Public Health

A Sad and Shameful Day for Australian Medicine

September 10, 2021, was a black day,  the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the “Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling”, through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic’s coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates.

The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, “Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick.” In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA’s decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga.

Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been  laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM’s use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for “off-label” indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas.

The driving source of “evidence” that IVM has unproven therapeutic value is the Cochrane Review, which concluded from a single meta-analysis that the benefit in treating COVID-19 was “unproven”. This was out of line with a series of supportive meta-analyses by non-conflicted competent epidemiologists. Yet results from Cochrane have singularly been adopted without criticism or discussion, initially by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET), then by diffusion via various professional and regulatory bodies while being fanned by an even less critical mainstream press. Thus IVM is seen by many, including some medical professionals, as the snake-oil of our age. What is not discussed is the validity of the Cochrane Review and the advisory messages from the NCCET. The influence of vested interest parties on Cochrane has been previously raised. The circumstances of generating the review by an unknown German group when experienced epidemiologists were available needs explanation. More immediately, critiques of the Cochrane analysis and the NCCET by unaligned British epidemiologists show defective methodology, cherry-picked data and exclusion of a raft of supportive data.

The information source used to formulate policy in Australia is both out of kilter with conclusions from over 60 controlled clinical trials and the positive experience recorded when IVM was used in  national and regional programmes. Cochrane is an incomplete and unreliable basis for decision making on COVID-19 management in an Australian context. The views of international experts are trumped by unknown local bureaucrats.

Surprisingly, the reasons given by the TGA for their decision on IVM are not the usual mantra of “unproven”, based on Cochrane, although that is left hanging as a “given”. The reasons are even less defensible: “supply may become limited” (incorrect, but this nevertheless demonstrates there is a need for the drug); “concerns re toxicity due to dosage determined by social media” (this concern is easily remedied by controlling usage through front-line doctors), and, lastly, the real reason: “It may interfere with the vaccination programme”. What an extraordinary statement!

The reason for “vaccine hesitancy” has nothing to do with IVM use. Doctors promote IVM as complementing the vaccine programme, which, given concerns regarding vaccine resistance caused by Delta strain of the virus and waning of post-vaccine immunity, makes early drug treatment more needed than ever. It is irresponsible to exclude IVM as a drug to control high numbers of infections that will be encountered as Australia moves out of its “bubble”, irrespective of the level of vaccination. The only parts of the world not experiencing a “third wave” of infection are those where lockdowns have been avoided, such as Sweden, or where IVM is used throughout the community, as is seen in parts of South America, Mexico and India.

The real cause of “vaccine hesitancy” is lack of transparency and discussion. Where is the discussion that death from COVID-19 is one thousand times greater than reported deaths linked to the vaccine? That is a fact easily understood. There are genuine concerns about experimental genetic vaccines, yet discussion is suppressed, and these issues are treated as “best kept secrets” by authorities. Failure to openly discuss these concerns in the context of a plan for a safe future vaccine strategy is reason in itself for uncertainty and conspiracy theories. It is unacceptable to shift blame onto IVM for “hesitancy”. Both vaccines and IVM are urgently needed, and suppression of IVM simply leads to unnecessary deaths and a postponed public reaction when evidence supporting the value of both becomes more widely known. Have we learnt nothing from the preventable thousand deaths that followed refusal in the US to allow cheap, safe prophylaxis against Pneumocystis infection in AIDS patients until a randomised clinical trial (RCT) was completed in the 1990s?

What is the influence of pharmaceutical companies? They have actively conspired against IVM while accepting hundreds of millions of government dollars to develop their versions of “early treatments”; in this they have been supported by the TGA that has now regulated against IVM. Meanwhile, the TGA recently registered a monoclonal antibody, Sotrovimab, based on a single small trial. This drug has a similar protection profile to IVM but costs $4,000 a dose (I support its registration, although it is hard to see how it could be superior to IVM). The TGA approved Remdesivir following one study showing its only benefit was four days less hospitalisation. Three subsequent RCTs failed to confirm benefit, yet the TGA allows the drug’s continued use in Australian hospitals. Just a week ago, the TGA reported with enthusiasm discussions with Merck about “son-of Remdesivir”, Molnupiravir, which comes with no clear clinical benefit noted from what are incomplete  studies. The US government has bought millions of doses at $1000 per dose. Whose interests are being protected?

Second, the implications for medical practise are a more sinister and subtle consequence of the TGA decision. Preventing general practitioners prescribing IVM for early COVID-19, when there is evidence of safety and benefit, sends a concerning message to community-based doctors. It threatens the “doctor-patient relationship”, as patients with COVID-19 are also aware that drugs are available which could save their lives. It also challenges the traditional role of senior medical advisers, most of whom are hospital-based with no experience of early COVID-19, and are influenced by expert bodies such as the NCCET, and of course Cochrane reports.

Cochrane is promoted as the foundation stone of Evidenced Based Medicine (EBM), the holy grail of contemporary medical practice. Dr. Dave Sackett was the “father of EBM” at Canada’s McMaster University, where he and I led medical-admission teams for five years. We had numerous discussions of EBM, then in its formative stage, anticipating it would have an integrating role in medical practise. Dave died in 2015, which saved him the disappointment of seeing what has happened during COVID-19, where a limited Cochrane review is used as a lever to achieve political outcomes to the disadvantage of patients. The unravelling of well-established professional relationships between community doctors, their medical advisory structures and government bodies has not been helped by the confusion, the lack of organised education activities and the isolation enforced by the pandemic.

The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for “advertising” and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science.  We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage.

Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking.

Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N) is Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical  Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development

32 thoughts on “A Sad and Shameful Day for Australian Medicine

  • Daffy says:

    Yet another outrageous action by a government that is floundering in a mire of media headline tantrums. Policy by headline. I can get that from the Trotskyites. I expect more of our increasingly over-paid representatives.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Re: “It may interfere with the vaccination programme”.
    No doubt people who know about the effectiveness of early sequential multi-drug treatment using the established protocols will feel less need to be vaccinated. In addition to the very low risk of contracting Covid in the first place, they will reason that they can get curative medicine if needed.
    This common-sense reasoning clearly could create a problem for the government’s mass vaccination drive. So the TGA’s solution is simply to ban the treatment. There is a shocking callousness that goes along with the intellectual incompetence and the seedy motives behind this ban.
    Why are people ‘vaccine hesitant’ in the first place? Perhaps it is because they know perfectly well that these vaccines are dangerous. Maye they’ve seen the VAERS data, and the associated expert commentary? Public health officials like to say ‘society’ must bear the cost of a small number of patriotic citizens being killed or permanently disabled after getting ‘the jab’. Perhaps those officials would like to speak to the families of the victims? The script runs like this: “My heart goes out to you. Of course, every death is a tragedy. But, sadly, your loved-one had to be sacrificed for the greater good”.
    Most alarming in all of this fiasco of bureaucratic incompetence is the sinister undertone of malevolence that keeps bubbling to the surface like the fumes from a witch’s cauldron. The veiled threats that the unvaccinated may be denied health care (Daniel Andrews, press conference). The distastefully triumphant news reports of the unvaccinated dying from Covid (various). The much-vaunted plans to ‘not extend’ freedoms to the unvaccinated (Prime Minister, press conference). The repeated statements from government that ‘this is not about human rights’ (Andrews, Morrison at press conferences). And now the certain knowledge that the government is perfectly willing to deny you the only proven life-saving treatment should you contract this disease – which might occur, incidentally, even if you have been vaccinated, as an abundance of recent data shows.

  • STD says:

    When the likes of Professor Clancy advocate for ivermectin on behalf of their patients and when a Pathologist friend of mine is patiently awaiting for Professor Clancy’s recommendation of Novovax to become available- you know their is a problem.
    These men are not your average savage , they are highly intelligent ( the top 1% of the 1%) ethical men of integrity whose remit was /is training in the diagnosis of problems (disease).

  • STD says:

    There, their, sorry!

  • Perpetua DC says:

    Yet another splendid piece by Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy.
    It’s incomprehensible that a person with the qualifications, authority, experience and perspective is not receiving wider acknowledgment during this pandemic.

    Let’s pray that we’ll all live to see his insight, together with his recommendations and views accepted and vindicated.

  • Diane Burge says:

    I have been waiting for Prof Robert Clancy’s reply to the appalling ruling by the TGA overnight Friday. I emailed John Skerrit today asking how he felt knowing that denying early treatment will and probably already has cost lives. I do not expect a reply (except perhaps a policeman at the door). I am very personally affected. My 10 year old granddaughter has Prader Willi syndrome. Her parents are terrified that Covid will kill her. Consequently today they have vaccinated her 12 year old sister so she cannot bring the virus home. As soon as they are able they will also vaccinate her 7 year old brother. Both parents are vaccinated. Being vaccinated will not prevent any of them becoming infected (as has been shown in the Israeli data) or infecting the 10 year old. I have sent them data showing this. They believe the government propaganda. Could IVM as a prophylaxis for the 10 year old have been the best solution? I hope these people are brought to account.

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Professor Clancy,

    thank you again. It is hard to over-state the egregiousness of the behaviour of these agencies. It has undoubtedly cost lives already and will continue to do so.

  • andrew2 says:

    Thank you Professor Clancy. Yes, vaccine hesitancy is driven because the message (that this virus is super deadly and dangerous) does not match the regulators actions (refusal to investigate all possible avenues to save lives). The end result is a lack of trust in those regulators.

    Diane Burge, your story is not an isolated one. I know of a man who is demanding that his wife and child not leave their house until everyone in my city is vaccinated. This risk for his household is much lower than your granddaughters. These are the effects of a fear based campaign which has an agenda of driving people toward their single solution.

  • Tezza says:

    Thank Prof Clancy. Please keep on as the voice of evidence and reason in this disastrous mistake by an out-of-control medico-administrative bureaucracy.
    This current TGA ruling stands with the ATAGI poisoning of attitudes against AZ as an ivory tower misunderstanding of small risks, taken entirely out of context of the larger risks Australians face as a result of wasting 18 months pursuing the fool’s gold of covid elimination.

  • John Michelmore says:

    The relevant government petitions relating to Ivermectin and “vaccines” you need to review ,sign and pass onto like minded contacts are:-

  • Sydney says:

    “(Ivermectin) has proven to be safe. Doses up to 10 times the approved limit are well tolerated by healthy volunteers.”

    Prof. Chris Whitty
    UK Government Chief Scientific Officer
    Journal of Infectious Diseases July 2010

  • Christian says:

    I was very upset when I heard this news as I’d personally spoken to a doctor who had successfully treated many Covid patients in India, using his own protocol that included Vitamin D and IVM. Shameful indeed.

  • gareththomassport says:

    35 years practicing medicine and I am disgusted with many of those within my profession- CMO’s pushing lockdowns and vaccine passports, the TGA preventing free choice for highly suspicious reasons. Thank you Prof Clancy for being a beacon within the medical profession.

  • Stephen Due says:

    Here are two recent quotations from Dr. ‘Zev’ Zelenko of New York (to be read bearing in mind that he tends to express himself using flamboyant language for dramatic effect):
    “This is the worst crime in human history…it is malevolence on a biblical scale”.
    “The difference between us and Australia is that we have 450 million guns”.
    Doctors in Australia must stand up collectively to this tyranny. The AMA went woke years ago and has ceased to serve any useful purpose. A new national, mainstream medical organisation is needed that will stand up and fight against socialised medicine and biotechnical tyranny on behalf of science, humanity and healing.

  • pgang says:

    Interesting to note that 6 of the 8 appointed members of the Advisory Committee are women, including the Chair. Of the 9 nominated members, 7 are women. That’s 13 women out of 17 total. So much for a woman’s empathy I guess.
    Only one of them is a practising GP, but she is also president of the AMA in NSW, so that experience is pretty much discounted.
    One of the men, John Stubbs, has degrees in accounting and art. So in fact there is only one qualified male.
    This group of women are holding hostage the health of all Australians and our direct relationships with GP’s.
    One of the appointed members, Professor Jennifer Martin, seems to be a colleague of Professor Clancy’s at University of Newcastle, (Chair of Clinical Pharmacology).

  • irisr says:

    Thank you again, Prof Clancy!
    Obviously they ignore your balanced and considered approach. But where does it leave us? As Zelenko noted, we don’t have what it takes to resist this criminal intrusion.
    We have just 2 politicians who are actively promoting IVM and resist mandatory vaxxing. Craig Kelly and George Christensen deserve our respect, but they’re too small at the moment. This may change if UAP get the numbers by May next year, but what do we do in the meanwhile?
    I understand Remdesivir is still administered in hospital treatments despite having had disastruous results when used against Ebola.
    I don’t want to be in hospital, vaxed or non-vaxed.
    Why can’t I treat fever and cold symptoms with IVM at home? It is safe! See at
    that the TGA did do a full safety study in 2013. URL is
    It does contain the assertion that “No indication of CNS toxicity associated with oral ivermectin was observed for any of the doses administered in this study.” which is largely discussed in the David Archibald article summarised as “it’s very hard to suicide with IVM”. Even the hysterical reporting lately could only mention “diarhea” and “patient sent home”,
    I just cannot recognise my country, my world. It seems to conspire against the individual.

  • pgang says:

    Professor Clancy, in regards to the vaccinations it is impossible for we mere people to get a clear picture of the potential risks, whether they be great or small. This is because, like everything today, discussion is banned by the establishment.
    So I am working from my own personal experience. I don’t know anybody who knows anybody who has suffered seriously from COVID-19. In fact I don’t know anybody who has even ‘tested positive’. But I do know several people who have had adverse reactions to the vaccinations, with symptoms ranging from sore (or dead) arms, through to bed-ridden illness, through to a couple of cases of hospitalisation. Granted, I also know many people who have had no adverse reaction. But frankly it would be an act of insanity for me to rush out to get the vaccine under the circumstances.

  • nfw says:

    When Delta became the latest fear porn for the “health experts”, media and of course our politicians the stories and bad news (it sells) out of India suddenly stopped being thrust in our faces when it was announced Indian state governments were treating the sick with Ivermectin and that it was working. Can’t have cheap medications interfering with Big Pharma’s business plan to rake as much as possible out of taxpayers and who knows, return some commissions to corrupt politicians and public servants?

    I’m diabetic and my local GP tries many ways to help me control it (losing the 30kg and then another 10kg helps). One day he said let’s try med XYZ. He told me the drug wasn’t originally designed for diabetes but it had turned out to be some wonder cure (it isn’t really but it helps). Now if somebody can create a drug for one use and then it suddenly finds itself in the diabetes play book, why can’t the same be done for Ivermectin? Answer: follow the money.

  • irisr says:

    Hi @nfw,
    if you read in the TGA full safety study of 2013 done for treating scabies in Aboriginal communities,
    it turns out Ivermectin was NOT approved for scabies at the time except in 3 countries so it was administered on the basis of “experimental observations” some of which showed some benefit and some didn’t.
    If it was OK then to use IVM off-label why on Earth is it NOT so? especially when safety studies proved you simply can’t overdose!

  • djhadley says:

    These people hiding behind “advisory committee” and “administration” and all the other public service [and I use the term advisedly] pseudonyms, should be named personally, and in the fullness of time as I am sure will happen, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and be charged at least with involuntary manslaughter. They are deliberately witholding treatment for a disease that to date has proven a lot safer than the vaccine [again I use the term advisedly] that has so far killed more than 30,000 people and probsbly a lot more. If they feel they need more information on Ivermectin I can forward the results of about 60 studies to them. These people need to be named and held responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Who are they?

  • Ceres says:

    Excellent words from Professor Clancy.
    One has to ask what on earth is the downside to prescribing it under a Dr? The TGA has come up with a few pathetic, flimsy justifications for the ban which certainly do not relate to it being dangerous for use against covid. It seems to work.
    It’s been used in humans for 35 plus years and of course for animals. We know where people will try and find it now thanks to this shameless ban.

  • andrewk1901 says:

    I note that today Clive Palmer welcomed John Skerritt’s threat to take court proceedings over the UAP texts outliniing the DAENs figures to thousands of Australians.
    That would of course require subpoenas forcing out the details of all entries to DAENS over covid vaccine adverse effects and ivermectin adverse effects.

    In this context it is worth noting that a search of DAENS for Ivermectin for the past 11 years reveals exactly three patient events- none fatal.

    A search back to 2000 reveals 17 cases and one death-which appears to be due to the drug having been ineffective.

    In regard to the reasons given by Skerritt:
    If the drug is prescribed by a medical professional then all issues with dosage and possible contraindications are taken into account.
    If the demand increases, then I am sure that suppliers will be happy to step up and fill the gap.
    Skerritt’s comments on Ivermectin were a disgrace, and I hope he is foolish enough to attempt to take Craig Kelly to court.
    We have to understand that the Australian public is very angry about the way we are being treated and we are showing that b y voting with our feet- and joining the UAP.

    At this pint the membership of the UAP is neck and neck with the LNP or the ALP (about 40,000) and gaining fast. I’m sure that the Australian people will have the capacity to force change, as so many of us are now furious.

    We need a serious investigation into the manner in which adverse events are recorded and the transparency of the system.

  • Simon says:

    I have been holding out for the Novavax vaccine, which appears to be the only conceivable alternative to the mRNA vaccines, according to this cabal of lunatics running Australia into oblivion.

    Although it’s a close contest, I think Marshmallow in SA has just taken the lead in frothing-at-the-mouth lunacy. He’s actually come up (proudly) with an app. that will force quarantined people to send a picture of themselves proving they are where they are supposed to be.

    If I was one of those unfortunates they’d be learning more than they could ever want to know about my hairy backside.

  • lenton1 says:

    Re Stephen Due, firstly, fabulous essay by Prof Clancy and equally spot-on comments by all.
    Of particular note in your comment SD was …
    Public health officials like to say ‘society’ must bear the cost of a small number of patriotic citizens being killed or permanently disabled after getting ‘the jab’. Perhaps those officials would like to speak to the families of the victims? The script runs like this: “My heart goes out to you. Of course, every death is a tragedy. But, sadly, your loved-one had to be sacrificed for the greater good”.
    BUT, what say one of those “patriotic citizens” was your friendly airline Captain who, during the course of his or her duties in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a dark and stormy night (or indeed a clam and moonlight night) with 500 people (yourself included) under their/our responsibility dozing comfortable having finally escaped Fortress Australia, suddenly realises that, due to some initial tingling in their fingers, followed by heart palpitations, before they finally slump over the controls, these the as-yet-not-proven-safe vaccines are indeed not safe? How are we feeling so far? Oh, then, coincidently, as so often is discovered in aircraft accident investigations, the co-Pilot, also having been forced to take the vaccine (and hence having no human redundancy in the safety system) begins to feel some initial tingling in his or her fingers … Not many options now then eh?
    Are we all feeling comfy in our big business class seats back there?
    Oh well, I’m sure the loss of all on board was a small sacrifice to pay …
    But hang on, don’t, these airliners fly themselves? Ah, yes, another sad tale of truth to tell. “Does anyone on board know how to fly a plane?” comes the call over the PA. Good luck with that!

  • Christian says:

    Nice one Andrew1901

    I had a look at the WHO’s adverse events database for IVM,, which shows 5000 adds since 1992 and 20 deaths for Ivermectin.
    Whereas the counts for the covid-19 vaccine are truly something to behold (in a bad way) – over 2million adverse events and over 10,000 deaths … and this is just for 2021

  • rosross says:

    Such articles give us hope. Well done Quadrant and Professor Clancy. Perhaps what is most concerning for many of us is how many people who should know better, politicians in and out of Government, scientists, doctors and those running the media, just go along with this senseless narrative which lacks substance and facts.

  • lroyjh says:

    Given that one is much less likely to become seriously unwell or die from Scabies than the dreaded Covid-19. One may need to present with an identifiable case scabies. But would your average Pharmacist be able to differentiate between Scabies, Seborrhoeic Dermatitis and Theatrical Rouge. Much less want to see the particular infected fold of skin?

  • ralphlhpain says:

    Thank you for this wonderful article Professor Clancy. I wondered whether you think that one reason drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have come under such attack might be that the US FDA requires there to be “no adequate, approved, and available alternatives” when authorising a new medicine for emergency use?
    If ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were accepted treatments for COVID-19 then the new mRNA vaccines might not have been approved for emergency use – forcing their manufacturers to forego millions of dollars of profit from their world-wide rollout.
    This concern of competition from cheap, safe and effective existing drugs would also apply to new medicines being developed for COVID-19 by various pharmaceutical companies, which of course would be on patent when approved and thus, lucrative.
    In February 2021 Merck, who make ivermectin, were behind a news article put out world wide by Reuters. It rubbished their own drug, ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapy. A serious conflict of interest was not disclosed by Reuters. Merck was developing Molnupiravir, which you mention in your article. If ivermectin worked for COVID-19, Merck’s hopes of emergency use authorisation for Molnupiravir would be dashed. I understand Merck hopes to gain FDA emergency use authorisation later this year. Hence it is in any pharmaceutical company’s interests to pour cold water on ivermectin if they are working on a new COVID-19 therapy and are looking for emergency use authorisation in the world’s biggest drug market – the US.
    Why would this affect the TGA? Regrettably, they seem to dance to America’s tune. It’s standard practice for our TGA to follow suit on many things the FDA decides.
    Do you think these considerations might be having an impact on the ivermectin situation Professor Clancy?

  • hedge110 says:

    I dialled in to an appointment with my GP. I inquired about treatments and prophylaxis options. He said there was nothing. I asked him whether he supported good sleep, exercise and minimized stress… BTW, NAB is now calling themselves ‘JAB’ on their main webpage. Everyone’s and doctor or drug-pusher now.

  • Lawrie Ayres says:

    I am rather late to this debate but I noted a year ago when Ivermectin was being ridiculed by all and sundry that one day there will be class actions against those who purposely denied a proven treatment to a patient who subsequently died. The families of those people should sue the TGA over wrongful death. I am sure there ate law firms licking their pencils as I write.

  • abrogard says:

    I agree with Lawrie Ayres and in line with that I have emailed links to my politicians throughout this farce for more than a year now. Links to articles, youtube vids with such as Prof John Ioannidis and so on… just to establish they they were told, they did know.
    And in fact i have told my Premier and the Prime Minister that if I die o covid or even suffer greatly I will curse their names with my dying breaths.
    For lets get this straight: Ivermectin can do no harm. A major factor in extreme covid events is anxiety related disorders. Letting those who want it have Ivermectin would diminish anxiety. Hence: prima facie Ivermectin saves lives. Hence: prima facie denying it is taking lives. Hence: they are cold blooded murderers in fact. In fact. In pure and certain fact.

  • abrogard says:

    These actions by the government are surely completely out of order? Surely our legal brains can grapple with this and have it undone?

Leave a Reply