Ivermectin pro and con

With the emphasis on the the word con in all its various meanings: New restrictions on prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19. Dated September 10, 2021.

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. Certain specialists including infectious disease physicians, dermatologists, gastroenterologists and hepatologists (liver disease specialists) will be permitted to prescribe ivermectin for other unapproved indications if they believe it is appropriate for a particular patient.

There is then this one might consider: From Glasgow protesters gather for ‘right to try’ different treatments.

Tonya Adams says she was treated by Dr. Turner using ivermectin and claims the treatment saved her life.

“I almost didn’t make it. He prescribed me the ivermectin–without the regimen he gave me I wouldn’t be here today,” said Adams.

Bureaucrats are people with no skin in any game they oversee. That has got to change.

Is China really threatening to attack Australia with nuclear weapons?


What is one to make of this? Furious China issues bone-chilling warning subs deal could ‘make Australia a potential target for a NUCLEAR strike’.

Chinese state media has warned Australia will become a ‘potential target for a nuclear strike’ after it acquires nuclear-powered submarines.

As part of a new three-way alliance with the UK and US, Australia will be given the technology to build at least eight nuclear-powered – but not nuclear armed – submarines as the West counters China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the ‘AUKUS’ alliance ‘seriously damages regional peace and stability, intensifies the arms race, and undermines the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.’

There is also this to bear in mind.

China is believed to have between 250 and 350 nuclear weapons, compared to American’s arsenal of 5,800 and Russia’s total of 6,375.

In July satellite photos emerged which appeared to show China building a huge missile silo base in the desert town of Hami, northern Xinjiang province.

Researchers believe the site could expand to 110 silos, which can be filled an intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

Nuclear-POWERED submarines are not a nuclear threat to anyone. They are entirely defensive and can never be anything else. But threatening to aim nuclear weapons at Australia is not the actions of a peaceful neighbour under any circumstances whatsoever.

William Jennings Bryant Scopes Trial Summation

This is the statement William Jennings Bryant was to deliver at the end of The Scopes Trial on the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools in 1923. Having now come across this for the first time, I have a new respect of Bryant that I had never had before.

But as you read this, ask yourself whether any of this will have any grip on a people who are no longer Christian, and where their enemies on the left absolutely reject Biblical authority. Socialism is about the supposed equal sharing of what can be produced without any moral or spiritual guidance offered by the underlying philosophical framework. Socialism is now the ethos of the very rich who have no more interest in sharing what they have with others than the court of Louis XVI was interested in sharing with the peasantry of France in 1792. But in our day, our aristocrats pretend they are on the side of the peasantry which makes them utterly secure against a revolutionary tide. The speech is found here.

Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endanger its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane, the earth’s surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times as bloody as it was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world.

It is for the jury to determine whether this attack upon the Christian religion shall be permitted in the public schools of Tennessee by teachers employed by the state and paid out of the public treasury. This case is no longer local, the defendant ceases to play an important part. The case has assumed the proportions of a battle-royal between unbelief that attempts to speak through so-called science and the defenders of the Christian faith, speaking through the legislators of Tennessee. It is again a choice between God and Baal; it is also a renewal of the issue in Pilate’s court.

Again force and love meet face to face, and the question, “What shall I do with Jesus?” must be answered. A bloody, brutal doctrine–evolution–demands, as the rabble did 1,900 years ago, that He be crucified. That cannot be the answer of this jury representing a Christian state and sworn to uphold the laws of Tennessee. Your answer will be heard throughout the world; it is eagerly awaited by a praying multitude. If the law is nullified, there will be rejoice wherever God is repudiated, the savior scoffed at and the Bible ridiculed. Every unbeliever of every kind and degree will be happy. If, on the other hand, the law is upheld and the religion of the school children protected, millions of Christians will call you blessed and, with hearts full of gratitude to God, will sing again that grand old song of triumph:

“Faith of our fathers, living still, In spite of dungeon, fire and sword; O how our hearts beat high with joy Whene’er we hear that glorious word–Faith of our fathers–Holy faith; We will be true to thee till death!”

How will a modern conservative prosecute the case for a moral order when no moral code beyond Marxism exists for the vast majority of the population?

A discussion of The Scopes Trial is found here in which Bryant’s speech is partically quoted, and not surprisingly with only an entirely veiled reference to Biblical beliefs. This is what is quoted, and this is about as far as one might go in the modern world to reference the teachings of the Bible.

Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessels. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endanger its cargo….If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world. 

No political leader in the West would be able to say anything like that and continue to hold office.

How much will any of this matter when the Americans vote next time?


From Lucianne.com right now.

I thought about putting the word “vote” in quotes, but Democrats could not care less. And whatever may happen, it won’t affect anyone within the US for at least five years, so why worry? We should worry, but even we have at least five years before whatever happens happens. It won’t be good, but che sera, sera as they say.

Melbourne in revolt

Found here. For what it’s worth, Victoria has the stupidest Premier it has ever had. His only answer to Covid unbelievably is to try to eliminate it entirely, and every time he finds it coming back, he closes the state more tightly and for a longer period of time. He is dumber than two planks. We are a law-abiding citizenry but we are coming to the end of our tether. Shame about the absence of an Opposition Party anywhere to be seen.

Vaxxinations do not seem to control the spread of covid

Covid Outbreak Hits Carnival Cruise Despite Every Guest and Staff Member Being 'Vaccinated'

Let’s pretend, just for the moment, that discussing an issue with anyone on the left is related to the facts in play. It never is, but let’s pretend. So if you are of the view that vaxxination will help control Covid, this is something of a problem: Covid Outbreak Hits Carnival Cruise Despite Every Guest and Staff Member Being ‘Vaccinated’.

Ever since it became clear the “vaccines” seem to have little to no stopping power when it comes to Delta Variant infections, the White House, CDC, and mainstream media have attempted to paint the spike in “breakthrough cases” as a result of those dastardly unvaccinated. But nobody aboard the Carnival Delta is unvaccinated, a fact that everybody at Carnival and the media is conspicuously ignoring.

If unvaccinated people in close quarters had caused an outbreak of Covid-19, media would be screaming about it with exact numbers and obligatory scolding. On a ship with no unvaccinated people, outbreak details are kept intentionally ambiguous.

What is an even bigger scandal is that even if you get “the delta variant” you are very very unlikely to die from it. That, too, is a major secret that will never ever influence anyone on the left.

Once you get used to being an introvert you really like it

This is the description of a book that is a description of me. The book: The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World. And this is how they depict an introvert:

Some people – a sizeable minority – prefer to avoid the limelight, tend to listen more than they speak, feel alone in large groups, and require lots of private time to restore their energy. Often they feel different, not right, less than. But as Marti Olsen Laney proves, that is far from the truth.

The Introvert Advantage dispels common myths about introverts – they’re not necessarily shy, aloof, or antisocial – and explains how they are hardwired from birth to focus inward, so outside stimulation such as chitchat, phone calls, parties, or office meetings can easily become “too much”. Most importantly, it thoroughly refutes many introverts’ belief that something is wrong with them. Instead, it helps them recognize their inner strengths – their analytical skills, ability to think outside the box, and strong powers of concentration.

My wife always complains when we go out that I didn’t say a thing. But I always do, with the intention of listening to what others have to say. Of course, the place where I am most at peace is in a second-hand book shop, just browsing the shelves.