Former deputy CHO advises against mandatory child vaccination

After the Victorian Government on Friday stealthily locked out unvaccinated 12-16 year olds from entering retail outlets, cafes, or attending extracurricular activities like indoor sports and dance studios, the Herald-Sun reports that the state government is considering extending vaccine mandates to 5-12 year olds:

The Victorian government has left the door open to imposing vaccine mandates on kids aged 5-11…

Victorian Health Minister Martin Foley said he was waiting on advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the national expert immunisation panel about whether jabs for younger kids were “safe and effective”…

However, former deputy Chief Health Officer (CHO) Nick Coatsworth has cautioned against vaccine mandates for under 12s, while lashing the Victorian Governments mandated vaccination of 12-15 year olds:

Former deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth has called on state governments to exempt children from mandatory vaccination laws, warning there is emerging evidence that getting jabbed should remain a choice for parents of under 12s…

He told that the risks of severe illness from Covid remained low for younger children.

And he warned the low risk of severe illness needed to be weighed against the risk of vaccination in rare cases for children…

“The risk of myocarditis especially in young boys is sufficient that parents have every right to wait for more data or to decline vaccination,’’ he said.

“In doing so, the child must not then be subject to differential public health treatment which is effectively ‘mandating’ by regulation”…

Dr Coatsworth said that parents should vaccinate younger children based on choice and medical advice but that state governments should not mandate the vaccine for kids.

And he’s lashed the Victorian government for introducing mandates for teenage children to enter some premises.

“In Victoria in particular, the chief health officer is breaching the fundamental ethical principle of autonomy in differential treatment of unvaccinated 12-15 year olds,’’ he said.

“It is of deep concern that Victorian public health officials are making these decisions… There is no need for this policy when the vulnerable age groups are well in excess of 90 per cent vaccinated.”

Readers know that I am pro vaccination. Everyone in my family other than my youngest 11 year old daughter are fully vaccinated.

That said, I personally know two adults that have been hospitalised by Pfizer with pericarditis. These aren’t made up examples. I know these people. The risks may be low, but they aren’t trivial.

Other friends also know people that have been hospitalised by vaccination.

I have strong issues with vaccinating children for COVID when COVID presents minimal risk to children. Vaccination also does not stop the virus from spreading. Just look at Singapore, Israel, Germany, Austria, the UK or other developed nations where cases have skyrocketed despite high vaccination levels. It only helps prevent serious infection among vulnerable groups (i.e. not children).

Children that are unvaccinated from other diseases in Victoria are not barred from retail, indoor sports, cafes, or other activities. The same rules should apply to children that are unvaccinated against COVID.

With 90% of Victorians aged 12-plus now vaccinated, the Victorian Government should be removing segregation, not adding further restrictions.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)


  1. I think UK has suspended it as well, basically, healthy kids have zero risk from covid (in UK only 25 under 19yo died and mostly with heavy comorbidities), same in US.Those young boys (55 in Vic so far, probably many undiagnosed as well) with myocarditis could lose decades of life expectancy (mortality at 5year for viral myocardatis could be as low as 50%)

  2. In todays zeitgeist that is a very brave statement from him. About time someone reminded him that there is no grey in the world of medicine, it’s referred to as “The Science” for a reason!

  3. Wilhelm Von WobblecockMEMBER

    I had pericarditis from the first shot. Almost passed out whilst driving. Thankfully the second one didn’t do anything to me except a sore arm.

  4. Jumping jack flash

    Good luck with that.

    Once the koolaid is consumed, you need to go all in. Bathe in the koolaid. Drink it down. The kids will be vaccinated. The “experts” have spoken. These experts are without equal because they likely work for the vaccine companies, and nobody else could be bothered or have the resources to match their expertise. Who else is better to ask than those experts who made the vaccines, as to who to apply them to, how much to apply, and how often to apply it?

    If you don’t bathe in the koolaid and remark that it tastes like the finest Chardonnay, questions may be asked. Nobody likes questions. Follow the rules without question. Follow the rules without any thought. Its called “being an adult”.

    You wouldn’t want to be labelled an anti-vaxxer, would you??
    That is a label that is worse than being a leper.

    • Well, at least it is OK if the vaccinated infect each other… wonder how that happened after everyone took the magical vaccines that provides everlasting protection:
      I guess when this happens it is all OK.

      A nice read about the impact of full-length spike protein used in the management and AZ on the immune system:
      SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro.
      Which includes:
      “Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines.”
      Another nice one about the risk of pulmonary hypertension from the same spike protein:
      That is aside the people I know that have serious side effects landing them in hospital some at this point(5 months later) with symptoms that have not improved much. In fact worsened for one. Unfortunately there are too many conspiracy theories and other nonsense on the internet that clouds the credible doubts that there should be about the vaccines.
      I asked my sister today what she would guess the median age of death from COVID in the UK was where COVID has been rife. Her answer was “about 60”. In fact it is 82 years. That is higher than the life expectancy in the UK in 2019(pre-COVID) which was 81.2. In Australia the numbers are 84 and 82 years respectively, but still the fear of death is driven into us by the media and politicians. Younger people die as well, but the risk is pretty low. The low risk of dying from COVID when you are 15 or younger is lower than the risk of dying from the flu. As we age the COVID risk of death increases substantially in later years. About a third of COVID positive test subjects in the UK are currently asymptomatic. Still this is something we have to fear.

  5. It is notable that multiple European jurisdictions have recently suspended mRNA shots for the young (< 30 being a common cut-off). Australia's position appears out-of-step with this.

  6. Apparently the US FDA is attempting to withhold the information that it used to approve Pfizer? It has asked a judge to give it 55 years to release the information, 500 pages at a time. The court filling states taht they simple don’t have the resources to publish that volume of information…… yet they had the resources to consume it,a assess it and scrutinise it in 1/50th of the time?

    Who knows that will come of it but it isn’t a good look, especially when we are talking about the same company noted below.

    “WASHINGTON – American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

    Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns.

    • Its literally like they havent heard of uploading it to the Internet. Perhaps they could contact WikiLeaks who don’t seem to have an issue with uploading and publishing large volumes of data for people to pick through.

      • It’s far more likely that the side effects being reported were all known from previous trials data but the approval went through anyway.
        It’s going to look really bad admitting publicly you mandated a treatment that wouldn’t have passed the “normal” approval processes in place previously.

        • It will look bad.

          The mRNA tech has been around for decades, and if big pharma could make a vaccine from it the would have, because there’s gold in them thar hills. But they didn’t, presumably because they could never pass the safety protocols. But if you remove the safety protocols, well….the gold will start flowing.

          • Pretty sure they haven’t been used previously because they’re expensive, and because there hasn’t been a use case to justify the cost.

    • But the FDA can’t simply turn the documents over wholesale. The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,” wrote DOJ lawyers in a joint status report filed Monday.

      The FDA proposes releasing 500 pages per month on a rolling basis, noting that the branch that would handle the review has only 10 employees and is currently processing about 400 other FOIA requests.

      55 years is silly but there’s a valid point that releasing the information is not the same process as analysing it.

      • Wouldn’t releasing it be a case of publishing it to a website? Or printing a book. If they can’t do that how did they in any reasonable way analyse it, verify it was true, understand what it even meant, or do anything at all with it?
        No one even needs to read the thing again to release it, assuming someone there actually understands what is in it.
        The only reason to delay releasing it is because they do understand what’s in it and it won’t look good.

        And frankly anyone who submitted research for drug approval containing peoples personal information should be barred from research, and is frankly a bullshit excuse that I don’t believe is remotely true.

        • “But the FDA can’t simply turn the documents over wholesale. The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,”

          Anonymised data may still contain private information that can be tied back to individuals.

      • Agreed, not the same process, but one is far more complex and critical than the other so to suggest that the careful review and analysis of this complex information could be achieved at an exponentially higher rate than it’s redaction and disclosure is….. beyond silly.

        “We only have 10 staff” Right, so with trillions in govt expenditure following around you can’t find sufficient crumbs to expedite the disclosure of perhaps on the most important approvals in the history of the FDA? And rather than seeking that outcome you instead request that a court grant you the ability to frustrate that release as if you were the CIA or NSA….?

        Could be nothing more than just pure inefficient, incapable bureaucracy at work, but either way it does (should) cast doubt on the entities capabilities as a whole. Quite a strange approach to take in a world where conspiracy theorists and fake news spreaders are mortal threats to ones survival?

        If the SEC argued that an investigation into highly detailed, complex criminal financial activity with perhaps unprecedented worldwide ramifications took a mater of months, yet releasing the details of said investigation would take decades because they don’t have enough printers…. who exactly would buy that story?

        My assumption here is that other national regulators undertook there own investigations before approvals (and didn’t simply rely partly or solely on the outcomes from other global regulators?) Have any of them released said info? Would you not expect the content from Pfizer to be largely the same across jurisdictions? Important for context I guess?

        • “My assumption here is that other national regulators undertook there own investigations before approvals (and didn’t simply rely partly or solely on the outcomes from other global regulators?)”
          Sure, and the reserve banks all undertake independent research and take completely independent decisions regarding monetary policy.
          Notice how the local Australian announcements and approvals trail and echo the US ones…

        • To be clear, I’m not going to try and defend a 55yr timeline.

          However, even if the “10 people” is an exaggeration, it’s pretty much guaranteed that there are multiple orders of magnitude more people working on analysing data than preparing it for FOI requests. Because the former is core business, the latter is not. The former is also going to be massively aided by computational assistance whereas the latter is going to be heavily dependent on puny humans for verification.

          If the SEC argued that an investigation into highly detailed, complex criminal financial activity with perhaps unprecedented worldwide ramifications took a mater of months, yet releasing the details of said investigation would take decades because they don’t have enough printers…. who exactly would buy that story?

          Nobody, but the argument here is not that there’s not enough printers, it’s that sanitising the documentation to protect all the confidential data, whistleblowers, private information, etc, of that SEC investigation will take a very long time, in no small part because there’s not a lot of people available to do that work (because they’re doing more important things).


    Yeh I agree full mandate for children perhaps a bit strong.

    However, less vaccination, all other things being equal, would likely also mean more restrictive measures required elsewhere however. Including more masking, school closures on positive PCR, home schooling.

    Fun times ahead for parents.

  8. Just In:
    1st Nov – 7th Nov , 2021 for #Pfizer vaccine.
    Myocarditis cases – 61
    Pericarditis cases – 105
    All under 25yo With probably decades of life expectancy lost

    Rare ? My ass

  9. A study presented at the AHA conference. Vaccination doubles your risk of a heart attack within 5 years.
    “These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac. We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”

    • Thats overstating it a bit…..

      PULS is a biomarker test used to predict an individuals risk of future acute coronary syndrome (ACS)

      In the below study (only 566 patients), the PULS score was significantly increased out to at least 10 weeks after the 2nd mRNA vaccine. Specifically, the predicted 5 yr ACS rate increased from 11% to 25%
      Now it is only a small study – 566 patients
      PULS was validated using biomarker levels which were assumed to be relatively stable / enduring. PULS was not validated for something like a vaccine bumping your levels. So it is not clear whether it is valid to use PULS in this way.
      We don’t know whether these individuals actually had a higher rate of ACS. Note this study specifically does NOT comment on this outcome (and 566 patients over 10 weeks would not allow meaningful comparison anyway)
      We don’t know if these biomarker changes persist beyond 10 weeks. The markers could well normalise at 3-4 months.
      The PULS measures you risk at one point in time. It has not been demonstrated that initiatives that increase or decrease your PULS score change your risk. They may, or they may not.
      It is likely that a significant Covid infection will also bump your PULS – I haven’t see this specifically, but I would be astonished if it did not.
      So there is a lot we don’t know and more questions than answers at this point.

      I have been vaccinated (x3) and am not antivax.
      I can categorically state that patients vaccinated who were hospitalised with Covid had a far more benign course than those non-vaccinated – the elderly, the obese, and the non-vaccinated all do significantly worse.

      But there are perhaps some nuances to how the vaccine should be utilised, and we may not have this quite right. Blanket vaccination of everyone may not yield “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

      The risk of the disease increases with increasing age
      The risk of the vaccine appears to increases with DECREASING age. Initially it was felt this was confined to the AZ vaccine.. However it also seems true of the mRNA vaccines.
      This calculus suggests there is a point where the 2 lines intersect on a graph. We don’t know exactly where that point is, but it sure older than kids.

        • My guess (and that’s all it is)
          1. Europe and North America will have a bad winter. USA 2021 deaths > 2020. Yes it only started in March and so 2020 wasn’t a full 12 months. Yes 2021 is the only year that Covid went thru a full winter (it appeared at very end of 2020 winter). Yes there is more testing now that early 2020, and so we are probably finding a higher % of cases now. But almost 12 months into vax, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing down
          2. Aust should have a pretty good summer but will likely get increased cases in Autumn. Possibly a new variant.
          3. Aust will strongly encourage boosters early 2022. The groundwork is already there.

          Gets pretty vague after that.
          Perhaps annual boosters thereafter.

          I only had boost because my shots were back in February. So I was 8 months out and seeing substantial cases most shifts.
          I don’t know if that was the right decision or not.
          I was fine after shots 1 and 2. I was vaguely unwell for 36 hours after 3. Not severe symptoms. But I did wonder what that spike was doing.

          I am not at all convinced this was a natural event. There are far too many smoking guns and unanswered questions. Far too many.
          This may be why predictions and models have been so bad.

          I recall one of Tom Clancy’s books in the 90’s about flying a 747 into the US Capitol. I thought of that book watching 9/11 live on the late night news
          I recall one of his later books also.

          • Thanks for your honesty. There is nothing in your reply that I disagree with.
            My brother (who is a doctor ) has only made a few comments about this whole affair.
            1. Doctor’s put their mistakes 6 feet in the ground.
            2. In any new medical drugs/process etc, last shall be first and first shall be last.

          • Indeed.

            Three N501Y variants cropping up near-simultaneously in UK, S Africa and Brazil in late 2020 looks suspiciously like Ebola cropping up simultaneously in convention cities in Exec Orders.

        • That’s the question front of my Doc’s mind. How many before you have to question if it’s really working & how many before people’s systems overload & it busts too many people….?

    • RobotSenseiMEMBER

      Vaccination doubles your risk of a heart attack within 5 years.
      Given that the vaccines have only been in existence for 18 months, and that the PULS score has therefore not been validated for ACS risk post-vaccination, the conclusion you draw is clearly false.

      …at some point, are we going to clamp down on people posting blatant misinformation on this site? It’s getting beyond a joke.

      • In defence of that particular post
        1. MB is a lay site with respect to medical issues. It is not a expert panel where such comments would be (rightly) called out.
        2. That particular study has been (incorrectly) presented in exactly that way by a number of news outlets

        • RobotSenseiMEMBER

          No but if we’re going to have a discussion regarding the vaccine and it’s risk/benefit ratio, it’s now getting to the point where stuff like this is being posted in the complete absence of any critical appraisal, and the effort required to refute it is an order of magnitude higher than the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V required to photocopy it across the internet.

          • Well firstly that the vaccine prevents illness.
            It reduces it, and only in the short term for starters.

            Got any actual research into the effectiveness of ivermectin?

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Well firstly that the vaccine prevents illness.
            I’ve never stated that. I’ve always stated it reduces severity of symptoms and keeps people from severe respiratory failure and ICU admission. Happy for you to find a quote of mine that says otherwise. Happy hunting.

            It reduces it, and only in the short term for starters.
            Which is still better than nothing in the setting of finite ICU beds and a large at-risk population.

            Got any actual research into the effectiveness of ivermectin?
            I have staunchly and consistently maintained a position that ivermectin is as useful as my car keys in preventing or curing Covid.

          • I have staunchly and consistently maintained a position that ivermectin is as useful as my car keys in preventing or curing Covid.

            Is that based on 10 years of medical education and conducting research, or the latest talking point from someone in the media with no medical qualifications at all?
            Of course I already know the answer given you called it horse paste. It would be just as accurate to describe antibiotics as cow and chicken medicine.
            That is all disinformation of the first order you are repeating.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Is that based on 10 years of medical education and conducting research, or the latest talking point from someone in the media with no medical qualifications at all?
            It’s based on a recent systematic review showing no studies demonstrating it’s efficacy. I’m happy for you to provide evidence to the contrary:

            Of course I already know the answer given you called it horse paste. It would be just as accurate to describe antibiotics as cow and chicken medicine.
            Well that’s exactly what ivermectin is. I treat it’s reputation with the absolute contempt it deserves, given that there are grifters out there everywhere pushing it as some kind of silver bullet. Just like they did with azithromycin, just like they did with hydroxychloroquine. There’s no proof it is better than my car keys. The pre-print from the RECOVERY study shows similarly; doesn’t work. I mean, I don’t need media talking points. This is all public domain work that really doesn’t need all that many neurons in a straight line to draw the conclusion I have. It’s just the grifters out there, who think the world is a giant conspiracy, who want to push it. Fortunately they out themselves as nutters when you talk to them for longer than five minutes.

          • What we have on some of these threads, Sensei, is known as the unbearable asymmetry of bullsh!t.

            Someone like kk can just post bs in a short post, often with no reference or link to check let alone context, which then creates work for people like you (thank you) to debunk.

            I agree it’s getting out of hand.

          • Medical uses
            Ivermectin is used to treat human diseases caused by roundworms and ectoparasites.

            Straight from the first google hit for ivermectin.
            Calling it horse paste tells me all I need to know about the validity of your points…

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Medical uses
            Ivermectin is used to treat human diseases caused by roundworms and ectoparasites.

            Straight from the first google hit for ivermectin.
            Calling it horse paste tells me all I need to know about the validity of your points…

            Well a medication used to treat worms just naturally lends itself to an anti-viral treatment, doesn’t it? Imagine getting all offended when I call it “horse paste”.

            Look at me with my systematic reviews and factual evidence, and the best you can do to call out my “disinformation of the first order” is call me out for using a colloquialism.
            If you don’t have anything bettee to pin on me, just admit it and move on rather than posting this asinine rubbish.

          • Hi RB, just a lived experience, from an old fellah.Went on a tour around a local place that makes iceceam.Was told that a percentage of it went into a plain wrapper , so to speak, and the other portion into a premiun wrapper.Different price points for the same product ( its the best icecream in Australia )
            Now one of the fellahs, that I get my assorted livestock vaccines, antibiotics from, tells me the factories that produce these, are no different from the icecream factory….
            Dont know what to think of that.But having tried the plain wrapper icecream, compare to the blue ribbon, it was the bloody same…Could of saved myself a fortune, over the last 37 years…

      • BoomToBustMEMBER

        I’m 100% for correctly validating ALL data – I’m not talking some biased fact checking organization funded by those making profits, rather I’m talking about a large cross section of doctors and professors of medicine with varying views.

        I for one am entirely sick and tired of the garbage and lies from both sides. I trust neither side.

      • So explain it then. Is the increase in the measured biomarkers a good thing or a bad thing? ie. With those numbers are you considered healthier post vaccination than you were before? If the answer is that the increase in those numbers makes you unhealthier and more predisposed to suffering a heart attack down the line, then the argument stands.

        • The answer is that we don’t know. The PULS was developed assuming these markers were in steady state. It was not developed to allow extrapolation from abrupt changes which may (hopefully) be transient.

          If a stock went up for 10 weeks, does that alone tell you what will happen in 5 years?

          There are cardiac complications for Covid, and from the Covid vaccine. PULS may (or may not) reflect this.

          Don’t know = don’t know. It may turn out to be significant. It may not.

          • Unfortunately even if you do have a heart attack 2 months after vaccination, there is zero chance of it ever being recorded as being vaccine induced. It will just be put down to “oh, you would have had a heart attack anyway”. The only way to judge is if there is a significant increase in the number of heart attacks, and a significant lowering of the age of people having hearts attacks. But even then the propagandists will cover it up by claiming it was caused by “bad diets during lockdown” (see
            Although if the increase in heart attacks continues long past the implementation of lockdown, or increases even more with every booster rollout, then maybe someone might be prepared to put their career and social media account on the line by saying something. Until then, I suspect that it will become normal for your 50-something mate/husband/father to suddenly drop dead during the Sunday arvo BBQ or to not wake up one morning.

          • Jumping jack flash

            “Unfortunately even if you do have a heart attack 2 months after vaccination, there is zero chance of it ever being recorded as being vaccine induced”


            In my first-hand experience they dont accept ANYTHING as proof of vaccine adverse effects, especially if the shot was administered by a GP as in my father’s case. Its the liability, you see.

            At a vax clinic they’re off the hook. It says so in the fine print.

            The onus is on the patient to prove that it was related. There is barely any chance of that.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            In my first-hand experience they dont accept ANYTHING as proof of vaccine adverse effects, especially if the shot was administered by a GP as in my father’s case. Its the liability, you see.

            I will admit to not knowing a lot about the compensation scheme for vaccine injury; I will actually read into this. I suspect (as you are alluding to) that causality would really be nigh on impossible but for a temporal event. Let me read into this and I hope to get back to you.

        • As I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions, three of my fifty-something colleagues have dropped dead completely out of the blue in the last 5 months or so. It’s been quite shocking.

          I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this became the norm in the years to come.

  10. Mark WalmsleyMEMBER

    The horse has bolted.
    The risk/benefit for vaccines versus COVID went negative around age 40 for healthy people (not overweight, no comorbidities).
    If you weren’t willing to fight to protect the under 40s right to choose, then pretty hard for you to argue against vaxing right down to babies…you know, to save grandma.
    Why is your right to argue for no mandates below age 11, different to someone else’s argument for no mandates below age 18? Or below age 25? Or below age 30? Or below age 40? It isn’t. By giving in to the health and government officials for a leaky vaccine with no long term safety record you have effectively signed up the entire population.
    You just didn’t know it till now.
    First they came for my kids (very healthy 20 and 22) and no-one stopped them…
    Then they came for my nieces and nephews (very healthy 12-18) and no-one stopped them…
    When they came for your 5-11 year old kids there was no-one left to stop them…
    Babies are next.

  11. Imagine if someone warned Daniel Andrews that if he did not rescind his recent rulings that they would:
    Grab Daniel Andrews off the street, hold him captive and inject him daily with a full dose of Pfizer.
    Imagine Daniel refuses to change and is captured and injected.

    Here are a few questions about that scenario:

    1) since Daniel was warned and choose not to rescind the laws, would you agree that the captivity is completely the choice of Daniel and completely down to him? Would Senator Lambie agree?

    2) At what point would Daniel Andrews be considered “fully vaccinated”?

    3) How long would Daniel Andrews be entitled to claim a vaccine passport?

    4) What would be the health effects of taking so many doses of such a safe and effective vaccine?

    5) What crime would have been committed?

  12. Again, Victoria, led by Dan will mandate 5+ year olds.
    Next year once Pfizer submits reports for 6 months+ year olds to the TGA and they approve, Victoria will mandate jabs for 6 months+ year olds.
    Everyone will also have to get the booster to be fully vaccinated.
    Your kids will not be allowed in schools, daycare, sport etc unless they have had the jab and booster.

  13. Ivermectin’s patent ran out in the 1990s, meaning that it is no longer able to generate significant profits for governments or pharmaceutical companies. It costs around 12 cents per tablet to produce, which has made it an affordable solution for broad swathes of the developing world.

    This month, Pfizer released a new antiviral drug called Paxlovid which is chemically novel but that has a modality of action identical to that of Ivermectin. Paxlovid has a price tag of US$529 per course.

    Shirley it’s all about the health outcomes.

    • RobotSenseiMEMBER

      Except for that minor detail that Paxlovid has actual efficacy in clinical trials treating Covid-19, whereas ivermectin remains a conspiracy theorist’s wet dream.

      • Aug 2021- Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

        Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

        Areas of uncertainty:

        We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

        Data sources:

        We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

        Therapeutic Advances:

        Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.


        Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

          • In theory the human body cells can do more harm to the human by creating pure spike protein than by creating diluted spike protein as part of the entire virus.
            Really? Would you mind explaining the pathophysiology behind this statement?

            SARS-CoV-2 enters cells that express ACE2 receptors. Those cells produce countless copies of SARS-COV-2 until they die. The risk of developing COVID-19 is low and can be reduced with NPIs.
            mRNA COVID vaccine enters all cells of the body due to lipid nanoparticles being designed to penetrate cell (?nuclear) membranes. Those cells then produce countless toxic spike proteins, some of which re-enter the circulation via exosomes, some will simply remain in the cell doing untold damage to organelles, while some will become part of the outer surface of the actual human cell, it’s immune ‘ID’, except that cell now identifies as a coronavirus, making it a target for destruction by the immune system. Thus the COVID vaccines can mediate auto-immune disease, and in the case of the vascular endothelium, this immune response triggers the clotting cascade. The nanoparticles get the mRNA everywhere. I do not believe this is related to inadvertent intravascular injection. The risk of vaccination is 3x in the first 12 months in biofa$scist regimes.

          • RobotSensei, thank you very much for that link which actually confirms the need to trial Ivermectin.

            From your link

            Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies

            shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study

            Before its withdrawal, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in a number of meta-analyses that collect trial findings into a single, statistically weighted result. In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths4, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.

            One of the authors of the meta-analysis, statistician Andrew Bryant at Newcastle University, UK, says that his team corresponded with Elgazzar before publishing the work to clarify some data. “We had no reason to doubt the integrity of [Professor] Elgazzar,” he said in an e-mail. He added that in a pandemic setting, no one can reanalyse all of the raw data from patient records when writing a review. Bryant went on to say that his group will revise the conclusion if investigations find the study to be unreliable. However, even if the study is removed, the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19, he says.

            Chaccour and others studying ivermectin say that proof of whether the drug is effective against COVID-19 rests on a handful of large, ongoing studies, including a trial in Brazil with more than 3,500 participants. By the end of 2021, says Zoni, around 33,000 people will have participated in some kind of ivermectin trial.

            “I think it is our duty to exhaust all potential benefits,” says Chaccour, especially given that most countries still do not have widespread access to vaccines. “Ultimately if you do a trial and it fails, fine, but at least we tried.”

          • So a vaccine which is much harder to develop and roll out is quicker to do and provides such “longer-lasting” immunity we need a oral treatment as well? I’m sorry but if something quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            If you look at influenza for instance, the first vaccines hit the market in the 1930’s and 40’s whereas the oral tamiflu was not approved until 1999. Tamiflu doesn’t have the best body of evidence behind it in otherwise well individuals (sound familiar?); you need to take it as soon as your symptomatic. I suspect this new Covid drug will have next to no use outside of a hospital or ICU setting; most people with Covid will survive with or without it, and it will be reserved for very at-risk people (chemotherapy, underlying respiratory disease etc) to lessen their symptoms.

            Vaccines aren’t usually that much harder to develop, FWIW. To “dumb down” the process it involves taking a part of your virus in question and feeding it to your immune response to see if it will dupe your body into memory immunity. The parts that are fed are already pre-made by nature; we just have to serve them up to T-cells and let the body do the rest. A simple matter of “pick the best candidate”. The tricky part can be finding the piece that causes the immune system to kick off (which is part of the reason viruses like HIV have been difficult to immunise against.)

            Making a viral inhibitor, on the other hand, is a much more difficult process. As a bad analogy you are given a lock, and you have boxes and boxes of keys out back. You try each key until you find one that opens the lock. You might get lucky and it’s in the first handful you try; you might exhaust 20 boxes. Often none of those keys work so you end up having to make brand new keys never developed before. You can speed the process up by cloning the locks, but it’s still very labour-intensive. You then have to make sure that the key opens that lock and that lock only, and not one of the 20,000 other locks that your body has. If it opens too many other locks, or opens particularly important locks that cannot be opened, you have to scrap the process and start again. Very time-intensive, very research-intensive, very money-expensive, and with many more regulatory steps.

            Anyway that’d a brief overview. I know there’s conspiracies out there everywhere, but hopefully this might go part of the way to allaying one.

        • Well now that they managed to get a vaccine approved without any real testing, they are aiming higher and are now trying to get a drug approved without any real testing. Pharma companies have been trying to get rid of the FDA approval process for years, now is their chance to circumvent it.
          Oh, and its most likely this drug will only ever be used in a hospital on really sick people, because when the patients die (either because the drug doesnt work, or the drug kills them) they have to be able to say “he died from the covid not the drug”.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Yes, the world has years and years and years to wait for testing in the midst of a global pandemic.

            Do you think the British WWII fighter pilots questioned the RAF as to whether the Spitfire was truly superior to the Hurricane?

          • These current “vaccines” are more analogous to the Boulton Paul Defiant – being dangerous and ineffective. However the comparison is unfair because some Defiants managed to last longer than six months.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Well it’s sure better than ivermectin which, if we’re using aviation comparisons, is like the Hindenberg.

  14. Americas account for 46% of the global Covid-19 death toll, and Europe represents 29% of the total, Africa has sustained only 3% of worldwide coronavirus deaths.

    What’s Africa’s secret?

    • 1. Young – few over 80
      2. Thin
      Covid-19 death rates are 10 times higher in countries where more than half of the adult population is classified as overweight, a comprehensive report from the World Obesity Federation has found.
      The report analysed mortality data from Johns Hopkins University and the WHO Global Health Observatory data on obesity.1 Of the 2.5 million covid-19 deaths reported by the end of February 2021, 2.2 million were in countries where over half the population is classified as overweight—defined as a body mass index above 25.
      Taking data from over 160 countries, the report found linear correlations between a country’s covid-19 mortality and the proportion of adults that are overweight. There is not a single example of a country with less than 40% of the population overweight that has high death rates (over 10 per 100 000), the report said. Similarly, no country with a death rate over 100 per 100 000 had less than 50% of their population overweight.

      Lockdowns increase obesity and decrease vitamin D levels. Who could have guess that would be a bad idea?

      However it came about, C19 does not like western demographics with large numbers of elderly and large numbers of obese.

      • reusachtigeMEMBER

        I just don’t get why there hasn’t been a campaign warning people about this and telling people they better get outside and lose weight or else they might cop it in the neck! A good 30 minute power walk in the morning to get your coffee and back would help enormously. I know for a fact!

        • Correct. Hazzard (NSW Health Minister) had to acknowledge this when he was asked at a September media briefing what he intended to do about thousands of people sitting on beaches during some unseasonably warm weather. He basically said this wasn’t a risk and the beach was pretty safe.

          Getting out in the sun and exercising (or even just general activity) will do far more to reduce your risk that sitting at home watching Netflix.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now