136
Comments (21)
sorted by:
36
spaceforceltc 36 points ago +36 / -0

FTA: "Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of COVID-19 infection throughout the community."

I actually believe that the ineffective vaccines have been doing precisely what they claim Ivermectin will do. People who have gotten the injections have a false sense of security from the false belief that they are immune. The result of that is that they have actually become super-spreaders.

Therefore, we should ban these ineffective vaccines...

24
Ricky_CIA 24 points ago +24 / -0

"Leaky" vaccines are a nightmare scenario that we're living out in real time.

21
Ricwulf 21 points ago +21 / -0

The irony is that asymptomatic spread was largely a myth. Research indicated very low numbers of such thing, well below 5% IIRC.

However, the vaccines don't significantly reduce viral load. As a result, pathogen shedding can occur for those that have little to no symptoms and as a result actually spread the disease while believing themselves to not be sick.

They literally created asymptomatic spread for a disease that didn't have it.

Oh, and on top of that, in nations like Australia, it's only the vaccinated that are going to be allowed out. I'm waiting for a major outbreak to occur and for them to blame the unvaccinated when this is precisely their own doing.

13
ZeroPercentCamoIndex 13 points ago +13 / -0

I actually believe that the ineffective vaccines have been doing precisely what they claim Ivermectin will do. People who have gotten the injections have a false sense of security from the false belief that they are immune. The result of that is that they have actually become super-spreaders.

Jackpot. I've been thinking this since the vaccine rollout really started gaining speed. Vaccinated people are, what, 50-60% less likely to get infected according to the stats I'm seeing? But anecdotally speaking they're about 1000% more likely to get in my personal physical space and bumble around without a care, compared to this time last year. The vaccines have given these people a magic talisman against the virus in their minds. The MSM encourages them to ignore any doubts regarding the vaccines and to feel good about themselves for not listening to the nasty Ivermectin cultists - they did everything they were asked to do by the new authoritarian moral order, so it's life as normal for them now, nothing to worry about.

I as a cautious unvaccinated individual am presenting way less of an infection risk than the average vaccinated person I encounter out in public these days.

11
weezkitty 11 points ago +11 / -0

Although to be fair, unless you're very old or morbidly obese, your danger of being hospitalized or dying from COVID is still pretty low.

32
ApparentlyImAHeretic 32 points ago +32 / -0

banning lifesaving treatment so that the only option is a preventative treatment that is not 100% effective. This has to violate some sort of international law.

13
Ricwulf 13 points ago +13 / -0

We passed that a while ago with Dan Andrews wanting to deny healthcare.

And frankly, I don't know why we would rely on international law like any of the international courts are any better.

8
covok48 8 points ago +8 / -0

I don’t think international law really matters anymore.

3
JuliasEbola00 3 points ago +3 / -0

It never really did. It's only has relevancy if people in state power want to prosecute other people who were in power within said state. It's not like the UN can just arrive into Aus and take the law breaches to The Hauge.

6
NoDelivery 6 points ago +6 / -0

This has to violate some sort of international law.

Of course it does, but without the threat of violence, they can do whatever they want. I've said it a million times; if thousands of cops, and a dozen politicians get brutally killed on TV, it's over instantly. Killing people has worked since the dawn of humanity. There's literally nothing anyone can do once they get blown away. Judge screws you over? Kill him, you win. Cops want to arrest you? Blam-O, officer Dick, and Shit get buried by their buddies. It's been the de-facto solution since Uncle Caveman bashed some loser's head in with a rock. Not having to kill savages constantly effectively ended us.

2
Hyponoeo 2 points ago +2 / -0

As sad as it is, this really is why so often the judges and lawmakers always do is because when they all just decide to take away our rights... everyone just goes "oh ok" and moves on and never demands that it be changed.

I mean that is why the gun rights are so important, not just for hunting and whatever [I know I am just preaching to the choir here] but because it is a threat to an oppressive government. Problem is, it really isn't anymore because no one has a backbone to actually stand up and care when their rights are trickled away, or if someone does do something, he just gets condemned as a terrorist and everyone considers hime vil. Look I would prefer no violence myself but that is literally the point of gun rights to be a threat to a government that oppresses.

17
Six_z3r0 17 points ago +17 / -0

"Our bois can't make money off it, so get fucked, sorry to hear."

10
makazolesub 10 points ago +10 / -0

Is Australia trying to cause riots by being so honest about the globalist agenda??

13
Ricwulf 13 points ago +14 / -1

You're insane if you think Australians aren't one of if not the most compliant populations out there.

11
TheJakeFroggy 11 points ago +11 / -0

If the government told Australians to literally go hang themselves with nooses, they'd probably do it, is what it sounds like.

7
Ricwulf 7 points ago +7 / -0

You'd probably get more resistance then.

The issue is that Australians are compliant when it doesn't interfere in their way. Getting a paid for vaccine to open shit up? Absolutely! Another booster shot you say? Why not!

The only time Australians even consider doing something is when it threatens their comfort and placated lives, and if there is an easier option like bending the knee, they'll simply bend the knee.

Once this shit starts to hit here, primarily in regards to economics and welfare drying up (including paid for booster shots), you'll see everyone saying they were always against this shit and that it was always evil and this and that because it's comfortable to think you were always on the winning side.

It's going to get bad in Australia, and I mean Cuba bad where it's just rampant poverty and a lack of goods, all while everything gets more expensive.

What's worse is that most people against this shit are just going to vote for The Other Party™ as if that will solve anything. Because this isn't a partisan situation, both parties are saying the same thing. The veil of partisanship in Australia has dropped, and nobody here has noticed, they just keep blaming the Liberals (our not left party) while defending Labour.

7
Unknownsailor 7 points ago +7 / -0

AFAIAC the debate over Ivermectin is now over.

Uttar Pradesh state of India, with 241 million people, has 199 active cases. 33 Districts declared COVID free.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html

Uttar Pradesh led India in its use and has done even better than Delhi because they use Ivermectin early and preventatively.

"Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that NONE OF THEM developed COVID-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus," Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

Uttar Pradesh has a policy of treating ALL the contacts of an infected patient prophylactically with Ivermectin. In other words, in Uttar Pradesh, everyone in the house gets Ivermectin treatment even if only one is infected. Ivermectin is known to reduce mortality in infected and dramatically lowers the viral load, thereby helping reduce the spread of the virus to others.

3
throwawayaccount2037 3 points ago +3 / -0

People should save and share this anytime someone spouts the MSM's nonsense about it not working.

5
MegoThor 5 points ago +5 / -0

You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it!

4
blyat56 4 points ago +4 / -0

"We're banning a thing that can save you today because you didn't get this other thing three months ago."

Do you really need any more evidence that the shot has nothing to do with covid?

3
makazolesub 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is Australia trying to cause riots by being so honest about the globalist agenda??