Well, objectivly speaking, your approach DOES suggest you are more interested in picking a fight than anything else!
Perhaps the dispicable and disgraceful abuse you in particular received at the hands of Kevin McKernen during one of Steve Kitsch's periodic no no-virus fatwas some time ago has made you bitter and vengeful, I don't know. No need to suggest you put yourself in Tess Lawrie's shoes: you've already been there!
Nevertheless, this jumping on the Ivermectin invective bandwagon is playing into the divisive hands of the common enemy, using his very weapons. Bandying terms like "pushers", and sniping at the use of the title 'World Council of Health', adopted at the height of their Big Pharma-led denigration by true resistants expressly to signal opposition to the global biosecurity narrative, is as purile and obnoxious as the CDC's 'horsepaste'. Or McKernen's insults.
Lol, asking for evidence to justify drug-pushing to the entire world (in response to an imaginary health threat!) = picking a fight, bitterness and vengeance. Ok sure!
Referring to one's organization as a "world council" is as obnoxious, presumptuous and ludicrous as it gets and I notice that you've not cited any evidence to back their claims either.
I agree it was an imaginary health threat, but "drug-pushing to the entire world"? Something of an exaggeration, no? And yes, I do suspect that the revived apoplexy over Ivermectin (given new life by Mike Yeadon's recent misguided and paranoid declarations that it's the most toxic antifertility drug he knows and was deliberately used for depopulation), is in part opportunistic revenge by no-virusers like yourself, whether conscious or not. But for the main part I believe it's a continuation of the CDC et al's pandemic psyop, utilising useful idiots, trolls, bots and other agents of chaos, either independent and motivated by malice or engaged by government/Big Pharma. Tired and distressed resistants appreciate such internal dramas because it's simpler and easier to denounce one another on Substack or 'X' or 'Y' than to take on the Digital-Financial Complex and Biosecurity State in the frightningly (un)real world.
But why is it so difficult to perceive that the seemingly grandiose title 'World Council for Health' was obviously chosen to position it in direct opposition to, and in competition with, the 'World Health Organization'? Presumptuous, perhaps. Courageous, certainly. Necessary, surely. You might respond that "pushing" Ivermectin for a phony virus was the last thing that was needed. In reality, it was the first thing. The patients successfully treated with Ivermectin at a critical stage in the false pandemic were sick with something. We cannot know what it was in each individual case, even if you and I are sure it wasn't 'covid'. And if the doctors who treated a respiratory illness with Ivermectin believed or still believe it WAS, that's of no consequence compared to the horrors that confronted us then, and confront us now and in the future. Entire populations were terrified by 'covid' and many patients (and doctors) must have suffered from fear-induced illness or panic. It might have been the flu, bacterial pneumonia or the common cold, all of which can kill if untreated in the elderly and/or those with co-morbidities. The alternative, in your view? To have done nothing? Ventilate? Sent people home with a Panadol, some to die? And even if in certain or many cases Ivermectin served as placebo, so what?
I'm convinced the doctors who prescribed Ivermectin for 'covid' acted in good faith and ethically. That was certainly rare during the so-called pandemic. Many paid a high price for it in personal and professional terms. What's the sense in denouncing them as dangerous heretics now? Que bono? Big Pharma, for one, because by wiping Ivermectin off the board it eliminates competition to its vaccines and profitable bogus treatments. The captured and corrupt medical and regulatory institutions and establishment that serve its interests for another. Governments going full fascist hoping to divide opposition, confuse and control populations for another. Oh, and the 'no-virus' camp, by grabbing the opportunity to pull itself up by the boot-straps and relegate another group to the ghetto it once occupied (MY 'conspiracy theory')!
You noted that I cited no evidence to back "their" claims. This reminds me of Steve Kirsch's remarks following his exchanges with his 'no-virus' 'guests', whose forbearance I had admired. (It may surprise you that while I've long tried to keep an open mind on the subject, I'm increasingly coming over to their and, I suppose, your, point of view - on viruses at least.) Yet just as Kirsch lost my respect with his bad faith, you won't gain mine by joining this witch hunt. As old Nietzsche said, if you fight monsters too long, beware of becoming a monster yourself. I'd suggest the onus is rather on you to prove that Ivermectin and those who champion it are as monstrous as you claim, but thereby wasting more time, energy and friends in the attempt, and in the process pointlessly dividing the Freedom Movement yet again.
I have zero interest in your ~suspicions~ or characterizations, and am not going to waste time reading your comment. Cite valid evidence if you can, that's all I'm interested in.
You seem to know little of this topic. The FOIs were inspired by knowledge of what is and isn't contained in "SARS-COV-2 isolation" papers. The FOI responses confirm what was already known. And hello, it's not as though I'm presenting one or 2 responses, but literally hundreds of them, from 40 countries. Zero institutions when challenged are able to provide or cite a record of the imaginary virus being found in and purified from bodily fluid, tissue or excrement. Further, CDC and Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto admitted that this is never done for any alleged "viruses". Mount Sinai Hospital specifically stated not once but twice that it was their "subject matter experts" telling them this. Respectfully, your questions are not worth answering in light of these facts.
Christine, could you please explain the results of 99 studies with controls which show that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (whatever that means nowadays.. flu, pneumonia, etc)?
Basically, it reduces the length of stay in the hospital and improves outcomes (less dead people).
What is your explanation for it, if ivermectin is a useless and dangerous drug?
"COVID-19" is "confirmed" with meaningless tests that do not test for a virus, or a disease. No symptoms whatsoever are required. This isn't a mystery. Studies with "viral clearance" and other "virus"-related outcomes are fraudulent/delusional.
If you are claiming that there are valid scientific studies showing that Ivermectin is reduces mortality, please cite a specific study or 2 for me to comment on, rather than a page listing all sorts of "covid" studies.
I recall a reference to a media reports in 2020 re HCQ.
I wonder if any one remember that black woman - a dems - that stud Trump brought to the WH to tell her story of survival due to her taking HCQ?
There was a story of identical female twins who got touched by convid. One refused HCQ; one took it. The report mentioned that one made a full recovery.
Why did that pimp Fredo Cuomo who based HCQ because of Trump and but secretly took CQ - which is less effective and more dangerous than HCQ - to combat convid? Why?
Some doctors have claimed that many US congress pollies secretly took either ivm or HCQ as preventative. One doctor publicly claimed that she used ivm to treat many US congress pollies.
Seriously? I'm not sending you links, you can go review the scientific method if you need to. This is a challenge for those making positive claims. The onus is on them.
Yes. I am asking you, since you resorted to undefined terms such as "science" and "scientific studies". What are your definitions and examples?
Actually, the onus is on any one who makes an assertion, positive or negative.
When you were referred to a listing of many "scientific studies" on ivm that you can review at your choice and leisure, you dismissed them. What did you expect, then? You demanded "scientific studies" and when they were conveniently listed for you, you dismissed them.
When I asked you for a sample that would meet your standards, you dismissed my request by asking me to find out for myself. Can you see the two standards here?
Genuine researchers would welcome a complete listing of all papers on a subject so that the researchers can independently select a sample for themselves.
Which are more important to you: life experiences or "studies"? Didn't pfizer's "scientific studies" on the vaccines pass peer reviews? Are you aware that about 50% of "scientific studies" could not be replicated? How do you know which of studies are legitimate? By reading them yourself? Are you able to scrutinise them?
There were stories, even reported in the corporate media, of people having covid whose quacks refused ivermectin and were near death and once they were administered ivermectin, they recovered.
An indirect proofs:
ivm and HCQ were banned by the most health authorities. Both drugs are in use in many countries for many decades; thus their efficacy and safety profile are known.
Why would those few brave doctors risked their careers to promote the use of drugs that have no financial benefits to themselves?
I note your reliance on "science" and the "scientific evidence". What is science? What is the "scientific evidence"? Are you aware that science is actually quite subjective? If science objective as most people, including me, incorrectly assumed, how come there are there are totally conflicting scientific evidence conclusions? How can there be debates, as scientists acknowledge that science requires them? Are you aware that before 2020, about 50% of peer-reviewed papers in all reputable journals could not be replicated?
Of course, ones must always apply "you claim, you prove". How can we refute "scientific" claims with "scientific evidence" since "science" itself is subjective?
As I see it, the only way to independently refute a claim is to show that claim does not have the evidential support as asserted. Take our favourite pet convid as an example. The pushers cannot answer questions based solely on the assertions made. Whether convid is is actually real is a separate question.
If Bill G claims an animal is a condog, that pimp has to prove that
1. it is an animal, as understood;
2. it is a dog, as that animal is known; and
3. if it is not claimed to be a new species, that it has the DNA profile of the current breed called "condog", he has to prove it; or
3a. if it is claimed to be a new breed, here has to genetically prove it,
It is unnecessary for anyone to refute his claim by saying it is something else.
Asking what is the standard, or your, definition of "safety" is a hypothetical question?
So, you are good at asking red-herring questions, but could not answer terms that you used yourself?
I noticed you have not answered any of my questions. As I said, it is easy to ask questions; it is harder to provide answers.
Are you aware that with any debate, it is basal that terms of art appearing in that debate must be commonly understood and accepted? Are you aware that words can have different connotations to different people? Why do you think terms are defined in an Act or contract? Are aware that in taxation laws, there have been legal cases involving the word "the"?
Please either address my questions pari passu or don't bother. I will not engage with you until then.
There are 218 ivermectin "COVID-19' studies on that page: 168 peer reviewed, 99 comparing treatment and control groups.
Whatever they understand by "COVID-19" is not really relevant. They might believe it's caused by a 'virus', but we both know that's not the case. It may be cases of pneumonia, seasonal flu, TBC, other respiratory illnesses.. I don't care what it is.
What I do care, is the fact that Ivermectin reduced mortality for those respiratory illnesses (which they call 'COVID-19').
Would you care going through those 99 studies with controls, and see what is wrong with them?
There are plenty to chose from, I don't need to point you to a specific one - although, I can, if you really want me to
Yes it is relevant, because "covid" tests to not test for any health outcome. For a study to be meaningful, the dependent (outcome) variable needs to be an actual meaningful health outcome, i.e. mortality.
Again, "COVID" IS NOT A RESPIRATORY ILLNESS. No symptoms whatsoever are needed for the "covid" diagnosis.
Peer review didn't prevent bogus "covid" studies about an imaginary virus being published, did it?
There's no onus on me to explain anything or to go through 99 studies for you. If you are claiming that ivermectin IS effective at improving a meaningful health outcome and that this is shown in any of those studies, cite a valid scientific study - not a page listing hundreds of studies.
If you can't cite even one specific study, I guess you're just assuming all those studies are legit and trying to put the onus on me to go through each of them and "explain" them, which would waste endless hours of my time. It seems you aren't willing to do the work and want me to do it for you, aka you're trying to reverse the burden of proof. The first item in that list you've linked to isn't even a study.
The 2nd item in that list also isn't a study. Nor is the 3rd, but it summarizes a study. And the 1st thing they state is:
"Ecological analysis showing that ivermectin distribution correlated significantly (p<0.002) with the reduction in excess deaths across 25 states in Peru."
So this is not a controlled experiment, it's epidemiology, looking at the CORRELATION between ivermectin DISTRIBUTION (not even usage, just distribution) and excess deaths. And the data is not at the person/patient level, but the state level.
This is your idea of scientific evidence of effectiveness?
Yeah, you are picking a fight because that is what you always do, Christine.
Anything to keep the unfounded narratives going!
The symptoms which were labelled Covid 19 appeared in populations where 5G had been implemented. Microwave radiation is known to cause severe health effects, including the proliferation of parasites and eventual death. Therefore, some relief from the symptoms may be gained from medications which deal with a variety of parasites. Medications such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and (especially) Artemisinin have been reported to be effective.
"the entire population of the earth will be trapped for life in an electromagnetic grid of millimeter waves and no one will be able to avoid their impact"
The video Trozzi posted a while back, in which his son interviews him on why Trozzi believes “viruses are real” was the most lame presentation. Only a fool would take Trozzi seriously. And what a strange thing to have his son continually address him as “dr Trozzi” throughout that video, in an apparent attempt to give “dr Trozzi” some kind of credibility. The upshot of it (ie Trozzi’s responses) was essentially that “virology” and sequencing technology is just too complex for Trozzi to understand, therefore he trusts “the experts.” He is a fool leading fools.
your approach seems more of picking a fight than helping hummanaty-----------what a cheeze bag---------------your approach was honest straight forward and completely proffesional ( When the argument is lost the loser turns to slander Greek Philosoper i forgot his name
Thanks, Christine. There seems to be a new offensive to enshrine both Tess Lawrie as well as Ivermectin. This is part of an effort to maintain the con job "Pandemic"/"COVID-19"/"SARS-Cov-2” narrative so as to help Bobby Jr's presidential campaign, pure and simple.
Some years ago, a group called themselves 'The World Council on Transgender Health' so I did the minimum amount of research necessary to confirm they were a bunch of self-appointed 'experts' with zero medical or biological qualifications (i.e., their assertion was utterly unscientific). All of them were of an age (baby boomers) where their body 'dysphoria' could have been due to damage, in utero, from DES - and genetic testing would help confirm whether they carried now know genetic mutations - but, no doubt, the Pharma/Medical complex is gonna made sure that truth never gets out (and neither, sadly, is RFK with his [along with Jordan Peterson & Mr Info Wars] red herring of a claim that it is due to atrazine - which was not even invented when Rothblatt et al were born). But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
Perhaps the 'new disease' that was claimed to be 'moving through' was actually just an increase in toxins released, assuming there actually was an increase in disease, rather than simple 'number fiddling'
Firstly, let's agree that PCR tests are meaningless and irrelevant. So that's out of the way.
Now let's imagine two claims:
1: people arrived at hospitals in the last three years with a disease XYZ that has some unique distinguishing characteristics, enough to distinguish it from what happens in other years.
2: there is no such new disease. This perception is simply due to selective reporting, biased data collection, propaganda etc.
If you think 2, then there is probably nothing else to discuss here. Ivermectin cannot have helped something that didn't exist. The claim would be the Ivermectin is helping the thing that comes around every year and that this year we decided to call XYZ and say it was going to kill us all.
I think 1 myself, that there was something new moving through the population even if it was wildly and insanely exaggerated and distorted. But I don't judge someone for picking 2. It's not at all obvious and I may change my mind again on it (as I have done once already).
However, if you think 1 is true, then there are two claims that are not contradictory
A. that giving people Ivermectin helped somewhat in the recovery from XYZ
B. viruses do not cause XYZ
That is, suggesting Ivermectin helped with disease XYZ is not at all in conflict with B.
If there was a new respiratory disease, it sure had no distinguishing characteristics aside from results of tests like the PCR, tests which were primed with sequences from an imagined in silico genome. And there were no excess deaths in March-April '20 aside from what now seems like random parts of the world, with Africa largely skipped altogether, certain nations in Europe affected but not ones adjacent to them, with only 16 states in the US affected, largely only 8, in fact only 2 (NY and NJ) being the heavy focus. Even within such nations and states, only certain places affected, e.g. Lombardy in Italy but not Tuscany,, 1-200 miles away. within New York State it was New York City but not the suburbs on Long Island and up the Hudson River. And within New York City, largely only care facilities, affecting largely people over 78 with an average of 4 morbidity factors.
And Lawrie claims Ivermectin works on the basis that "it fights coronavirus" and particularly "the spike protein." You are ignoring this.
"If there was a new respiratory disease, it sure had no distinguishing characteristics aside from results of tests like the PCR, tests which were primed with sequences from an imagined in silico genome."
I specifically - in my first words - discount PCR tests to preclude them entering the discussion, assuming we can agree they are meaningless, and talk about symptoms. Yet you still cannot help introduce them. There is no need. They're nonsense, we agree.
And this statement has no information, you are just asserting the very point under discussion. I am saying that I've seen enough evidence to make me at least suspicious that there was something unusual happening in that the symptoms bringing people to hospital and ICU were not exactly as per other years.
"And there were no excess deaths in March-April '20 aside from......"
I basically agree, we probably would not have noticed had the media and government said nothing. I'm not 100% sure but suspect you are right. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a new set of respiratory symptoms presented around that time - the point I clearly made in my comment. Do you see why I can't trust the fanatics on this "no virus" side? Because so often it seems you just cannot read and make everything about what you want it to be about.
"And Lawrie claims Ivermectin works on the basis that "it fights coronavirus" and particularly "the spike protein." You are ignoring this."
Again, I said nothing about the mechanism. It's a secondary matter once the primary facts are agreed upon. But we can't agree on the primary facts because of poor reading comprehension.
"make me at least suspicious that there was something unusual happening in that the symptoms bringing people to hospital and ICU were not exactly as per other years. " ZERO proof.
The phrase "ZERO proof" doesn't make any sense. What you mean is zero evidence. Zero? There is no evidence of people suffering with respiratory issues? None? I don't agree. The amount of evidence is greater than zero and reasonable people can differ on this. You don't have to be an idiot to think there was a respiratory disease floating around that was a little different (putting aside what we call it). I caught something personally in June 2021 and I have asthma and a weak chest have had several dozen chest infections in my life. This one was easily, by far and away, the worst and most lengthy.
Here is two doctors who see through the scam who also agree there is something anomalous happening even now.
You caught "something"? Lots of people catch "something." Respiratory disease that's "different"? We have an environment that's increasingly saturated with chemical pollutants, particulat4es and radiation. Quoting Pigpen (out of context, of course), "That's all you need.." You are here to attack Christine and "no virus" people, that much is clear.
You're shifting the discussion from whether or not there is any "virus" or "coronavirus disease 19" to a different topic, and setting up a false dichotomy.
PCR cannot be put out of the way in , because "covid-19" is not diagnosed/"confirmed" based on going to hospital with a dis-ease that has some unique distinguishing characteristics. It's based on fraudulent, meaningless tests.
And I don't "think" #2, I know for a fact that the alleged virus and hence "covid" has never been shown to exist, based on the studies purporting to have "isolated and sequenced" "it", and hundreds of FOI responses. And no virus has been shown to exist, ever, because virology has always been a pseudoscience based on ridiculous circular reasoning.
The challenge is not simply to show that ivermectin "helped somewhat" with something. (Because you could, for example, kill parasites with many toxins but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to take them.)
The challenge is for Tess and Mark to back up their claims by citing science showing that ivermectin is "safe effective medicine" with "benefits" that "include its antiviral activities" (which requires proof of a virus for starters) and "ability to sequester and block the toxic spike proteins that are mass produced within injection victims" (which requires proof of the alleged spike protein being produced in quackcine victims for starters).
So to be clear, you say that there is no evidence of anything happening at all from March/April 2020 onwards suggesting that there was some new set of symptoms (associated with some disease we are calling XYZ) appearing more than usual?
To clarify, it doesn't matter what XYZ is ie. if it's a disease (bad choice of word on my part) or poisoning or 5G or whatever. Only one thing matters, one that is in principle at least measureable - did more people than usual (ie. previous years) present to hospitals/ICUs with certain symptoms to do with breathing, lungs etc? Although the official data is a mess and is intentionally distorted by the health authorities, imagine we had the correct, perfect data - do you think the number of people presenting with these symptoms (or cluster of symptoms) was anomalous?
Maybe you read through this - and then you think about, how the people was bombarded by the media every day with frightening news for hours - if this happens for days and weeks, it makes immensely sick - people was tested with a fraudulent test, but don't know that they all excreted between 50 and 70 million dead cell debris every day anyway (if they were unlucky, then at that very moment they shed cell debris, which with this fraud test and with Oligo Nucleotide-Primer(synthically-chemically prepared) are provided with and were stigmatized with a "disease" that did NOT exist - as a result of this "positive test" isolated, connected to ventilators (including sedation), delivery of Remdesivir or other experimental drugs), dehydrated and thus killed!! Death certificates were changed and thus these poor people were titled "C-dead" when in fact they were murdered.... these are facts!!
You're assuming I think that we would have noticed without the media and government propaganda. I don't. It's possible but I don't think so. I just asked a question - you are assuming what I think from the question. Your assumption is wrong.
I didn't say that there is no evidence of anything happening at all from March/April 2020 onwards. There were all sorts of weird things happening, the world was being terrorized, wearing masks, "sanitizing", staying home, staying indoors, told nonstop about a severe respiratory "virus", etc, etc. It was far from life as normal. No wonder if some people (with or without the bogus diagnosis) experienced some unusual symptoms including breathing issues. The constant psychological influence alone could cause that in some people. (Although no one I knew had any issues.)
But "covid" is not "confirmed" via symptoms, it's based on fraudulent, meaningless tests, and I'm not here to discuss whether or not there was any increase in actual breathing symptoms. I'm challenging people to back up THEIR CLAIMS with scientific evidence.
"I'm not here to discuss whether or not there was any increase in actual breathing symptoms"
I am. If you don't want to discuss it then ok.
How about formulating the question like this then?
If neither the government nor the media had mentioned any new disease at all, and no'one had worn masks, nor had been lockdown or subject to fear-mongering etc., do you think we would have noticed anything with regard to admission numbers to ICU/hospitals with respiratory problems?
I'm guessing your answer to this is no, that there was no respiratory disease or symptoms moving through the population any more than normal. Correct?
I highly doubt it. Every day/week/month/year there will be fluctuations of this and that, and people with "unusual" symptoms, but I believe it would have seemed just another year. I saw nothing remotely unusual happening where I live, aside from the "covid" insanity.
OK. So when you say Ivermectin doesn't work, is there any need to mention viruses or no viruses or mechanisms or whatever? Shouldn't you just say "Ivermectin can't work because there was nothing for it to work on, all the deaths were caused by masks/lockdown/fear".
To even mention a virus and lack of evidence thereof suggests something happened that can't be explained by a virus. But you just said nothing happened, that "it would have seemed just another year. I saw nothing remotely unusual happening where I live, aside from the "covid" insanity." So your claim makes no sense to me. It seems like "No new disease of note happened, and a virus did not cause this none appearance of symptoms".
I completely agree with you Christine…and we need to stay on topic. That said, I’ll say I don’t hear many people talking about the serious air quality resulting from wildfires in 2019 as they ponder “what caused ‘it’?” And I don’t hear anyone discussing what a “normal” number of deaths (in the US) looks like. I would say we have run an unsustainably LOW death rate for several years, but I don’t want to get into it because it takes the point of focus away from the issue of imaginary “viruses.” But I’ll share this anyway just for those who want to consider what kind of “normal” death rates we should expect to see coming soon. And the pharmafia is waiting with baited breath to explain the increase in the most profitable terms.
Except that there is no evidence that XYZ whether it existed or was a new or old collection of symptoms was helped by IVM anyway. The RCTs trials involved comparing IVM, in some cases vs HCG, or vs just 7 controls, or were subjective observations and were either plus or minus various antibiotics, zinc and vitamins, which would have of course shown temporary improvements especially in malnourished care home residents.
Yes, I am saying that there was no anomaly apart from that caused by fear, loneliness and despair as well as the well known psychological propensity to notice things, such as common symptoms, when primed and expecting to do so.
The deaths in the Uk are clearly correlated with midazolam administration and there also seemed to be a very big problem in New York with killing people, by forced ventilation, who did not even have breathing difficulties to begin with. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
OK. But it's not *obviously* the case that there was no actual disease, is it? Doctors - like Pierre Kory, to take one example, who travelled to NY right at the peak of the deaths - have testified that there were anomalous numbers of patients with these particular types of respiratory symptoms. I've seen this a lot. Plus I have my own personal experience. I'm open to either answer. But do you agree that it's not obvious that there was no increase in these particular respiratory symptoms, do you agree that reasonable people can differ on this?
mmm I think it's obvious that there is only anecdotal evidence for an increase in certain respiratory symptoms and that if there was an increase it can be explained by the unusual level of noticing of symptoms both by the patient, clinician and the media as well as by the fear and the media hype itself, anxiety brings on these symptoms. So for these reasons it's obvious that there is no evidence of an actual disease.
I think a reasonable person would accept that there might appear to be an increase because many people said so, but then they would look into it and find there was no actual evidence for an increase in symptoms and definitely no new disease.
OK maybe. I don't agree that it's *obviously* true, not at all. I do agree with "the unusual level of noticing of symptoms both by the patient, clinician and the media as well as by the fear and the media hype itself, anxiety brings on these symptoms" and that these created a huge number of presentations to the hospital/ICU that would not have occurred otherwise.
But still these could co-exist with an actual disease/toxin/whatever producing an anomalous number of presentations with respiratory symptoms. Too many doctors have anecdotal evidence for me to dismiss it as obviously wrong.
I'm not claiming there was an increase, I'm asking you your thoughts. And I literally said in my question I'm on the fence and while leaning towards that there was something respiratory floating around, I could imagine further evidence that would persuade me there was not.
Whoah, what? Thanks for revealing another unexpected twist.
At the start of Covid the Dutch government and media openly opposed HCQ and Ivermectin and fined doctors who prescribed it. So it turns out that was the right thing to do! Or were they just trying to lure government skeptics into these dangerous medications? This is getting more confusing every month!
Hiya, I assume that the penalties were for prescribing HCG or IVM for 'covid', because they had to establish that no other treatment than remdesivir in the States or ultimately the jabs were available? As we know IVM has been prescribed and encouraged by the WHO for river blindness prophylaxis and 'given away' by Merck in return for lucrative tax reductions to millions around the world.
It was definitely a lure for the skeptic market I think.
Yes, the judgement says: "In that conversation, plaintiff indicated that he had again prescribed the drug Hydroxychloroquine and, in addition, Ivermectin to a patient to treat a Covid-19 infection." (Plaintiff is the physician suing to overturn the fine.)
I guess the first is the one I want to put to I guess it's Dr. Peter McCullough and the now departed Drs. Vladimir Zelenko and Rashid Buttar... What the Hell were they allegedly treating so effectively with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine? You along with Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey; Dr. Andrew Kaufman, say viruses don't exist. Meanwhile despite all the hysteria in 3 years I never encountered ONE credible case of Covid-19 (when if there were any truth to this bullshit story I should know by now of dozens dead), so I'd like to believe you. Trouble is, last time I was in anything like a biology lab was Grade 10. I had a degree in "Music Performance on Oboe" before I tore the worthless shit-ticket into little pieces in 2016 -- how's that for useless?
Thus question 2: At 64, I'm in no position to ascertain, anything that you say. What books or websites do I read, so I can just read intelligently, what you're saying?
In terms of treating "covid", they can only be "treating" the meaningless, fraudulent "covid" test results, because that is how "covid" is "confirmed".
Other issue is of course, there's such an avalanche of stuff. But for anyone with any intelligence not to have understood "Covid-19" was a scam right from the start? I guess the brainwashing is pretty thorough.
Christine's suggested reading above is fantastic! In terms of people being 'treated' and feeling better, it's a bit like how an anti-inflammatory can make someone 'feel better', but did any actual healing or rest take place? No, and the same with anti-biotics; the clean-up crew and healing is knocked out, where the healing itself looks like 'symptoms'.
Perhaps Brian should have read those studies before publishing that mishmash. One was on a Drosophila melanogaster, a fly. Another had no control. Likely, none had controls. One was about one case of liver toxicity that completely resolved in one mine. Treatment was for River blindness.
Well, objectivly speaking, your approach DOES suggest you are more interested in picking a fight than anything else!
Perhaps the dispicable and disgraceful abuse you in particular received at the hands of Kevin McKernen during one of Steve Kitsch's periodic no no-virus fatwas some time ago has made you bitter and vengeful, I don't know. No need to suggest you put yourself in Tess Lawrie's shoes: you've already been there!
Nevertheless, this jumping on the Ivermectin invective bandwagon is playing into the divisive hands of the common enemy, using his very weapons. Bandying terms like "pushers", and sniping at the use of the title 'World Council of Health', adopted at the height of their Big Pharma-led denigration by true resistants expressly to signal opposition to the global biosecurity narrative, is as purile and obnoxious as the CDC's 'horsepaste'. Or McKernen's insults.
Lol, asking for evidence to justify drug-pushing to the entire world (in response to an imaginary health threat!) = picking a fight, bitterness and vengeance. Ok sure!
Referring to one's organization as a "world council" is as obnoxious, presumptuous and ludicrous as it gets and I notice that you've not cited any evidence to back their claims either.
I agree it was an imaginary health threat, but "drug-pushing to the entire world"? Something of an exaggeration, no? And yes, I do suspect that the revived apoplexy over Ivermectin (given new life by Mike Yeadon's recent misguided and paranoid declarations that it's the most toxic antifertility drug he knows and was deliberately used for depopulation), is in part opportunistic revenge by no-virusers like yourself, whether conscious or not. But for the main part I believe it's a continuation of the CDC et al's pandemic psyop, utilising useful idiots, trolls, bots and other agents of chaos, either independent and motivated by malice or engaged by government/Big Pharma. Tired and distressed resistants appreciate such internal dramas because it's simpler and easier to denounce one another on Substack or 'X' or 'Y' than to take on the Digital-Financial Complex and Biosecurity State in the frightningly (un)real world.
But why is it so difficult to perceive that the seemingly grandiose title 'World Council for Health' was obviously chosen to position it in direct opposition to, and in competition with, the 'World Health Organization'? Presumptuous, perhaps. Courageous, certainly. Necessary, surely. You might respond that "pushing" Ivermectin for a phony virus was the last thing that was needed. In reality, it was the first thing. The patients successfully treated with Ivermectin at a critical stage in the false pandemic were sick with something. We cannot know what it was in each individual case, even if you and I are sure it wasn't 'covid'. And if the doctors who treated a respiratory illness with Ivermectin believed or still believe it WAS, that's of no consequence compared to the horrors that confronted us then, and confront us now and in the future. Entire populations were terrified by 'covid' and many patients (and doctors) must have suffered from fear-induced illness or panic. It might have been the flu, bacterial pneumonia or the common cold, all of which can kill if untreated in the elderly and/or those with co-morbidities. The alternative, in your view? To have done nothing? Ventilate? Sent people home with a Panadol, some to die? And even if in certain or many cases Ivermectin served as placebo, so what?
I'm convinced the doctors who prescribed Ivermectin for 'covid' acted in good faith and ethically. That was certainly rare during the so-called pandemic. Many paid a high price for it in personal and professional terms. What's the sense in denouncing them as dangerous heretics now? Que bono? Big Pharma, for one, because by wiping Ivermectin off the board it eliminates competition to its vaccines and profitable bogus treatments. The captured and corrupt medical and regulatory institutions and establishment that serve its interests for another. Governments going full fascist hoping to divide opposition, confuse and control populations for another. Oh, and the 'no-virus' camp, by grabbing the opportunity to pull itself up by the boot-straps and relegate another group to the ghetto it once occupied (MY 'conspiracy theory')!
You noted that I cited no evidence to back "their" claims. This reminds me of Steve Kirsch's remarks following his exchanges with his 'no-virus' 'guests', whose forbearance I had admired. (It may surprise you that while I've long tried to keep an open mind on the subject, I'm increasingly coming over to their and, I suppose, your, point of view - on viruses at least.) Yet just as Kirsch lost my respect with his bad faith, you won't gain mine by joining this witch hunt. As old Nietzsche said, if you fight monsters too long, beware of becoming a monster yourself. I'd suggest the onus is rather on you to prove that Ivermectin and those who champion it are as monstrous as you claim, but thereby wasting more time, energy and friends in the attempt, and in the process pointlessly dividing the Freedom Movement yet again.
I have zero interest in your ~suspicions~ or characterizations, and am not going to waste time reading your comment. Cite valid evidence if you can, that's all I'm interested in.
Strange answer!
Are you are aware that FOIs, like peer-reviews, can mean anything, something or nothing?
What reliance can you place on the veracity of any FOI reply?
If a FOI says there is no record of something, do you believe it??
You seem to place much reliance on FOI replies as your support or proof.
[I've had experience in supplying and compiling information for FOI requests.]
You seem to know little of this topic. The FOIs were inspired by knowledge of what is and isn't contained in "SARS-COV-2 isolation" papers. The FOI responses confirm what was already known. And hello, it's not as though I'm presenting one or 2 responses, but literally hundreds of them, from 40 countries. Zero institutions when challenged are able to provide or cite a record of the imaginary virus being found in and purified from bodily fluid, tissue or excrement. Further, CDC and Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto admitted that this is never done for any alleged "viruses". Mount Sinai Hospital specifically stated not once but twice that it was their "subject matter experts" telling them this. Respectfully, your questions are not worth answering in light of these facts.
Christine, could you please explain the results of 99 studies with controls which show that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 (whatever that means nowadays.. flu, pneumonia, etc)?
Basically, it reduces the length of stay in the hospital and improves outcomes (less dead people).
What is your explanation for it, if ivermectin is a useless and dangerous drug?
https://c19ivm.org/
"COVID-19" is "confirmed" with meaningless tests that do not test for a virus, or a disease. No symptoms whatsoever are required. This isn't a mystery. Studies with "viral clearance" and other "virus"-related outcomes are fraudulent/delusional.
If you are claiming that there are valid scientific studies showing that Ivermectin is reduces mortality, please cite a specific study or 2 for me to comment on, rather than a page listing all sorts of "covid" studies.
I recall a reference to a media reports in 2020 re HCQ.
I wonder if any one remember that black woman - a dems - that stud Trump brought to the WH to tell her story of survival due to her taking HCQ?
There was a story of identical female twins who got touched by convid. One refused HCQ; one took it. The report mentioned that one made a full recovery.
Why did that pimp Fredo Cuomo who based HCQ because of Trump and but secretly took CQ - which is less effective and more dangerous than HCQ - to combat convid? Why?
Some doctors have claimed that many US congress pollies secretly took either ivm or HCQ as preventative. One doctor publicly claimed that she used ivm to treat many US congress pollies.
Let us know when you find valid scientific studies, thanks.
What are these " valid scientific studies"? Can you send me some links that meet your definition of them?
Seriously? I'm not sending you links, you can go review the scientific method if you need to. This is a challenge for those making positive claims. The onus is on them.
Yes. I am asking you, since you resorted to undefined terms such as "science" and "scientific studies". What are your definitions and examples?
Actually, the onus is on any one who makes an assertion, positive or negative.
When you were referred to a listing of many "scientific studies" on ivm that you can review at your choice and leisure, you dismissed them. What did you expect, then? You demanded "scientific studies" and when they were conveniently listed for you, you dismissed them.
When I asked you for a sample that would meet your standards, you dismissed my request by asking me to find out for myself. Can you see the two standards here?
Genuine researchers would welcome a complete listing of all papers on a subject so that the researchers can independently select a sample for themselves.
Which are more important to you: life experiences or "studies"? Didn't pfizer's "scientific studies" on the vaccines pass peer reviews? Are you aware that about 50% of "scientific studies" could not be replicated? How do you know which of studies are legitimate? By reading them yourself? Are you able to scrutinise them?
There were stories, even reported in the corporate media, of people having covid whose quacks refused ivermectin and were near death and once they were administered ivermectin, they recovered.
An indirect proofs:
ivm and HCQ were banned by the most health authorities. Both drugs are in use in many countries for many decades; thus their efficacy and safety profile are known.
Why would those few brave doctors risked their careers to promote the use of drugs that have no financial benefits to themselves?
I note your reliance on "science" and the "scientific evidence". What is science? What is the "scientific evidence"? Are you aware that science is actually quite subjective? If science objective as most people, including me, incorrectly assumed, how come there are there are totally conflicting scientific evidence conclusions? How can there be debates, as scientists acknowledge that science requires them? Are you aware that before 2020, about 50% of peer-reviewed papers in all reputable journals could not be replicated?
Of course, ones must always apply "you claim, you prove". How can we refute "scientific" claims with "scientific evidence" since "science" itself is subjective?
As I see it, the only way to independently refute a claim is to show that claim does not have the evidential support as asserted. Take our favourite pet convid as an example. The pushers cannot answer questions based solely on the assertions made. Whether convid is is actually real is a separate question.
If Bill G claims an animal is a condog, that pimp has to prove that
1. it is an animal, as understood;
2. it is a dog, as that animal is known; and
3. if it is not claimed to be a new species, that it has the DNA profile of the current breed called "condog", he has to prove it; or
3a. if it is claimed to be a new breed, here has to genetically prove it,
It is unnecessary for anyone to refute his claim by saying it is something else.
Key words "stories".
Banning something is not proof of safety or effectiveness, nor is asking "why this?" and "why that?".
What is your definition of "proof"? Can provide me with some examples?
What is "safety"? What is "effectiveness"?
I did not suggest "proof". I suggested inference re the banning of ivm and HCQ.
If you had made those decisions, what valid reasons can you give?
Remember, it is easy to ask questions.
I suggest you invest in a dictionary or take advantage of the free online ones.
Not answering your hypothetical questions, no time or desire.
The onus is on those claiming "the virus" exists and Ivermectin is "safe and effective".
Asking what is the standard, or your, definition of "safety" is a hypothetical question?
So, you are good at asking red-herring questions, but could not answer terms that you used yourself?
I noticed you have not answered any of my questions. As I said, it is easy to ask questions; it is harder to provide answers.
Are you aware that with any debate, it is basal that terms of art appearing in that debate must be commonly understood and accepted? Are you aware that words can have different connotations to different people? Why do you think terms are defined in an Act or contract? Are aware that in taxation laws, there have been legal cases involving the word "the"?
Please either address my questions pari passu or don't bother. I will not engage with you until then.
There are 218 ivermectin "COVID-19' studies on that page: 168 peer reviewed, 99 comparing treatment and control groups.
Whatever they understand by "COVID-19" is not really relevant. They might believe it's caused by a 'virus', but we both know that's not the case. It may be cases of pneumonia, seasonal flu, TBC, other respiratory illnesses.. I don't care what it is.
What I do care, is the fact that Ivermectin reduced mortality for those respiratory illnesses (which they call 'COVID-19').
Would you care going through those 99 studies with controls, and see what is wrong with them?
There are plenty to chose from, I don't need to point you to a specific one - although, I can, if you really want me to
Thanks!
Yes it is relevant, because "covid" tests to not test for any health outcome. For a study to be meaningful, the dependent (outcome) variable needs to be an actual meaningful health outcome, i.e. mortality.
Again, "COVID" IS NOT A RESPIRATORY ILLNESS. No symptoms whatsoever are needed for the "covid" diagnosis.
Peer review didn't prevent bogus "covid" studies about an imaginary virus being published, did it?
There's no onus on me to explain anything or to go through 99 studies for you. If you are claiming that ivermectin IS effective at improving a meaningful health outcome and that this is shown in any of those studies, cite a valid scientific study - not a page listing hundreds of studies.
If you can't cite even one specific study, I guess you're just assuming all those studies are legit and trying to put the onus on me to go through each of them and "explain" them, which would waste endless hours of my time. It seems you aren't willing to do the work and want me to do it for you, aka you're trying to reverse the burden of proof. The first item in that list you've linked to isn't even a study.
The 2nd item in that list also isn't a study. Nor is the 3rd, but it summarizes a study. And the 1st thing they state is:
"Ecological analysis showing that ivermectin distribution correlated significantly (p<0.002) with the reduction in excess deaths across 25 states in Peru."
So this is not a controlled experiment, it's epidemiology, looking at the CORRELATION between ivermectin DISTRIBUTION (not even usage, just distribution) and excess deaths. And the data is not at the person/patient level, but the state level.
This is your idea of scientific evidence of effectiveness?
Yeah, you are picking a fight because that is what you always do, Christine.
Anything to keep the unfounded narratives going!
The symptoms which were labelled Covid 19 appeared in populations where 5G had been implemented. Microwave radiation is known to cause severe health effects, including the proliferation of parasites and eventual death. Therefore, some relief from the symptoms may be gained from medications which deal with a variety of parasites. Medications such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine and (especially) Artemisinin have been reported to be effective.
https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/frequencies_used_in_telecommunications__an_integrated_radiobiological_assessment_draft_v3.pdf
"the entire population of the earth will be trapped for life in an electromagnetic grid of millimeter waves and no one will be able to avoid their impact"
I don't think you were picking a fight. You asked for substantiation. Tess simply could not provide the answer.
Git 'em, CM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAMN, I love your way! ^_^
CHEERS!
Thank you WH :)
The video Trozzi posted a while back, in which his son interviews him on why Trozzi believes “viruses are real” was the most lame presentation. Only a fool would take Trozzi seriously. And what a strange thing to have his son continually address him as “dr Trozzi” throughout that video, in an apparent attempt to give “dr Trozzi” some kind of credibility. The upshot of it (ie Trozzi’s responses) was essentially that “virology” and sequencing technology is just too complex for Trozzi to understand, therefore he trusts “the experts.” He is a fool leading fools.
https://youtu.be/i6iZW4kd9Gk
Thank you, I recall it being very lame and awkward at times.
your approach seems more of picking a fight than helping hummanaty-----------what a cheeze bag---------------your approach was honest straight forward and completely proffesional ( When the argument is lost the loser turns to slander Greek Philosoper i forgot his name
“When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.” – Socrates
Thank you Bradley. It was a shocking lame response from Tess.
Thanks, Christine. There seems to be a new offensive to enshrine both Tess Lawrie as well as Ivermectin. This is part of an effort to maintain the con job "Pandemic"/"COVID-19"/"SARS-Cov-2” narrative so as to help Bobby Jr's presidential campaign, pure and simple.
Some years ago, a group called themselves 'The World Council on Transgender Health' so I did the minimum amount of research necessary to confirm they were a bunch of self-appointed 'experts' with zero medical or biological qualifications (i.e., their assertion was utterly unscientific). All of them were of an age (baby boomers) where their body 'dysphoria' could have been due to damage, in utero, from DES - and genetic testing would help confirm whether they carried now know genetic mutations - but, no doubt, the Pharma/Medical complex is gonna made sure that truth never gets out (and neither, sadly, is RFK with his [along with Jordan Peterson & Mr Info Wars] red herring of a claim that it is due to atrazine - which was not even invented when Rothblatt et al were born). But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
here is a more direct link to The End of Covid ep 28 on HCQ/IVM https://theendofcovid.com/eoclms/hcq-ivermectin-a-different-take/
Thanks for this Christine.
Perhaps the 'new disease' that was claimed to be 'moving through' was actually just an increase in toxins released, assuming there actually was an increase in disease, rather than simple 'number fiddling'
Firstly, let's agree that PCR tests are meaningless and irrelevant. So that's out of the way.
Now let's imagine two claims:
1: people arrived at hospitals in the last three years with a disease XYZ that has some unique distinguishing characteristics, enough to distinguish it from what happens in other years.
2: there is no such new disease. This perception is simply due to selective reporting, biased data collection, propaganda etc.
If you think 2, then there is probably nothing else to discuss here. Ivermectin cannot have helped something that didn't exist. The claim would be the Ivermectin is helping the thing that comes around every year and that this year we decided to call XYZ and say it was going to kill us all.
I think 1 myself, that there was something new moving through the population even if it was wildly and insanely exaggerated and distorted. But I don't judge someone for picking 2. It's not at all obvious and I may change my mind again on it (as I have done once already).
However, if you think 1 is true, then there are two claims that are not contradictory
A. that giving people Ivermectin helped somewhat in the recovery from XYZ
B. viruses do not cause XYZ
That is, suggesting Ivermectin helped with disease XYZ is not at all in conflict with B.
If there was a new respiratory disease, it sure had no distinguishing characteristics aside from results of tests like the PCR, tests which were primed with sequences from an imagined in silico genome. And there were no excess deaths in March-April '20 aside from what now seems like random parts of the world, with Africa largely skipped altogether, certain nations in Europe affected but not ones adjacent to them, with only 16 states in the US affected, largely only 8, in fact only 2 (NY and NJ) being the heavy focus. Even within such nations and states, only certain places affected, e.g. Lombardy in Italy but not Tuscany,, 1-200 miles away. within New York State it was New York City but not the suburbs on Long Island and up the Hudson River. And within New York City, largely only care facilities, affecting largely people over 78 with an average of 4 morbidity factors.
And Lawrie claims Ivermectin works on the basis that "it fights coronavirus" and particularly "the spike protein." You are ignoring this.
"If there was a new respiratory disease, it sure had no distinguishing characteristics aside from results of tests like the PCR, tests which were primed with sequences from an imagined in silico genome."
I specifically - in my first words - discount PCR tests to preclude them entering the discussion, assuming we can agree they are meaningless, and talk about symptoms. Yet you still cannot help introduce them. There is no need. They're nonsense, we agree.
And this statement has no information, you are just asserting the very point under discussion. I am saying that I've seen enough evidence to make me at least suspicious that there was something unusual happening in that the symptoms bringing people to hospital and ICU were not exactly as per other years.
"And there were no excess deaths in March-April '20 aside from......"
I basically agree, we probably would not have noticed had the media and government said nothing. I'm not 100% sure but suspect you are right. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a new set of respiratory symptoms presented around that time - the point I clearly made in my comment. Do you see why I can't trust the fanatics on this "no virus" side? Because so often it seems you just cannot read and make everything about what you want it to be about.
"And Lawrie claims Ivermectin works on the basis that "it fights coronavirus" and particularly "the spike protein." You are ignoring this."
Again, I said nothing about the mechanism. It's a secondary matter once the primary facts are agreed upon. But we can't agree on the primary facts because of poor reading comprehension.
"make me at least suspicious that there was something unusual happening in that the symptoms bringing people to hospital and ICU were not exactly as per other years. " ZERO proof.
The phrase "ZERO proof" doesn't make any sense. What you mean is zero evidence. Zero? There is no evidence of people suffering with respiratory issues? None? I don't agree. The amount of evidence is greater than zero and reasonable people can differ on this. You don't have to be an idiot to think there was a respiratory disease floating around that was a little different (putting aside what we call it). I caught something personally in June 2021 and I have asthma and a weak chest have had several dozen chest infections in my life. This one was easily, by far and away, the worst and most lengthy.
Here is two doctors who see through the scam who also agree there is something anomalous happening even now.
https://docbrown77.substack.com/p/is-covid-back
You caught "something"? Lots of people catch "something." Respiratory disease that's "different"? We have an environment that's increasingly saturated with chemical pollutants, particulat4es and radiation. Quoting Pigpen (out of context, of course), "That's all you need.." You are here to attack Christine and "no virus" people, that much is clear.
No one has ever said that there are no respiratory issues. Honestly, what is your purpose here?
This isn't complicated.
The official narrative, propped up by RFK Jr, Lawrie, Trozzi, etc, etc, etc is that:
"SARS-COV-2" (X) causes "covid-19" (Y).
It's THEIR STORY, not ours.
We're saying:
X has never been shown to exist, AND nor has Y.
The onus is on those who claim that X causes Y to prove their claims.
Trozzi and Lawrie claim that ivermectin has antiviral activities, treats "covid" and blocks the alleged spike protein.
So they are being CHALLENGED to prove THEIR CLAIMS that:
- "the virus" exists
- "covid" exists
- the jabs cause the body to produce "SARS-COV-2 spike protein"
- ivermectin is effective against "the virus"/"covid" and the spike protein (which has never been found in anyone)
You have no business speaking for myself or anyone else, so kindly stop.
It seems to me, based on your behaviour now and in the past, that you are here to distract, and to discredit no virus people.
You nail it, Christine.
You're shifting the discussion from whether or not there is any "virus" or "coronavirus disease 19" to a different topic, and setting up a false dichotomy.
PCR cannot be put out of the way in , because "covid-19" is not diagnosed/"confirmed" based on going to hospital with a dis-ease that has some unique distinguishing characteristics. It's based on fraudulent, meaningless tests.
And I don't "think" #2, I know for a fact that the alleged virus and hence "covid" has never been shown to exist, based on the studies purporting to have "isolated and sequenced" "it", and hundreds of FOI responses. And no virus has been shown to exist, ever, because virology has always been a pseudoscience based on ridiculous circular reasoning.
The challenge is not simply to show that ivermectin "helped somewhat" with something. (Because you could, for example, kill parasites with many toxins but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to take them.)
The challenge is for Tess and Mark to back up their claims by citing science showing that ivermectin is "safe effective medicine" with "benefits" that "include its antiviral activities" (which requires proof of a virus for starters) and "ability to sequester and block the toxic spike proteins that are mass produced within injection victims" (which requires proof of the alleged spike protein being produced in quackcine victims for starters).
So to be clear, you say that there is no evidence of anything happening at all from March/April 2020 onwards suggesting that there was some new set of symptoms (associated with some disease we are calling XYZ) appearing more than usual?
To clarify, it doesn't matter what XYZ is ie. if it's a disease (bad choice of word on my part) or poisoning or 5G or whatever. Only one thing matters, one that is in principle at least measureable - did more people than usual (ie. previous years) present to hospitals/ICUs with certain symptoms to do with breathing, lungs etc? Although the official data is a mess and is intentionally distorted by the health authorities, imagine we had the correct, perfect data - do you think the number of people presenting with these symptoms (or cluster of symptoms) was anomalous?
Maybe you read through this - and then you think about, how the people was bombarded by the media every day with frightening news for hours - if this happens for days and weeks, it makes immensely sick - people was tested with a fraudulent test, but don't know that they all excreted between 50 and 70 million dead cell debris every day anyway (if they were unlucky, then at that very moment they shed cell debris, which with this fraud test and with Oligo Nucleotide-Primer(synthically-chemically prepared) are provided with and were stigmatized with a "disease" that did NOT exist - as a result of this "positive test" isolated, connected to ventilators (including sedation), delivery of Remdesivir or other experimental drugs), dehydrated and thus killed!! Death certificates were changed and thus these poor people were titled "C-dead" when in fact they were murdered.... these are facts!!
https://www.healthline.com/health/nosophobia
listen also to the two videos at the end of this article
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-20e
https://rumble.com/v22qgnk-ninety-percent-90-of-people-that-were-put-on-ventilators-died.html
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-66c
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-c3e
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-c3e etc. etc.
You're assuming I think that we would have noticed without the media and government propaganda. I don't. It's possible but I don't think so. I just asked a question - you are assuming what I think from the question. Your assumption is wrong.
I didn't say that there is no evidence of anything happening at all from March/April 2020 onwards. There were all sorts of weird things happening, the world was being terrorized, wearing masks, "sanitizing", staying home, staying indoors, told nonstop about a severe respiratory "virus", etc, etc. It was far from life as normal. No wonder if some people (with or without the bogus diagnosis) experienced some unusual symptoms including breathing issues. The constant psychological influence alone could cause that in some people. (Although no one I knew had any issues.)
But "covid" is not "confirmed" via symptoms, it's based on fraudulent, meaningless tests, and I'm not here to discuss whether or not there was any increase in actual breathing symptoms. I'm challenging people to back up THEIR CLAIMS with scientific evidence.
"I'm not here to discuss whether or not there was any increase in actual breathing symptoms"
I am. If you don't want to discuss it then ok.
How about formulating the question like this then?
If neither the government nor the media had mentioned any new disease at all, and no'one had worn masks, nor had been lockdown or subject to fear-mongering etc., do you think we would have noticed anything with regard to admission numbers to ICU/hospitals with respiratory problems?
I'm guessing your answer to this is no, that there was no respiratory disease or symptoms moving through the population any more than normal. Correct?
I highly doubt it. Every day/week/month/year there will be fluctuations of this and that, and people with "unusual" symptoms, but I believe it would have seemed just another year. I saw nothing remotely unusual happening where I live, aside from the "covid" insanity.
OK. So when you say Ivermectin doesn't work, is there any need to mention viruses or no viruses or mechanisms or whatever? Shouldn't you just say "Ivermectin can't work because there was nothing for it to work on, all the deaths were caused by masks/lockdown/fear".
To even mention a virus and lack of evidence thereof suggests something happened that can't be explained by a virus. But you just said nothing happened, that "it would have seemed just another year. I saw nothing remotely unusual happening where I live, aside from the "covid" insanity." So your claim makes no sense to me. It seems like "No new disease of note happened, and a virus did not cause this none appearance of symptoms".
I completely agree with you Christine…and we need to stay on topic. That said, I’ll say I don’t hear many people talking about the serious air quality resulting from wildfires in 2019 as they ponder “what caused ‘it’?” And I don’t hear anyone discussing what a “normal” number of deaths (in the US) looks like. I would say we have run an unsustainably LOW death rate for several years, but I don’t want to get into it because it takes the point of focus away from the issue of imaginary “viruses.” But I’ll share this anyway just for those who want to consider what kind of “normal” death rates we should expect to see coming soon. And the pharmafia is waiting with baited breath to explain the increase in the most profitable terms.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/65-older-population-grows.html
…but let’s stay on point!!!
Except that there is no evidence that XYZ whether it existed or was a new or old collection of symptoms was helped by IVM anyway. The RCTs trials involved comparing IVM, in some cases vs HCG, or vs just 7 controls, or were subjective observations and were either plus or minus various antibiotics, zinc and vitamins, which would have of course shown temporary improvements especially in malnourished care home residents.
Asking you the same question I asked Christine above.
Yes, I am saying that there was no anomaly apart from that caused by fear, loneliness and despair as well as the well known psychological propensity to notice things, such as common symptoms, when primed and expecting to do so.
The deaths in the Uk are clearly correlated with midazolam administration and there also seemed to be a very big problem in New York with killing people, by forced ventilation, who did not even have breathing difficulties to begin with. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
Jo
OK. But it's not *obviously* the case that there was no actual disease, is it? Doctors - like Pierre Kory, to take one example, who travelled to NY right at the peak of the deaths - have testified that there were anomalous numbers of patients with these particular types of respiratory symptoms. I've seen this a lot. Plus I have my own personal experience. I'm open to either answer. But do you agree that it's not obvious that there was no increase in these particular respiratory symptoms, do you agree that reasonable people can differ on this?
mmm I think it's obvious that there is only anecdotal evidence for an increase in certain respiratory symptoms and that if there was an increase it can be explained by the unusual level of noticing of symptoms both by the patient, clinician and the media as well as by the fear and the media hype itself, anxiety brings on these symptoms. So for these reasons it's obvious that there is no evidence of an actual disease.
I think a reasonable person would accept that there might appear to be an increase because many people said so, but then they would look into it and find there was no actual evidence for an increase in symptoms and definitely no new disease.
OK maybe. I don't agree that it's *obviously* true, not at all. I do agree with "the unusual level of noticing of symptoms both by the patient, clinician and the media as well as by the fear and the media hype itself, anxiety brings on these symptoms" and that these created a huge number of presentations to the hospital/ICU that would not have occurred otherwise.
But still these could co-exist with an actual disease/toxin/whatever producing an anomalous number of presentations with respiratory symptoms. Too many doctors have anecdotal evidence for me to dismiss it as obviously wrong.
Why? You could just cite evidence if you're claiming there was an increase.
I'm not claiming there was an increase, I'm asking you your thoughts. And I literally said in my question I'm on the fence and while leaning towards that there was something respiratory floating around, I could imagine further evidence that would persuade me there was not.
😉
Whoah, what? Thanks for revealing another unexpected twist.
At the start of Covid the Dutch government and media openly opposed HCQ and Ivermectin and fined doctors who prescribed it. So it turns out that was the right thing to do! Or were they just trying to lure government skeptics into these dangerous medications? This is getting more confusing every month!
High penalty for physicians who prescribe HCQ or Ivermectin: https://www.medischcontact.nl/nieuws/laatste-nieuws/nieuwsartikel/hoge-boete-voor-artsen-die-onterecht-hydroxychloroquine-of-ivermectine-voorschrijven
Legal case confirming the legality of penalties for proscribing Ivermectin: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2023:3995
Hiya, I assume that the penalties were for prescribing HCG or IVM for 'covid', because they had to establish that no other treatment than remdesivir in the States or ultimately the jabs were available? As we know IVM has been prescribed and encouraged by the WHO for river blindness prophylaxis and 'given away' by Merck in return for lucrative tax reductions to millions around the world.
It was definitely a lure for the skeptic market I think.
Yes, the judgement says: "In that conversation, plaintiff indicated that he had again prescribed the drug Hydroxychloroquine and, in addition, Ivermectin to a patient to treat a Covid-19 infection." (Plaintiff is the physician suing to overturn the fine.)
Thank you, yes, makes sense.
Hello Christine...
Two questions for you.
I guess the first is the one I want to put to I guess it's Dr. Peter McCullough and the now departed Drs. Vladimir Zelenko and Rashid Buttar... What the Hell were they allegedly treating so effectively with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine? You along with Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey; Dr. Andrew Kaufman, say viruses don't exist. Meanwhile despite all the hysteria in 3 years I never encountered ONE credible case of Covid-19 (when if there were any truth to this bullshit story I should know by now of dozens dead), so I'd like to believe you. Trouble is, last time I was in anything like a biology lab was Grade 10. I had a degree in "Music Performance on Oboe" before I tore the worthless shit-ticket into little pieces in 2016 -- how's that for useless?
Thus question 2: At 64, I'm in no position to ascertain, anything that you say. What books or websites do I read, so I can just read intelligently, what you're saying?
Cheers,
Capt. Roy Harkness
In terms of treating "covid", they can only be "treating" the meaningless, fraudulent "covid" test results, because that is how "covid" is "confirmed".
In terms of reading specifically about virology, I would start with the viroLIEgy.com website, and/or Mark Bailey's essays (especially Farewell of Virology: https://drsambailey.com/resources/articles/) and the Settling the Virus Debate Statement: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/.
I haven't read any of the books, but some popular ones are Virus Mania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyagOj1yZis
and What Really Makes You Ill https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/.
More articles are listed on this page (you'll have to scroll a lot):
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/what-the-hell-is-going-on/
Cheers
Thanks Christine. I'll have a look. 😘
Other issue is of course, there's such an avalanche of stuff. But for anyone with any intelligence not to have understood "Covid-19" was a scam right from the start? I guess the brainwashing is pretty thorough.
Christine's suggested reading above is fantastic! In terms of people being 'treated' and feeling better, it's a bit like how an anti-inflammatory can make someone 'feel better', but did any actual healing or rest take place? No, and the same with anti-biotics; the clean-up crew and healing is knocked out, where the healing itself looks like 'symptoms'.
Ivermectin apparently reduces fertility:
https://healthimpactnews.com/2023/censored-side-effects-of-ivermectin-not-safe-for-pregnant-women/
Perhaps Brian should have read those studies before publishing that mishmash. One was on a Drosophila melanogaster, a fly. Another had no control. Likely, none had controls. One was about one case of liver toxicity that completely resolved in one mine. Treatment was for River blindness.
…resolved in one month…
Typo.
Indeed. But apparently HCQ is safe (or at least safer) during pregnancy.