>your holy CDC and WHO high priests who live in the pockets of big pharma.
Even you are wrong. Because they are not in the pockets, but they are the big pharma. They are the marketing arms of big pharma that are just a much more convincing version of the person in a lab coat in a toothpaste commercial. They just appear to do enough good stuff to not blow their cover, just like an undercover cop might go along with the baddies just enough to not blow their cover.
So if you think CDC/WHO can be "fixed" by changing the funding, you would be very wrong.
Ask the employer to take liability for any adverse effects that you might suffer and see if changes anything.
I wonder why insurance companies are not offering any offers when coming to vaccine injuries. It seems that it would be a very profitable enterprise when there are so many people who are worried about adverse effects and when "science" says
that the vaccines are "overwhelmingly safe". People should be willing to pay large premiums for it, right?
If someone ask you to take it "for the community" show them this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 and ask them about these people who took the risk "for the community" and ask them what the community is doing to help them in return..
>Before the vaccine program started there were ~4000 deaths per day in the US, now there are ~100. Clearly it is very effective at reducing death.
Changing the way you categorise death can do wonders..
> Q Can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they’re characterized?
> DR. BIRX: So, I think, in this country, we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality, and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that, when there wasn’t testing in January and February, that’s a very different situation and unknown. There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem — some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now, we’re still recording it, and we’ll — I mean, the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection — the intent is, right now, that those — if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.
Now, imagine if, after vaccine rollout, we counts those deaths as cause by a heart condition. Boom. Drop in covid deaths! Vaccines worked! Hail pharma!
>To save itself, WHO will have to forgo the easy path of private funding and appeasing the rich. It will have to return to democracy, to advocacy for the mass populations it was designed to serve
I don't think private funding is the problem, the problem is centralisation of power. So to save itself WHO should denounce its power to issue medical guidelines for the world.
>It's a shame that the discourse around this drug has been horribly mangled by conspiracy theorists..
Do you think companies that are developing vaccines and other costly treatments for Covid does not have an incentive to discredit Ivermectin?
If you say, yes they have an incentive, but there is no evidence that they are doing so, then it becomes quite subjective. If you think it is not possible for the researchers and media to work towards a narrative, then of course that is an outrageous possibility, but if you think that is possible, then not so much so..
>the largest excess mortality in our dataset was observed in the United States
This is not very surprising given the following practice..
> Q Can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they’re characterized?
> DR. BIRX: So, I think, in this country, we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality, and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that, when there wasn’t testing in January and February, that’s a very different situation and unknown. There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem — some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now, we’re still recording it, and we’ll — I mean, the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection — the intent is, right now, that those — if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.
> The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.
> Three mutations in the spike protein, viz. RSYLTPGD246-253N, 260 L452Q, and F490S help Lambda resist antibody neutralisation, while two additional mutations, T76I and L452Q, make it highly infectious, the researchers found.
No problem. This article has the solution...
>The answer, if immune evasion does become a bigger problem, is the development of next generation COVID-19 vaccines
>That said, I can't seem to find any credentials or publications by the author of this piece "Dr RollerGator PhD".
That is probably an alias. I think no one is going to commit career suicide by getting themselves labelled "Anti-Vaccine" doctor. (Even when this article does not suggest vaccines are bad)..
So I guess the claims in the articles are not "debunked" solidly. Not sure why you claimed it.
> (1) you have serious concerns about possible side effects
> (2) you have serious concerns about efficiacy
> (3) there is no pandemic going on
> (4) you want to market your product
Please provide citation for this claim for the list of pre-conditions for phase 2 trials.
>so they decided to monitor the first couple of million vaccinations closely
Where is this data? Is it publicly available, and was it based on voluntary reporting?
>because the number of people that have now been vaccinated is orders of magnitude larger than the largest ever phase 2 trial.
I see this flawed logic getting thrown around, again, and again, and again. I don't think that "number of people vaccinated" does not without a control group where no one is following up and based on voluntary reporting is substitute of a clinical trial.
Why do you think such observational data is sufficient, when all the health agencies have rejected such observational results when it comes to things like Ivermectin?
So again, two questions. Citations for the pre-conditions and data from the initial couple of million vaccinations?