I'm hoping that we can get some verification on this soon. I honestly wouldn't put it past them at this point; however, if it were true it would be tantamount to them trying to kill unvaccinated, while duplicitously using Ivermectin to save those who are vaccinated, for their narrative.
Hopefully this is bullshit, because that would be evil as hell. Still, I felt it important to share this so that if it does end up being revealed to be true — in a similar way to how Cuomo and New York hospitals tried covering up their forced intubation of patients early on in the pandemic — then we have proof of a whistleblower tried to warn people.
Something I don't understand: this time last year people were speaking of HCQ in these same terms. This year it's all about Ivermectin. People should be free to try these treatments and publish studies and not have governments and pharmacists ban or refuse to fill prescriptions for these medicines. But what I don't understand is why we're cycling through these treatments if they're so effective. Why don't you hear about HCQ anymore? Did it stop being effective? If so do we understand why? Why has the narrative shifted towards Ivermectin? Are there particular symptoms where one is more effective than the other? Is it an availability thing?
Incorrect. Ivermectin was being pushed last year as well. However, for $ome rea$on, people who advocate against it didn't care much about it until the vaccine was out and being shilled.
Probably because HCQ was originally smeared due to Trump recommending it but he never mentioned Ivermectin. Presently, they want to shill their vaccine so they have to eliminate any potential treatment standing in their way in order to keep their Emergency Use Authorization.
HCQ still works reasonably well. But why would HCQ be mentioned when something better was found? They're both similar types of drugs. You likely wouldn't be taking them at the same time. Ivermectin has just been shown to be much more effective through studies so far. So there's no need for them to focus on it anymore.
Ivermectin has over 60 studies, 40 of which are peer reviewed, showing that it has outstanding efficacy against Covid.
Currently, there are even several countries that are using it to great success around the world — including Japan, who has some of the strictest and most conservative standards when it comes to approving medicine.
There are two studies that say Ivermectin doesn't work. One is Roman-et-al; the other is the Chocrane analysis. The first has been shown to be a fundamentally flawed study that was conducted poorly. Since then, they've acknowledged the flaws, but for some reason haven't retracted the study, even though the flaws affected the outcome dramatically. The second one from Mexico likewise has been called out not only for bad methodology but for including outright lies in it as well. Both are under heavy scrutiny from people; however, it hasn't stopped the media from using them as if they're the Holy Grail, while completely ignoring the 60+ other positive studies.
If you haven't been paying attention, then to answer your question as to why they're not allowing prescriptions and for Doctors to recommend these drugs, the reason is simple and something I mentioned earlier: The Emergency Use Authorization — at least here.
The EUA is only valid if there are not other viable treatments available. If there are treatments, that would mean the vaccine would have to be shelved and pend proper FDA approval. Furthermore, the amount of money they're making is staggering. They can easily afford to pay off any politician, media company, Doctor, celebrity, etc. These pharmaceutical companies are getting $90 per shot. If you do the math, you can see how much that is, right?
Anyway, hope some of this helps to clear shit up for ya.
She never said anything about them letting women live and killing men.
The only thing she said is they're using Ivermectin on the vaccinated, while needlessly putting the unvaccinated on ventilators, which can cause a pulmonary edema through bacterial pneumonia. That's it. Sex was not brought up at all by anyone. Furthermore, the only ones who can order such treatments are Doctors.
Serious question: do you think the women in-group opinion is greater than the new religion in-group opinion (being vaxxed)? I can probably guess your answer but I thought I'd ask anyway.
An innate bias would be stronger than a culturally introduced bias, at least in most cases.
However, this wasn't the case when women were made the guards of Nazi camps, where the effectiveness of their conditioning that Jews were evil made their sadism towards their fellow women above and beyond what was shown by the males towards their camp inmates.
I'm hoping that we can get some verification on this soon. I honestly wouldn't put it past them at this point; however, if it were true it would be tantamount to them trying to kill unvaccinated, while duplicitously using Ivermectin to save those who are vaccinated, for their narrative.
Hopefully this is bullshit, because that would be evil as hell. Still, I felt it important to share this so that if it does end up being revealed to be true — in a similar way to how Cuomo and New York hospitals tried covering up their forced intubation of patients early on in the pandemic — then we have proof of a whistleblower tried to warn people.
Something I don't understand: this time last year people were speaking of HCQ in these same terms. This year it's all about Ivermectin. People should be free to try these treatments and publish studies and not have governments and pharmacists ban or refuse to fill prescriptions for these medicines. But what I don't understand is why we're cycling through these treatments if they're so effective. Why don't you hear about HCQ anymore? Did it stop being effective? If so do we understand why? Why has the narrative shifted towards Ivermectin? Are there particular symptoms where one is more effective than the other? Is it an availability thing?
Incorrect. Ivermectin was being pushed last year as well. However, for $ome rea$on, people who advocate against it didn't care much about it until the vaccine was out and being shilled.
Here's a video from this time last year: https://streamable.com/4v7rcn
Probably because HCQ was originally smeared due to Trump recommending it but he never mentioned Ivermectin. Presently, they want to shill their vaccine so they have to eliminate any potential treatment standing in their way in order to keep their Emergency Use Authorization.
HCQ still works reasonably well. But why would HCQ be mentioned when something better was found? They're both similar types of drugs. You likely wouldn't be taking them at the same time. Ivermectin has just been shown to be much more effective through studies so far. So there's no need for them to focus on it anymore.
Ivermectin has over 60 studies, 40 of which are peer reviewed, showing that it has outstanding efficacy against Covid.
Currently, there are even several countries that are using it to great success around the world — including Japan, who has some of the strictest and most conservative standards when it comes to approving medicine.
There are two studies that say Ivermectin doesn't work. One is Roman-et-al; the other is the Chocrane analysis. The first has been shown to be a fundamentally flawed study that was conducted poorly. Since then, they've acknowledged the flaws, but for some reason haven't retracted the study, even though the flaws affected the outcome dramatically. The second one from Mexico likewise has been called out not only for bad methodology but for including outright lies in it as well. Both are under heavy scrutiny from people; however, it hasn't stopped the media from using them as if they're the Holy Grail, while completely ignoring the 60+ other positive studies.
If you haven't been paying attention, then to answer your question as to why they're not allowing prescriptions and for Doctors to recommend these drugs, the reason is simple and something I mentioned earlier: The Emergency Use Authorization — at least here.
The EUA is only valid if there are not other viable treatments available. If there are treatments, that would mean the vaccine would have to be shelved and pend proper FDA approval. Furthermore, the amount of money they're making is staggering. They can easily afford to pay off any politician, media company, Doctor, celebrity, etc. These pharmaceutical companies are getting $90 per shot. If you do the math, you can see how much that is, right?
Anyway, hope some of this helps to clear shit up for ya.
Eating fat makes you fat, not sugar. Buy our candy bar, fattie! Meanwhile in current year...oh wait their tactic didn't change.
Cannot imagine female nurses willfully killing female patients.
Dude. I get it, you hate women. Shut the hell up about it already. I don't need a damn reminder every post. Holy shit, man.
I'm not reminding anything.
In-group bias says they won't kill their own people.
It means such a practice would be highly unlikely.
She never said anything about them letting women live and killing men.
The only thing she said is they're using Ivermectin on the vaccinated, while needlessly putting the unvaccinated on ventilators, which can cause a pulmonary edema through bacterial pneumonia. That's it. Sex was not brought up at all by anyone. Furthermore, the only ones who can order such treatments are Doctors.
And government officials apparently.
Serious question: do you think the women in-group opinion is greater than the new religion in-group opinion (being vaxxed)? I can probably guess your answer but I thought I'd ask anyway.
An innate bias would be stronger than a culturally introduced bias, at least in most cases.
However, this wasn't the case when women were made the guards of Nazi camps, where the effectiveness of their conditioning that Jews were evil made their sadism towards their fellow women above and beyond what was shown by the males towards their camp inmates.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity attacks
Comment Approved: This actually isn't an attack on women.