WuFlu - Anti Vaxxers

Will you get the Vaccine?


  • Total voters
    287
I know someone who has become an ardent anti-vaccine mouthpiece.

She has no issue in taking untested drugs from her local dealer, however.

Bit of a logic fail then. Have you pointed this out to her? Though I guess even if you did she's probably nailed her colours to the mast.
 
Ding ding ding.

Get that man a coconut.

She used to great - smart, (moderately) hot and not one to be fooled easily. Then she started practicing Yoga and Reiki...
I've noted the link between Yoga and having vaccine "issues" before.
 
There's a smattering who insist black is white but there are some otherwise intelligent types who won't mask up, won't get jabbed and strut around daring anyone to tell them otherwise, Company Policy or not.

It's bizarre.

I saw an American study whereby those with a PhD were quite polarised concerning covid. Basically you've got a bunch of people who are super intelligent in very niche areas though perhaps struggle to apply it elsewhere out with their specialist field.
 
What I find most interesting is that this strategy has continued.

I can see why Russia first leapt on it, as a new leaver to cause discord and weaken OPFOR. However. with Russia's appallingly low vaccination rates (official figures give 38%...), and the virus running rampant, it's turned into a bit of an own goal. Especially, if Vlad wants a war with Ukraine. That could get very tricky very fast. Soldiers clumped together+the cold+no vaccination+Russian logistics = loads of casualties.

There again, life is cheap in Russia.
The Russian army got vaccinated in the spring. They were easy to do, because I don't think anybody asked the soldiers if they wanted it.

Here's an article from April in which they said they were vaccinating 12,000 troops and family members per day.
Over 400,000 Russian military personnel get fully vaccinated against coronavirus

At around the same time however Ukraine was finding few willing vaccine takers in their own army.
Troops, Medics In Ukraine's War-Torn East Reject COVID-19 Vaccines

Looking at the countries as a whole, Ukraine has a bigger problem with people refusing to get vaccinated than Russia does, and they are currently dealing with much higher infection and death rates. It's a problem throughout eastern Europe for that matter, with things being pretty dire in Romania and Bulgaria for example.

So, while Russia may have tossed some anti-vaxx propaganda around, I don't think that refraining from it would have helped their own situation much. Even Germany and Austria are having problems with vaccine refuseniks, just to a lesser degree than further east.
 

SteveLancs

Old-Salt
Stand in the park (STIP) in Southend yesterday:
This guy is exactly right. Here is a US vet with his opinion and there are lots of similar anecdotes if you care to look ...
Veterinarian here. Most of the answers here are hyperbolic half truths promoted by people who have no understanding of the pharmaceutical industry nor the US regulatory agency.I have prescribed a lot of ivermectin for animals. It works great. At the correct dose it is not dangerous and the side effects are not major-FDA would not approve it if any different.

I see a lot written about ivermectin and would like to take the opportunity to give you the benefit of my knowledge on it as well as animal pharmaceuticals in general. This is just factual information and I am not advocating a person to act in one way or the other.

There are not two different pharmaceutical facilities for ivermectin or any other drug. There is not one that makes product for humans and one that makes product for animals. There is one facility and one production line. It must adhere to the highest human standard to be allowed to function by the FDA. This is the same for any antibiotic ever made. ‘Animal’ penicillin is as pure and efficacious as ‘human’ penicillin. It all comes out of the same vat. The only difference is in how it has been tested and based on that testing, approved by the FDA. That is a fact.
Ivermectin has been trialed for treating Covid. Here is a study run at an East Indian government health center that is much like our CDC. Check it out. It is one side of the coin. These are ‘empirical’ studies in that they are not held to the strictest of FDA standards to qualify as ‘proof’ of efficacy. That takes time and money.3: The problem with these studies is they are not run to the high standard that the FDA deems necessary to grant approval for use in Covid. There have to be double blind studies and research done that is expensive and time consuming. So the FDA CANNOT say anything about Ivermectin other than it is not approved for use in covid. That is not to say Ivermectin does not have a benefit, just that it has not been proven to the degree the FDA wants. So, in general, whenever the FDA says ‘This is not approved for human use under these circumstances’ it does not mean it has been tested and failed-only that it has not been tested. I could say stapling bologna to my forehead will cure covid and the FDA would be obligated to say, “Stapling bologno to your forehead is not approved as a treatment for covid.”
4. Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA for use in humans under the trade name of STROMECTAL. It has been therapeutic in treating human parasites as well as River Blindness in Africa. It is safe at the dosage that the FDA approved based on the dosage used in the trials. This approval is only for ivermectin in the form of the 3mg and 12 mg pills that were used in the trials that the FDA approved. IF you want to make a 24mg pill, it will have to go through a new clearance all its own. If the pill is approved to come in a clear glass bottle it will not be legal if the manufacturer puts it in a brown glass bottle. They are strict to the infinite.

5. Horse Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA to use on horses, as that was the animal used in the trial. FDA has approved the dosage based on the same trial, and it has approved the gel based mixture used in a syringe to deliver it to the horse via the mouth. The Ivermectin, the active ingredient, in the horse dose is the exact same active ingredient used in the human drug. It was not made in a substandard dirty facility that makes it fit only for animals. The same ivermectin powder that is pressed into a pill for approved human use is the same ivermectin that is put in a gel form for horses. There is some sugar and calcium carbonate to ‘fill out’ the pill. And there is an edible gel that ‘fills out’ the horse dose. THAT GEL AND THE IVERMECTIN IN IT ARE NOT POISON-IT IS FORMULATED TO NOT HURT A HORSE. THE PILLS ARE FORMULATED TO NOT HURT A HUMAN. YOU COULD GIVE A HORSE TEN HUMAN PILLS AND DO THE SAME JOB AS THE TUBE-AND ALTHOUGH THAT IS NOT APPROVED FOR HORSES BY THE FDA—IT WILL NOT HURT THE HORSE AND IT WILL KILL THE PARASITES. The dose per pound of weight for the horse and the person is the SAME--91 micrograms per pound. The tube of horse ivermectin will treat 1250 pounds of horse. That same amount will treat 1250 pounds of human. If a human sucked down an entire tube of ivermectinthey would be getting ten times the dose a human should.

So here is the informational bottom line. Ivermectin has been tested and approved for humans for parasite control. So there is nothing wrong or outrageous with a human taking it. Some studies seem to indicate it can be very helpful with covid prevention. The India study rated it at 85% effective. Our vaccines are 90%. Do you believe the India study? That is up to you. Do you believe ivermectin can help you avoid/lessen the chance of getting covid? That is up to you. Is the horse ivermectin product toxic to humans? FDA would not approve a toxic product for a horse so I do not believe Horse ivermectin is harmful to humans. If you overdose either horse or human ivermectin will you have side effects? Yes. Will they be the same for both products? I would bet on it as the ‘active ingredient’ is the same for both and the other ingredients, the ‘inert’ ingredients are just that- INERT- chemically inactive-not toxic to anything according to the dictionary.

So what is the big deal you may ask? It is all about regulation and profit. Ivermectin has not been tested for human use in covid because that testing is done by the manufacturer-Merck. That study would cost a lot of money to prove and convince the FDA to approve it as well as time. How would Merck recover the cost of that research and development? Well that would be profit on the sales. Only thing is Ivermectin is very cheap to make. The cost to make a dose for a human is less than a penny. The market is already flooded with dog, cat and horse ivermectin as well as the human pill. Merck would go into the red getting ivermectin approved for covid use.And if you need a little more proof about the FDA. Remember early on when the N95 masks were critically short supplied? And then it was revealed that 3M also made the ‘exact same mask’ for construction workers? And there was a shit load of them available but no one would dare authorize the doctors to use a ‘construction mask’ in treating patients for the liability involved if something happened and the masks were blamed? Do you remember how Congress had to hurry up and PASS A LAW saying anyone using the mask in this way would NOT be liable in any way, nor would 3M? The masks were exactly the same. Just approved under different labels and one was not for medical

So Merck is not pushing to do this study. And until the study is done, the drug is tied up in this no man’s land of not being able to be proven if it works or not. So, all about the Benjamins and the liability in store for any agency that would say different.Edit 1: For the purpose of argument let us assume Ivermectin IS effective to the 85% level. So one might say you have two strategies that are maybe equally effective. Which way should you go. Let’s do a little ‘pro-con’.

Ivermectin: Pro would be 85% effective you not getting the disease-at least THIS variant. Its efficacy may not be affected by new variants as it is purported to be antiviral and not virus specific. But more needs to be learned.

Con: Monthly treatment. If you are in the 15% that get covid you no different from any unvaccinated person in likelihood of hospitalization and death

Vaccine: Pro would be 90% effective with THIS variant. No monthly treatment, around the clock protection. If you are in the 10% that get it you would probably have a mild case with not hospital or death. Better chances than ivermectin group.

Con. Maybe booster needed as virus mutates.

What do I do? I took the shot. I still wear a mask. I carry ivermectin pills in my wallet in the event I would get into an unforeseen ‘high risk’ situation like trapped in a subway with a car full of coughing people. I would take a pill. Not because I irrevocably believe it to be effective, its just cheap and will not hurt me. And may save me. At my age I stack the deck in my favor as much as possible.
 
This guy is exactly right. Here is a US vet with his opinion and there are lots of similar anecdotes if you care to look ...
Veterinarian here. Most of the answers here are hyperbolic half truths promoted by people who have no understanding of the pharmaceutical industry nor the US regulatory agency.I have prescribed a lot of ivermectin for animals. It works great. At the correct dose it is not dangerous and the side effects are not major-FDA would not approve it if any different.

I see a lot written about ivermectin and would like to take the opportunity to give you the benefit of my knowledge on it as well as animal pharmaceuticals in general. This is just factual information and I am not advocating a person to act in one way or the other.

There are not two different pharmaceutical facilities for ivermectin or any other drug. There is not one that makes product for humans and one that makes product for animals. There is one facility and one production line. It must adhere to the highest human standard to be allowed to function by the FDA. This is the same for any antibiotic ever made. ‘Animal’ penicillin is as pure and efficacious as ‘human’ penicillin. It all comes out of the same vat. The only difference is in how it has been tested and based on that testing, approved by the FDA. That is a fact.
Ivermectin has been trialed for treating Covid. Here is a study run at an East Indian government health center that is much like our CDC. Check it out. It is one side of the coin. These are ‘empirical’ studies in that they are not held to the strictest of FDA standards to qualify as ‘proof’ of efficacy. That takes time and money.3: The problem with these studies is they are not run to the high standard that the FDA deems necessary to grant approval for use in Covid. There have to be double blind studies and research done that is expensive and time consuming. So the FDA CANNOT say anything about Ivermectin other than it is not approved for use in covid. That is not to say Ivermectin does not have a benefit, just that it has not been proven to the degree the FDA wants. So, in general, whenever the FDA says ‘This is not approved for human use under these circumstances’ it does not mean it has been tested and failed-only that it has not been tested. I could say stapling bologna to my forehead will cure covid and the FDA would be obligated to say, “Stapling bologno to your forehead is not approved as a treatment for covid.”
4. Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA for use in humans under the trade name of STROMECTAL. It has been therapeutic in treating human parasites as well as River Blindness in Africa. It is safe at the dosage that the FDA approved based on the dosage used in the trials. This approval is only for ivermectin in the form of the 3mg and 12 mg pills that were used in the trials that the FDA approved. IF you want to make a 24mg pill, it will have to go through a new clearance all its own. If the pill is approved to come in a clear glass bottle it will not be legal if the manufacturer puts it in a brown glass bottle. They are strict to the infinite.

5. Horse Ivermectin has been approved by the FDA to use on horses, as that was the animal used in the trial. FDA has approved the dosage based on the same trial, and it has approved the gel based mixture used in a syringe to deliver it to the horse via the mouth. The Ivermectin, the active ingredient, in the horse dose is the exact same active ingredient used in the human drug. It was not made in a substandard dirty facility that makes it fit only for animals. The same ivermectin powder that is pressed into a pill for approved human use is the same ivermectin that is put in a gel form for horses. There is some sugar and calcium carbonate to ‘fill out’ the pill. And there is an edible gel that ‘fills out’ the horse dose. THAT GEL AND THE IVERMECTIN IN IT ARE NOT POISON-IT IS FORMULATED TO NOT HURT A HORSE. THE PILLS ARE FORMULATED TO NOT HURT A HUMAN. YOU COULD GIVE A HORSE TEN HUMAN PILLS AND DO THE SAME JOB AS THE TUBE-AND ALTHOUGH THAT IS NOT APPROVED FOR HORSES BY THE FDA—IT WILL NOT HURT THE HORSE AND IT WILL KILL THE PARASITES. The dose per pound of weight for the horse and the person is the SAME--91 micrograms per pound. The tube of horse ivermectin will treat 1250 pounds of horse. That same amount will treat 1250 pounds of human. If a human sucked down an entire tube of ivermectinthey would be getting ten times the dose a human should.

So here is the informational bottom line. Ivermectin has been tested and approved for humans for parasite control. So there is nothing wrong or outrageous with a human taking it. Some studies seem to indicate it can be very helpful with covid prevention. The India study rated it at 85% effective. Our vaccines are 90%. Do you believe the India study? That is up to you. Do you believe ivermectin can help you avoid/lessen the chance of getting covid? That is up to you. Is the horse ivermectin product toxic to humans? FDA would not approve a toxic product for a horse so I do not believe Horse ivermectin is harmful to humans. If you overdose either horse or human ivermectin will you have side effects? Yes. Will they be the same for both products? I would bet on it as the ‘active ingredient’ is the same for both and the other ingredients, the ‘inert’ ingredients are just that- INERT- chemically inactive-not toxic to anything according to the dictionary.

So what is the big deal you may ask? It is all about regulation and profit. Ivermectin has not been tested for human use in covid because that testing is done by the manufacturer-Merck. That study would cost a lot of money to prove and convince the FDA to approve it as well as time. How would Merck recover the cost of that research and development? Well that would be profit on the sales. Only thing is Ivermectin is very cheap to make. The cost to make a dose for a human is less than a penny. The market is already flooded with dog, cat and horse ivermectin as well as the human pill. Merck would go into the red getting ivermectin approved for covid use.And if you need a little more proof about the FDA. Remember early on when the N95 masks were critically short supplied? And then it was revealed that 3M also made the ‘exact same mask’ for construction workers? And there was a shit load of them available but no one would dare authorize the doctors to use a ‘construction mask’ in treating patients for the liability involved if something happened and the masks were blamed? Do you remember how Congress had to hurry up and PASS A LAW saying anyone using the mask in this way would NOT be liable in any way, nor would 3M? The masks were exactly the same. Just approved under different labels and one was not for medical

So Merck is not pushing to do this study. And until the study is done, the drug is tied up in this no man’s land of not being able to be proven if it works or not. So, all about the Benjamins and the liability in store for any agency that would say different.Edit 1: For the purpose of argument let us assume Ivermectin IS effective to the 85% level. So one might say you have two strategies that are maybe equally effective. Which way should you go. Let’s do a little ‘pro-con’.

Ivermectin: Pro would be 85% effective you not getting the disease-at least THIS variant. Its efficacy may not be affected by new variants as it is purported to be antiviral and not virus specific. But more needs to be learned.

Con: Monthly treatment. If you are in the 15% that get covid you no different from any unvaccinated person in likelihood of hospitalization and death

Vaccine: Pro would be 90% effective with THIS variant. No monthly treatment, around the clock protection. If you are in the 10% that get it you would probably have a mild case with not hospital or death. Better chances than ivermectin group.

Con. Maybe booster needed as virus mutates.

What do I do? I took the shot. I still wear a mask. I carry ivermectin pills in my wallet in the event I would get into an unforeseen ‘high risk’ situation like trapped in a subway with a car full of coughing people. I would take a pill. Not because I irrevocably believe it to be effective, its just cheap and will not hurt me. And may save me. At my age I stack the deck in my favor as much as possible.

Wheres the source for this?

ETA Googling this text produced a hit on a site called "powerzone". Clicking that link takes you to a pharmaceutical sales site of some sort*. ETA2 Via a redirect of some sort.

ETA3 a possible "original" on Quora.

ETA4 * hot-pharm.com. Seems legit.
 
Last edited:

SteveLancs

Old-Salt
Oh FFS. Who forgot to lock the cage?
Over the last 75 days, Delhi has recorded less than 10 COVID-19 deaths. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh, with more than 230 million people, has recorded fewer than 20 COVID deaths in the past 60 days, while the United States, with a roughly similar population, has recorded some 87,300 deaths - more than 4,000 times as many.
Guess who is using Ivermectin.
 
Over the last 75 days, Delhi has recorded less than 10 COVID-19 deaths. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh, with more than 230 million people, has recorded fewer than 20 COVID deaths in the past 60 days, while the United States, with a roughly similar population, has recorded some 87,300 deaths - more than 4,000 times as many.
Guess who is using Ivermectin.
Give us a clue.


Ivermectin and HCQ were dropped from the clinical guidance after studies found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
Over the last 75 days, Delhi has recorded less than 10 COVID-19 deaths. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh, with more than 230 million people, has recorded fewer than 20 COVID deaths in the past 60 days, while the United States, with a roughly similar population, has recorded some 87,300 deaths - more than 4,000 times as many.
Guess who is using Ivermectin.


that's cos there is nobody left who can count and write, therefore nothing is recorded.


walks away calmly whistling
 

SteveLancs

Old-Salt
Give us a clue.


Are you guys sponsored by HMG to shout down any reference to cheap and effective treatments?
Read the statistics .. Over the last 75 days, Delhi has recorded less than 10 COVID-19 deaths. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh, with more than 230 million people, has recorded fewer than 20 COVID deaths in the past 60 days, while the United States, with a roughly similar population, has recorded some 87,300 deaths - more than 4,000 times as many.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
Are you guys sponsored by HMG to shout down any reference to cheap and effective treatments?
Read the statistics .. Over the last 75 days, Delhi has recorded less than 10 COVID-19 deaths. Likewise, Uttar Pradesh, with more than 230 million people, has recorded fewer than 20 COVID deaths in the past 60 days, while the United States, with a roughly similar population, has recorded some 87,300 deaths - more than 4,000 times as many.
Who's sponsoring you to continue repeating lies on this forum?

Read the article. The Indian Health Authorities are NOT treating Covid-19 patients with Ivermectin.
 

SteveLancs

Old-Salt
This kind of crap is what you HMG-sponsored drones come out with to avoid a discussion of whatever it may be that contradicts the idiots running the country. And those of you who support this kind of crap should bear in mind they are coming after your children next.
For those of you interested in the subject, this is who Dr Andrew Hill is.. Andrew Hill, MD | AME

“Dr. Andrew Hill gave an excited and sometimes breathless interview with French media via YouTube describing his meta-analysis of the Ivermectin data stating that Ivermectin appeared “transformative.”
The bombshell was not that Dr. Andrew Hill was a highly regarded Oxford graduate MD, PhD and marathon athlete. It was not even that Dr. Hill had done extensive work as a virologist for large pharmaceutical Goliaths like GlaxoWellcome and Roche. It was not that he was on the editorial board of AIDS and the current editor of The Journal of Antimicrobial Therapy. It did not involve the fact he ran a charity which supports children with HIV/AIDS in Thailand.
The real kicker was that Dr. Andrew Hill, senior visiting Research Fellow in the Pharmacology Department at Liverpool University, was working with UNITAID, an official arm of the WHO that received vast funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
“It appeared on its surface that Ivermectin was on the verge of obtaining an approval from the World Health Organization – something that formerly seemed impossible given the entrenched politics.
Excitedly Dr. Hill announced that if the data he found were confirmed, a WHO approval should be forthcoming by the end of March. In a further and unexpected development, the trio of Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Andrew Hill were invited to the offices of the US National Institutes of Health to give a presentation of their data on Ivermectin’s effect on COVID. This presentation, against all odds, took place on January 6, 2021, and all eyes focused on the NIH’s response.
Indeed, the NIH reacted by changing their guidelines and admitting that the trio’s data had served to update their last recommendation which was from August 27, 2020.
The FLCCC issued an official press release that read,
On January 6, 2021, Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, founding members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), appeared before the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.
“During the meeting, the FLCCC and Dr. Hill pressed the NIH to reevaluate their recommendation for ivermectin.
The doctors explained to the panel that numerous clinical studies—including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials—showed large magnitude benefits of ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together, the doctors reported that the dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.
Specifically, the FLCCC physicians and Dr. Hill presented data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients. The trial results demonstrated that ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.
“In order to save thousands who will die while waiting for their turn to receive the vaccine, it is imperative that treatment guidelines issued by the NIH over four months ago be updated to reflect the strength of the data for Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment, and late-stage disease,” said Dr. Kory, FLCCC president, following the hearing.
“How could science provide contradictory conclusions. Afterall, only lawyers and politicians are supposed to disagree about the interpretation of facts. Scientists should agree on true scientific data, especially world-class WHO scientists.
It would get even worse later when Dr. Andrew Hill suddenly became silent, and UNITAID was accused of changing his report. Later, Dr. Tess Lawrie, also a consultant to the WHO would also speak out. Eventually, it would appear that Big Pharma and Big Regulators could not possibly plug all the leaks at the same time. It seemed the Ivermectin coverup could no longer be maintained. But before the dam would burst, hundreds of thousands more lives would be lost. Ultimately lawyers would join the fight for the human right to medical treatment.”
 
This kind of crap is what you HMG-sponsored drones come out with to avoid a discussion of whatever it may be that contradicts the idiots running the country. And those of you who support this kind of crap should bear in mind they are coming after your children next.
For those of you interested in the subject, this is who Dr Andrew Hill is.. Andrew Hill, MD | AME

“Dr. Andrew Hill gave an excited and sometimes breathless interview with French media via YouTube describing his meta-analysis of the Ivermectin data stating that Ivermectin appeared “transformative.”
The bombshell was not that Dr. Andrew Hill was a highly regarded Oxford graduate MD, PhD and marathon athlete. It was not even that Dr. Hill had done extensive work as a virologist for large pharmaceutical Goliaths like GlaxoWellcome and Roche. It was not that he was on the editorial board of AIDS and the current editor of The Journal of Antimicrobial Therapy. It did not involve the fact he ran a charity which supports children with HIV/AIDS in Thailand.
The real kicker was that Dr. Andrew Hill, senior visiting Research Fellow in the Pharmacology Department at Liverpool University, was working with UNITAID, an official arm of the WHO that received vast funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
“It appeared on its surface that Ivermectin was on the verge of obtaining an approval from the World Health Organization – something that formerly seemed impossible given the entrenched politics.
Excitedly Dr. Hill announced that if the data he found were confirmed, a WHO approval should be forthcoming by the end of March. In a further and unexpected development, the trio of Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Andrew Hill were invited to the offices of the US National Institutes of Health to give a presentation of their data on Ivermectin’s effect on COVID. This presentation, against all odds, took place on January 6, 2021, and all eyes focused on the NIH’s response.
Indeed, the NIH reacted by changing their guidelines and admitting that the trio’s data had served to update their last recommendation which was from August 27, 2020.
The FLCCC issued an official press release that read,
On January 6, 2021, Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, founding members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), appeared before the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.
“During the meeting, the FLCCC and Dr. Hill pressed the NIH to reevaluate their recommendation for ivermectin.
The doctors explained to the panel that numerous clinical studies—including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials—showed large magnitude benefits of ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together, the doctors reported that the dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.
Specifically, the FLCCC physicians and Dr. Hill presented data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients. The trial results demonstrated that ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates.
“In order to save thousands who will die while waiting for their turn to receive the vaccine, it is imperative that treatment guidelines issued by the NIH over four months ago be updated to reflect the strength of the data for Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment, and late-stage disease,” said Dr. Kory, FLCCC president, following the hearing.
“How could science provide contradictory conclusions. Afterall, only lawyers and politicians are supposed to disagree about the interpretation of facts. Scientists should agree on true scientific data, especially world-class WHO scientists.
It would get even worse later when Dr. Andrew Hill suddenly became silent, and UNITAID was accused of changing his report. Later, Dr. Tess Lawrie, also a consultant to the WHO would also speak out. Eventually, it would appear that Big Pharma and Big Regulators could not possibly plug all the leaks at the same time. It seemed the Ivermectin coverup could no longer be maintained. But before the dam would burst, hundreds of thousands more lives would be lost. Ultimately lawyers would join the fight for the human right to medical treatment.”
Interesting response - LOOK A SQUIRREL!!!!
 

Latest Threads

Top