Guardian on-point in defending the status quo and the money, as usual
1 Like
Outright deceipt and derision from the Guardian, and the FDA too of course. Like it’s not a legitimate treatment, and the people advocating it just happen all to be mad.
Also they don’t point out that “animal ivermectin” isn’t safe for humans to take because of additives. Far better for the vaccine plans to scare everyone out of curing their covid.
Here is an unprovenanced explanation, that seems to make sense:
"The “pour-on” cattle ivermectin by Durvet is for external application only, it has isopropyl alcohol very dangerous/deadly, and another harmful but less deadly surfactant used in cosmetics. Probably other pour on products from other manufacturers are similar.
THERE ARE MANY VARIATIONS OF ANIMAL IVERMECTIN SOME WITH DEADLY CHEMICALS AND SOME WITH OTHER ANTI PARASITE DRUGS MIXED WITHTHE IVERMECTIN."
Link: https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/ivermectin-for-animals-is-it-the-same/
That would explain the mystery - the animal version would be dangerous to the animals as well, if given internallty.
2 Likes
Hi folks, I wonder how many humans have been taking ivermectin since it arrived in the 1970’s - it must be 10s if not 100s of millions given that it has been recognised as the best mass treatment available to deal with parasites:
I don’t recall the FDA stopping its sale or the Grauniad leaping to protect us from it over the last 50 years!
I’m sorry I can’t bring myself to open up the Grauniad again this week, I already dipped my toe into the Independent so I’m stepping back.
cheers
2 Likes
Can’t seem to find it on Dump-the-Fraud. Not about to give them a click.
WHO document that has been in place since 2004:
Mass treatment with ivermectin: an underutilized public health strategy
Rick Speare (1) & David Durrheim (1)
(A message that does not sound a bit like the drug is for horses)
Can be googled but the page disappears afer a few seconds, with a message saying the WHO site has been ‘revamped’.
Now, the document does not come up at all if you search in the WHO website.
The Wayback Machine (a web archive) shows that a page featuring this document has been in place on the WHO site for 17 years, and was there up to Aug 20.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210414170044/https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/editorial30804html/en/
https://web.archive.org/web/20050306180710/http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/editorial30804html/en
Even there you have to be quick to grab it as it also disappears even on this archive.
So it only very recently disappeared.
It may be relevant that today the US approved the Pfizer vaccine.
2 Likes
Very sad day for the World - this probably means the end of all legal actions in the US against employers mandating the jab. Its obviously the nadir of democracy suffering the zenith of bureaucratic corruption. Mind you I think Del Bigtree has a point ( see the Texas rally on the latest Highwire report 3hrs 17mins in) if millions of americans are refusing 2 jabs there are going to be even more refusing boosters and children jabs, this is not going to end happily for some people.
cheers
1 Like
Hi @Evvy_dense , thanks for the link , it’s ironic that the authors were from James Cook University, Townsville Queensland, AUSTRALIA!
cheers
No. Nor does “…this most valuable drug”. But hey, the science changed.
Thinking (I use the term loosely) aloud: if certain medicinal compounds were demonstrably effective against parasitic infections, and Covid, would that be a clue that the latter has a firm origin in “they poisoned the well” chemical warfare?
Nice work evvy. Not so sure about the pfizer clotshot approval though:
1 Like
Thanks Alan. What a good find. Teach me for posting something I’d seen in the mainstream media.
Sounds like the media didn’t want to know the details about the ‘full approval’ as they were happy with the distorted version.
It looks like this ruse is being used to pull a fast one regarding vaccine mandates:
“On Monday a Pentagon spokesman said: “Now that the Pfizer vaccine has been approved, the Department [of Defense] is prepared to issue updated guidance requiring all service members to be vaccinated.”
In New York, city authorities announced that all public school teachers and other staffers will have to get vaccinated.”
(Where’s the Fake News warning?)
If I’ve got it right, a huge amount of old Pfizer vaccine (identical to New Pfizer, except legally) is around, legally designated as authorised only under EUA. That can’t be mandated by the state as it would breach conditions of the EUA. But it sounds like this distinction is going to be ignored. Happily for Pfizer who keep their immunity meantime.
I found this document detailing the points of Robert Malone and others:
“Along with the license comes liability for the manufacturer”
“But they need the EUA to evade liability.
Along with the license comes liability for the manufacturer. (While all EUA
products were given a liability shield.)”
Was lucky to find it - the media narrative about approval dominates searches - but I put in something Malone said on the video and it came up!