Thanks for all the engagement, questions, and critical feedback on my earlier post on what I believe has been a somewhat draconian response to Covid.

Recommended Public Health Response?

A great question was what public health response would I propose instead? My public policy suggestions are tentative as there is a lot I don’t know, but here are a few ideas for what it’s worth:

• There are a couple of overseas templates that I think are worth following: Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India.
• Japan, as I said in my blog post, is actively pushing against mandates and prioritising informed consent. It is reported that US States that are pushing back on mandates and lockdowns are also doing better than those with more draconian responses. (There could be confounding factors such as population density for some of the more rural/conservative states.) Sweden’s epidemiological data also seems to demonstrate that harsh lockdowns are not necessary.
• Japan has also allowed the use of off-patent and off-label medicines, such as ivermectin.
• Ivermectin may also be the explanation for the difference in case numbers between Uttar Pradesh and Kerala (two states of India). Uttar Pradesh has much lower inoculation rates but much better outcomes.
• While I personally would prioritise natural and lifestyle approaches to maximising immunity, there does seem to be an abundance of evidence that early treatment with off-label drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloriquine (among others) is highly effective.
• I would also emphasise education campaigns on accessible methods to boost immunity (exercise, diet, rest, supplementation, sunshine, fresh air, etc) and what you can do at home to treat Covid. There is a great public health education video from the El Salvador government that would be great to see replicated worldwide. My wife and I have published a couple of home hydrotherapy treatment videos that have had thousands of views.
• I would place far fewer restrictions on the population, instead promoting voluntary risk reduction measures, collaboration and trust. And I would place a lot more restrictions on media and pharmaceutical companies, who are both profiting from driving a fear narrative.
• I would place a higher standard (i.e., reverting to what is normally done) on the safety and efficacy review of inoculations, and allow people to freely choose whether or not they take them. There are now numerous studies showing that Covid inoculations are not nearly as effective as hoped. This emerging evidence should trigger a shift in public policy away from mandates.

Fact-Checking the CCCA Presentation

A friend shared a fact-check of the CCCA presentation that I shared. This is helpful, as it is always good to view multiple perspectives on important issues – particularly where there is controversy. There were a couple of valid observations that were new to me.

However, the AFP’s fact check is insufficient to bury the CCCA presentation for these two key reasons:

1. They’ve picked a few relatively minor points and ignored the major points of the presentation, in my view. Major concerns that remain undealt with include:
   1. No comment on all cause mortality end point.
   2. No comment on BMJ’s publication of whistleblower’s concerns.
   3. No comment on several other trial study design issues.
   4. No comment on pervasive conflict of interest.
   5. No comment on Pfizer’s history of criminal activity.
   6. No comment on the overall trend of heart issues in professional athletes – just correctly pointing out that one case (Christian Eriksen) is probably not linked to the inoculation, even though AFP overstates the original claim of CCCA on that particular point.
2. The AFP repeats the myth that ivermectin is ineffective, contrary to numerous published studies.
   1. While I’m no apologist for ivermectin, there has clearly been an indefensible demonization of repurposed drugs such as ivermectin.
   2. Please read this article by (Emeritus) Prof Robert Clancy of Newcastle University School of Medicine for an articulation of highly aberrant response from Australian health regulators.
   3. There are numerous publications demonstrating efficacy and many parts of the world are using ivermectin. The Australian position seems indefensible.