could be considered an appropriate treatment option.”

In reality, there is insufficient evidence not to support the use of ivermectin while new and expensive drugs are being expedited through the regulatory process and given provisional approval with far less clinical trial, efficacy and safety data supporting their use.

Australia is in the grip of a pandemic of enormous consequences. Every possible useful therapeutic approach is needed in this crisis.  Ivermectin, especially in combination with zinc and doxycycline, has shown to be effective in relation to COVID-19 management.  Other new antiviral medications have been recently approved by the TGA with relatively minimal safety and efficacy data by comparison to ivermectin.

Ivermectin has been in use for more than three decades. Four billion doses have been administered, it is on the World Health Organisation List of Essential Drugs and is one of the world’s most useful and well tolerated drugs.  Its breakthrough discovery is attributed to Prof. Satoshi Omura and Irish biologist William Campbell, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015, reflecting the magnitude of their achievement and the importance of ivermectin to medicine.

The current approach to symptomatic COVID-19 individuals is largely to do nothing and simply observe until they either get better or get worse, perhaps much worse, and need to go to hospital.  The do-nothing approach places enormous strain on our health-care system.  Evidence for this ‘do nothing, watch and observe’ approach is lacking. Ivermectin offers a potentially effective, low cost, safe and rational approach to the management of such individuals with little or no disadvantage. The NCCET recommendation on ivermectin is considered to be misinformation by many experts and is viewed as contributing to needless hospitalisation – but for this recommendation, many COVID-19 infected individuals could be receiving early effective treatment.

Hon. Greg Hunt MP, Minister for Health and Aged Care, has written regarding ivermectin in a reply to Sen. Malcolm Roberts (27 July 2021). It remains open for doctors to prescribe existing medicines ‘off-label’ based on their own clinical judgement”.  Indeed, this has always been the case. 

Given the evidence available, doctors should be able to prescribe ivermectin as monotherapy or in combination without stigma or hindrance by a restrictive recommendation from the NCCET or the TGA.  Both the NCCET and the TGA should re-examine the accumulating international experience with ivermectin from all sources supporting its safe and effective use and should actively support and encourage ongoing efforts by many to clarify the important role of ivermectin in the management of COVID-19.

I request the NCCET review and issue revised recommendations for the use of ivermectin within 14 days in light of the submitted information as a matter of urgent priority and national interest. 

Please confirm receipt of this Open Letter by return email.

Phillip M. Altman
BPharm(Hons), MSc, PhD

Dr Altman is a well known Australian authority on clinical trials and regulatory affairs with more than 30 years experience in clinical research and regulatory affairs. He is a graduate of Sydney University with an Honours degree in Pharmacy, Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy (pharmacology and pharmaceutical chemistry) degrees. Dr Altman also co-founded and is a Life Member of the largest professional body of pharmaceutical industry scientists involved in clinical research and regulatory affairs (Association of Regulatory and Clinical Scientists to the Australian Pharmaceutical Industry Ltd – ARCS). As well as working in senior management positions for several multinational companies including Merrell-Dow, Hoechst, Roussel and GD Searle, Dr Altman established his own company, Pharmaco Pty Ltd, one of the first contract research organizations (CRO’s) where he served as a Senior Industry Consultant.



Bryant, A, Lawrie, TA, Dowswell, T, Fordham, EJ, Mitchell, S, hill, SR and Tham, TC.

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 28, e434-e460 (2021).

Kory,P, Meduri, U, Varon, J, Iglesias, J and Marik, PE.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Invermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19.

American Journal of Therapeutics 28, e299-e318 (2021.

54 thoughts on “‘A Total Lack of Therapeutic Perspective’

  • Robert Clancy says:

    Dr Altman, Excellent letter, and outstanding support from Dr Lawrie and her colleague. I assume you have a strategy when you do not get a response.

    There is no need for me to add to the evidence you summarise, other than to say that data confirming the clinical value of Ivermectin (IVM) appears on a daily basis. Yesterday the British Medical Journal asked me to review a paper showing rapid virus clearance following IVM. In normal times, given the many studies showing exactly that, the paper would be rejected on the basis that the information is not new. It will probably be rejected this time on political and ideological grounds.

    As one of the senior clinical immunologists in Australia, and the only one whose research has focussed on mucosal immunology and host-parasite relationships at mucosal surfaces in man (squarely relevant to Covid-19 infection), I find the current disinformation with respect to early treatment of Covid-19 infection beyond my understanding and without precedent in 50 years of practise. The two principles on which Australia has forged the highest levels of medical practice are neglected: the rule of science, and the rule of the doctor-patient relationship.

    The situation that defies logic and sense is that, on one hand, repositioned drugs with Pharma support (and patents) focussed on RNA polymerase such as Remdesivir that has failed repeated randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) yet continues to be used in our intensive care units at $4,000-$5,000 a course, while on the other, safe, cheap and effective repositioned drugs without patents that focus on changing the way cells process infectious agents, with numerous supporting RCT’s, are dismissed.

    The cynicism of Merck having publicly dismissed ivermectin the day before it announced a $US300 million government grant to develop an “early treatment”, starting its “rolling registration” around the world (our TGA last week) for son-of Remdesivir, the repositioned “Molnupirivir”, as a “breakthrough” oral treatment (recently sold to the US government before its trials are completed at $1,000 per course), is not lost on anyone.

    I wrote 8 months ago that the biology of Covid-19 infection dictates that while the parenteral genetic vaccines available to us will be important in short term Covid control, they will have little impact on infection, will be short in duration, and that antigen drift will create variants that will severely compromise efficacy. They will settle along influenza-vaccine lines. Moreover, genetic vaccines by stimulating uncontrolled synthesis of spike protein will cause highly concerning adverse events of a short and long-term nature that we can only surmise at this stage.

    All these outcomes have come about. My point was, and is, that ivermectin and like drugs are immediately needed, not to compete with vaccines, but to complement them: to reduce community spread; to treat early disease; to reduce progression to severe disease requiring admission to hospital and possible death; and to reduce the growing community repository of “long Covid” .

    Making ivermectin available across the Covid community now will shorten the current community crises where infection is out of control, will be synergistic with the vaccine programme facilitating movement through the planned stages, and greatly facilitate our reconnect with the world outside the bubble.

    The question almost every experienced clinician is asking in Australia is ‘we have a problem that we are doing nothing for, one that is threatening the very fibre of our nation, and vaccines are looking a little iffy. There is a drug available for early treatment of Covid-19 with more evidence supporting its safety and efficacy than there is for most drugs I use every day. Why are we not using this drug? What on earth has my patient got to lose?’ Where is the leadership?

    Dr Altman, I support your plea to those who can make decisions, based on evidence as summarised in your open letter. Lives are lost while positions are defended.

    Best wishes,
    Robert Clancy

  • STD says:

    Yesterday ,Australians, whether they were Doctors, Lawyers ,Bus Drivers or people who worked in retail or even Priests, Teachers or even advisedly politicians, such as the likes of Chifley, Curtin, Menzies and the ex shearer Jack Renshaw- what was the commonality? They were all fair dinkum and loved Australia . All possessed that wonderful quality of common sense. Today that type of character has all but disappeared with the sophisticated crap that infected our culture and sense of egalitarianism .

  • Stephen Due says:

    In addition, there is now a vast amount of clinical experience overseas with Ivermectin in staged multi-drug protocols such as those developed by the FLCCC Alliance. The testimony of highly-qualified, senior clinicians who have successfully treated thousands of Covid patients is readily available online (bearing in mind that it is censored on some platforms). They have adopted a therapeutically rational, evidence-based approach that effectively addresses the clinical challenges of each stage of the disease.
    Australian doctors are ideally placed, once the government roadblock is removed, to benefit from this wealth of overseas experience.
    There is no question now that the vaccines cannot stop this virus i.e. Zero Covid is not a viable policy based on mass vaccination alone. The big drug companies themselves are already working on new drug treatments for Covid that have the potential to enhance their profits. The disease is clearly treatable, and deaths are largely preventable with early treatment. It would be sensible for Australia not to let the pharmaceutical industry have the last word, and sell us yet another costly experimental medicine, when cheap alternatives using repurposed drugs are readily available.

  • rod.stuart says:

    Previously I had thought that Australia’s NUMBER ONE health hazard was the NSW Minister of Health. Obviously the much greater hazard is the NCCET and the TGA.

  • nfw says:

    Ivermectin is cheap and proven as a generally one dose anti-parasitical drug. The experimental wonder drugs being pushed by the dealers in Australia, ie Glads, Morrison the holiday in the UK with his family at taxpayer expense man and the selfish Hazzard are not cheap and they may require constant doses. Follow the money.

  • Biggles says:

    As to the current anti-Covid vaccines, the following from a vaccine scientist is well worth hearing.

  • ianl says:

    >” … the much greater hazard is the NCCET and the TGA”

    As outlined yet again in this article by Dr Altman and supported by Dr Clancy above, there is a great deal of clinical evidence for the targeted use of Ivermectin.

    Again and again, both the NCCET and the TGA sidestep this with glib half-truths. Why this is so is an extremely pointed question which these organisations refuse to address. What is it ?

    [Thanks to both Drs Altman and Clancy here for the information. Greatly appreciated.]

  • Ceres says:

    Another great contribution from Quadrant and Phillip Altman. As the distinguished Professor Robert Clancy notes above, what is the downside to using ivermectin and what has a patient got to,lose? A drug around for 30 years with proven safety which cannot be mentioned on Facebook, or MSM or you’ll be demonised as has happened to Craig Kelly. Makes one very suspicious when discussion on early treatment is verboten.
    I wish someone would publish a list of Drs throughout Australia, willing to prescribe early ivermectin triple treatment should the need arise. I’ll certainly be asking my GP next time.

  • Greg Williams says:

    It seems to me that there are two major obstacles to this being approved. One is that big Pharma would be ignored by all those seeking a cheap, effective treatment. And there would have to be an admission from scores of people that Trump was correct at the outset.

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Thank you Drs Altman and Clancy. I wrote on this subject on 1 July here
    My conclusion:
    ‘And now the big question: How many people died (or will die) that need not have, due to this politicised, mercenary and cavalier approach to public health? And who will pay?’

  • pgang says:

    Ceres, it is available from doctors at

  • andrew2 says:

    Thank you to Dr Altman, Prof Clancy and Peter O’Brien. True front line warriors at this time. You are all bringing clarity and sanity to a bizarre governance response.

  • lbloveday says:

    I have lots of ivermectin available but am ignorant of dosage and timing for use as a prophylactic and “googling” has proven insufficiently informative.
    Could Dr Clancy or another please advice me of, or direct me to, authoritative instructions.

  • Lilybeth53 says:

    Excellent article. But on the down side, a visit to my elderly mother’s GP as he gave her the AZ vaccine, was that he seemed completely oblivious to Ivermectin and had seemingly never heard of it. This alone shows how much many doctors have been kept in the dark. Then again, I wondered if the GP did know …

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Well its not the registered one

    STROMECTOL ivermectin 3mg tablet blister pack
    AUST R: 181338
    Availability: Available
    Updated 20-08-2021’
    It only came back the other day.

    1 result

  • abrogard says:

    Wonderful. The first indication I have seen in the last two years of Australian doctors rising to the occasion and manifesting some care for the people of Australia.

    I’d like to point out there’s an indisputable prima facie benefit to Ivermectin based on first principles.

    And that is the placebo effect.

    Given that the second highest potentiating factor for extreme covid events is anxiety related disorders (deliberately exacerbated by govt policy) then it should be a priority to reduce that anxiety.

    The inevitable placebo effect of any medication tendered as possibly of use would be good.

    Ivermectin can not only be tendered as ‘possibly of use’ but can be tendered alone with quotations of literally hundreds of thousands (millions?) of sworn effective uses all over the world.

    So even if everyone were deceiving themselves – the astonishingly unlikely event that Ivermectins detractors and obstructors are de facto insisting to be the truth – there’d still be value !

    It is win-win. Backed, of course, by a history of millions of doses in other treatments without ill effect. Possibly the safest medication known to us.

    I’ll just mention Dr Kory’s FLCCC Alliance, to finish. They’ll be pleased at this I think.

  • abrogard says:

    I meant to say ‘along with’, not ‘alone’
    no editing here?

  • Ceres says:

    Thanks Pgang. I did contact covidmedicalnetwork about ivermectin but auto generated reply said they are inundated with emails so unsure when or if they can reply to everyone.

  • wsko says:

    The horse has bolted. Over 30 million in India are on Ivermectin, similar stories in other developing countries where Ivm has been cheaper to buy. I know many Australians who are on it. Interesting how the suppression of a safe, effective drug has occurred. Interesting comment from a researcher.

  • Searcher says:

    People are not aware enough that what really matters is to expunge the orange menace. If ivermectin were admitted to be useful, the next step might be to look impartially at hydroxychloroquine. That would go against the primary task of world wide cancelling of the orange menace.

  • rod.stuart says:

    If you continue to use “Google” you’ll never find things that Alphabet disagrees with.
    I suggest you start using a search engine with online privacy such as Duckduckgo or Ecosia.
    Search term “Borody Protocol”
    or “NEW-iMask-Weekly-Protocol.pdf”
    Or go to the URL [https:\\]

  • rod.stuart says:

    Or if your GP will give you a script get it filled at:
    Pharmacy 4 Less – Five Dock
    Shop 1A, 125 Great North Rd,
    Five Dock, NSW 2134

    PH: (02) 9713 4729

  • pgang says:

    What was the issue date of this letter?
    I hope we will be updated on future developments.

  • mkctoohey says:

    For all those in the Quadrant community who would like to stay abreast of current developments within the COVID medical arena in Australia and internationally a great resource can be found at
    Warm regards
    Mick Toohery

  • wstarck says:

    I posted the following comment and link on Facebook:

    If we are still allowed to discuss anything other than the approved narrative, this is something worth reading:
    ‘A Total Lack of Therapeutic Perspective’

    Within 10 minutes a warning against use of “unapproved” treatments for covid was added by Facebook. The thought police are on the job.

  • Greg Williams says:

    If this is real, it’s terrifying:

  • lbloveday says:

    I put “googled” in quotation marks as it has become pretty much a generic term for “used a Search Engine” similar to “Biro” and “Hoover”, and pretty well everyone understands it. I have long used Duckduckgo as my default.
    “Or if your GP will give you a script get it filled at”:
    Thanks, but I have stacks of ivermectin (total cost less than the $80 I last paid for a GP consultation 5 years ago), but would like an authoritative indication of dosage as a prophylactic – I know the recommended dosage for treatment.

  • john2 says:

    Dr Altman is to be comprehensively congratulated for this initiative and the time, effort and money that has gone into it. Somehow, sometime, the truth will out, and credible professional voices such as Altman’s are critical to achieving this. Good on Quadrant for its equally critical publishing role. One hopes that the truth will finally be able to get its trousers on in time to catch, neutralise and reverse the devastating barrage of COVID lies that have travelled innumerable times around the world in the last 18 months. (with apols to Churchill and/or Twain).

  • rosross says:

    I know more doctors and scientists are speaking out but we need even more if we are to turn back the tide of vax madness in the name of Covid.

  • Stephen Due says:

    WHERE TO FIND IVERMECTIN DOSAGES. For those wondering about Ivermectin dosages and drug combinations could I reiterate the information I’ve already given several times in Quadrant comments?
    Go to the FLCCC Alliance website! There are also similar but less comprehensive treatment guidelines on other websites including Truth For Health Foundation and,
    It should be noted that these protocols are different from those laid down by Australian and leading overseas government authorities, all of which basically mimic the US official guidelines. For the US guidelines see the US CDC website, pages headed ‘Therapeutic Options for Covid-19’, and the NIH website, pages headed ‘Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines’.
    Finally, for doctors, an excellent, comprehensive review of options for outpatient management of Covid-19 patients is available from the UpToDate website under ‘COVID-19: Outpatient evaluation and management of acute illness in adults’.
    The mainstream US sources listed above (CDC, NIH, UpToDate) are still reticent about Ivermectin and other drugs recommended on the basis of clinical experience by the practising physicians of the FLCCC and similar groups. They are however now tentatively suggesting the use of monoclonal antibodies in early treatment of Covid-19. The UpToDate website lists all the main drugs recommended in the FLCCC and other early treatment protocols and gives a basic summary of the current mainstream position regarding each one.

  • rod.stuart says:

    At the URL https:\\
    1. Ivermectin (12mg every two weeks)*
    2. Zinc (25mg to 50mg per day)
    3. Vitamin D3 (2000 IU per day)
    4. Quercetin (250mg to 500mg per day)
    5. Bromhexine (24mg to 36mg per day)*
    • [FLCCC Covid-19 Prophylaxis and Treatment Protocols (FLCCC, November 2020)]
    People at high risk living in an epidemically active area should consider prophylactic treatment together with their doctor. The reason for this is the long incubation period of covid-19 (up to 14 days): when patients first notice that they contracted the disease, the viral load is already at a maximum and there are often only a few days left to react with an early treatment intervention.
    Early treatment based on the above protocol is intended to avoid hospitalization. If hospitalization nevertheless becomes necessary, experienced ICU doctors recommend avoiding invasive ventilation (intubation) whenever possible and using oxygen therapy (HFNC) instead.
    It is conceivable that the above treatment protocol, which is simple, safe and inexpensive, could render more complex medications, vaccinations, and other measures largely obsolete.

  • rosross says:

    The fact is, even if 99% of people were vaccinated, unless we sealed our borders and allowed no-one and nothing in or out, there would always be exposure because the world will never have global 99% vax rates.

    I find it interesting that they started out requiring 50% vax rates and it just kept going up and up. More money made that way no doubt, or just because it didn’t work.

    I have long wondered how much of a part the placebo effect plays in what are called vax outcomes given that apparently, a needle has a more powerful placebo effect than a pill.

    My greater concern however is that if a confused cell is a cancerous cell, then what is a confused immune system or with the Covid genetic vaccines, confused cells as well as immune function? Because vaccines and the genetic treatments called vaccines, are designed to confuse, manipulate, trick the immune system into making a mistake, i.e. reacting to a non-threat.

    Quite how a child’s immature immune system, tricked dozens of times, can develop optimal function is the question. Then again, the human organism has evolved over millions of years to survive and thrive so perhaps mere mortal trickery is easy to overcome. I hope so.

  • lbloveday says:

    At the URL https:\\
    1. Ivermectin (12mg every two weeks)*
    2. Zinc (25mg to 50mg per day)
    3. Vitamin D3 (2000 IU per day)
    4. Quercetin (250mg to 500mg per day)
    5. Bromhexine (24mg to 36mg per day)*
    Thanks, but I can’t find it on the site (maybe in a link) – searches for Quercetin, Bromhexine, D3 all came up empty. But I’ve been taking 10mg (I’ve 5mg tablets) so I’m on the right path; I may cut a tablet in future.

  • lbloveday says:

    A search of the FLCCC Alliance web-site directed to:
    lvermectin1 Chronic Prevention
    0.2 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — twice a week for as long as disease risk is elevated in your community Post COVID-19 Exposure Prevention2
    0.4 mg/kg per dose (take with or after a meal) — one dose today, repeat after 48 hours
    Vitamin D3 1,000–3,000 IU/day
    Vitamin C 500–1,000 mg twice a day
    Quercetin 250 mg/day
    Zinc 30–40 mg/day (elemental zinc)
    Melatonin 6 mg before bedtime (causes drowsiness)
    Gargle mouthwash 2 x daily – gargle (do not swallow) antiseptic mouthwash with cetylpyri­dinium chloride (e.g. ScopeTM, ActTM, CrestTM), ListerineTM with essential oils, or povidone/iodine 1 % solution as alternative.
    0.2 mg/kg equates to 15-16mg for a common 75-80kg male, BUT twice a week is FOUR TIMES the every two weeks from the other reference.

  • PeterBalan says:

    In May 2020, Monash University researchers led by Prof Kylie Wagstaff obtained a Federal Department of Health research grant ($344,458) for the project “Ivermectin as an anti-viral against SARS-CoV-2”. The purpose of the grant was described as: “We have shown that the drug Ivermectin, which is already used in humans to treat a number of parasite infections, is also very effective at preventing the virus that causes COVID-19 from replicating. We have shown this in virus infecting cells in a laboratory and now we will confirm whether it is able to be used in people suffering from COVID-19. As ivermectin is already safe for use, if it is effective against the virus at these safe concentrations it can be rapidly moved into human trials”
    This project was due to be completed on 31 May 2021. I have asked Prof Wagstaff, the Department of Health, as well as the Health Minister, for a link to a project report, but so far without any response. Perhaps others might also like to see if they can get a copy of the report.

  • howard.granger says:

    Perhaps various people can be charged with gross negligence and even manslaughter when it is shown that a life-saving treatment was withheld from the Australian people, and harmful, experimental genetic therapies were promoted instead.
    Not to mention the physical and emotional carnage from lockdowns, economic privations, and general stress.

  • James Falkiner says:

    We need to keep developing chmeoprophylactics and treatments like Ivermectin and here is the real reason why:

  • rosross says:

    @James Falkiner, And Bossche triggers bans on
    Facebook which says a lot.

  • john2 says:

    And now this, in TheOz online just now (18:00 23/8/21): Therapeutic Goods Administration warns against self-medicating Covid-19 with drug Ivermectin:

    A shallow article running the familiar fear-mongering line from a single, partial perspective with no alternative views reported. And the worst of it? The article is not open for reader comments. (presumably because they expect the Moderator would be overwhelmed with dissenting opinions, which, if not rejected, would completely undermine the article’s propaganda impact).
    I have been an Oz subscriber for many years now. Not for much longer if this is their standard of “reporting”. But where else am I to go to get reliable news? Anyone care to offer some suggestions?

  • STD says:

    @John2 ………you are here.

  • Stephen Due says:

    @John2 – we subscribe to Epoch Times digital

  • Stephen Due says:

    Current information on Ivermectin for Covid is available from the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD) (online at and also from the website of World Ivermectin Day 24 July 2021 ( There will be an International Covid Summit with a focus on Covid treatment 12-14 September in Rome (also accessible online, see

  • pgang says:

    Roger Franklin, that link is a dead end.

  • Bohush Dubaj says:

    My two cents: “Indian Bar Association sues WHO scientist over Ivermectin” here: 0b3cbb3b4dfa.html ;

    confirmed by “Indian Bar Association Press Release (26-May-2021)” here:

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    So, what were the actual results of the Australian ? double blinded, clinical trial of ivermectin noted above?
    Are they published?
    Where is the data?
    Is the trial still proceeding? Were there enough patients in the cohort to obtain a reliable result?
    Alternatively was the trial stopped as little benefit found in the treated patients vs controls and the treatment switched on the test group to something seen as more efficacious?
    Are other trials being run in Australia?
    As discussed in another blog here, populations can differ in their response to therapy due to endemic co morbidities and, for that matter, a different exposure and priming to previous pandemics.
    Note this is not in any way medical advice.
    However the response of Australian patients to ivermectin is one of the issues that needs be addressed.

  • Stephen Due says:

    The following article by Kylie Wagstaff et al showed that Ivermectin was effective against the virus in the laboratory. It sparked interest worldwide and prompted physicians to start prescribing the drug for Covid.
    Wagstaff KM et al
    FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
    Antiviral Research, issue of June 2020
    This article was published online in April 2020 and is freely available in pdf from the Elsevier website

  • lbloveday says:

    Thanks for pointers; I have settled on 17.5mg per week in one lot (plus a daily multi-vitamin which I’ve taken “forever” and a daily D3, which I’ve taken since being effectively banned from my daily “walk in the sun”).

  • rosross says:

    Facebook is now slapping immediate blocks and bans on material from Professor Luc Montaigner and other noted science-medical experts which is a worry for the public, a deep concern for modern medicine and a disaster for modern science.

    Censorship is the name of the game and everyone loses.

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Stephen Due
    Not sure if your remark follows mine.
    Its one thing to demonstrate an effect in cell cultures.
    Its another to demonstrate an effect in an infected person.
    Its yet another to demonstrate an effect in an Australian demographic.
    The above letter shows a radical difference in opinion between professionals in the use, registration and efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment of human patients with covid 19 in Australia, at least.
    So the results of the existing Australian trials, or at least the data, so the numbers can be crunched, is necessary to assist in the clarification of the use of ivermectin in Australia.
    This then would allow more clarity.
    The deeper debate is about the way the pandemic needs to be handled.
    I do not have a dog in this fight.
    However for those that do, it seems that the problem is that the spike protein vaccines may end up causing more reactions and need be supplemented with other lines of treatment, such as less virulent vaccines of the ‘old’ type, often used on animals and people, together with cheap and effective drug prophylaxis.
    Everyone agrees that covid or ‘son of covid’ is here to stay.
    Having the results of Australian and international drug trials is the data needed.
    So, where is the Australian data from the Wagstaff trial on ivermectin?
    I have searched for it and cannot find it.
    I suspect that whatever results obtained were underwhelming.
    That’s because
    ‘The available research evidence does not yet provide reasonable certainty to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin’
    Or maybe the Australian research is not done or complete and awaiting publication.
    Releasing this information, if done, would certainly clarify for me the state of this debate.
    I have, like you, a big dog in this.
    Its not their argument as such, for ,after all, that’s science.
    I want to know if they are competently assisting us get out of this pandemic.
    In Brazil the government went down the drug, no vaccine path and have over half a million deaths.
    Thanks to the Indian Bar Association, operating in a Westminster system with separation of powers, the WHO is being held to account.
    The US has lost the plot on this, yet to find a competent report on Wuhan from Biden.
    We need to start with a coronial enquiry after this dies down a bit.
    Preferably Federal.
    No fighting among the States.
    The terms of reference would include the role of Australia in the work done in the Wuhan labs and the data so derived.
    This would apply to any data derived in any trials in Australia regarding novel covid treatments.
    Those working in these fields must absolutely respect the right of Australians to know what work was done and its method of implementation.
    In comparison to other national administrations, we may well emerge confidently, however this process must not only be done but seen to be done.
    That is because ,after the post covid parties and the ceremonial burning of masks, we must, as a nation, be reconciled through a truthful process, so we may be able to still put trust in our national institutions.
    A coronial enquiry of those deaths and morbidity due to covid, will go a credible way towards that healing.
    If they could speak, the dead would surely want to know, that their loss was not in vain.

  • pgang says:

    Will those of us who remain un-vaccinated be required to revoke our Australian passports?
    I guess it’s moot, given that you won’t be allowed to travel without an experimental-vaccine visa.

  • abrogard says:

    Here’s what a patient with a crucial need (elderly, possible comorobidities – hypertension) gets when he pleads with his local clinic for ivermectin.
    They swear they ‘cannot’ prescribe it and when asked to put that in print they give this.
    Which we laymen note doesn’t explicitly say they cannot. I assume it has a more technical meaning within the profession. Perhaps within the profession you can do nothing unless it’s specifically said that you can.
    I would welcome comments from the qualified.
    I note that the Australian covid medical network doesn’t seem to publish this anywhere or any similar authoritative declaration to define the current state of affairs in Australiastan.

    Clinic Heading and Identifying Marks Deleted but I can supply them of course. I just don’t know how Stalinesque we are today and wouldn’t want to bring the blackshirts down on them.


    I am writing this letter as David is willing to take Ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID as he has
    seen news from USA that there was study for it and doctor is US has been using it as a prophylaxis.
    I have explained David that Ivermectin has not been approved to use as a prophylaxis in Australia.
    I have to follow Australian guideline.
    The indication of Ivermectin for me to prescribe as per guideline is :
    -Strongyloidiasis or Crusted (Norwegian) scabies
    Clinical criteria:
    * The condition must be established by clinical and/or parasitological examination, AND
    * Patient must be undergoing topical therapy for this condition; OR
    * Patient must have a contraindication to topical treatment.
    Population criteria:
    * Patient must weigh 15 kg or over, AND
    * Patient must be 5 years of age or older.

    – Human sarcoptic scabies
    Clinical criteria:
    * The condition must be established by clinical and/or parasitological examination, AND
    * Patient must have completed and failed sequential treatment with topical permethrin and benzyl
    benzoate and finished the most recent course of topical therapy at least 4 weeks prior to initiating
    oral therapy; OR
    * Patient must have a contraindication to topical treatment.
    Population criteria:
    * Patient must weigh 15 kg or over, AND
    * Patient must be 5 years of age or older.

Leave a Reply