Public Health

We Can’t Vaccinate This Pandemic Away

Thirty frontline doctors in Australia recently treated over 600 patients with COVID-19. The treatment strategy was ivermectin (IVM) with doxycycline and zinc. Five patients required admission to hospital for progressive symptoms. There were no deaths. In a similar number of contemporary Australian patients not treated with IVM, 70 were hospitalised and six died.

This is consistent with world data bases:  31 randomised controlled trials show 62 per cent benefit with IVM, and seven meta-analyses recorded a reduction in death of between 57 and 83 per cent. Experienced clinicians have moved on to combine IVM with additional drugs, usually a broad-spectrum antibiotic such as doxycycline, and zinc, which has viricidal activity.

A logical conclusion would be that these results demand attention. With “freedom day” in NSW expected to be followed by increases in COVID-19 infections and hospital admissions, an IVM roll-out would be a logical outcome. That this has not happened may well prompt the question ‘Why is that so?’ The mainline press, which  continues in its refusal to report and interrogate the evidence, also fails the public by presenting IVM as the antichrist of the medicine cabinet. A complex set of events has come together. These events and how they affect COVID-19 management and patient outcomes form the basis of this article.


FIRST, as patients were being treated with IVM in Sydney and Melbourne with the impressive results mentioned above, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) made an extraordinary move to shut down the prescribing of IVM by frontline doctors for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. The TGA has form, as it made a similar ruling on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the other re-purposed off-patent drug shown to be effective in treating COVID-19. Importantly, the reasons given by the TGA to justify its decision were not correct.

The main TGA concern stated was that IVM would confuse the public and lead to hesitation to be vaccinated. That, too, is incorrect. Doctors overwhelmingly support vaccination against COVID-19. The combination of safe and effective IVM with a vaccination programme will enhance viral clearance, reduce disease severity, reduce hospital admissions and reduce deaths. However, groupthink quickly led to professional bodies such as the AMA uncritically accepting the TGA policy. Even the Australian Academy of Science weighed in with political support for the TGA’s decision, doing so without any evaluation of the science.

Then came the coup: the regulatory body responsible for registration of doctors, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, warned that prescribing, dispensing, or even publicly discussing IVM, “compromised expected standards of practise”, leaving open disciplinary measures which have since resulted in  doctors having their licences revoked. A crescendo of intimidation has ensued, all based on a failure to interrogate the data and understand the clinical circumstance, with perhaps a touch of group hysteria thrown in.

The conclusion to be taken from these collective authoritarian decisions is that medical choice is no longer the prerogative of the doctor-patient relationship in Australia. Bureaucrats for any reason can decide and enforce medical issues without discussion with relevant medical experts. This is a problem throughout the Western world, but perhaps there is a light in the tunnel. Nebraska’s attorney general recently ruled that the prescription of IVM for COVID-19 is a matter for the doctor and patient, not government.


THE SECOND development is a changing balance in evidence relevant to early treatment. Negative critique has been rebutted, and support has become stronger.

First, there has been a rebuttal of a misleading “Cochrane report“. Traditionally, a  Cochrane is considered the highest bar for drug efficacy, and the outcome of a Cochrane has profound influence on acceptance. The existing Cochrane report on IVM was ambivalent. This became the basis for rejection of IVM, and the cry for more studies. The National COVID-19 Health and Research Advisory Committee, established to counsel government on early treatment for COVID-19, took that flawed Cochrane report as gospel. From there a trickle-down effect informed opinion of both professional and government organisations, with vigorous support from an uncritical media. Recently, a group of respected non-aligned epidemiologists in the UK reviewed the Cochrane report and found it wanting. They showed defects in method, an exclusion of data points and studies, and a failure to include substantive regional and national experiences where IVM had been successfully adopted.

Not to be dismissed, IVM naysayers took a new tack: play the man (or the woman), not the ball. Their trick is to label IVM studies that do not fit their viewpoint as “fraudulent” while disparaging IVM’s medical supporters as, among other insults, “New Age quacks”. The value of the naysayers’ critique, indeed their motivation, has been challenged in detail (see, failing on numerous counts that include an absence of evidence and misinformation. The conclusion was that these frivolous activities confined to a couple of uncertain studies (which are not included in quality meta-analyses) had no impact on the overwhelming data supporting the benefit for IVM use againstCOVID-19.

The mainline press welcomed claims supporting the anti-IVM narrative, with the BBC News plumbing new lows in journalism by combining false conclusions with bias that included misrepresentation of a highly regarded epidemiologist. A recent Sydney Morning Herald article was little better, distorting the science with ideology and bias. The reporter involved has not responded to a request to host a debate on the topic. They never do!

Second, and more positive, is the accumulation of evidence supporting the benefit from early treatment. Two recent and compelling studies further support the value of both IVM and HCQ , the latter having been “cancelled” after being cited by Donald Trump as a potential treatment. All this came despite a meta-analysis of 32 early-treatment studies showing 64 per cent protection.

The first of those is a WHO study in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state (230 million people). Medical teams visited 98,000 villages, providing kits (similar to those used in the Australian study) containing IVM for the treatment of those with COVID-19. Within five weeks, new cases had dropped by 97 per cent. Meanwhile in another Indian state, Kerala, with eight per cent the population of Uttar Pradesh, IVM was not used and as many as 31,000 COVID cases were recorded per day. Similar results are reported in areas of Peru, Mexico and elsewhere

The second recent study treated 8,300 French patients with HCQ. There was a 93 per cent reduction in mortality. A meta-analysis by the same authors included 32,000 patients from five countries and showed early HCQ treatment reduced mortality by 69 per cent.

The inevitable and unavoidable conclusions to be drawn are that Cochrane negativity can no longer dominate an honest argument about IVM’s use and, further, that the medication must be accepted in Australia as a safe and effective treatment capable of reducing the expected post-lockdown load on health systems.


THE THIRD development has been the frenetic response by media and government to an orchestrated campaign by pharmaceutical giant Merck promoting its re-purposed antiviral agent, Molnupiravir, before significant data assessment has been completed.  Merck is now joined by Roche and Pfizer with their versions of re-positioned “wonder drugs”. All have limited and conflicting data yet make extravagant claims. These antivirals  are less effective than IVM and none have acceptable safety profiles. However, we see the Australian government making extraordinary claims and committing large sums to acquire these unproven oral therapies. Who can be advising government to allow such dubious claims and acquisitions at the expense of IVM and the Australian taxpayer?

The charge of hypocrisy and cynicism must first be directed at Merck, but also at “the experts”, Dr.Tony Fauci, governments and, of course, the media. Merck stated IVM had no clinical value mere days before receiving a US$300 million grant to develop Molnupiravir. Available data suggests it provides eight-fold less protection than that found for IVM in the Australian study. Merck acquired Molnupiravir, originally developed by Emory University, after it failed against other RNA virus diseases. Questions about undisclosed data remain to be answered. The drug is a “son of Remdesavir”, a RNA polymerase inhibitor with that failed  randomised controlled trials (RCT). The Australian government has bought 300,000 courses of Remdesivir (the US government pays US$1,000 per course). This is beyond logic, certainly not based on science. As the TGA prevented doctors prescribing IVM because it would reduce vaccination rates, the question is simple: How will the TGA draw a distinction between Merck’s Molnupiravir and IVM?

The elephant in the room for Molnupiravir is safety. The drug creates lethal mutants to terminate virus replication. Cell biologists express concern that some live mutants with resistance to vaccines are released into the environment.  DNA mutations also occur, which could lead to disturbed growth and cross-generation transmission of genetic changes. The TGA will now have to wrestle with pressure from Big Pharma and government to register a drug with scant clinical data and untested safety concerns after denying the Australian a public cheap, safe and more effective treatment with IVM.

Any argument against IVM or HCQ use in treating COVID-19 is not based on science. Rather, it is politically driven, in tune with the pharmaceutical companies’ profit motive. Who is pulling the strings?


THE FOURTH issue is the recognition that genetic vaccines have limited value. While doctors support the current vaccine roll-out, reported “danger signals” must be clarified. Both the DNA-vector vaccine (AstraZeneca) and mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) behave as predicted by biology relevant to airways’ protection (something not understood by the vast majority of “experts”): short duration of protection limited to control of systemic inflammation, with little impact on infection of the airways.

Israel was used as a laboratory for the Pfizer vaccine. Six months after vaccination, there was essentially no protection against infection or mild disease, although protection against severe disease remained at 85-to-90 per cent. Thereafter came a rapid and progressive loss of protection against more severe disease.  Infected vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects have similar viral loads and transmission capacity. Immunity following natural infection is better and more durable than that induced by vaccination, so there is no sense in immunising those who have had COVID infection in the preceding six months.

In an Australian context, by New Year 2022, it is estimated about two million vaccinated Australians will have lost protection against infection and mild disease. Infections will increase as borders are opened and we re-enter the international community.

Our lockdown policy has limited the acquisition of natural immunity. Although we can expect high levels of infection with less severe disease, pressure on hospitals will increase. The experience of Israel and Iceland, each with high vaccination rates of 85 per cent or more, provides a possible scenario for Australia. In Israel, with a population of less than 10 million, the “third wave” continues, with 1500 new cases and 30 deaths a day (at the time of writing). More concerning are reports of high COVID mortality in older vaccinated subjects in some jurisdictions. Variants such as the further-mutated Delta variant in the UK will  continue to appear, with unknown infectivity, response to current vaccines and pathogenicity. Perhaps of greatest concern is the observation in the UK, and now in Sweden, that older vaccinated individuals have a higher incidence of COVID infection than those who are unvaccinated. At the same time others are describing a state of immune deficiency following vaccination with genetic vaccines.

At this stage it is unclear as to whether this “deficiency” of the immune response is limited to the antibody response to COVID virus. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has done “Immunology 101”, as enhancing antibody (ie antibody that promotes infection, rather than limits it) is well recognised in RNA virus infections, and “antigen excess causing a downregulation of immunity” is a basic tenet of immunology. Forgotten by most, is that genetic vaccines cause a large and unregulated amount of antigen (ie the spike protein) to be synthesised within the cells of the body, and the immune response will be a function of those unknown dynamics. These facts and the concerns they raise should be front and centre for regulators as they examine data to make decisions in regard to booster shots. The duration of protection following boosters is completely unknown, as is whether genetic vaccine boosters distort the immune system with net suppression. Are we setting ourselves up for monthly boosters, higher incidence of infections, more serious adverse events, or even more concerning immune outcomes. We just do not know! If ever there was a need for a safe , cheap effective oral therapy, now is it.

The concern for all genetic vaccines is the damage caused by uncontrolled release of toxic spike protein from cells throughout the body, and cell destruction due to T cells and antibody directed against spike protein, expressed on cell surfaces. It is too early to know if there are long-term complications caused by injected mRNA due to displacement of physiological mRNA by synthetic “capped” mRNA in vaccines, or prion disease such as Parkinson’s disease, due to “prion sequences” in the spike protein.

There are disturbing signals reporting severe adverse events and post-vaccination deaths across the globe. A high percent of these “signals” appear to have a causal relationship in subsequent analyses, reinforced by post-mortem reports showing specific tissue changes. Yet we are now seeing a push to vaccinate children under 12 who neither get severe disease nor significantly spread it. The cost/benefit of immunising children has been widely criticised, while misinformation continues to be delivered through the press. Similar concerns persist with respect to vaccination of pregnant women despite short term data from Pfizer suggesting safety. Incidence of miscarriages remains unclear. Follow-up of infants must ber able to exclude complications due to placenta damage from spike protein and genetic changes due to injected mRNA.


TO CONCLUDE, we cannot vaccinate ourselves out of the pandemic. Most COVID deaths in England over the last seven months have been in vaccinated subjects, and studies across 68 countries confirm increases in COVID-19 infections are unrelated to levels of vaccination. Booster shots with current vaccines come with little support, and possible enhanced toxicity as reported to the FDA. There is very limited data showing prevention of serious disease, with the data presented to the FDA by Pfizer focussed on “infections” not serious disease. COVID deaths  in older immunised subjects due to “enhancing antibody” need to be confirmed and investigated further. These concerns need to be resolved before booster shots are widely used.

Antigen-based vaccines such as NovaVax with its strong metrics on efficacy and safety, need to be considered. It is understood this vaccine will be available by year’s end; indeed, on October 29 an application for provisional approval was filed with the TGA.  Yet the Australian government continues to support genetic vaccines. Who can be advising the politicians on such a concerning course?

The management of COVID-19 in Australia requires re-shaping as we move into the next stage of the pandemic. It is easy to identify problems. It is more useful to recognise that the pandemic has opened cracks in the administration of medical practise.  Transparency, communication, and flexibility, once strengths of our health system, are harder to find. Bureaucrats appear to make critical decisions for political reasons, while doctors are threatened with de-registration for supporting early drug treatment because it may affect vaccine roll-out. It is easy to conclude the system has been corrupted. The question is, who pulls the strings?

Part of the answer is that transnational organisations, such as WHO and mega pharmaceutical companies, have imprinted their political and commercial agendas all over the COVID-19 story. The genesis of their power play appears to reside in the terms of their confidential contracts with national governments. From the inadequate “investigation” of the Wuhan source of the virus to its refusal to admit IVM is the reason for successful COVID-19 control in Uttar Pradesh and its suppression of all cheap and readily available early treatments, the WHO cannot be trusted to lead the world out of the pandemic. Pharmaceutical companies subvert any evidence supporting cheap medications that threaten their profits.  Conflict exist at every level with cross-appointments between pharmaceutical companies, government bodies with financial interests in pharmaceutical companies, and research grants from pharmaceutical companies. The US Food & Drug Administration has long been a nursery for highly paid lobbyists and careers within the pharmaceutical industry. If an example is needed to illustrate how distorted the system has become, go no further than Merck’s promotion of Molnupiravir and the cynical support given by politicians, academics and media only weeks after “cancelling” cheap, available, safer and more effective re-purposed drugs. Since the FDA in the US became funded through high application fees from the pharmaceutical companies, a shift in acceptance of expensive drugs offering little advantage over existing unpatented drugs has been noted.

What is difficult to understand is the groupthink acceptance of the mantra promoted by  so-called experts, and by many professionals. In part this is due to the power vacuum in medical leadership that has occurred in recent years, but it may also reflect in part processes known to psychiatrists as cognitive dissonance and mass hysteria.

The medical profession in Australia was built on a proud tradition of excellence, with College systems and medical faculties led by the best of the best providing  trickle-down leadership based on respect, knowledge and experience. This leadership was tightly connected to primary care doctors. That has changed, with Colleges now reduced to a gateway function geared to specialist accreditation and with “leadership” provided by bureaucrats. Medicine has been dissected by specialisation, losing its connections along the way. Academic medicine has lost the allure of earlier times in a post-truth world of political correctness, with fewer medical graduates entering PhD training programmes. Recruitment into research career paths is no longer an attractive option.  Most specialists today would not know the name of their College presidents, once the most revered of positions. Instead the pandemic has enabled this information vacuum to be filled with a new breed of “experts” who either are not medically trained, and thus cannot grasp the clinical imperative, or have a past-distant medical degree but are a long way from real-life medicine. This has facilitated promotion of influence-peddling by pharmaceutical companies with the goal of impacting COVID-19 management. The current situation manipulated by Merck to “cancel” IVM and replace this treatment option with the less effective but patented Molnupiravir should be a wake-up call. Yet this expensive drug is lauded in the press and elsewhere as the “breakthrough we all needed”.

An example of pharmaceutical company “vigour” occurred with the launch of new anti-psychotic drugs in the 1990’s. Companies  manipulated a belief held by a few paediatricians and child psychiatrists that psychosis was common in young children, with funding, promotion and strong media support. It took several thousand deaths before sanity was restored to gullible doctors. 

Uncritical acceptance of misinformation on IVM, driven by pharmaceutical companies to protect their vaccines and patented drugs, and strongly reinforced by academia, government and health authorities,  leads to many unnecessary hospital admissions and deaths. The media has a concerning role in the propagation of misinformation, preferring to support an ideological narrative, rather than engage in responsible journalism. The appalling example by BBC News has been discussed.

This article is about a watershed moment in COVID-19 management. It is brought into focus by the TGA closing  down the legal use of IVM for COVID-19, while Merck promotes an inadequately documented, potentially dangerous and less effective (but patented and very expensive) “lethal-mutant” anti-viral. Yet not a squeak of concern from the mainline press. The moment is brought squarely into relief as health services face the pressure of handling infections that will follow “escape” from lockdowns. The limits of vaccination to control this “third wave” across the globe demands drug support. New data on enhancing immunity and related immune deficiency, discussed above, calls for caution and a re-think about genetic vaccines.

How will the TGA and its advisers handle this crisis? How can a quality information trail be provided to politicians? The Nebraska ruling on IVM, noted and linked above, has gone viral around the world. The question is, will legal sanity be sufficient to counter the pharmaceutical lobby and pressures they will bring on regulatory bodies? We all must live in hope!

37 thoughts on “We Can’t Vaccinate This Pandemic Away

  • STD says:

    Thanks Professor Clancy ,once again.
    The fact that you are out of step with the current government stupidity that is linked to a corporate profit zeitgeist allows one like myself the opportunity to grasp the truth with unparalleled trust.
    To quote President Ronald Reagan: “Hope lead’s us, if we are prepared to trust it , to what our President Lincoln called the better Angels of our nature”. ( speech at Bergen- Belsen ,May 5th 1985)

  • Losthope says:

    sorry MATE, but I am over these puff pieces. The TGA don’t read this publication. Rather than throwing rocks from the sideline and preaching to the converted, how about you and your merry men and some lawyers actually get some skin in the game and fight for Australians. how about Actually confronting the TGA and governments and prove they are on the wrong path.

  • STD says:

    Losthope any ideas on how to convince morons their morons.

  • mpaine says:

    Thank you Professor Clancy. We are desperate for respected voices. Where are our warriors that will stand for the many that have lost their livelihoods and freedoms in this wretched time? It seems only the well resourced and sufficiently retired from academia will (or can) point to all the elephants in the room. Families are divided to a point that is dangerous. Some of us are looking on in horror as our highly credentialed associates line-up their children and grandchildren for the shot. We are disdained, ridiculed and excluded from polite society. This is deliberate policy from compromised authority and seeing my once trusted family doctor and local pharmacy happily promote vaccinations to our children is still incomprehensible. Where are our so called human rights lawyers? All gone to water.

  • Christian says:

    Losthope, I am sure that Professor Clancy is doing what he can.
    As for me, I am sending articles like to as many people I can, including reporters MPs’ and friends.
    I am also supporting various legal actions, in the hope that one will be successful.
    So far my efforts have not had any tangible success but that is not an excuse to stop

  • Antony Carr says:

    Reading Professor Clancy’s excellent article fills me with rage. There’s a deadly pandemic too few recognise that’s infected the political, academic, bureaucratic, business, cultural and social elites of the entire Western World, a pandemic of idiocy. Those infected lose all reason, knowledge and memory, whether the topic be Covid-19, climate change or ‘woke’ issues of race and gender. Our universities, supposedly the conservers and guardians of our civilisation, are too often complicit in promoting and spreading nonsense and the merely careerist leaders found in politics as well as in many institutions and professional bodies need to be replaced. We must revolt!

  • tommbell says:

    The ship of state (and its gaggle of elites and useful idiots) is steaming ahead too fast to turn around. Any change of tack now will be seen for what it is – an admission of failure. That’s not going to happen. Too many are invested in the current narrative.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    RC: “….so there is no sense in immunising those who have had COVID infection in the preceding six months.”
    Yet according to last week’s BBC Health Check update, Claudia Hammond mentioned briefly recent research where they are doing just that, and making claims about efficacy “improvements” of about 9 to 12 per cent.

  • rosross says:

    Given the risks of these genetic treatments called vaccines for Covid, which remain unapproved, not properly tested, using methods and materials never before injected into humans in this way or at these numbers, and the even higher and unknown risks over the next 10 years for those who receive them, who will be held criminally responsible for pushing them in the name of fear for a virus which is no threat to 99.,99% of people and where the vast majority of the mortality group are very old and very sick with 2-3 co-morbidities with an average age of Covid claimed death at 86, particularly since treatments like Ivermectin, with very low risk and decades of use, are available?

  • rosross says:

    Professor Nikolai Petrovsky is the Director of Endocrinology (Flinders Medical Centre), Professor of Medicine (Flinders University), Vice President of the International Immunomics Society, Founder of Vaxine and the creator of COVAX-19 and Spikogen.

    He joins us for the second time in the follow up interview to discuss the progress of his traditional protein vaccine (COVAX-19/Spikogen), the medical ethics of mandating vaccines, a comparison of vaccine types, concerns with mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines, vaccine adverse event incidence rates, and the scientific errors being made by politicians conflating community protection with individual protection.

    As a vaccine creator, Professor Petrovsky is very vocal on his LinkedIn account against the mandating of vaccines, especially with no scientific justification.

  • vickisanderson says:

    “Instead the pandemic has enabled this information vacuum to be filled with a new breed of “experts” who either are not medically trained, and thus cannot grasp the clinical imperative, or have a past-distant medical degree but are a long way from real-life medicine.”

    The most effective technique I have developed in refuting the arguments based on the pronouncements of these “experts” is to counter with the list of internationally acclaimed virologists/epidemiologists/physicians et al who signed both the Great Barrington Declaration & more recently the Rome Declaration calling for a halt to global vaccination for COVID19.

    It does cause somewhat of a “pause” in the remorseless denunciation of the unvaccinated. Nonetheless, as prof. Clancy recognises, we are also battling a weird mass psychosis and pronounced cognitive dissonance which destroys all ability to think rationally and critically.

    Does the Nebraska ruling give us hope? I really don’t know. The current age is so afflicted with transformational change in the form of climate change activism at the highest level, together with digital control over society, that I have no confidence we can pull out of this spiral downwards.

  • Salvatore Babones says:

    Australia really is a lucky country to have Quadrant.

  • Carlos says:

    To STD:

    They’re morons.

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    ‘thirty frontline doctors in Australia recently treated over 600 patients with COVID-19. ‘
    Is there any link to this trial, or was it prospective and shut down?
    Two days ago I had an email from my doctor saying Pfizer was available for my booster.
    I have had AZ, two doses.
    Prion disease is not a laughing matter.
    In the acute case the good news is that the patient does not know and dies almost immediately.
    The WHO has gone AWOL, the old China, Ethiopia team still firmly in charge.
    Can’t believe anything from there.
    Our own TGA is advertising for new blood, so to speak, with a change from the top.
    In this interregnum two things matter to me and no doubt the gentle readers.
    I happened to attend the World Veterinary Congress in WA at which Merck launched ivermectin.
    They were clear that residue studies in cattle showed the product was safe after a short elimination period.
    They had made sure it broke down in the soil so the dung beetles survived to recycle poo.
    It was very professional.
    Merck have definitely nailed their colours to the mast.
    ‘No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
    No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
    A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.’
    Perhaps the TGA don’t want a huge class action.
    However medical practitioners in Australia are indemnified when using the registered vaccines.
    We definitely need Novavax.
    We need someone in the TGA with the fortitude to stare down multinationals and re examine Ivermectin in the Australian context.
    It simply has to be in the job description, otherwise we may be buying heaps of treatments that don’t work anyway.
    Australia has already done this with Tamiflu.
    We bought heaps of this which was never used and expired.
    Sure it was re assayed but eventually became landfill, medical waste.
    The ‘joke’ was that when a Thai village poultry keeper who lived with his chickens got bird flu, it did not save him.
    There is no need to repeat the mistakes of the past.
    If the above clinical finding in Australia is correct, we need a clinical review of the data on Ivermectin.
    Unless this happens, our own professionals will end up with the same profile as the WHO.

  • Mohsen says:

    That was very funny!

  • David_Blake says:

    In Australia, an additional impediment to infection management stems restrictions and limits placed on rapid POC testing for active infection. This is controlled by pathology regs and the requirement for tests to be managed by authorised healthcare professionals, completely defeating the need to test early.
    The TGA has cleared about eight rapid tests, one of which will be apparently available from November in supermakets. It is supplied by a Chinese manufacturer.
    For those that remember Biota’s inhaled flu drug Relenza, the key insight regarding effectiveness was early diagnosis to introduce early treatment. GSK didn’t in my opion didnt see the need to invest in a rapid POC test that could sit in the home medicine chest with stocks of Relenza.

  • abrogard says:

    What else can you call all this but sheer wilful criminality? Tell me. Please. What else can it possibly be called?

    Look at it clearly and sensibly. Make it real. Practical. Something you can envisage.

    I can do it. I am a susceptible person. High risk. ( of a thing that’s not really high risk at all, but taking their narrative ).

    I want Ivermectin. It can do me no harm. It is sure to do me good. Hurts no one I take it.

    There’s Ivermectin on the table before me. You stand on the other side of the table with your laws and your guns and your manacles etc and forbid me to take it.

    I die.

    What else is that but murder? How do you excuse that action? It cannot be excused.

    The people know nothing. They are uncertain and confused so they stick with the apparently safest course and follow the herd. At any one time they nervously look around to see what everyone else appears to be doing. Wearing masks. Okay, that’s an indicator, that’s a flag, that’s a token, it means ‘follow the govt. narrative.’

    And that’s all they do. Reams of tiny text arguing the issues this way and that means nothing to them.

    They can only be approached with slogans and brief ‘bullets’ of doctrine.

    And that’s what we should do. Bluntly. Often. Quietly. Persistently. Fire the bullets:

    . Covid not as bad as they make it out to be, nothing like it.
    . This way of fixing it simply makes it worse.

    That’s all.
    Hopefully some will ask for proof of those contentions. We can provide it. There is nothing else but proof of it to be found.

    But until they ask we can’t give.

    But governments and such: yes, criminal actions, failure of duty, etc, etc… there’s people who’s job it is to take them to task.. all the way down the line, from the top down all through the bureaucracies… and each and every politician who’s failed in his duty to represent and protect the people.

    For there’s two sins here isn’t there? The only two. Sins of omission and sins of commission.

    They’re committing both of them

    They omit to protect us and they actually inflict harm.

    Where is there any doubt? Nowhere. There’s nothing to talk about.

  • abrogard says:

    At the very least bad batches in two different vaccines. That of itself surely should be enough to severely restrict their use? But no, they’re hell bent on forcing them into children and inflicting original antigenic sin on them. When they’re in no danger! They’re insane, insane, insane….

  • abrogard says:

    There’s a lot of facts we just have to face.

    Our politicians are apparently totally without sense or morals and insanely power drunk.

    Our doctors are nothing but very fallible humans and without any special qualities to help us: fading quickly under pressure, frightened of authority, without wit nor apparent desire to fight back on our or even their own behalf.

    Our police forces have no sense of perspective at all, being happy to gang up on old women while dressed like storm troopers and wearing pretty pastel blue masks all in support of punishing a victimless crime.

    Our chattering class of observers and know-it-alls is woefully ignorant, behind the times and totally ineffectual in helping us at all. Everybody in the nation who thinks they’re somebody and especially influential and capable and above it all and protective of it all: is, it turns out, a fat nothing and nobody. A mere smug self satisfied coterie of pinky lifting tea drinkers and a waste of space.

    Our MSM is entirely corrupt and useless. Even the ‘shock jocks’ on inspection turn out to be seeking audience merely and foregoing any opportunity to give real helpful advice to people such as: get IVM,, get ready for early home treatment, get Vit D, get exercise, get love and friendship and hope and happiness and optimism and realism and reject, reject, reject the murderous crippling destructive govt. narrative.

    Our lawyers, our whole legal system up there to essentially see that the right thing is done at all times is totally, absolutely, a bit nothing, disappears like a morning mist when you need them..

    Our citizens are mainly compliant sheep incurious as to truth. They will take us over the edge of the cliff like caught in the press of the lemmings.

    Big pharma is a real juggernaut. Not an evil conspiracy that can be negotiated with it is worse: it is a mindless, headless, brainless mechanism that simply seeks to maximise its own profits. It seeps through everything like water seeping through a paper roof. And is as unstoppable.

    There’s more. I’m sure someone can provide a better analysis/summary and I hope they do.

    But no matter how you cut it plainly the situation is we are defenceless and at the mercy of the wolves.

    Even here we have people arguing for trials for Ivermectin! Now. Right here. As the Titanic sinks they call for committees to be formed to discuss the catastrophe! These columns aptly, totally, illustrate the situation.

    Australia is exposed. It is in ruins. It’s not the emperor has no clothes, WE are exposed as having no clothes. The nation is defenceless. Rudderless. Without guidance, no direction known.

    Now we can understand so much of the recent past. It is all of a piece. We are a shambolic wreckage drifting across the ocean. Thinking of ourselves as god like sun bronzed Anzacs surfing the ocean wave, lords of creation.

    As we stumble through our shopping malls furtively avoiding each other, muzzled and head down, hastening back to the gloom of our prison homes, forbidden to find medication or even be given it by our doctors, surrounded by black shirt thugs with laboratories busy devising ways to control our every movement in even more detail….

    Ho, ho, bloody ho. Tell me that’s not how it is.

  • Stephen Due says:

    From TGA website today [my comments in square brackets]:

    “Ivermectin is not approved for use in COVID-19 in Australia or in other developed countries…” [what have other countries got to do with it? why ‘developed’?]

    “…and its use by the general public for COVID-19 is currently strongly discouraged by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, the World Health Organisation and the US Food and Drug Administration”. [this is irrelevant to the actual issue, but in any case few people have much time for the pronouncements of any of those organisations due to ongoing evidence of their incompetence and corruption]

    “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” [this is garbage – the alleged ‘public health risk’ is predicated on a false assumption about the therapeutic effect of the drug – the main ‘public health’ risk that seems to be worrying the TGA is actually that if the drug works it will render the mass vaccination program unnecessary]

    “Secondly, the doses of ivermectin that are being advocated for use in unreliable social media posts and other sources for COVID-19 are significantly higher than those approved” [also garbage – ‘unreliable social social media posts’ are not a reason for banning a life-saving prescription medication – the opposite in fact is true since by allowing doctors to prescribe the drug you remove the need for people to seek advice from social media]

    “Finally, there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months, leading to national and local shortages…” [you must be kidding – this stuff is available from suppliers by the bucket-load]

    Overall comment: These pronouncements from the TGA are an insult to the Australian public, not to mention the medical profession. They might have been written by a Guardian journalist. They provide precisely zero acceptable reasons for banning the prescription of Ivermectin for Covid-19. In fact there is an abundance of evidence that when prescribed in accordance established multi-drug protocols it works brilliantly and is perfectly safe.
    Why on earth do doctors tolerate this level of bureaucratic interference in medical practice?

  • andrew2 says:

    Thanks Professor Clancy. Our whole commercial system needs a complete re-evaluation. I find it difficult to understand why University Fees are getting more expensive as the Universities largely do not benefit greatly from their own research. Medical professional colleges act as gateways to specialist accreditation rather than guardians of best practice for healthcare. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies earn billions upon billions of dollars through our sub-par public health response.

    Bringing these things into the public consciousness is the best course of action right now.

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    abrogard – 1st November 2021
    Speaking to a practice manager yesterday he made the comment that so far no one has had been reported as dying after a Moderna vaccination.

  • Alec Witham says:

    Dear Prof Clancy, thank you so much for this comprehensive and authoritative commentary, which I think has touched on just about all the of bases of concern. In relation to IVM and HCQ and the banning thereof, I understand this was done so that emergency release authority could be given to the mRNA/DNA vaccines—one of the requirements for granting this authority being that there are no safe and effective therapeutic treatments available. Secondly, as you mention, these repurposed drugs are cheap and therefore detrimental to certain interests. As to the possibility of a review, one can only hope that the probability of questions arising in the public mind should not prove a bridge too far.

  • Gasman says:

    Prof Clancy, a legitimate question I have for you is what next? Is that 600 person study going to be the basis for an application to the TGA? From what I can gather it is over $300 000 just to submit an application.

    Otherwise I can see both sides of the argument in that I am suspicious other off label drugs are used with less evidence and no action is taken whatsoever against anybody. Additionally the above point about the requirements for emergency use authorisation are relevant and may be the case regarding IVM and HCQ.

    On the other hand, without guidance from the authorising bodies patients may make demands of the doctor and even threaten legal action against the doctor unless certain medications that the patient wants are given. I think this happened in Sydney recently regarding Vitamin C.
    So therefore there is a degree of protection for the doctor if a patient makes such a demand in that the doctor can simply say it is not authorised by the TGA for that purpose.

    But I commend you on your efforts and either way at the very least I think you have brought the complexities of drug regulation and authorisation into the public eye

  • Rebekah Meredith says:

    Prof. Clancy’s pieces have bugged me because a man of his qualifications, who obviously was not right in with all of the covid cult, advocated the vaccines. Now, he is concerned that they might be dangerous. No kidding! Welcome to the club! But what took him so long!

  • Stephen Due says:

    The International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists has just issued its second Physicians Declaration on aspects of Covid-19, including these resolutions:
    “Early intervention with numerous, available agents has proven to be safe and effective, and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
    No medicine already given regulatory approval shall be restricted from “off-label” use, particularly during this global humanitarian crisis caused by a rapidly mutating virus, which requires quick to adopt treatment strategies.
    Health agencies shall be prohibited from interfering with physicians prescribing evidence-based treatments they deem necessary, and insurance companies must cease blocking payments for life-saving medicine prescribed by doctors.”
    The full declaration is worth reading and signing online here:

  • Stephen Due says:

    Incidentally, there us a strong US network of about 500 physicians treating Covid-19 patients at home with protocols based around Ivermectin.
    Justus R Hope (a pseudonym) writing in the unlikely publication Desert Review out of Imperial Valley, California on 18 October noted the following:
    “By August 13, 2021, the CDC reported Ivermectin prescriptions had reached 88,000 per week, up 24-fold from the baseline of 3,600 per week. This number has risen many times again over the past two months, easily reaching into the millions.
    The current graph of the United States COVID cases has taken on the “Ivermectin Fingerprint” pattern so familiar to us from India, Peru, and Indonesia after they adopted Ivermectin.
    The United States, with its vaccinations stagnated at 57.3%, is enjoying a massive drop in cases.
    At nearly the same vaccination rate as the US, 55%, Australia is seeing a deadly and unforgiving Delta surge amidst harsh lockdown measures that are universally failing. As a result, their cases are going through the roof despite mandatory mass vaccinations. At the same time, the United States’ cases are dropping like a stone.
    The reason? Ivermectin.”

  • searlesy0 says:

    Thanks Professor Clancy …we need more like you!

  • Gasman says:

    What I would like to see is a doubled blinded RCT involving those who are due for their 3rd vaccine ie those who are 6 months or more post their second vaccine
    Treatment group would get Ivermectin 0.3/kg twice a week for 12 weeks, other group get placebo twice a week for 12 weeks.
    Also maybe extend this out to kids,5-11’s and unvaccinated 12-16’s.
    If there is an impending outbreak now that lockdowns have ended it would be an ideal time.
    Then at the end of the trial give any adult who wants it a 3rd vaccine

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    It would seem that the vaccines are not up to scratch and are waning in effectiveness.
    If this is so then a drug as well as a safe, effective vaccine is called for.
    As Gasman points out, it would not be hard to run a few trials in Australia on ivermectin.
    Even better, publish the trials already done, say the Monash one, and let others look at the data they show.
    In the meanwhile the people want more answers to the advice they are being given.

  • ralphlhpain says:

    A superb and devastating article. Thank you Professor Clancy. I am going to share your article as widely as I can.
    On the point about Merck’s campaign against IVM I noticed this article recently:

  • Losthope says:

    All I am saying is the Premier Pirouette won’t release unvaxed until we are 95% vaxed. Prof Clancy’s article is securing the gate after the horse has bolted. What I would like to see Is Prof Clancy describe, document, and suggest remedies for the unintended side effects these Vaccinations. Perhaps, it would go some way to help in future class actions

  • andrew2 says:

    Rebekah, I don’t read any change in Professor Clancy’s position or reason to criticise him. He has always stated that the rna/dna vaccines pose a risk because of the unregulated way they produce the spike protein and he has always said the other vaccines such as the NovaVax were probably safer. He has always stated that therapeutics need to be part of the mix and pointed out early on the conflict of interest that Merck had in playing down the effectiveness of Ivermectin. Personally, I am very happy to have his contribution to the discussion in whatever manner he decides to provide it. For everyone over 60, taking any vaccine on offer was probably a fair bet, assuming that locking down only the over 60’s and immuno-compromised was off the table. There is a bit of shooting the messenger going on. We should probably remember that the global health alliance where going to do what they have done no matter what anybody said. The important thing is to make sure things never happen this way again, that is a long term battle.

  • lbloveday says:

    In Chicago, a Cook County judge stripped child visitation rights from a divorced mother who previously shared custody with her ex-husband. Claiming prior bad reactions to vaccinations, the mother has chosen not to receive the COVID vaccine. The judge denied all child contact without warning or a hearing on the topic.

  • andrewk1901 says:

    Thankyou Prof Clancy for a clear and complete analysis of the currrent situation. Im preparing a talk of my own as a retired GP and this is an excellent backbone.

    I had just about lost faith in my profession but the clarity and detail in this piece are admirable. You remind me of the first class doctors who were teaching me in the 1980’s.

  • bhaslam says:

    Losthope sounds as though your replicating the opinion of a Losttroll, what are you doing besides voicing a negative opinion of those that have put their reputation and career on the line.
    I forwarded one of Prof Clancy’s articles to another Professor who is friend, He forwarded the email to Newcastle Uni, to be advised that Uni had distanced itself from Prof Clancy with derogatory remarks within the reply email. The alarm bells rang, why wouldn’t they refute Prof Clancy’s opinion. I already knew the answer, Big Pharma has its funding spread across Govt and privately funded business everywhere. The University is partially funded by Big Pharma.

Leave a Reply