Was the government wrong to ban Iverm... [opinionpolls 9470.1]

Msg 1 of 7

Staff

Poll Question From WALTER784

Sep-18

Was the government wrong to ban Ivermectin? (See post below.)

Yes. It's morally wrong0 votes
0%
Yes. It's medically wrong2 votes
15%
Yes. It's pharmaceutically wrong0 votes
0%
Yes. It's politically wrong0 votes
0%
Combination of 2 of the above0 votes
0%
Combination of 3 of the above2 votes
15%
All 4 of the above9 votes
69%
No, they weren't wrong0 votes
0%
Other (Please explain)0 votes
0%

Change Vote

Yes. It's morally wrong

Yes. It's medically wrong

Yes. It's pharmaceutically wrong

Yes. It's politically wrong

Combination of 2 of the above

Combination of 3 of the above

All 4 of the above

No, they weren't wrong

Other (Please explain)

Vote View Results

Reply

Msg 2 of 7

In reply toRe: msg 1

Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-18

The real reason the government panned ivermectin

By Maker S. Mark
September 7, 2023

During COVID, there were allegedly no treatments available, according to the FDA and CDC. Even through a number of front-line doctors were having success with ivermectin and HCQ, the CDC and FDA put real barriers in place for working doctors to utilize those treatments. Many doctors were threatened with losing their license if they continued to treat patients, and some doctors were fired.

As the dust has begun to settle, there is a legal issue that might explain the lack of curiosity about a potential cheap treatment for COVID. If there had been a treatment for COVID, then the Emergency Use Authorization could not be used for the vaccine. Explained here very well, "Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism used by the FDA to facilitate making products available quickly during a public health emergency, when there is no other adequate and approved medical product available."

Well, an interesting development occurred when doctors sued the FDA for interfering in their off-label use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. The FDA has now tried to argue that it never told anyone not to use it. It just made fun of people for considering using it.

I believe that the people running the FDA have misrepresented the pressures applied to doctors and pharmacists not to prescribe this and help people.

And we are also learning that FDA and CDC had plenty of warning that the so-called vaccines were dangerous, information they completely hid and ignored.

This is all a setup for a few thoughts.

1) An international study has concluded that ivermectin prevented more serious illness in approximately 62% of cases. See the Gateway Pundit article referenced above, and find this fabulous line: "There have now been 99 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% improvement in COVID patients." Think of the number of ventilator hours saved, and the number of hospital beds that could have been freed up with even a 50% effective rate.

2) Ivermectin was been approved for human use since 1996. At the start of the pandemic, we had 24 years of data on ivermectin. In addition, if you review the emails being sent to Dr. Fauci, as early as January 2020, international doctors were describing treatment success with ivermectin and HCQ. Instead, we had to have an expensive drug for treatment with little to no data. How many human data are in the public sphere about Remdesivir and the so-called vaccines? (Hint: It is nearly zero).

3) Can informed consent for a treatment actually be given if there is no public information available to make the informed consent? We are still waiting on detailed knowledge of Remdesivir and the so-called vaccines. This was a major failing of the courts in my humble opinion.

4) Would we have needed to lock down anything (except to protect the most vulnerable) with the knowledge that a treatment existed and was able to make the risk more manageable for nearly everyone?

5) Remdesivir was quite literally killing people as they were used as test subjects with no friend or family allowed to speak for them. This seemed like a risky treatment that did more harm than good.

6) If there was a conspiracy to defraud the American people about ivermectin, and if it is a treatment with substantial benefits, is the Emergency Use Authorization actually valid? And can people sue the drug-makers over the harm they have endured?

7) Who was working to hide the truth and why? Was it just about money for a new vaccine that could generate no-risk returns for Big Pharma?

Congress and the Judicial Branch failed the American people at every turn. Instead of some skepticism of the claims being made, many judges accepted assertions from Dr. Fauci and others as actual facts. In several Supreme Court hearings, justices quoted the talking points in the briefs rather than the actual facts. Congressional oversight has been nonexistent, and they are already preparing to do this to us again.

Why should you care, and why should we answer question #6? The vaccine was improperly approved. It is not a vaccine, and it is hurting people even now. Also, the vaccines do not work. Because the FDA and CDC claimed that no treatment was available, they were able to approve the vaccine under emergency use authorization — removing all risk from Big Pharma. And no one can sue anyone over it because it was approved for an Emergency Use Authorization. Is it poss

...[Message truncated]

View Full Message

Reply

Msg 3 of 7 to WALTER784WALTER784

In reply toRe: msg 2

Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-18

It was cheap and effective and some people in charge didn’t want that. It’s not very complicated.

Reply

Msg 4 of 7 to Showtalkshowtalk

In reply toRe: msg 3

Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-18

The stickler was that if Ivermectin would have been approved, it would have worked... which meant that Ivermectin would have been a viable alternative to the EUA approved jabs and thus the jabs would not have had to be used.

That's why they banned it!

They needed to push the EUA jabs out to worsen the panic rather than issue Ivermectin which would have calmed everything down and there would have been no panic!

Approving Ivermectin would have also lost all the big pharma millions or billions of dollars too.

FWIW

Reply

Msg 5 of 7 to WALTER784WALTER784

In reply toRe: msg 4

Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-18

But they didn’t need to create shots in the first place. Scientist all know there isn’t a shot for every disease. Otherwise there would be a cancer vaccine and no one would ever get cancer again.

Reply

Msg 6 of 7 to Showtalkshowtalk

In reply toRe: msg 5

Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-18

Then what would they use instead to push their fear mongering to cause massive mail in ballots to be used in both 2020 and 2022?

Bottom line: It was political corruption that caused them to condemn a very effective drug which could have been used and forced their mandated EUA only jabs! It was solely a power grab!

FWIW