Bill Gates Lying


Armstrong Economics Blog/Vaccine Re-Posted Sep 18, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

Let’s be very clear. Gates has a huge stake in all the big vaccine companies. Marginally, if he makes just $1 per shot, he stands to become not only the richest man but the richest man in all of history.

Grant Stinchfield and John Solomon Report Trump Declassified Documents January 19th and White House Counsel Withheld Them


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 17, 2021 | Sundance | 283 Comments

Last night, following the indictment release of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, Newsmax’ Grant Stinchfield made a strong accusation against former White House counsel Pat Cipollone.  The claim is that in the final days of the Trump Presidency, the President declassified all of the pertinent documents related to DOJ and FBI misconduct surrounding the false Trump-Russia collusion case.

According to Stinchfield, speaking of ‘high level’ Trump administration sources, thousands of documents were declassified with instructions to release them to the public and also provide them to journalist John Solomon.  The public release never took place; and Stinchfield as well as other Trump allies blame Pat Cipollone for withholding them.  After explaining what his sources said took place, John Solomon joined as a guest to confirm the basic outline as presented.  WATCH:

Right off the bat, something about this doesn’t pass my sniff test. That is not to say that events, as described, are not accurate; but something about the presentation doesn’t seem right.

FIRST – If John Solomon has known about this for nine months; and if Solomon has a partial list of those documents; and if Solomon is of the same frustrated mindset as outlined….. then why didn’t John Solomon ever write about the issue before?

SECOND – I am not excusing White House counsel Pat Cippolone, not even close; however, I think there is some context being ignored in the way Stinchfield and Solomon are framing this.  Cippolone’s position as White House counsel is not to represent Donald Trump, his job is to represent the Office of The President.  The White House counsel is a legal officer of the executive branch as an institution, not the president as a person/individual.   Here is where the missing context and issue surfaces….

When Bill Barr appointed John Durham, officially appointed John Durham (October 19, 2020) as a special counsel, essentially what Bill Barr did was put the proverbial investigative shield over all material evidence that falls under the definition of the investigation Durham was charged to conduct.

Just like Robert Mueller’s appointment made him the controlling authority over everything related to Trump-Russia; which I might add was done with specific and purposeful intent; that made the Mueller special counsel the arbiter of anything that would ever be released to the public. That controlling authority is exactly how Mueller, Weissmann and crew kept a lid on anything that would be detrimental to the political narrative they were attempting to assemble (May 2017 through April 2019).

This process is one that we see used often in order to control and/or coverup wrongdoing.  The material evidence, or any investigative discussion therein, becomes hidden under the cover of “an ongoing investigation“, which blocks the release and puts the control of all evidence into the hands of the investigators.

Understandably, our most familiar reference points are often when this “subject of an ongoing investigation” justification is used with malicious and corrupt intent to keep things hidden from the public.  That corrupt reference is a stark and frustrating reality.  However, there are valid reasons why material evidence is kept in the control of the investigators until they determine it is no longer useful; this is also true.

Back to Cippolone.  With John Durham appointed as the special counsel with control over all evidence subject to the purpose of his investigation, well, right there is a valid reason why the counsel for the Office of the Presidency could not just release it.   Cippolone would have to give it to John Durham because it was materially relevant to his ongoing investigation.  The declassified material would have to go through John Durham, gain his approval that investigative value is exhausted (ie. it is no longer needed), and then the material can be released.

Through the prism of that approach, Pat Cippolone not making the material public (giving it to special counsel John Durham) would be following the appropriate step.

Inasmuch as it is extremely and righteously frustrating, and the greater sunlight of transparency is annoyingly kept at bay, as with many of these legal constructs, they are potentially subject to Machiavellian manipulation; so, I grant no benefit of honorable intent.

Cippolone should be asked that specific question very publicly:  “Was the declassified information withheld under the auspices of first giving it to John Durham for review and use?”  If yes, then that response establishes the framework for public pressure on John Durham to release it; or make a statement that he is not yet ready to do so.

COVID Politics Takes a Dark Turn, Biden Administration Takes Control of Monoclonal Antibody Drugs in Order to Block Treatments in Red States and Ration Equitable Treatment


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 15, 2021 | Sundance | 724 Comments


When Joe Biden’s Health and Human Services made the announcement earlier this month (LINK) that they were taking full control over Monoclonal Antibody drugs (mAb) in order to begin rationing the highly effective treatment for COVID-19 infection, several people sounded alarm bells as there was the potential for rationing of COVID treatment based on political ideology.   Representative Chip Roy of Texas was one of the first to raise concerns (link).

The change in HHS approach followed republican governor Ron DeSantis of Florida promoting the use of mAb and opening up dozens of treatment centers throughout his state.   Other governors quickly took notice of the effective action plan of DeSantis in Florida and started to follow that path.

As soon as HHS noticed the red state governors were working on a effective treatment alternative to the vaccine approach, HHS appears to have moved in to block it – thereby restricting the treatment pathway in order to enhance the vaccine approach. [HHS Announcement]  Note the alarm word “equitable“:

It took a week for the new HHS restrictions to impact the pre-existing orders.  However, now Alabama is the first state to draw attention to the problem Joe Biden’s administration is creating by rationing mAb treatment and making determinations on which states should be allowed the “equitable use of the available supply“; a fancy term for “rationing” the life-saving treatment based on alignment with the political ideology of the government in control of it.

Newsweek – Albama doctors are concerned about the impact on health care systems after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decided to temporarily limit monoclonal antibody order. […] Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s state health officer, told Newsweek that the shots are key for protecting a person against hospitalization and death … “It can be a lifesaver if given in the first 10 days of symptoms,” Arora said about monoclonal antibodies. “We’re calling on the federal government to help us provide more of this treatment, not less, so we can save lives and keep COVID patients out of the hospital.”

[…] Monoclonal antibody treatments have been authorized for use only in high-risk patients who either tested positive for the coronavirus or were knowingly exposed. That’s still a broad swath of people, given that high risk includes anyone with a body mass index over 25, so surges in cases can quickly deplete supplies.

Since the treatments have shown promise in keeping people out of the hospital, Alabama had plans to increase the number of locations where people can receive monoclonal antibodies. Those were put on hold following the HHS announcement, and Alabama’s Department of Public Health urged physicians to ensure that only those who qualify for the treatment receive it and prioritize patients based on the likelihood a person will become seriously ill. (link)

The approach of the federal government moving in to control mAb treatment does not come in a vacuum.  When you consider the U.S. federal government approach to dismiss the effective use of Ivermectin as a COVID treatment; and then consider the “vaccine-only” approach is being applied with extreme pressure from within the U.S. healthcare industry – which includes threats against doctors who do not comply with that outlook; a very clear picture is emerging.  All treatment approaches are being blocked in order to force people to take the mRNA gene therapy.

It is one thing to demand people take the mRNA gene therapy (aka “vaccine”).  It is another thing entirely to block treatment options in order to force vaccination as the only method of survival from infection.

Against this backdrop, those fences being installed around Washington DC take on a different perspective.

The Joe Biden FDA is blocking Ivermectin. (link)

The Joe Biden regulatory agency A.M.A is threatening doctors with their licenses if they speak against vaccination. (link)

The Joe Biden administration is threatening the economic security of the U.S. workforce who are not comfortable taking the vaccine. (link)

The Joe Biden HHS is taking control of monoclonal antibody treatment supplies. (link)

The Biden administration is now determining the “equity” in medical treatment. (link)

The Biden administration is putting walls around the Capitol. (link)

Yes, there appears to be a very dark agenda unfolding before our eyes.  These are not conspiracy theory data-points, they are facts.

The Story of Prophylactics in Today’s World


This video is a perfect example of misinformation. That is using the current definition of misinformation which is that anything that is not “Officially” authorized by the federal government is misinformation. However keep in mind that “Official” information from any government is often referred to as Propaganda. Therefore misinformation is really ant-propaganda; and also kind of anti new speak!

CNN and WaPo Write Devastating Articles Outlining General Mark Milley as Leader of Military Coup Against President Trump


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 14, 2021 | Sundance | 362 Comments

The headline stories today are large, and so is the background as these issues surface. Context becomes increasingly important as each aspect is reviewed.  As you look at the stories, remember this context (emphasized as a reminder):

♦ TEAM One – The Department of State is aligned with the CIA.  Their media PR firms are CNN, CNNi and the Washington Post. Their ideology is favorable to the United Nations.  Their internal corruption is generally driven by relationship with foreign actors.  References: Hillary Clinton, Clinton Global Initiative, John McCain, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Cass Sunstein, Brookings Institute, Lawfare, China-centric, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Council on Foreign Relations.

♦ TEAM Two – The White House is aligned with the Pentagon (DoD) and National Security Council (NSC).  Their media PR firms are domestic in nature. New York Times, Politico, etc.  Their internal corruption is generally driven by domestic influence.  References: Barack Obama, George Bush, Wall St, Big Banks, Multinational Corporations, Defense Contractors, FBI (state police), Judicial Branch, and community activists writ large.  [Presidential elections only affect Team Two (nationalism -v- globalism).  In the modern era Team One is independent.]

Today CNN, via Bob Woodward [Article Here] and The Washingon Post, via Robert Costa [Article Here] collaborate on a designed hit against one of the key corrupt actors on Team Two, Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley.  CTH previously said this was coming: “Look for Joint Chief’s Chairman Mark Milley to be the guy who gets canned to protect Joe Biden. Mark Milley knows this is likely.”

The framework of the CNN article is that General Milley:

…”called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
“Got it?” Milley asked, according to the book.

“Yes, sir.” ‘Milley considered it an oath,’ the authors write. (read more)

The framework of the Washington Post article paints Milley as even more rogue. A power hungry operator of the industrial military complex, defying civilian oversight:

(WaPo)  […] In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.

One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.

The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.

“General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”

In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” (read more)

Yes, General Mark Milley is a power-hungry political manipulator and collaborator with the Deep State, in the effort to undermine President Donald J Trump.  We already knew this…. {Go Deep}  So, why is The WaPo and CNN hitting him now?

The answer is in the problematic sunlight facing the Fourth Branch of Government in the aftermath of the Afghanistan mess.  CTH has been writing about this, because we knew a time would come when the coordinating participants were going to fracture in order to protect themselves.

“The deepest, swampiest part of the Deep State is protecting its interests against the outcome of a crisis in Afghanistan they collectively created. The picture has now emerged of their plan to blame the White House, and by extension Joe Biden along with the Pentagon.” {LINK}

“Modify the focus of your prism as you review all new events in/around Afghanistan to see the connective tissue between CNN, the State Department and CIA [strongest institution within the Intelligence Branch]. Then keep in mind, the Senate is in alignment with, and a facilitator for, the Intelligence Branch. As a consequence, the institution of the senate will align with the interests of the State Department; and, by default align with the CIA, intelligence community and CNN reporting.”

You think CNN and the Washington Post only recently came to the understanding that General Mark Milley was a corrupt, politically motivated actor, working on behalf of the interests of the Deep State [4th Branch]?  Of course not.  They are using the opportunity of this book by Woodward and Costa to hit Milley, place the blame for Afghanistan in his lap, and make him the scapegoat so that Joe Biden and the other participants can avoid further scrutiny.  Their play is transparent.

Here’s the previous reminder about Mark Milley’s operations against Trump when CNN, WaPo and The Fourth Branch was supporting him:

JUNE 2021 – Statements made by Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley about his belief that President Trump was contemplating a post-election coup should not be viewed in a vacuum.  Last month this same General Milley was defending the teaching of Critical Race Theory to West Point cadets.  However, the comments Milley made last month, and more attributed today, only solidify several years of CTH watching Milley operate, and now we have answers to previous puzzling questions.

Remember, General Milley did some really odd things as Joint Chiefs Chairman under President Trump:

(1) Milley never removed Lt. Col Alexander Vindman from his White House post after the underling compromised his leadership position. The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.

(2) Milley was then slow to react to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer threatening President Trump; attempting to extort him into inaction over the disciplinary plans against the SEAL commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher. And perhaps worst of all…

(3) Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and SoS Mike Pompeo traveled to Mar-a-Lago in December 2019, where they informed President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days.

It seemed like CTH was alone in noticing the issues with the Pentagon and suspicions of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley. However, a few days after the Mar-a-Lago incident, Col Douglas Macgregor expressed his own suspicions about the U.S. military attack in Iraq and Syria that paralleled our gut reaction. Macgregor stated he believed President Trump was being intentionally and “skillfully, misinformed”.

There were valid reasons for the suspicion around General Milley and the entire Pentagon apparatus.

Factually, President Trump’s strategic approach toward foreign threats and foreign intervention (through the use of geopolitical economic pressure) was a major paradigm shift that removed the Defense Department from a primary role, and placed them back into a more appropriate ‘contingency’ role when it came to foreign policy and national security.

It was obvious from the outset of the Trump administration that the Pentagon did not like that position.

Before explaining more, let us remember General Milley in May 2021 outlining his worldview on internal domestic politics.

Note how Milley connected the teaching of Critical Race Theory to his view that people attempted to “assault” the DC Capitol and “overturn the Constitution of the United States“. Watch this carefully, because in many ways he is saying the quiet thing out loud:https://www.youtube.com/embed/WUBDHs55_1U?feature=oembed

.

♦ In the big picture, it was not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be opposed to Trump.

During the 2016 Trump campaign and early administration, President Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a threat. President Trump dared to tell them their “cold war mentality” was outdated. Heck, the NATO members were simultaneously purchasing energy from Russia at the same time they were demanding the U.S. military protect them from any Russian aggression.

The same type of common sense perspective that startled the NATO alliance members applied internally to the U.S. military.

President Trump’s preferred use of economic warfare made the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hit the checkbook of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping (tariffs etc.), and then opened diplomatic discussions with the DPRK Chairman. Toward the threat from North Korea, the primary military response became the contingency plan; President Trump engaged in economic leverage, not military…. and it worked.

As a consequence, the value of James Mattis was replaced by the effectiveness of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Joint Chief’s Milley was not in the primary planning room; Milley was replaced by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (until he’s needed).

In the Trump era, the President was telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and then he asked them for ‘contingency’ preparation. Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy was lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on an economic strategy. This was, in essence, the Trump Doctrine.

President Trump was executing a foreign policy, a clear doctrine of sorts, where national security was achieved by leveraging U.S. economic power. It was a fundamental shift toward allies and adversaries; summarized within the oft repeated phrase: “Economic security is national security.”

The Trump Doctrine of using economics to achieve national security objectives was a fundamental paradigm shift. Modern U.S. history provided no easy reference.

Peace is the prize” ~ President Donald Trump

The nature of the Trump foreign policy doctrine, as it was visible, was to hold manipulative influence agents accountable for regional impact(s); and simultaneously work to stop any corrupted influence from oppressing free expression of national values held by the subservient, dis-empowered, people within the nation being influenced.

There were clear examples of this doctrine at work. When President Trump first visited the Middle-East, he confronted the international audience with a message about dealing with extremist influence agents. President Trump simply said: “Drive them out.”

Toward that end, as Qatar was identified as a financier of extremist ideology, President Trump placed the goal of confrontation upon the Gulf Cooperation Council, not the U.S.

The U.S. role was clearly outlined as supporting the confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates needed to confront the toxic regional influence; the U.S. would support their objective. That’s what happened.

Another example: To confront the extremism creating the turmoil in Afghanistan, President Trump placed the burden of bringing the Taliban to the table of governance upon primary influence agent Pakistan. Here again, with U.S. support, Pakistan is the leading influence agent over the Taliban in Afghanistan; the Trump administration correctly established the responsibility and gives clear expectations for U.S. support.

If Pakistan doesn’t change their influence objective toward a more constructive alignment with a nationally representative Afghanistan government, it is Pakistan who will be held accountable. Again, the correct and effective appropriation of responsibility upon the influence agent who can initiate the solution, Pakistan.

The process of accurate regional assignment of influence comes with disconcerting sunlight. Often, these influences are not discussed openly. However, for President Trump the lack of honesty is only a crutch to continue enabling poor actors. This is a consistent theme throughout all of President Trump’s foreign policy engagements.

The European Union is a collective co-dependent enabler to the corrupt influences of Iran. Therefore, the assignment of responsibility to change the status is placed upon the EU.

The U.S. will fully support the EU effort, but as seen in the withdrawal from the Iran Deal, the U.S. will not enable growth of toxic behavior. The U.S. stands with the people of Iran, but the U.S. will not support the enabling of Iranian oppression, terrorism and/or dangerous military expansion that will ultimately destabilize the region. Trump holds the EU accountable for influencing change. Again, we see the Trump Doctrine at work.

Perhaps the most obvious application of the Trump Doctrine was found in how the U.S. administration approached the challenging behavior of North Korea. Rather than continuing a decades-long policy of ignoring the influence of China, President Trump directly assigned primary responsibility for a reset to Beijing.

China held, and holds, all influence upon North Korea and has long-treated the DPRK as a proxy province to do the bidding of Beijing’s communist old guard. By directly confronting the influence agent, and admitting openly for the world to see (albeit with jaw-dropping tactical sanction diplomacy), President Trump positioned the U.S. to support a peace objective on the entire Korean peninsula and simultaneously forced China to openly display their closely-guarded influence.

While the Red Dragon -vs- Panda influence dynamic is still ongoing, the benefit of this new and strategic approach brought the possibility of peace closer than ever in recent history.

No longer is it outlandish to think of North Korea joining with the rest of the world in achieving a better quality of life for its people.

Not only did President Trump openly share a willingness to engage in a new and dynamic future for North Korea, but his approach removed the toxic international and domestic influences that held down the possibility for generations. By leveraging China (through economics) to stop manipulating North Korea, President Trump opened up a door of possibilities for the North Korean people.

This is what I mean when I say President Trump provided North Korea with an opportunity to create an authentic version of itself.

However, take away U.S. military power and influence, or worse yet, stop using U.S. military power, and the leaders within the military industrial complex start to sense their institution becoming functionally obsolescent. Overlay this U.S. military fear with pre-existing ideological differences and the situation gets worse.  This is what President Trump was facing in the background as the Pentagon viewed the Trump economic strategy as a threat to their previous geopolitical mission under all previous administrations.

Unfortunately, like all other issues in the era of hyper-polarization, normally liberal Democrats would be alarmed about military leadership going rogue with their own agenda. However, as long as that agenda was anti-Trump, the political-left with a totalitarian outlook are now okay with it.

In 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was openly asking the U.S. military to initiate a coup against President Trump. The corporate media didn’t bat an eyelash.  The traditional checks-and-balances, things that normally keep us stable, started getting very sketchy within the military; this has only gotten worse in the past year.

Remember,  the impeachment effort was only a “soft-coup” until the uniformed military showed up.  Yet, these same Pentagon leaders have the nerve now to call a protest in DC, likely manipulated by the FBI, an insurrection …“intended to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.”  The one thing these ideologues are good at is projection.

Police, Paramedics, Firefighters, Doctors, and Nurses Protest Vaccines


Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest Re-Posted Sep 14, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

In Canada, police officers, firefighters, and paramedics have all joined together at Queen’s Park, Toronto, for a silent protest against mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. In the United States, reports are coming in that hospital staff have simply not shown up to work in protest of the mandatory vaccines. In New York, some hospitals will no longer deliver babies because the staff has left the building in protest over the vaccines. Reports are coming in that hospital staff are leaving over the vaccines in numerous places

Sky News – Dividing the Country is Tyranny


Armstrong Economics Blog/Tyranny Re-Posted Sep 14, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

We Have No Rights


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Sep 11, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

COMING SUMMER 2020 – UPDATE May, 2020: The plandemic website has been hacked https://plandemicmovie.com All uploads on YouTube and most other media outlets have been removed. The powerful vaccine lobby in collusion with all governments are behind this. A COVID vaccine seems to be their “final solution” (Bill Gates’ words), now being heavily promoted. #PlandemicMovie

CDC is Blocking Doctors from Writing Prescriptions for Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Sep 10, 2021 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Dear Mr. Armstrong,

As you know I’m a long-time subscriber and prominent US physician. I am also a vigorous advocate of the early treatment of COVID-19. You are spot on but there is more. 

I have treated hundreds of patients with Covid-19. Starting yesterday nearly every pharmacy has blocked me and others from prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19. They are saying the CDC is preventing them. 

What happened to the well codified off-label use in the US. What happened to the right to try. It’s gone. And our professional leadership is in lockstep. Sickening. 

ANONYMOUS

Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis?

REPLY: As I have said, I had a respiratory issue and was tested 5 times for COVID all negative. I ended up going to a specialist at Tampa Hospital in charge of pulmonary. He told me the tests were invalid. He also said the ONLY thing they had to treat COVID patients was hydroxychloroquine. Two doctors said they believed I had COVID despite the fact all the testing was NEGATIVE. So I personally have no idea.

WHY is the CDC now interfering in how people are treated? Do we have once again a crisis in the medical profession with so many doctors subscribing to this new norm of reducing the population again? This is getting really out of hand and the Biden Administration is now posing a threat to society. Someone behind the curtail is pulling very hard strings and Biden probably would never even be consulted. All we can hope is people in media are denied these drugs and just maybe they may stand up and protect society just for once!

Independent studies have shown that ivermectin is effective:

CONCLUSION: Based on the totality of the existing evidence above, the FLCCC strongly
recommends ivermectin be used in both the prevention and treatment of all phases of COVID-19
in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
Retracted Research
The totality of evidence for ivermectin is large enough that removal of any single data set, trial or
study has minimal impacts. The integrity of one study in Egypt (Elgazzar et al) out of the then 28
RCT results available, was recently called into question. While we share the concerns about this
study, the removal of its data from the most comprehensive meta-analyses did not change the
conclusion that ivermectin is highly effective in both prevention and treatment.

Australia Bans Ivermectin


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 10, 2021 | Sundance | 264 Comments

If you suspect the extremely heavy-handed Australia/New Zealand COVID-19 mitigation efforts might be a beta-test for just how far a government can go to control the citizens therein, well, this latest development appears to be an affirmation in that direction.

The ruling authority in Australia has just banned doctors from prescribing Ivermectin.  The Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling and the Australian National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce, have determined that any effort to mitigate COVID-19 with therapeutics will likely diminish the goal of vaccinating the entire population.  Therefore Ivermectin, which has saved thousands of lives and is widely in use in multiple countries including India, is now official banned from use by Australian doctors.  Quite remarkable….

AUSTRALIA – Today, the TGA, acting on the advice of the Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling, has placed new restrictions on the prescribing of oral ivermectin. General practitioners are now only able to prescribe ivermectin for TGA-approved conditions (indications) – scabies and certain parasitic infections.  […] These changes have been introduced because of concerns with the prescribing of oral ivermectin for the claimed prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in COVID-19 in Australia. (LINK)

Consider this from Studies within the NIH:

♦ (STUDY – 1) “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.” (LINK)

♦ (STUDY – 2, INDIA) “There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19.” (LINK)

The Australian government is banning a therapeutic treatment with a history of success in order to force the citizens into a situation where they must take the vaccine.   Here comes the black-market.