The story of Ivermectin in New Zealand and the world presents a dark foreboding of what may be to come in medicine – unless we resist the algorithms of the industrial-pharma complex and turn back to the meaning of healing.

The Ivermectin Story told by a retired NZ GP

My dad started his medical career on the Atlantic convoys of WWII. He witnessed many distressing sights. After the war he felt lucky to be alive and grateful to have a job, as a rural GP in Northumberland, UK.

15 years after he retired and had left the district never to return again, they held a memorial service for him. The old Norman church was full and overflowing. I was told how on house calls, which was most of his work, he’d cook or do a bit of housework for those in need. He was old school, an unhurried listener and chatter. If a pregnant patient was near term, he’d be on call for her, even if it was his weekend off.

He felt a duty to protect his patients from the system. None of his pregnant women were prescribed thalidomide.

The transformation of GPs from being proud independent thinking practitioners, to reluctant followers of rules and algorithms designed too often by financially conflicted experts, with ties to drug and other companies, has been in the works for many years.

The fear in my early days that guidelines would become rules and laws, that professional bodies would become autocratic and that regulators would be captured, has largely come to pass. It’s been a gradual, silent and almost unnoticed process brought sharply into focus and awareness by Covid-19. 

A RAT or PCR test is all that is required to diagnose Covid – don’t worry yourself about false positives or negatives or a differential diagnosis, or asking a doctor, no doctor is required. Doctors early on in the pandemic were informed from on high that there was no early treatment for Covid.

Don’t even think of prescribing Ivermectin or importing it or trying anything else not approved by us. If you do, expect to be investigated and possibly lose your license. While we are at it, if you cause vaccine hesitancy, especially while informing patients about the vaccines, expect to be investigated.

 Oh! And don’t bother yourself with vaccine exemption certificates. You are no longer allowed to provide these. This is the job of a faceless box-ticking bureaucrat who will refuse most requests, if not all of them. One more thing, get vaccinated and boosted as often as we say, or lose your ability to work. 

All western doctors know of these threats, investigations and loss of licenses – news travels fast. One doctor in NZ had his license returned by the courts, only to have it removed again a few weeks later by a committee with no due process – a decision made over Zoom and a cup of organic peppermint tea. A brutal and blatant abuse of power. None of the affected NZ doctors were or are an immediate threat to anyone.

Fear, mandates and edicts have stripped most doctors (except a courageous few) of their ability to support, protect and fully inform their patients. Self-preservation has become primary.

They know their leaders will not support them if they step beyond the narrative. Their leaders have clearly not read all there is to know about Covid, the ‘vaccines’ and Ivermectin. Especially Ivermectin.

Ivermectin is a keystone for the narrative

When the Ivermectin story breaks, the narrative will crumble – hopefully. Our dear leaders will be wishing they had not denied the obvious. 

Doctors do and are legally allowed to prescribe off-label drugs. This means they could have used Ivermectin to treat Covid-19 if they were able to justify its use. (My doctor refused to give me any).

Want to learn more?

This 20 minute video is astounding, corruption is exposed.  Andrew Hill was tasked by the WHO to evaluate Ivermectin’s use in Covid-19.  He and Tess Lawrie, a doctor and researcher,  planned to do a Cochrane Review together. Without informing her he published a paper. In the results section, page 6, is a finding of a 75% reduction in mortality. In the discussion section, he finishes with Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.  

This effectively killed off the immediate use and acceptance of Ivermectin. In the 20-minute video, we see him squirm, as he admits to having his arm twisted and agreeing to down play his findings. Reality really is stranger than fiction. If you want to know more details on this go to this page.  

By the time you have read, watched and listened to the above and you have got over your OMG moment, you should have some questions.

  1. Why was Ivermectin not rapidly tested in large randomised controlled trials in early 2020?
  2. Why has there been a concerted, coordinated, worldwide, punitive effort to discourage doctors from using or even thinking about using Ivermectin or any other treatments that look hopeful and safe?
  3. Who orchestrated this and why was it so fervently enacted?
  4. Why has there been such a massive loss of independent critical thinking in the medical profession?  I can think of a few more.
  5. How many lives would have been saved if doctors had been allowed to be doctors?

A novel product, with no long term safety data, after one short trial, paid for by the company standing to make billions from it, has been injected into 80 to 90% of the western world and this isn’t thought to be insane!

Things have sure changed since my dad’s day

GPs need to act despite their fears and rescue their profession from an awakening population’s in-coming shattered trust.  They need to fight for the power and freedom to act for their patients again, against the state and other authorities if needs be.

Doctors licenses should not be removable by a committee sipping tea during a zoom meeting base on a difference of opinion. 

Do you want to be treated by a caring independent doctor rather than the industrial-pharma complex via their guidelines and algorithms?

Use our form below to let the government know what you think about Ivermectin. They work for us, we pay their salaries.