Dutch People Power Versus the Globalists!

A huge win for the people in the Netherlands!

I and others have said it before: ‘No farms, no food.’ But if the Great Reset boys get their way, that is not a problem, since the elites want us all to feast on insects anyway, while they still get to enjoy their steaks in private. Under the guise of saving the planet, the secular left have been waging war on farmers, and Holland has been at the forefront of this.

The EU and elitist governments are wanting to shut down small farms as part of their plans to get ever more control over the masses. And the perfect way to do this is for the state to get full control of food production. That is what this battle is all about.

They are using the excuse of a ‘nitrogen crisis.’ They think the farmers are polluting the planet by the use of fertilisers and the like. So to keep us all safe, they want to squash these hard-working farmers, closing down so many viable and productive farms. We don’t want to think about how the Dutch – and others – will be fed if the elites head down this path.

As I wrote in an earlier piece:

The Dutch are a tolerant people, and they have a long-standing reputation for that. I lived in the Netherlands for five years and saw it on display, and Dutch history is filled with examples of the Dutch offering help and aid to others. But right now a lot of Dutch citizens are NOT being very tolerant about what is happening to them. And rightly so.

I refer to the tens of thousands of farmers who have come out in protest against the globalist elites and their fear-mongering over climate change and their plans to radically change Dutch farming. The government is effectively stealing land from Dutch farmers due to a supposed nitrogen crisis.

Thus it is terrific news that in the recent Dutch elections people power has trumped the woke bureaucrats. In a shock result, the Farmer-Citizen Movement did very well in Thursday’s election. Here is how one news report tells the story:

The Netherlands faced a political earthquake Thursday after a farmers’ protest party won key elections, throwing the government’s environmental policies into disarray. The upstart Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging) or BBB, which was only set up four years ago, is set to be the biggest party in the Dutch upper house of parliament with 16 to 17 seats.

The party rode a wave of protests against plans by Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s ruling coalition to cut nitrogen emissions by slashing livestock numbers and possibly closing farms. The Dutch protests garnered global attention and reaped international support, including from former US president Donald Trump and a host of far-right figures.

“The people have made their voices heard, and how,” BBB leader Caroline van der Plas said as the results emerged overnight. “The coalition should take this very seriously.” Wednesday’s Dutch regional elections — which are crucial as they determine the shape of the senate — saw the BBB win the most votes in at least eight of the country’s 12 provinces with more results to follow.

Several Dutch newspapers described it as a “monster victory”. The daily tabloid De Telegraaf headline said “Kabbboem” – a play on the party’s name and the sound of an explosion. The BBB tapped into wider populist sentiments, including people who felt ignored by Rutte, the Netherlands’ longest-serving leader now in his 13th year in power.

An upside-down Dutch flag became a symbol of their protest and could be seen flying on poles in rural areas across the Netherlands. “The historic gain of the BoerBurgerBeweging is the result of many protest votes,” wrote Marleen de Rooy, political reporter for the NOS public broadcaster. “Our worries are not over yet, but at least we can fly the flag the right side up again,” BBB party chairman Erik Stegink said in a tweet on Thursday.

The article continues:

The farmers’ leader Van der Plas — who appeared on the front of several newspapers covering her mouth in shock with her trademark bright green fingernails — immediately vowed to challenge the farms’ policy. The Dutch government says it needs to reduce nitrogen emissions by 50 percent by 2030, blaming fertilisers and manure from agriculture in particular for pollution.

It says it must comply with a Dutch court order saying it had breached EU rules on nitrogen emissions affecting soil and water. But the farmers say they are being treated unfairly compared to other industries.

Their cause has resonated in the tiny lowlands country that is proud of its farming tradition and its position as the world’s second largest agricultural exporter after the United States. Farmers have held months of protests, blockading government buildings with tractors and dumping manure on motorways. They also rallied in The Hague on Saturday ahead of the vote.

One of the young activists who has been involved in this fight is Eva Vlaardingerbroek. She has been bravely speaking out against this and other elitist globalist agenda items. I have often featured her as an example of a young person who is energetically fighting the machine, and getting some runs on the board. I quoted her in another piece on the Dutch resistance:

“I don’t care what people, the media or the establishment say about me anymore. I would much rather be called a ‘radical’ in the fight against evil, than a moderate. And so should you. When you speak up and you stop being afraid of what they say about you, they lose their power.”

Just before the Dutch election Eva (and others, including our own Alexandra Marshall) chatted with Mark Steyn about what was happening in Holland and elsewhere.

And this short interview with Eva helps us to see the fight the Dutch (and all of us) are in:

Lastly, we have a lengthy interview with Eva by Jordan Peterson which is well worth watching.

Of interest, in that Peterson interview Eva was rather pessimistic about the possible election results (the interview was done a few days before it took place). So she might now be somewhat surprised, as would many others. Sometimes we win a few battles!

But as the BBB chairman said, the war is not over yet. Still, it is quite encouraging to see this example of people power in action, taking on the EU and other globalist bodies. There is hope yet, so keep on fighting the good fight.


Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo credit Eva Vlaardingerbroek.

Thank the Source

Solzhenitsyn: We Ignored His Warnings

Nation First looks at the unheeded exhortations given to the West by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.

The King James Bible gives us this quote from Jesus Christ that, like all of what He said, rings true to this very day: “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

The saying basically means that those who speak out, point out errors and tell us to change our ways are not just ignored by those in the area in which they came from, but they are actively opposed.

But far from the prophet suffering from this ignorance and opposition, it is their homeland who actually suffers by rejecting the prophetic message which could possibly have saved them from some pending calamity.

That saying has been shorted in modern times to “a prophet isn’t welcome in his home town.

That was certainly the case for one of the great prophets of the 20th century, exiled Russian writer and intellectual Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.

But while Solzhenitsyn’s commentary against the Communist ideology of Soviet Russia was welcomed in the United States of America and elsewhere in the Western world, his calls to action against Communism were not.

Neither were his critiques of Western civilisation which he rightly saw as suffering from moral decay, a lack of spiritual values and, worse still, a culture that prioritised consumerism, material wealth and individual pleasure above all else.

Here was the prophet calling out for repentance (which, from the Greek metanoia, literally means a turning around) by our society lest we slide into the totalitarian abyss that had engulfed his former homeland.

Solzhenitsyn’s Expulsion from Soviet Russia

After suffering eight years imprisonment in a labour prison camp and then three years of internal exile, Solzhenitsyn was expelled from Russia in 1974.

The expulsion was triggered by the publication of several works critical of the Soviet Union, including The Gulag Archipelago.

Solzhenitsyn later settled in the United States, in the little-known village of Cavendish, Vermont, where he continued to write about the dangers of Communism and its threat to Western values, as well as the West undermining itself.

The West is Suffering from Christianity’s Decline

If you want a summary of Solzhenitsyn’s warnings to the West, you could possibly do no better than to read his speech of 8 July 1978 delivered at Harvard University and titled “A World Split Apart”.

It really is a jam-packed tour de force of a speech.

There is so much Solzhenitsyn has to say in it, but there are some very jarring sections to note.

The first such section highlights the loss of our Christian roots, leading to the rise of consumerism, materialism and hedonism in the West:

There is a disaster, however, which has already been underway for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness…

On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.

In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests suffocate it. This is the real crisis.

The West’s Lack of Courage

The second section highlights the lack of fight in the West to stand up for its own values and how this rot seemingly developed first (and, I would add, quite possibly deliberately) amongst the elite:

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society.

Of course, there are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.

Will Communism Fill the Spiritual Void?

The third such section highlights the danger of a West with a spiritual vacuum slipping into Communism, and of the Western elites who, at the time, were encouraging that slip (and, again I would note, still are today!):

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorships; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach…

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive, and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic.

Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism; radicalism had to surrender to socialism; and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism’s crimes. And when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them.

In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

Sadly, we ignored Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s warnings and now we are suffering the consequences.


Originally published at Nation First. Photo by Anefo.

Thank the Source

Don’t Expect a Church that Bent Over for the Jab to Protest Being Arrested for Silent Prayers

Turn in your hymnal to everyone’s favourite: “Go Along to Get Along”.

Archbishop Canterbury

WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do)

Well, He’d get jabbed, of course. I mean, it’s the Christian thing to do.

Wait. Why would Jesus need a vaccine at all?

Er, never mind. WWJD isn’t supposed to be an exact science. It’s more the vibe of the thing. And the vibe is that Jesus would be twice jabbed, and several times boosted.

He’d also be wearing a mask (even when riding a donkey alone), and He’d maintain a 1.5m distance from the disciples all times.

And so it was, in 2021, that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted loving your neighbour meant being stuck like a pin cushion with an experimental vaccine, the efficacy of which was uncertain and the long term health effects of which were even less sure.

It’s what Jesus would do, he said.

Getting the jibby jab was not about your right to choose. It was about your Christian duty to love your neighbour.

Except that the vaccine did nothing at all to stop you transmitting the virus to your neighbour.

It did, however, increase your chances of suffering from myocarditis or ending up with Ramsey Hunt Syndrome.

The Archbishop wasn’t alone in his love for the jab.

As recently as January 2022, the Pope suggested that getting vaccinated against Covid was a “moral obligation”.

That’s right. Having the Pfizer was not a medical choice; it was a moral obligation – like telling the truth or repaying a debt you owe.

Moreover, he denounced people who refused the shots because of “baseless information”, you know, as opposed to factual information such as that the shots didn’t stop infection, didn’t stop transmission and had not been properly tested.

Now that we know the safe and effective vaccine was not nearly as safe or effective as it was made out to be, one might expect an apology from the Archbishop and the Pope.

You might imagine they have a “moral obligation” to say sorry for parroting baseless information” from governments.


When governments told churches they could meet but not sing, churches duly obliged.

When governments told everybody they had to be vaccinated or else shunned as second class citizens, churches agonised over whether they should permit the unvaxxed to worship with them.

Some churches actually checked vaccine passports at the door, which no doubt impressed their overlords no end.

When governments mandated vaccinations, Christian Schools sacked teachers who preferred not to take the government supplied spike protein. It was disgraceful.

When governments told churches they could not meet at all since they were not an “essential service”, churches immediately agreed and closed their doors.

But had not health officials spoken?

Had not politicians declared?

And when churches reopened a year or more later, church leaders blamed the dramatic drop in numbers on the congregation’s lack of discipleship.

Yeah, that was it. The people were uncommitted. (Insert massive eye roll here.)

The church didn’t stand up when it had the chance.

Now we have Catholic women being arrested on the streets of England for silent prayer, and still barely a peep from the church.

Prayer Arrest

I just hoped Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, arrested for thinking private thoughts to her God within 150m of an abortion clinic, was up to date with her Covid-19 booster shots.

Lord knows, that’s what Jesus would have wanted.


Originally published at The James Macpherson Report. Photo by Kat Smith.

Thank the Source

Let’s Pray for a Breakthrough in the NSW Election

You are invited to Breakthrough NSW, a prayer and worship vigil to be held this Saturday as we pray for the NSW election.

Join with us as we hold a 24/7 Prayer and Worship Vigil for the NSW state election. The election will be held on the 25th March, 2023. Like other Australians, the people of NSW have been through some very difficult times over the last few years. We need to stand together with our brothers and sisters in Christ in NSW and believe together for a spiritual breakthrough in the upcoming election.

The vigil is called Breakthrough NSW and will be made up of 25.5 hours of continuous prayer, praise and worship from 7.30pm Friday 17th March to 9pm Saturday 18th March, 2023. You can join us anytime throughout the event, using Zoom room 776881184 or the Zoom link https://zoom.us/j/776881184.

As John Donne, the famous Christian poet said, “No man is an island.” Neither is any state. What happens in one state will affect the other states. We need to pray for each other in our hour of need.

The State of the Major Parties in NSW

Sadly, the current NSW Liberal government, under the influence of dark forces within the party and the culture, passed late-term abortion laws, and more recently, euthanasia laws. Corruption in their leadership helped destroy any vestige of popularity with their own supporters. The current Liberal government is even proposing draconian “anti-conversion therapy” laws to further restrict religious freedom in this already hard-pressed state.

According to the Christian Values Checklist, the Labor government is worse again. The polls indicate a likely win by Labor in the upcoming NSW election. Unfortunately, both the major parties are lurching to the dark side. This is causing increasing injustice in NSW. Martin Luther King Jr was right to say, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

(To help the people of NSW make an informed decision, our sister organisation, the Australian Christian Values Institute, has produced the Christian Values Checklist for the NSW election. We ask you to share the Christian Values Checklist with your friends in NSW, and pray for God to guide the people of NSW as they vote. To download your own copy click here).

Faith Like King Jehoshaphat’s

The story of King Jehoshaphat overcoming the invaders of ancient Israel by giving praise to God in the face of almost certain defeat gives us hope in our prayers. It also gives us a scriptural foundation for our Breakthrough NSW prayer event:

Then… Jahaziel the Levite said, ‘Listen, all you of Judah and you inhabitants of Jerusalem, and you, King Jehoshaphat! Thus says the Lord to you: ‘Do not be afraid nor dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours, but God’s… for the Lord is with you…’

And when he (Jehoshaphat) had consulted with the people, he appointed those who should sing to the Lord, and who should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army and were saying:

‘Praise the Lord, For His mercy endures forever.’

Now when they began to sing and to praise, the Lord set ambushes against the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah; and they were defeated.”

– 2 Chronicles 20:14-22

Praying for a Miracle in NSW

We need a miracle of God. NSW needs revival. Australia needs revival and reformation. Our nation is in desperate need of a sovereign outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Prayer Points for Breakthrough NSW:

  1. To worship Jesus and give extravagant breakthrough praise to God. 2 Chronicles 20:20-22
  2. Pray for Revival for NSW and for millions to find Christ. Isaiah 64:1-2
  3. Pray for a spiritual breakthrough in the NSW State Elections on 25 March. 2 Samuel 5:20

So please join us for Breakthrough NSW, using Zoom room 776881184 or Zoom link https://zoom.us/j/776881184. See you there!

Yours for New South Wales,

Warwick Marsh & Kurt Mahlburg

Thank the Source

Who Qualifies For The Voice?

The so-called ‘Voice to Parliament’ is a proposal for a race-based advisory body established via a referendum to amend Australia’s Constitution. We have only just commenced this corrosive process and already, we are seeing more questions than answers.

I oppose the Voice as a matter of principle. It is a cynical attempt to divide Australians by race and distract them from those contemporary issues which the government would otherwise be defending like the cost of living, inflation, and mortgage stress.

Definition Lacking

That said, one of the key issues being whispered around the dinner tables and front bars of our country, involves the question of who will qualify as a representative of the Voice and on what terms? To put it more bluntly, who will be deemed an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? It appears to be a question that politics is too afraid to ask but is as critical an issue as any associated with this frolic.

During the last round of Senate estimates, I asked the Attorney General’s Department that very question, and the responses were underwhelming to say the least. After some bureaucratic fumbling, I was directed to the three-part test which has been used to determine Aboriginality since the Mabo High Court decision of 1992. I explained that I was familiar with the test, which has three criteria: descent or lineage, self-identification, and acceptance by the local Indigenous community. However, what I wanted the department to explain was how descent is established. In other words, how does one prove that they are Indigenous for the purposes of the ‘Voice,’ or any legal matter (for example, government grants)?

One would think this a simple question for a government seeking to establish a Constitutionally enshrined advisory board on Indigenous matters but, just as the Department of Health couldn’t tell me what a woman is, the Attorney General’s Department couldn’t seem to tell me how Indigenous people are identified, so I pressed the issue. Is one considered Indigenous if they have one grandparent, or one great, great, great grandparent, who was Indigenous?

Predictably, I was informed that this line of questioning was ‘not appropriate’, and the Labor minister at the table called my line of questioning ‘borderline racist’. I wonder if the minister views all Australians who are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the Voice to Parliament in this way. It’s unfortunate that name-calling, guilt-tripping, and accusing opponents of various ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’ is all they have, given their lack of clear answers.

Furthermore, when I asked whether the department was concerned about people falsely identifying as indigenous, I was informed that this question was too ‘hypothetical’.

One would think that getting this simple matter bolted down would be a top priority for the Labor government, but this is not the case. The reason is simple: the ‘Voice’ is not about helping Indigenous Australians, but about further expanding the bureaucratic class, trashing our heritage, and exacerbating the victimhood mindset that the left uses to make people dependants.

Avoiding Real Issues

We can expect more name-calling as the debate goes on. Such accusations are a cudgel that the left have been able to wield for too long. We must stop being afraid of being called names. If an opponent resorts to such actions, you know you are winning.

Meanwhile, details about the ‘Voice,’ such as who will qualify, how candidates will be selected remain opaque. Surely the millions of dollars the ‘Voice’ referendum will cost taxpayers could be used in a more beneficial way.

Fundamentally, the details of the ‘Voice’ are not the issue. Australia is already too divided along the lines of race due to the woke takeover of our bureaucracies, especially our education system, and the media. White children are taught to be ashamed of their heritage, and Indigenous children are taught that they are being held back by ‘systemic racism’. The fundamental assumption behind the ‘Voice’ is that Indigenous people don’t have a say in our political system – a claim that is blatantly untrue.

Unity Needed

We do not need more racial division or welfare state solutions in Australia; we need unity, appreciation of our heritage, and practical solutions. As my colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has said, ‘We don’t need a voice, we need ears.’ Never mind an Indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’, Senator Nampijinpa Price is an Indigenous voice in Parliament. Of course, her approach to Indigenous issues is not well received by Labor and the Greens. If they and the bureaucrats in Canberra listened to her voice, they wouldn’t get to feel good about themselves for doing nothing except unnecessarily altering our Constitution to create more jobs for bureaucrats in Canberra.

Identity politics and victim culture, two tools in the so-called progressive playbook for gaining and maintaining control, are tearing this country apart. Australians should not be divided by their race. The politics of sentimentality must come to an end. If the government can’t even tell us how Aboriginality is defined for legal purposes, why are we even discussing the ‘Voice to Parliament’? Simply put, if Labor were interested in helping aboriginal people, they’d do that, rather than wasting our time and money over the ‘Voice.’

Saying no to the Voice doesn’t make you a racist. Australians will not be bullied.


Originally published at The Spectator Australia. Photo by Daniel Morton-Jones.

Thank the Source

Did the Ivermectin Ban Cost Lives?

By Kara Thomas and Andrew McIntyre.

It appears that we live in a reality where doctors are censored and early treatments such as ivermectin are banned, apparently to ensure public confidence in the government’s vaccine rollout is not undermined.

AHPRA and National Boards threatened doctors with regulatory action on March 9, 2021 if they made any statements that ‘undermined public confidence in the vaccination rollout’. The TGA also banned ivermectin’s use for the prevention or treatment of Covid in September 2021 because, according to the TGA, if people had access to it they may not get vaccinated. Are we seeing a trend?

Ivermectin TGA

Image Credit: The Spectator Australia/Kara Thomas and Andrew McIntyre

Ivermectin and the TGA

In whose interests are decisions really being made? Ivermectin is safe, cheap, fully approved, and has been shown effective in the prevention and treatment of Covid, as will be demonstrated. As repeatedly outlined in Senate estimates by Martin Fletcher, CEO of AHPRA, doctors can use their clinical judgment and the best available evidence to treat their patients – except they can’t in this country because of excessive government overreach. These decisions do not seem to make any medical sense, let alone resemble public protection. Is it possible that the TGA, being 96 per cent funded by the pharmaceutical industry, is influencing restrictions and approvals? Some in the medical industry have asked the question now, and in the past, including a ‘scathing review’ from the BMJ in July of 2022. The TGA has always maintained that their decisions are made independent of financial attachment. Even so, a Goldman Sachs analyst suggested in a 2018 report, ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model? These questions arise when trying to explain the banning of ivermectin as a safe, Nobel prize-winning, WHO essential medicine which showed a strong signal of benefit, under the banner of sudden safety concerns.

What the TGA does is to cite safety and a lack of evidence against ivermectin, and then instead it goes in favour of vaccines only provisionally-approved, novel, poorly tested, and lacking in safety data. These are vaccines that in reality don’t work well and at the same time have the highest rate of adverse events of any therapeutic ever prescribed, according to government information outlets, both in Australia and overseas.

Ivermectin Blacklisted

On September 10, 2021, a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Health considered the advice provided by the Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling (ACMS) and made the decision to amend the Poisons Standard by creating a new Appendix D listing for ivermectin, and thus eliminated its use as an off-label treatment option for Covid. This occurred with reference to subsection 52E(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, in particular paragraph (f), which empowers the Secretary to act on any other matters that the Secretary considers necessary to protect public health.

The Australian Medical Professionals’ Society made a public submission to the TGA Consultation on September 29, 2022 arguing that the Poison Scheduling for ivermectin was inappropriate, not evidence-based, and not in the best interests of medicine in Australia. Our submission reviewed extensive evidence showing ivermectin use was associated with statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance for Covid. It can be argued and indeed it is, in fact, being argued here that denying Australians access to ivermectin poses a threat to public health and the secretary’s other matters were not used appropriately to protect the public.

The TGA on February 3, 2023 following a review of multiple extensively-referenced submissions decided not to amend the current Poisons Standard in relation to ivermectin, ‘for your safety’, of course. This decision continues the ban on doctors’ ability to prescribe ivermectin either in isolation or as part of a multi-drug protocol for the prevention or treatment of Covid.

This Makes No Sense

In our opinion, from a scientific and medical perspective the TGA approval decisions surrounding ivermectin make no sense. The TGA banned a cheap, safe fully approved repurposed medicine that showed great promise for the prevention and treatment of Covid with 95 clinical trials worldwide. It was banned in favour of promoting a provisionally-approved (experimental) novel genetic lipid nanoparticle synthetic mRNA vaccine that was never tested for transmission, and had poor efficacy of unknown duration with what amounts to limited reliable safety data, according to the TGA’s own reports. Ivermectin efficacy has been tested in more than 90 clinical trials including more than 100,000 patients while the Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV) recommended Pfizer be approved on data from one study with the FDA issuing the EUA on efficacy data of 170 patients.

Ivermectin is Safe

The risk versus benefit analysis by the TGA claims first that ivermectin safety is an issue, and secondly that the efficacy evidence base for use in Covid is not well established. Our AMPS submission addressed these two reasons for denying Australians access to ivermectin for the treatment of Covid.

AMPS showed ivermectin has a well-established safety record – ‘more than 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been administered to humans worldwide since the 1980s’. The TGA’s 2013 AusPar Report for ivermectin stated, ‘No significant safety concerns were found with the use of ivermectin.’ Very importantly, the report found no safety concerns even at 10 times the (then) current approved dose of 200ug/kg. The U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) has recognised that ‘ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well tolerated’. A recent systematic review stated ‘ivermectin at the usual doses is considered extremely safe for use in humans’. In 2018, ivermectin was added to the WHO list of Essential Medicines, and in supporting the submission for inclusion in the list, the WHO concluded that the adverse events associated with ivermectin are ‘primarily minor and transient’. The clinical evaluator in the WHO Report found that there were no significant safety concerns or serious adverse events reported with the use of ivermectin.

Ivermectin is one of the safest medications on the planet. Why, then, in 2021 the TGA decided ivermectin was all of a sudden unsafe is perplexing. Coincidentally, ivermectin was banned just as the government was about to start implementing vaccine mandates. Correlation doesn’t equal causation…

In response to claims by the TGA that there is not enough evidence of ivermectin effectiveness in Covid our submission detailed extensive evidence of efficacy. A comprehensive systematic review summarises the antiviral effects of ivermectin, including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Another paper titled, Ivermectin: an award-winning drug with expected antiviral activity against Covid put forward that ivermectin, an FDA-approved broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent, had demonstrated antiviral activity against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As well as ivermectin’s antiviral benefits there is also research literature that outlines its recognised ‘anti-inflammatory capacity’.

… And Effective

Further, a review titled Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Covid concluded:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomised controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in Covid have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting Covid with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of Covid has been identified. 

Additionally, an online real-time meta-analysis of the clinical safety and efficacy of ivermectin in Covid disease is well worth considering and can be found at www.ivmmeta.com: as of September 9, 2022, this includes 91 studies, of which 41 were randomised controlled trials involving 11,141 patients. This resource illustrates the high level of international interest in the clinical submission of ivermectin for potential use in Covid. When taken in totality, the clinical data presented at www.ivmmeta.com presents a compelling case for the safety and efficacy of ivermectin. More than 20 countries (including India, Mexico, regions of Peru, Argentina, Japan, Dominican Republic, and Brazil) have adopted ivermectin for the management of Covid. Collectively, the studies strongly suggest that ‘ivermectin reduces the risk for Covid with very high confidence for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalisation, progression, recovery, [number of] cases, viral clearance, and in pooled analysis… Meta-analysis using the most serious outcome measure shows 62 per cent [57-70 per cent] and 83 per cent [74-89 per cent] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis.’

A juxtaposition of the evidence and risk-versus-benefit analysis for the provisionally-approved vaccines shows the safety and efficacy profile comparisons are not even close. To begin with, provisionally approved by definition means lacking in safety and efficacy data. To understand our confusion over the decision to ban ivermectin on safety and efficacy claims one need only look at the safety and efficacy information provided by the TGA. The TGA’s own Australian Public Assessment reports (AusPAR) for the provisional approval of Pfizer in January 2021 published prior to the vaccine rollout stated that in addition to the unknown longer-term safety and unknown duration of vaccine protection, there are other limitations with the submitted data.

The following questions have not yet been addressed:

  • Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission.
  • The concomitant use of this vaccine with other vaccines.
  • Vaccine data in pregnant women and lactating mothers.
  • Vaccine efficacy and safety in immunocompromised individuals.
  • Vaccine efficacy and safety in paediatric subjects (< 16 years old).
  • A correlate of protection has yet to be established. The vaccine immunogenicity cannot be considered and used as the surrogate for vaccine protective efficacy at this stage, as stated by the FDA in May 2021.
  • Other important identified risks are anaphylaxis.
  • Important potential risks include vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD).

Following the Science?

In September 2021 a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Health used their power to act on any other matters that the Secretary considers necessary to protect public health to ban the Australian people from accessing ivermectin. A questionable decision that appeared to support the government’s vaccine-only strategy. Ivermectin has been proven safe, has been given in billions of doses with very low side effects, and has extensive data evidencing its effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of Covid. mRNA Covid injections have been proven neither safe nor effective, have been given in billions of doses, and have the highest rate of adverse events of any medicine in human history including rocketing all-cause mortality rates. A recent preprint analysis using the Bradford-Hill criteria demonstrates a causal link with the Covid vaccination roll-out. We appear to be experiencing what he calls an iatrogenic pandemic.

On the information presented, whose interests are served by the banning of ivermectin? Perhaps Dr Pierre Kory is onto something when he says, ‘When you see our health agencies literally working in the service of the pharmaceutical industry by destroying the credibility of repurposed drugs, it’s terrifying. They’re not working according to the interests of patients or physicians but the pharmaceutical companies.’ His comments were made in relation to the US legal case involving a group of doctors who are suing the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services for their attempt to ban the prescribing of ivermectin to treat Covid.

Banning doctors from prescribing ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of Covid does not appear to be following the science, nor does it seem to be about public protection. Ivermectin in comparison to mRNA injections is safe and effective and can save lives. If our TGA cannot follow the evidence, what are they following?


Originally published in The Spectator Australia. Photo by Wikimedia Commons.

Thank the Source

US Vax Ban of Novak Djokovic is Just Plain Democrat Dumb

The vax ban preventing Novak Djokovic from entering the United States has been met with the derision the Biden decision deserves.

After requesting a CDC ‘vaccine waiver’, Homeland security denied the Serbian tennis player entry to the US, because of his COVID-19 “vaccination” status.

Meanwhile at the United States-Mexico border, the ‘no borders’ Woke White House is allowing thousands of “unvaccinated” people into the country, without even so much as RAT test, lockdown, or temperature check.

The Ron DeSantis Open Letter

Mocking the weak White House’s ‘outdated’ grip on vaccine mandates, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote to Biden, describing the visa denial as “unfair, unscientific, and unacceptable”.

The 8-paragraph open letter posted on Twitter demanded Joe Biden put an end to “pandemic politics”.

DeSantis suggested that Novak Djokovic could “enter the country by boat” because the no-vax, no-entry rule only applies to flyers. Placed alongside the Democrat free ride on the unchecked flood of people pouring across the Southern border, the vax ban on Djokovic makes no sense, DeSantis argued.

“Your administration pointedly allowed thousands of unvaccinated migrants to enter the US through the Southern border while banning millions of potentially unvaccinated foreign visitors – [this] seems completely ungrounded in logic, and common sense”, he asserted.

DeSantis added, “The only thing keeping Djokovic from participating in the Miami Open is your administration’s continued enforcement of a misguided, and out-of-date COVID-19 vaccination requirement  for foreign guests seeking to visit our great country.”

The anti-vax mandate-Republican slammed the “vaccines” as useless.

He then pointed to growing evidence bringing the so-called vaccine’s efficacy into question, and noted studies identifying the mRNA vaccines as a serious potential health risk “for males aged 18-39”.

DeSantis closed by reminding Biden of Florida’s rejection of vaccine mandates, and lockdowns, telling the Democrat President “to give up the fiction that COVID vaccines remain a necessary tool to promote public health”.

Bill Maher Weighs In

Also critical of the Biden Big Pharma party line, notorious ‘free left’ Bill Maher mocked the mandates, accusing the United States authorities of being “stuck on stupid”.

Talking with Russel Brand, the Real Time host defend Djokovic, stating, “He’s unvaccinated but he’s had COVID twice, natural immunity. Again, something we always used to understand was like better than the actual vaccine. Somehow that got to be reversed.”

Djokovic to Miss Out Again

Although the current COVID mandate affecting air travellers ends in May, Djokovic will miss both California and Florida’s Tennis competitions.

The 35-year-old ranked as a world champion, withdrew from the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells CA, leaving his attendance at the Miami event open.

Described as a political prisoner in early 2022 after being detained by Australian Labor Party authoritarians in Victoria, Djokovic won popular support, catapulting Australia’s COVID overreach onto the world stage.

Then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison (LNP) defended the “unvaccinated” tennis player’s detention.

In a January 6th, 2022 post on Twitter, the former Liberal Party leader, stated, “Mr Djokovic’s visa has been cancelled. Rules are rules, especially when it comes to our borders. No one is above these rules. Our strong border policies have been critical to Australia having one of the lowest death rates in the world from COVID, we are continuing to be vigilant.”

Worth noting, middle-management Morrison, recently called for an end to Australia’s ‘remaining vaccine requirements,’ adding that he never agreed to a blanket approach to vax mandates.


Originally published at Caldron Pool.

Photo by Wikimedia Commons.

Thank the Source

Armageddon – Part 2: Lessons from the Cold War and the Birth of Cold War II

This is the second of a three-part series inspired by the novel Armageddon by Leon Uris (1963). A remarkable, fictional story based on actual history, from the American perspective, of the end of WWII in Germany with particular focus on the administration of Berlin.

If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us!
But passion and party blind our eyes,
and the light which experience gives us
is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind.
~ Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772 – 1834)

The Declaration of the Cold War

The Berlin Airlift was a resounding success! It was an outstanding achievement, but the Cold War was born. When we think of the Cold War, I guess most of us think of the territorial divisions that defined the ‘East’ from the ‘West’. These terms are still with us today, particular the phrases ‘Western Democracies’ and ‘Western Culture’.

We think of Russia and China as the world’s communist stronghold in the case of Russia, and the fascist dictatorship in the case of China, balanced against the western nations’ democracies. Then we think of the arms race and the nuclear threat, hence the term the ‘Cold War’, and the passionate hope and prayer that the opposing nuclear deterrents will be enough to keep either side from repeating the nuclear devastation unleashed on Japan to end World War II.

But let me take you back to the Berliners in the late 1940s. They did not really see any of these physical manifestations of communism that we recognise today. Rather, they would have sensed the psychological warfare raged against them — they were the heroes of the Cold War by their resistance against the communist agenda, their recognition of the threat and their willingness to sacrifice dearly for the prospect of freedom and liberty.

Imagine the culture of the time. Each of these points is a lesson for us today:

  1. The world that survived WWII were on food rations, crippled with grief for lost loved ones. Therefore, they could hardly ever lift their heads above the parapet and look out at other parts of the world. They were simply in survival mode and coming to terms with their own post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. With the trauma of WWII and the wounds still open and weeping, who could have imagined the emergence of a new enemy, especially one from within their own ranks of the Allied powers? The natural instinctive reaction would simply be one of denial. They may have seen some ‘news’, but it would not have fitted into their existing paradigm, so they could not have made any sense or order out of the events unfolding around them.
  3. The Russians had marched through eastern Europe and ‘assimilated’ nation after nation on their westward march. But they were halted in Berlin. To their surprise, they met resistance. Not so much a military resistance, but a resistance from the civilian Berliners. Their tried and tested methods sprang into action, and wave upon wave of psychological warfare was unleashed on the Berliners by the Soviets. One example will suffice. They claimed that only they could ensure the permanent defeat of the Nazi threat. They claimed that the western powers were simply a cover for the re-emergence of Nazism.
  4. The Berliners were the new frontline against the new enemy. As a people utterly devasted by defeat and slaughter, they could still see through the communist lies and propaganda. I take my hat off to the Berliners! Arguably, they were the ones who ‘won the peace’ after WWII. They were the ones who fought for the freedom of thought and liberty of allegiance.
  5. From the start of the Cold War, there was intense pressure to conform to the communist vision. Many of the western Allied soldiers’ families wanted to leave and return home. They saw that the Russians had the upper hand, therefore resistance was futile. Back in the United States, federal parliament was bitterly split. The battle for hearts and minds was fierce, and in the end was resolved by courageous leadership.

The Birth of Cold War II

I would now like to suggest that we are witnesses to the birth of the Cold War II in our day and generation.

  1. I think we are in a war, a largely psychological war, but there are military manifestations in various pockets around the world. Perhaps the seeds of this idea were sown for me by Douglas Murray’s The War on the West (2022). Murray identified the enemy of the West as being from within the West. The enemy is a traitor among one of our own, just as the Russians in the late 1940s turned on their ‘own’, their fellow Allies. I see these internal forces as just as determined to enslave us and strangle the life out of our democracy as the communists did at the height of the first Cold War.

  1. The enemy’s tactics within the Cold War II, being primarily psychological at this stage, have most certainly taken ground, as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of people still look to their governments and authorities to ‘look after them’, to subsidise their back-to-work initiatives, and to build artificial price caps on energy costs to cushion us from hyperinflation created by them. Yes, the enemy’s tactics are working in the production of a compliant, submissive populace, willing to do their master’s bidding.
  2. Today, just as in 1948, the majority of us are still traumatised from the Covid panic years and the wounds are still open and weeping in many places, though it’s remarkable that it’s so easy to forget some of the pain, as we were effectively conditioned into acceptance of the pain for ‘the greater good’. Therefore, how can we expect people to put their heads above the parapet and look out across the nations of the world to identify a new threat; surely, we have had enough troubles in recent times, we are not looking for another!
  3. The new frontline against Cold War II can be found all around the world. We are connected digitally in contrast to the tangible community that the Berliners knew in the aftermath of WWII. Yes, the new frontlines are drawn by those people who can see the threat and are prepared to take a stand against it. In this context, I take my hat off to the thousands who have lost their jobs as a result of their stand, and to the thousands whose families and communities have been shattered by division and breakdown in relationships, and to the thousands who have literally lost their lives already in Cold War II.
  4. The battle lines are drawn today between those who recognise the threat of Cold War II and those who don’t. The latter can’t see that there is anything to fear — they simply say, ‘We are all in this together, we must make sacrifices for the common good when called to do so.’ I find that the division is largely one of silence and an unwillingness to name the elephant in the room. This is in stark contrast to 1948, when heated debates were common.

I do not see a new ‘Berlin Wall’ being built, but I do see the new ‘prisoner-of-war-camps’ being commissioned all around the world, to corral agitators, protesters, and rebels. There seem to be all the hallmarks of ‘walls’ around these camps to keep the renegades in; in contrast to the Berlin Wall’s design to keep their own in, preventing them from defecting to freedom.

Whichever way we look at it, division and segregation can never spell freedom and liberty of thought and allegiance. Openness, tolerance, and mutual respect are the qualities of a community I want to leave as a legacy for my children. These characteristics are all built upon personal responsibility and small government, as opposed to the abrogation of responsibility to big governments and global big businesses.

The Cold War II’s Agenda

I have reflected deeply on the nature of this agenda. I believe the mastermind to be the devil and his angels. His fingerprints are all over it:

Therefore, Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10: 7-11)

I believe there are many ‘diversionary tactics’ that distract, divide, dilute and dilute our attention. But if we look at the devil’s core values, stealing, murder and destruction, this will help us identify the true nature of his agenda. This is in direct contrast with Jesus’ agenda to bring life and life to the full. It is interesting that Jesus is the ‘gate’, not the devil. It is Jesus that decides who may come in and go out, and who may find pasture.

Who is the devil using to outwork his agenda? First of all, stealing. Sadly, I suspect there will be much more overt manifestations of theft to come, but so far, we have seen soaring fuel prices and artificial scarcity of sources of energy, resulting in inflation fuelled by planned irresponsible government spending over the past three years. So, the first agent of the devil’s agenda, national governments, in perfect harmony across the world.

Secondly, murder. The perpetrating and legitimisation of abortion, the murder of infants:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Leviticus 20: 1-2)

Yes, child sacrifice has been known for thousands of years, but God plainly abhors it, and notice He holds ‘the people’ responsible for its eradication. I believe we are responsible for allowing the practice of and legitimisation of abortion. So, in this context, our governments who have sanctioned the practice and our healthcare system that carry out the practice are responsible, but we have not stopped them.

Further, evidence of murder would be the administration of un-tested, unsafe, and ineffective medication resulting in sudden adult death syndrome (SADS), increased numbers of miscarriages and the potential for future infertility. All these measures being the responsibility of the global pharmaceutical industry and our healthcare systems overseen by our national governments. This strategy of the devil has been working very well at depopulating the world, with the immediate focus being the western nations.

Thirdly, destruction. War meets this criterion and is the most obvious evidence of the work of the devil. But destruction can be evidenced in a wide array of phenomena. I would illustrate this with wildfires. It seems to me that many wildfires have been fuelled by Green agendas that have left forests untended for too long, resulting in dangerous levels of tinder for fires to consume.

I also note that some catastrophic floods have been exacerbated by the cessation of preventative dredging of tidal estuaries and the indiscriminate land clearing that has denuded the landscape of vegetation, that would otherwise have captured sufficient rainfall and lessened the destructive floods. In these instances, the responsibility for the destruction would again be the Green agendas that have failed to recognise the biodiversity of different habitats. Then in turn, Green agendas have been incorporated into ‘both sides’ of politics, who in turn bear the responsibility for the destruction.

Here I have sought to illustrate the work of the devil under the three headings of stealing, murder and destruction. Naturally, this is a gross simplification of the nature of the fallen world — in reality it is much more complex; but I have found this rationale a helpful vehicle to seek to understand the nature of Cold War II.

We Ignore Cold War II at Our Peril

Just as in the days of the first Cold War, many could not see it at first. There were intense debates on how best to respond. Let us learn the lessons from history and not be caught out in Cold War II. I believe that the writing is on the wall for us all to read.


Photo by Pixabay.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)