Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

186. Regarding Ivermectin, is this the first time in Australian history that the Federal Government has instructed the withdrawal of a medicine in the context of a public health emergency? 187. What evidence was there that taking Ivermectin could be a risk to the community either directly, or indirectly by discouraging vaccination. Given vaccination doesn’t stop transmission how was taking Ivermectin a threat to others? 188. What evidence was considered by the committee when recommending that Ivermectin was a risk to individual patient health. Did the Committee and Minister review any evidence of death or injury through inappropriate use of Ivermectin? I note Dr Skerritt stated 12mg was an unsafe dose in a previous conversation yet the sponsors of the drug have claimed that one off does of 120mg and 30,60 and 90mg doses on day 1, day 4 and day 7 are safe.

Answer:

Question Number: 194
PDR Number: SQ22-000564
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

Question 186 There was no ‘withdrawal of ivermectin”; the decision to instruct restrictions on off-label prescribing was made by a delegate of the Secretary of Health and Aged Care on the strong advice of the Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling. Prescribing of ivermectin is not banned, and it has not been withdrawn from use, in Australia. General practitioners (GPs) can prescribe ivermectin, but only for approved indications, which are the treatment of scabies and certain parasitic infections. Ivermectin can also be prescribed for unapproved indications, such as the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, however such off-label prescribing must be under the supervision of an appropriate specialist clinician, for example, an infectious diseases specialist. The restrictions do not prevent use of ivermectin for COVID-19 as part of a clinical trial approved by, or notified to, the TGA under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. There are approximately 30 substances for which medicines containing those substances cannot be prescribed by GPs but only by either a particular type of specialist or by medical practitioners who have express permission from the Secretary of their State or Territory Department of Health. Safety-based restrictions on GP prescribing through medicines scheduling have been part of the health regulatory landscape for many years.

Question 187 Most medicines when consumed at high enough amounts can be toxic. The dosage, drug form, frequency of the dose, patient age, the condition/s being treated, severity of the condition/s, and other medications being taken by the patient are all factors that are taken into account in determining the potential risks from consuming a medicine and whether this is outweighed by the benefits. The ivermectin oral tablet is approved for short-term treatment of specific conditions in which the benefits outweigh the risks. However, the prescribing of ivermectin for unapproved indications, dosages, and frequencies should be overseen by an appropriate medical specialist who can assess the relative benefits and risks for the particular patient. Oral ivermectin has the potential to cause severe adverse events, particularly when taken in the high doses that have recently been described in social media and other sources for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 infection.

Potential adverse events from ivermectin include:
• severe skin reactions accompanied by fever, chills and aching muscles
• severe blisters and bleeding in the lips, eyes, mouth, nose and genitals
• worsening asthma
• swelling of the face, legs, ankles and feet
• nausea and vomiting
• dizziness
• seizures, and
• coma.

The Product Information document for approved indications of Ivermectin emphasises that interactions between ivermectin and other drugs have not been studied in clinical trials. This is particularly relevant to some of the treatment protocols that advocates for ivermectin use in COVID-19 have promoted. In these protocols patients received various concomitant medications (e.g. doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, corticosteroids) in addition to ivermectin. These other medicines can potentially increase the ivermectin levels in the body by affecting the body’s metabolism. The ivermectin dosing schedules promoted for use in COVID-19 are not one-off doses, and are almost always higher in total dose administered than those used for treatment of parasites. While the ivermectin dose for the treatment of parasites is 3–15 mg depending on the patient’s body weight and the parasite, only a single dose of ivermectin is usually required for parasites such as onchocerciasis or strongyloidiasis while for scabies two doses are given one or two weeks apart. In contrast, the COVID-19 treatment protocols proposed doses of 12 mg (irrespective of body weight) on five consecutive days. While the 2013 Australian Public Assessment Report on ivermectin mentions administering three doses of 60, 90 and 120 mg on different days as part of clinical trials, this does not translate to a recommended dose for therapy. The focus of safety studies in these dosing trials was also more narrowly on potential central nervous system side effects. Furthermore, these doses were given to healthy young adult males who are not reflective of the majority of people who may be ill with, or seeking prophylaxis for, COVID-19.

The Database of Adverse Event Notifications includes five reports of fatal outcomes in patients taking ivermectin. Some of the medical studies on deaths following higher doses of ivermectin as well as media reports on deaths following attempts to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are below:
• www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)62668-2/fulltext
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9186403/
• www.ft.com/content/9715bd16-bcb2-4bfc-bbd9-b7316d787698, and
• www.kiro7.com/news/trending/coronavirus-2-deaths-linked-ivermectin-new-mexicoofficials-say/5SZ55BRSFRDGTLJZ7ODKGZP6XI/

People who have been prescribed ivermectin may believe themselves to be protected from COVID-19 resulting in them not getting vaccinated or tested, or seeking appropriate medical care if they developed symptoms. In addition, there is significant published evidence indicating that particularly for the COVID-19 variants circulating in early-mid 2021, vaccines did have a positive impact on transmission.

Question 188 The Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling recommended restrictions to GP prescribing of ivermectin in response to increases in off-label prescribing for COVID-19 that posed a significant public health risk, having considered the above evidence. The potential for ivermectin to cause severe adverse events in the high dosage levels reported as being used for the treatment of COVID-19 was one aspect of the risk. Merck publicly confirmed on 4 February 2021 that to date, there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies, no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies (available at: www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19- pandemic/).

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

LATEST QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

THE ISSUES

Click on an interest area to read articles and learn more about the work I am doing in Parliament.

Taxation, Finance & Economy

READ MORE

Education & Family

READ MORE

Energy

READ MORE

Environment

READ MORE

Health, Aged Care & Seniors

READ MORE

Primary Industries

READ MORE

Immigration & Foreign Affairs

READ MORE

Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism

READ MORE

Defence

READ MORE

Federation Reform

READ MORE

I may get kicked off social media soon for speaking too much truth so please join my mailing list so we can always stay in touch...

Thank you,

Gerard