Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australians and people worldwide criticise politicians. After three years in parliament, I know why. Yet people allow politicians to rule their lives and allow governments to take control of their lives. Why? I invite people to ask basic questions and to then decide. Consider the drug ivermectin. It's been given in 3.7 billion doses over 60 years—no adverse effects; safe. Ivermectin is off patent—affordable. In 2013 ivermectin was approved in Australia for treating diseases. In 2014 I took ivermectin after working in India. It cured me—no adverse effects. Australian doctors regularly prescribe ivermectin for illnesses.

Is it effective with COVID? In April 2020 in the Senate, I raised ivermectin's promising in vitro trials at Monash University. Counties, states and regions in South America, Asia, Africa and Europe have had amazing success with ivermectin for treating, curing and preventing COVID. More than 40 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published hailing ivermectin's success in treating COVID. A study among Indian healthcare workers showed an 83 per cent reduction in COVID infections with just two tablets. Ivermectin, overseas, is recognised as a cure.

I'm told that Queensland doctors and dentists are stockpiling ivermectin for their families. An internationally respected Australian specialist recently saved 24 very sick patients in quarantine using ivermectin. All quickly recovered. Two others not treated died. Overseas, ivermectin is a prophylactic, stopping COVID transmission. Where vaccines are failing, ivermectin is succeeding. How many deaths would have been saved if the health minister had acted?

I have prescriptions for ivermectin from two doctors. Why can't all Australians have that freedom to choose? Why isn't Australia's government adopting ivermectin? Why did the TGA threaten and try to silence me with a letter when I discussed ivermectin with constituents as their representative in parliament? I mentioned ivermectin in a YouTube video and was banned for a week. Member of parliament Craig Kelly made statements based on solid data. After speaking about ivermectin, Facebook banned him forever. Why are doctors scared of being struck off the doctors' registry if they prescribe ivermectin to cure their patients?

Consider the vaccine maker Pfizer's profits. It's second quarter 2021 revenue was $19 billion, up 89 per cent. In three months, it made $4 billion profit. The European Medicines Agency discovered a definite link between Pfizer's vaccine causing myocarditis. In September 2020, our TGA approved Pfizer's Vyndamax drug to treat myocarditis. Our health department confirmed the AstraZeneca vaccine's links with blood clots. Pfizer's Eliquis drug treats blood clotting. Last quarter its sales were up 13 per cent. So are those blood clots rare? Really? In 2019 Pfizer's Zavicefta drug was approved to ICU patients on ventilators. Is Pfizer making profits making people sick and more profit treating the sickness it caused?

Consider the ownership of vaccine makers. Alphabet owns YouTube and Google. Alphabet owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. YouTube bans videos mentioning ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Aren't these conflicts of interest? If ivermectin was approved for COVID, what would happen to big pharma's hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? These profits are a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to big pharma.

Before becoming health minister, Greg Hunt was the environment minister, where he joined Malcolm Turnbull steering a law through parliament as a basis for a global carbon dioxide tax. In 2000 and 2001, he spent two years at the World Economic Forum in Davos developing strategy. A simple question: did he work on the forum's great reset? I have already spoken on the government's lack of a proper COVID management plan. Why has Minister Hunt falsely claimed that the government's COVID policy is based on science when he is contradicting science? Finally, who owns the legacy media suppressing news of ivermectin's success?

In summary, ivermectin would complement vaccines, give people informed choice, save many lives, end lockdowns—and, in doing so, save more lives—save money, restore our economy to secure future health and end any need for vaccine passports or vaccine prisons. Basic freedoms, jobs and livelihoods could be restored. Why is the government not using ivermectin as a proven, safe, affordable life saver? Feel welcome to share your answers with my office or Facebook page. Finally, I add, I have no financial interest in any drug or medical suppliers or companies.

Senate adjourned 19:36