User Rating: 5 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar Active

There are usually two sides to any proposition, and when interested parties line up behind one or t’other, very vigorous debate, carried on in an atmosphere of varying degrees of politeness and consideration, generally ensues.

So it has been on the battleground of man made global warming, more recently referred to as Climate Change when it looked as if things might actually be cooling. So it is now with the vexed question of “the jab” … to have or not to have. Hamlet is not alone in consideration of this thorny, perhaps spiky issue. 

Participants in the debate have gathered behind one of two banners … the pro vaxxers or the anti vaxxers. This is not strictly accurate however, as many, perhaps the majority, of those classified as anti vaxxers are actually in favour of vaccination, and have themselves over the years been the happy recipients of a whole range of needles from triple antigen to Salk or Sabin, smallpox, MMR, pneumovax and others.

tweedledum and tweedledee

These were considered to be well established and thoroughly tested and proven and so were well accepted. The problem for the anti vaxxers was the composition of the jab, which it now seems to be freely admitted does not prevent the " jabee" from getting Covid, or from passing it on, although it does seem to lessen the severity of the condition. Another factor to consider is most important, and it is that a large and increasing number of reports from seemingly reliable sources indicates that significantly serious adverse reactions are occurring which should call for a pause in the vaccination program.

Help us cover our monthly costs

$ 375 $ 500
3 days left,  75% Completed

 So what then? Just let it all go and hope for the best? Such a dangerous path is one on which it is not necessary to tread, as a tried and proven, safe, readily available, low cost, easily administered and almost 100% effective solution is low hanging succulent fruit just waiting to be plucked … Thomas Borody’s Ivermectin prescription has achieved success in other countries and could well be put into effect in this country immediately.


But it hasn’t been. Nor has it been exhaustively considered and all pros and cons debated apparently. Further, the drug itself, which is available on prescription has been banned in some states. It has been approved for use in hospitals, intravenously and under specialist control. but the most encouraging results have been when it is taken in the early stages of infection according to Thomas Borody’s formula and dosage rates, but it seems that this is denied to Australian citizens.


from September 2020

" In the second part of our interview with the esteemed Professor Thomas Borody from Australia, we discuss the question of ethical clinical trials, the progress in Australia with the Ivermectin-based tri-therapy he recommends for COVID-19, the role of State and federal authorities. The interview also includes a message to Canada and other countries that deny early treatment to the population and the critical importance of the doctor patient relationship and the right for medical doctors to prescribe off-label. It’s important to realize that Professor Borody’s stance is contrary to the mainstream when it comes to therapeutics for COVID-19. Instead of telling people to go home and wait, when they are infected with the virus, his message is to get early treatment, to prevent the development of the disease. It’s a similar approach, yet with different drugs, to what has been recommended since March by Dr Vladimir Zelenko, Professor Didier Raoult and others. Another aspect of his message that differs from many other researchers is that he insists randomized trials are not the gospel and should actually be implemented only in very specific conditions, which are typically not met for COVID-19."


tweedledum quote helen keller

A well known saying of very popular TV star Professor Julius Sumner Miller was “why is it so?” Well may we ask, as we all should feel entitled to have it explained by those in authority who have denied us the right to what appears to be a valuable resource.

It seems to me that one of two things will prove to be correct … the pro vaxxers will prove to be correct and the jab will be shown to be safe and effective and devoid of any nasty side effects in which case all anti vaxxers will eat humble pie for a week and proceed to Plan B which is to line up red-faced for the jab … alternatively anti vaxxers will prove to be correct in which case for pro vaxxers there will be no Plan B, the die is cast, the deed is done.

There may be some hope though in such a case, as I understand that work is being hastily done on a procedure to administer to all " jabees " a treatment that will remove dangerous elements from their system. If this is correct it is sincerely to be hoped that it is soon developed.

However, I cast my mind back to the days when Umble Pie was on the menu for many poor people. Umble Pie was a dish made of the offal of a deer and popular among the poorer people of the world back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. 

 While some of us may be eating Humble Pie, I must ask myself will we ALL be eating Umble Pie?

Perhaps the best types of food are always the simplest and that is certainly the case with the umble pie. Though not necessarily always the most palatable. 

I have a feeling that the humble pie will be the least of our worries. Because I think we might all be getting a hearty serving of pot luck.





Clear filters