Rebecca Weisser, a well-respected journalist, recently criticized the Therapeutic Goods Administration for removing the so-called miracle drug ivermectin, asserting that the ban was based on insufficient evaluations. On October 22, Weisser was a guest on the Asia Pacific Today Show expressing her disapproval of the ban TrialSite first covered. https://trialsitenews.com/australias-tga-bans-gps-from-prescribing-ivermectin-cites-interruption-with-vaccination-as-clear-factor/ Weisser shared that there were no safety risks that could lead to life-threatening effects. The ban was apparently a rushed, improper decision.
Rebecca Weisser was a career diplomat in the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade in 1990. She earned a First Class Honors degree in Arts at Australian National University. Weisser’s recent interview with Mike Ryan addressed the decision by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to ban ivermectin –that is, as TrialSite explained in September, https://trialsitenews.com/australias-tga-bans-gps-from-prescribing-ivermectin-cites-interruption-with-vaccination-as-clear-factor/ general practitioners (GPs) could not access the drug to treat COVID-19 patients, due to apparent “safety risk” concerns. This prompted Weisser’s outspoken disapproval of the decision, leading her to express concerns about what the TGA is doing.
A Rushed Decision
According to Rebecca, the monitoring of the response to not only ivermectin but also other COVID-19 interventions, such as the new mRNA vaccine technology, was inadequate. Rebecca explicitly stated that the TGA is not doing its job properly and effectively.
Rebecca Weisser went on to say that the TGA had not done due diligence to thoroughly analyze ivermectin’s substantial studies, epidemiological evidence, in-vitro evidence, and in silico evidence.
Subscribe to the Trialsitenews "Ivermectin" Channel
No spam - we promise
Weisser asserted that the entire process of the ban was unacceptable, as a delegate of the Secretary from the Commonwealth’s Department of Health had allegedly changed the restrictions of ivermectin without proper consultation. The delegate’s reasoning behind the improper process was due to said emergency which Weisser declares was a statement without evidence.
Poor Arguments Behind the Ban
The TGA declared the ban was partly due to safety issues from the drug’s use. However, their reason contrasted with reports that show there are no life-threatening adverse effects related to ivermectin’s use in treating COVID-19. According to Dr. Carlos Chaccour, when it is used in the approved doses, ivermectin is a very safe drug.
In light of this, Weisser concluded that the delegate’s reasoning behind the drug’s safety issues was simply not sufficient grounds on which to base their decision. Weisser also claimed that the decision was not grounded in a good understanding of the drug: “The delegate of the secretary … consulted, apparently, with the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and they consulted with the relevant committee … which was comprised of people who had no knowledge of ivermectin and its uses in relation to COVID-19,” she explained.
Weisser also shared that when she spoke with the TGA, there appeared to be no means of reviewing the drug, which she described as ‘appalling’. She went on to say that ivermectin’s ban had gone through an absurd process, which was baseless and needed appealing.
Weisser also expressed frustration that general practitioners can still legally prescribe ivermectin, but for only approved indications, while specialists can prescribe for off-label (but undoubtedly, they must go through enhanced bureaucratic scrutiny) and pharmacists refuse to fill the prescription if it is not for specified indications of river blindness, threadworm, or scabies. Doctors are said to be held back from thoroughly treating their patients. While ivermectin can be prescribed for certain conditions, the process required to get the prescription from a specialist makes accessing the drug very difficult. This of course sounds like a policy that helps the industry.
Government Bureaucrat Involvement
The Head of TGA, Professor John Skerrit, previously told TrialSite that there would be no issues lifting the ban as long as there is enough high-quality evidence to support the drug. He stated that they were willing to consider evidence coming from well-conducted trials that were unbiased.
However, in the recent interview with Rebecca Weisser, she emphasized that the role of the TGA does not include intervention of patient-doctor relationships. That specific role is said to be within the scope of duties of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). According to Weisser, the AHPRA has said that they are prohibited to go against the government’s decision. She asserted that behind the ban was a government bureaucrat with minimal knowledge of saving lives.
Weisser stated that currently, healthcare workers who go against the government will face penalties. Two doctors have been suspended from practicing medicine for posting statements on social media about controversial issues such as mask efficacy, despite these posts being backed up by science. She went on to express that doctors should not be suspended for making science-based statements, calling the practice ‘appalling’ and something that should change.
According to her statements, Weisser believes there is an agenda behind the ivermectin ban which benefits the government and vaccine manufacturers more than the general public. With high levels of censorship of certain issues in mainstream media, and the absence of transparent evidence-based approaches, trust in the government begins to evaporate. Many viewers echoed Weisser’s sentiments in the comments below the video.
TrialSite continues to follow the issue of ivermectin’s role in treating COVID around the globe, including the political implications related to its use.