Bravo. Have noted Steve Kirsch is suing the journal Springer Nature for the unethical retraction of their paper, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.” Now for pushback against the war on repurposed drugs supported by these nonsensical ‘studies’.
I do wonder how people like Chris butler sleep at night. I emailed him and told him this as well as asking a few obvious questions. It sickens me that rogue “professors” get away with shoddy science. Sadly, we have seen it all before. Get your ivermectin, keep it in your medicine cabinet and by all means use it when needed. Thanks Chris you reinforced my trust in ivermectin and in all the brave scientists, researchers, data analysts, legal experts who have but their reputations on the line to find humanity an affordable and safe treatment for covid. You sir did the opposite, shame on you!
On the plus side "The War on Ivermectin" (his book title) awakened Dr. Pierre Kory to what was already going on in medicine and he is now a fierce warrior for medical honesty. Recommended gift for all the medicos in your life.
A testament for figures don't lie, but liars figure. Data obfuscation is a pharma practiced art. Poster child drugs are not tested against true placebos like saline. They are tested against a different drug known to be ineffective. Pharma then claims the poster child drug to be 95% more effective in those who took it when compared to those that did not take it - - - legally. They use RRR, ( Relative Risk Reduction ), results, as opposed to ARR, ( Absolute Risk Reduction ).. RRR is meaningless, while ARR is the real deal. ARR is never cited because they would never sell product. These are a precious few of
many examples. The cheating and lying is much more prevalent and much more sophisticated. It is true than some very beneficial drugs have been created. "Vaccines" are not among them. Pfizer and Moderna are both repeat convicted felons. Can you imagine any reason to be cautious of a "vaccine" created by them ? Particularly when they enjoy liability immunity for "vaccines".
There is no such thing as Covid-19 as a unique disease. It's a global operation and the largest racketeering campaign in history.
It’s imperative that people stop ceding ground to fascists by reifying the Big Lie that "Covid" is a unique disease and that it is responsible for a global pandemic.
This only fortifies the narrative by implying that any extra-ordinary response was ever necessary, that a single one of their “public health” diktats was legitimate.
This has never had anything to do with what is nothing more than a computer-generated genome falsely attributed to a novel pathogen. It is a global conspiracy by the world's transnational ruling class which was planned out and war-gamed at the WEF, the central bankers summit in Jackson Hole, and at Event 201.
There is not and never was any need for Ivermectin or any other such "early treatment" for this fictional "disease." All such talk is a distraction from the reality of what happened in Spring 2020 and the reality of the transnational operation that is COVID-19.
The fabrication of a controversy over "early treatments" from the start of the operation is intended to invent parallel narratives and stop all other narratives from getting out of the gate.
Installing the controversy on how to "treat" this alleged "new disease" served to concretize the narrative that a "novel disease" existed and that the "novel pathogen" which caused this disease was in fact a real problem requiring political and medical measures rather than an invented control narrative.
This phony world of Potemkin logic assured that no one would bother to check the "truth of the fact"- had a new disease in fact appeared and was there proof of this novel pathogen?
This leads us to two competing thesis:
1) A serious new disease has arrived against which we have no medical defense until the savior vaccine arrives;
2) A serious new disease has arrived that one could, and could have, treat(ed) were it not for the underhanded efforts by the authorities who brought us thesis #1.
That thesis #2 has been seized upon and catapulted by individuals who are then portrayed as "rogue anti-establishment doctors" and administrative types who quickly become the face of the "health freedom movement" seems to be more than an unlikely coincidence.
This dynamic serves to disallow and/or marginalize alternative theories and mutes the abundant evidence that there was in fact no new pathogen of any sort.
A quote:
It was a question of making the idea of the imaginary disease exist even in the mind of the recalcitrant portion of the population, by providing them with the protest rattles that they could wave at their leisure - the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of ivermectin, the ineffectiveness of masks, the ineffectiveness of " vaccines."
We thus showed that we were treating the imaginary disease with exactly the same method as that which had made it possible to establish its existence, making the posthumous pride of Monsieur de Münchhausen.to have been able to inspire so much beautiful science.
The accepted medical science of "early treatments" of a non-existent disease rests on the same foundation as the invention of this non-existent disease. Therefore it too is invalid.
The authors of the "official" government narrative- thesis #1- and those of the alternative "health freedom" narrative- thesis #2- are, in the end, likely to become "strange bedfellows" and not real adversaries under these conditions, as both validate the imaginary disease by different means.
Thus it is hard to imagine that we arrive at a place much different, if these are to be the "accepted" and "hotly contested" narratives, regardless of which of the 2 theses "wins the day."
Chris Butler sleeps at night like a baby because he has zero integrity. And I hope Chris Butler and others of his ilk see this. Knowing we understand them may wake up one or two of them.
The double bluff on Ivermectin is remarkable. They suppressed IVM because they knew that would only draw more people to it (Boomerang effect).
This is a drug that is deleterious to male and female reproduction and has been given out to the most impoverished nations in the billions to reduce human population. There's a reason it's been given out for free.
How was the diagnosis of Covid 19 made ? PCR ? A corrupt dishonest , useless , overcycled test . Unless you can make a definitive diagnosis of a condition everything else is not relevant and ridiculous .
The “test” for Covid is an analytical molecular lab procedure “PCR” which has no diagnostic value and has never been clinically validated. The one time PCR was widely used in 2006 at Dartmouth Hitchcock hospital it produced 100% false positives for Pertussis. I’m not sure what Ivermectin is treating since cases of “Covid” are not really confirmed by any test.
I am not trying to be obtuse as I do not have any science training :)
“..The molnupirair study focused on either older people (more likely to get sick), or people with comorbidities (more likely to get sick), whilst the Ivermectin population were just healthy people from 18 up. Why? Well, sick people benefit more from interventions than healthy people..”
Any interventions with younger, healthier cohorts would dilute the supposed “benefits”.
So how does a sicker, older person, benefit more? when their response would not be as rapid or beneficial as a younger, healthier person?
Surely, the only way to test this was a placebo arm in both younger and older cohorts?
Bravo. Have noted Steve Kirsch is suing the journal Springer Nature for the unethical retraction of their paper, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.” Now for pushback against the war on repurposed drugs supported by these nonsensical ‘studies’.
I do wonder how people like Chris butler sleep at night. I emailed him and told him this as well as asking a few obvious questions. It sickens me that rogue “professors” get away with shoddy science. Sadly, we have seen it all before. Get your ivermectin, keep it in your medicine cabinet and by all means use it when needed. Thanks Chris you reinforced my trust in ivermectin and in all the brave scientists, researchers, data analysts, legal experts who have but their reputations on the line to find humanity an affordable and safe treatment for covid. You sir did the opposite, shame on you!
On the plus side "The War on Ivermectin" (his book title) awakened Dr. Pierre Kory to what was already going on in medicine and he is now a fierce warrior for medical honesty. Recommended gift for all the medicos in your life.
The journals and researchers are all biased, they are mostly all conflicted by numerous interests so you cannot trust any study.
A testament for figures don't lie, but liars figure. Data obfuscation is a pharma practiced art. Poster child drugs are not tested against true placebos like saline. They are tested against a different drug known to be ineffective. Pharma then claims the poster child drug to be 95% more effective in those who took it when compared to those that did not take it - - - legally. They use RRR, ( Relative Risk Reduction ), results, as opposed to ARR, ( Absolute Risk Reduction ).. RRR is meaningless, while ARR is the real deal. ARR is never cited because they would never sell product. These are a precious few of
many examples. The cheating and lying is much more prevalent and much more sophisticated. It is true than some very beneficial drugs have been created. "Vaccines" are not among them. Pfizer and Moderna are both repeat convicted felons. Can you imagine any reason to be cautious of a "vaccine" created by them ? Particularly when they enjoy liability immunity for "vaccines".
The other tactic they use is to use the adjuvants of a vaccine as the placebo in double blind drug trials.
There is no such thing as Covid-19 as a unique disease. It's a global operation and the largest racketeering campaign in history.
It’s imperative that people stop ceding ground to fascists by reifying the Big Lie that "Covid" is a unique disease and that it is responsible for a global pandemic.
This only fortifies the narrative by implying that any extra-ordinary response was ever necessary, that a single one of their “public health” diktats was legitimate.
This has never had anything to do with what is nothing more than a computer-generated genome falsely attributed to a novel pathogen. It is a global conspiracy by the world's transnational ruling class which was planned out and war-gamed at the WEF, the central bankers summit in Jackson Hole, and at Event 201.
There is not and never was any need for Ivermectin or any other such "early treatment" for this fictional "disease." All such talk is a distraction from the reality of what happened in Spring 2020 and the reality of the transnational operation that is COVID-19.
The fabrication of a controversy over "early treatments" from the start of the operation is intended to invent parallel narratives and stop all other narratives from getting out of the gate.
Installing the controversy on how to "treat" this alleged "new disease" served to concretize the narrative that a "novel disease" existed and that the "novel pathogen" which caused this disease was in fact a real problem requiring political and medical measures rather than an invented control narrative.
This phony world of Potemkin logic assured that no one would bother to check the "truth of the fact"- had a new disease in fact appeared and was there proof of this novel pathogen?
This leads us to two competing thesis:
1) A serious new disease has arrived against which we have no medical defense until the savior vaccine arrives;
2) A serious new disease has arrived that one could, and could have, treat(ed) were it not for the underhanded efforts by the authorities who brought us thesis #1.
That thesis #2 has been seized upon and catapulted by individuals who are then portrayed as "rogue anti-establishment doctors" and administrative types who quickly become the face of the "health freedom movement" seems to be more than an unlikely coincidence.
This dynamic serves to disallow and/or marginalize alternative theories and mutes the abundant evidence that there was in fact no new pathogen of any sort.
A quote:
It was a question of making the idea of the imaginary disease exist even in the mind of the recalcitrant portion of the population, by providing them with the protest rattles that they could wave at their leisure - the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, the effectiveness of ivermectin, the ineffectiveness of masks, the ineffectiveness of " vaccines."
We thus showed that we were treating the imaginary disease with exactly the same method as that which had made it possible to establish its existence, making the posthumous pride of Monsieur de Münchhausen.to have been able to inspire so much beautiful science.
The accepted medical science of "early treatments" of a non-existent disease rests on the same foundation as the invention of this non-existent disease. Therefore it too is invalid.
The authors of the "official" government narrative- thesis #1- and those of the alternative "health freedom" narrative- thesis #2- are, in the end, likely to become "strange bedfellows" and not real adversaries under these conditions, as both validate the imaginary disease by different means.
Thus it is hard to imagine that we arrive at a place much different, if these are to be the "accepted" and "hotly contested" narratives, regardless of which of the 2 theses "wins the day."
Chris Butler sleeps at night like a baby because he has zero integrity. And I hope Chris Butler and others of his ilk see this. Knowing we understand them may wake up one or two of them.
Chris Butler should be ashamed of himself but he won’t
Often greed excludes psychopaths from feelings like guilt and shame
Where are the eminent scientists, educators, politicians, and industry leaders who will publicly point out these problems and demand change?
Another day - another RIGGED study, against Ivermectin - and to the benefit of Big Pfharma.
The double bluff on Ivermectin is remarkable. They suppressed IVM because they knew that would only draw more people to it (Boomerang effect).
This is a drug that is deleterious to male and female reproduction and has been given out to the most impoverished nations in the billions to reduce human population. There's a reason it's been given out for free.
People are only now beginning to catch up.
If we're on the subject of depopulation, let's talk about this first: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-per-million-covid?tab=chart&time=2020-01-25..2022-12-31&country=USA~GBR~AUS~JPN~ITA~DEU~CAN
Lots of good info on population collapse out there now. The race to 1 billion is on!
There was no double bluff in Australia. They legislated against it and in some cases health practitioners were reprimanded or fined for prescribing it
So that people would get vaccinated.
????❤️🙏
How was the diagnosis of Covid 19 made ? PCR ? A corrupt dishonest , useless , overcycled test . Unless you can make a definitive diagnosis of a condition everything else is not relevant and ridiculous .
The “test” for Covid is an analytical molecular lab procedure “PCR” which has no diagnostic value and has never been clinically validated. The one time PCR was widely used in 2006 at Dartmouth Hitchcock hospital it produced 100% false positives for Pertussis. I’m not sure what Ivermectin is treating since cases of “Covid” are not really confirmed by any test.
Excellent breakdown!
Great article
We have ivermectin in our fridge right now.
This bit I don’t get..
I am not trying to be obtuse as I do not have any science training :)
“..The molnupirair study focused on either older people (more likely to get sick), or people with comorbidities (more likely to get sick), whilst the Ivermectin population were just healthy people from 18 up. Why? Well, sick people benefit more from interventions than healthy people..”
Any interventions with younger, healthier cohorts would dilute the supposed “benefits”.
So how does a sicker, older person, benefit more? when their response would not be as rapid or beneficial as a younger, healthier person?
Surely, the only way to test this was a placebo arm in both younger and older cohorts?
My apologises if they did this..