Ivermectin is back on the shelves

You can’t deny its effectiveness. The research has been done, the proof is there. Finally, the media are seeing that these facts have been hidden from the public…

Monash University ‘Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours’ READ MORE HERE

Spectator, “Hunt goes off script with Ivermectin’ SEE ARTICLE HERE

This is a big turning point with the vaccine rollout. If preventative alternatives are available…there is no longer a need for vaccines that are untested and unapproved.

See proof that Greg Hunt says it’s ok to prescribe Ivermectin off-label.

Latest News


This post is a copy of last night’s mass email. It explains the ‘RDA lives’ comment and other things 🙂 If you’re not subscribed to

Read More »


  1. But with some understanding of the overall agenda, how will this help?
    It is not going to be advertised in the media as an effective treatment no matter what

  2. My understanding is that the evidence in favour of ivermectin has already gone way past in-vitro work. Mercola says meta analyses have already been completed!
    “A meta-analysis of 24 RCTs clearly demonstrates that ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance” see the link from Mercola …

  3. For medical teams if theu are not vaccined from now to end of august they will lose their job. And for people who are 12 and more it’s not obligatory but if you are not vaccinated you can’t go to cinema, museum, bars and restaurant, commercial centers, take train, plane ….you can also make test but you ll have to do it every 48h and pay for it. 

    This is from my cousin in France ?? 

  4. Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 74% and 85% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis (RR 0.26 [0.16-0.43] and 0.15 [0.08-0.25]), with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis, restriction to peer-reviewed studies, and restriction to Randomized Controlled Trials.

    The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 60 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 193 billion (p = 0.0000000000052).



    Problems with the WHO analysis of Ivermectin (from https://ivmmeta.com/):

    WHO Analysis

    WHO updated their treatment recommendations on 3/30/2021 [WHO]. For ivermectin they reported a mortality odds ratio of 0.19 [0.09-0.36] based on 7 studies with 1,419 patients. They do not specify which trials they included. The report is inconsistent, with a forest plot that only shows 4 studies with mortality results.

    Despite this extremely positive result, they recommended only using ivermectin in clinical trials. The analysis contains many flaws [Kory (C)]:

    •Of the 60 studies (30 RCTs), they only included 16.

    •They excluded all 13 prophylaxis studies (3 RCTs).

    •There was no protocol for data exclusion.

    •Trials included in the original UNITAID search protocol [Hill] were excluded.

    •They excluded all epidemiological evidence, although WHO has considered such evidence in the past.

    •They combine early treatment and late treatment studies and do not provide heterogeneity information. As above, early treatment is more successful, so pooling late treatment studies will obscure the effectiveness of early treatment. They chose not to do subgroup analysis by disease severity across trials, although treatment delay is clearly a critical factor in COVID-19 treatment, the analysis is easily done (as above), and it is well known that the studies for ivermectin and many other treatments clearly show greater effectiveness for early treatment.

    •WHO downgraded the quality of trials compared to the UNITAID systematic review team [Hill] and a separate international expert guideline group that has long worked with the WHO [Bryant].

    •They disregarded their own guidelines that stipulate quality assessments should be upgraded when there is evidence of a large magnitude effect (which there is), and when there is evidence of a dose-response relationship (which there is). They claim there is no dose-response relationship, while the UNITAID systematic review team found a clear relationship [Hill].

    •Their risk of bias assessments do not match the actual risk of bias in studies. For example they classify [López-Medina] as low risk of bias, however this study has many issues making the results unreliable [Covid Analysis], even prompting an open letter from over 170 physicians concluding that the study is fatally flawed [Open Letter]. [Gonzalez] is also classified as low risk of bias, but is a study with very late stage severe condition high-comorbidity patients. There is a clear treatment delay-response relationship and very late stage treatment is not expected to be as effective as early treatment. Conversely, much higher quality studies were classified as high risk of bias.

    •Although WHO’s analysis is called a “living guideline”, it is rarely updated and very out of date. As of May 14, 2021, four of the missing RCTs are known to WHO and labeled “RCTs pending data extraction” [COVID-NMA]. We added these 4, 4, 2, and one month earlier.

    •A single person served as Methods Chair, member of the Guidance Support Collaboraton Committee, and member of the Living Systematic Review/NMA team.

    •Public statements from people involved in the analysis suggest substantial bias. For example, a co-chair reportedly said that “the data available was sparse and likely based on chance” [Reuters]. As above, the data is comprehensive, and we estimate the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as observed to be 1 in 193 billion (p = 0.0000000000052). The clinical team lead refers to their analysis of ivermectin as “fighting this overuse of unproven therapies … without evidence of efficacy” [Reuters], despite the extensive evidence of efficacy from the 60 studies by 573 scientists with 21,825 patients. People involved may be more favorable to late stage treatment of COVID-19, for example the co-chair recommended treating severe COVID-19 with remdesivir [Rochwerg].

    In summary, although WHO’s analysis predicts that over 2 million fewer people would be dead if ivermectin was used from early in the pandemic, they recommend against use outside trials. This appears to be based primarily on excluding the majority of the evidence, and by assigning bias estimates that do not match the actual risk of bias in studies.

    Use early in the pandemic was proposed by Kitasato University including the co-discoverer of ivermectin, Dr. Satoshi Ōmura. They requested Merck conduct clinical trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Japan, because Merck has priority to submit an application for an expansion of ivermectinʼs indications. Merck declined [Yagisawa].

    1. Your assessment of WHO’s response to the ivermectin trials is very comprehensive. My question is, what needs to be done in Australia before TGA will give permission for physicians to prescribe ivermectin? Does it require a petition? Does it require a Professor in Immunology to give a submission? Does it require the National Cabinet putting pressure on the TGA to do so? What needs to happen that will cause TGA to alter it’s position on this?

      1. I think these institutions know exactly how effective ivermectin is- there seems to be a deliberate strategy to sideline it.

        I asked the National Covid Taskforce why they recommended AGAINST ivermectin – here is the exchange:
        Dear Eloise and other Taskforce members,

        Despite repeated hit pieces in the mainstream press on anyone who recommends Ivermectin as a COVID treatment, the truth remains that it has been demonstrated to be effective by medical experts who between them have 1000 peer review publications, and are actively working in hospital care:


        Many in the Australian community – both medical and non-medical – are well aware of these available treatments and their demonstrated effectiveness. The fact that these treatments are being denied to people, and denigrated, with long-term consequences, or even death, for COVID patients, is an appalling abuse of the trust people place in their medical authorities.

        I urge you to really consider the science here, as what your oganisation is participating in very close to criminal – it is not even negligence, it is either outright ignorance or corruption. Either way, the truth will out, and I hope your organisation and everyone connected to it is prepared for the consequences and the complete discrediting that they will inevitably experience.


        Thank you for your email.

        The Taskforce considers all relevant, reliable randomised trials of treatments for people with COVID-19 (including those for ivermectin). You can see the list of research studies which meet these criteria at https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/L4Q5An/section/L0OPkj

        A description of our methods is available on our website at https://covid19evidence.net.au/more-about-the-guidelines/
        Kind regards,
        National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce
        Clearly not as the second reference you cite as not supporting its use does support its use:

        “Results: Average age of the participants was 56 years (45-67) and 50% were women. The primary and secondary results showed significant changes between day zero and day five of admission (∆ 0/5) in terms of ΔALC5/0, ΔPLT5/0, ΔESR5/0, ΔCRP5/0, duration of low O2 saturation, and duration of hospitalization (CI = 95% ). Risk of mortality was also decreased significantly in the study groups.
        Conclusion: Ivermectin as an adjunct reduced the rate of mortality, low O2 duration, and duration of hospitalization in adult COVID 19 patients. The improvement of other clinical parameters showed that the ivermectin, with a wide margin of safety, had a high therapeutic effect on COVID-19.”

        You give the reason for not recommending it as:

        “All or nearly all would likely decline the intervention.”

        Where is the evidence for that?

        What sort of a mis-information organisation are you? You should all be seriously ashamed of yourselves.