How can 241 million mostly-unvaxxed people have no covid cases?

Uttar Pradesh is a state in India.  It has 241 million people.  It's a poor "state" with extremely high-density citiies--ideal for spreading duh Chyna virus.  And only a few percent of those densely-packed people have had the leaky "vaccine."  

So based on U.S. experience (70% fully vaxxed, if you believe the Narrative), Uttar Pradesh should be getting on the order of ten-thousand new cases of the Chyna virus per day.

So how many new cases did they find last week?

199.

That's not a typo. 199 cases.  33 districts in that densely-populated state have been declared covid-free.

"WAIT!  That has to be lie, cuz if it were true, it's such remarkable news that the media would certainly have told us, right?"

Yes.  And a big media outlet did.  You just don't read it, or even know it exists, so you couldn't possibly find it--something American media knows very well, which is why they can blythely ignore the story, confident you'll never hear it.  (It was the Hindustan Times.  And not a single mainstream U.S. media outlet ran the story.  "Contradicts the Narrative, so we're not interested," eh?  

Democrats--the sheep who believe every word uttered by Fauci, Walensky and their fellow corruptocrats--will bleat that the reason is that Uttar Pradesh is so isolated by the Himalaya mountains that few outsiders go there, so the virus hasn't had a chance to infect many locals.

Hahahahaha!  Nice lie, Democrats.  Good try.  Cuz you *have* to do something to deny reality if it contradicts your Narrative.  Gotta keep the sheep believing the Narrative at all costs.

So how in the world is Uttar Pradesh having virtually no cases of the deadly Chyna virus, when the U.S. is recording so many thousands per day?  How have they ended the plandemic?

The government of India gave virtually everyone a cheap, safe, widely-available drug--one that the top medical "experts" in the U.S. government have banned you from taking, **even though it was approved by the FDA for human use way back in 1996.**  

Let that sink in for a bit.

In fact those same so-called "experts" that have banned the drug have gone so far as to threaten to cancel the state medical license of any doctor who prescribes this legal, FDA-approved drug to treat covid patients.  

Again, take a moment to let the implications of that sink in.  

These so-called "experts" didn't ban the drug due to ignorance.  Instead they intentionally undertook a series of ORDERS and other acts to keep Americans from using the drug that turns out to be the cure.  Those orders and acts allowed more Americans to get the virus--and made it more likely that those infected would die.  Literally.  

It's medical malpractice.  Negligent homicide

It's way past time to hold these so-called "experts" personally accountable for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved--easily and inexpensively.  In a rational country they would already have been executed.

Instead the conspirators--which is precisely what they are--have ORDERED all Americans to take a dangerous, ineffective shot--which they all insist is a "vaccine."  But until this year, the universally-understood definition of a "vaccine" was something that prevented virtually all vaccinated people from getting the disease.  What Fauci et al are now calling vaccines don't even come close to that definition.  But the conspirators keep claiming they're really, actually "vaccines," and "effective"--even though hundreds of thousands of people who've had the "vax" have gotten covid.

The easy-peasy Democrat solution?  Just change the definition of "vaccine" and "effective."

But WAIT!  It gets worse!

Thousand of people have been using social media to tell about their experiences--or the experiences of loved ones--after taking the jab: heart attacks, strokes, bizarre clotting problems, bizarre neurological problems, heart inflammation in healthy teens and more.

The easy-peasy Democrat solution?  Ask their supporters who run Fakebook and Twatter to ban those people from posting their experiences.

Wow, problem solved, eh?  Cuz if no one can read about hundreds of thousands of what are euphemistically called "adverse effects" from the non-vax vaxxes, it's as if they didn't happen, right?

And if you're knowledgeable enough to know about the government's own "Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting system"--VAERS--and go to that site, you find...wow, only a few thousand reports, not nearly as many as some claimed, eh?

But read the fine-print on the VAERS site:  Reporting adverse effects is completely voluntary.  And the form takes an hour or so to complete.  So since it's voluntary, what percentage of docs and hospitals do ya think will take the time to do that, eh?  No one even tries to claim that the VAERS system lists more than a fraction of the true number of "effects," and many studies estimate that only one-tenth to one-fiftieth of the "adverse effects" are actually reported.

But if you're a Democrat official, that's how you get Americans to believe you've "solved" thorny, politically-risky problems:  Make the bad news disappear.

Now the latest admission:  Both the CDC and Pfizer now admit that whatever weak "protection" their "vax" offers fades in a few months, so that in 4 to 6 months there's almost no difference in case incidence between vaxxed and unjabbed.

Some keen analysts have claimed Pfizer and the CDC knew or at least suspected that result last fall but carefully did not disclose, since it would have reduced profits.

Now let's look at the alternative:  a drug that has a forty-year safety record; has been taken 4 Billion times by roughly a billion people; is 100 times safer than Tylenol and has all but eliminated River Blindness in multiple nations.

Not only is it approved by "your own" FDA (a little insider joke there) for human use, the CDC has recommended that would-be immigrants to the U.S. take it.

Denying this drug, and instead demanding everyone be vaxxed, led one of the world's wealthiest nations to a huge spike in infections in the middle of the summer.

The other path led a state (in India) with a median annual per-capita income of approximately $1,000 US, where more than forty percent of all city dwellers live in poverty -- a state of 241 million people all packed together, with few hospital resources--with fewer than 200 active cases of Covid-19.  How can this be?

There have been at least 63 trials--31 of which were randomized, controlled trials-- showing benefits from using ivermectin against COVID-19, both to prevent getting the virus, as well as for early and late-stage treatment. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of many viruses, including duh Chyna virus.
    https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/29/the-coordinated-attack-on-ivermectin-is-a-crime-against-humanity/

Here's how all the sheep sound to me:

"WAIT, dis bees un-possible!  Dis not true!  Not true cuz Lord Fauci say dis not work!  Media all say dis not work!  Duh reel smaht peepo say it only used on horses!  You not horse!  Horse medicine not work on peepo!  Lord Fauci say dis stuff ain't approved fo' use by humans!  If you say take horse-drug, you tryin' ta kill my precious children 'n' me!  You bad person!  
   "If you not take vax it mean you tryin' ta kill my fambly!  Vax safe!  Lord Fauci say vax total safe!  Media say vax total safe!  So must be true!  If you say some peepo who take vax die, or get blood problem, or brain problem, you lie!  If vax not safe, Lord Fauci would have told us!  So there!  Vax safe!  Vax keep peepo from gettin' killer virus!

It's way past time...

A tale of two drugs--one pushed by Fauci, the other sneeringly dismissed. Which one works, and costs $2?

Ivermectin was derived from a bacterium discovered in Japan in the 1970's.  Researchers later isolated the active ingredient, which turned out to be phenomenally effective against parasites.

One such parasite, found in much of Africa and the tropics, causes "River Blindness," blinding hundreds of thousands of people each year in poor nations.  But thanks to an innovative partnership of advanced nations, western pharmaceutical companies have provided billions of tabs of ivermectin to 3rd-world countries at cost.  Result: a bottle of iver tabs for 5 days of treatment costs $1.80.

By contrast, a 5-day course of the anti-viral Remdesivir--a drug toxic to the liver but which was constantly touted by Anthony Fauci --costs $3,120.

In March of 2020 --just 2 months after the first case of the Chyna virus hit the U.S I watched Anthony Fauci--at a press conference with president Trump--praise the not-FDA-approved Remdesivir FOUR times in six minutes.  I remarked at the time that for a government official to praise an unapproved, proprietary drug, by name, four times in such a short period, was extremely unusual, and that Fauci doing so suggested he owned stock in the company that made the drug.  Good guess.

If you were a lobbyist who could convince a government official (who happens to own stock in your company) to convince your government to buy, say, a billion dollars worth of Remdesivir, you would.  But totally, entirely based on the science, citizen!  Completely objective!  No conflict of interest, nope nope nope.

Normally a drug is only approved for use by the FDA if it's proven to be both safe and effective.  Yet just six months after Fauci made those glowing endorsements of Remdesivir, in October 2020 the FDA approved it for treating covid.  The approval was based on the results of a relatively small trial with about 1000 participants, conducted by the company that developed the drug, Gilead Sciences.

But a later trial, with 5000 participants, conducted by the W.H.O. concluded that remdesivir "had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay."

Based on that study, the WHO recommends against using remdesivir to treat Covid-19 patients.

When researchers reach opposing conclusions, who do you think wins?  Answer: If you can control the government's decision, what some other study finds doesn't matter.  You win.  Interesting how that works, eh?

Your corrupt government--specifically Fauci, Walensky, Biden, Harris et al--deny that ANY studies show ivermectin to be effective against covid, and they refuse to fund any trials--which are expensive.  But Fauci loved him some Remdesivir, and da gruberment approved it despite a study with five times more people finding no significant benefit.  Interesting, eh?

Following the WHO study that found Remdesivir wasn't effective, an article in the British Medical Journal examined a different antiviral, 'Tamiflu' — a drug advertised as preventing or treating influenza.  Millions of Americans took it.

During the early 2000s governments began stockpiling Tamiflu, paying billions to its manufacturer, Roche.  But in 2013, independent researchers gained access to Roche's unpublished data, revealing that the drug caused many side effects and only shortened the duration of flu symptoms by a few hours.

Tamiflu only cost $75 per treatment, but given the tens of millions of doses stockpiled on the order of government officials (posing as experts), it was still a massive waste of money.

The BMJ article implies that remdesivir is be a similar tale.  If the key players in the order to approve that drug weren't government officials this would be a major scandal.  But we now know no Democrat in government is ever even charged with wrongdoing.  Such a deal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/?sh=7b9438766c27

Ya say Ivermectin has never been shown to cure covid? Let's compare two nations

Since the con-artists running the FDA and CDC sneer that "There are NO studies that show that ivermectin or HCQ are effective in curing covid patients, and they refuse to fund studies that would pass their own shining standards, let's look at the experience of other countries.

If we could find one nation that's advanced and fully vaxxed, and another where only a small percentage are vaxxed, but they've distributed ivermectin to everyone, think the results might be informative?

Israel went all-in on the vaxxes, and 80% of the population has been fully vaxxed.  But in India only about 14% are vaxxed.  But since ivermectin costs almost nothing, when India had a huge spike in cases they gave ivermectin to everyone.  So how did those two countries do in cases per capita?  Take a look at the number of cases per million people:

Mainstream Media columnist to the unvaxxed: "Goodbye, and good riddance"

A few days ago leftist Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr wrote a column blasting unvaccinated Americans.  It's...revealing:

Dear unvaccinated: Bye!

This is for those of you who’ve chosen to quit your jobs rather than submit to a vaccine mandate. 

"Chosen to quit your jobs"?  Last I heard the feds and companies were FIRING everyone who refused to take the jab.  That's not remotely the same as quitting, Leonard.

Lately you’re all over the news. Just last week, a nearly-30-year veteran of the San Jose Police Department surrendered his badge rather than comply with the city’s requirement that all employees be inoculated against COVID-19. He joins an Army lieutenant colonel, some airline employees and, incredibly, dozens of healthcare professionals.

Well, on behalf of the rest of us, the ones who miss concerts, restaurants and other people’s faces, the ones who are sick and tired of living in pandemic times, here’s a word of response to you quitters: Goodbye.  

"Quitters"?  Can you say "Orwellian," Leonard?  The truth is that your Democrat party's governors have ordered hundreds of thousands of health-care workers FIRED for not taking the jab.  "Fired" is not "quitting."  Or do you not think there's a difference?

And here’s two more: Good riddance.

Not to minimize any of this. A few weeks ago, a hospital in upstate New York announced it would have to “pause” delivering babies because of resignations among its maternity staff. 
So the threat of difficult ramifications is certainly real. But on the plus side, your quitting [there's that lie again, Leonard.  You really should work on that] goes a long way toward purging us of the gullible, the conspiracy-addled, the logic-impaired and the stubbornly ignorant. And that’s not nothing.

We’ve been down this road before. Whenever faced with some mandate imposed in the interest of the common good, some of us act like they just woke up on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. “There’s no freedom no more,” whined one man in video that recently aired on “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah.” The clip was from the 1980s, and the guy had just gotten a ticket for not wearing his seatbelt.

It’s an unfortunately common refrain. Can’t smoke in a movie theater? Can’t crank your music to headache decibels at 2 in the morning? Can’t post the Ten Commandments in a courtroom? “There’s no freedom no more.” Some of you seem to think freedom means no one can be compelled to do, or refrain from doing, anything. But that’s not freedom, it’s anarchy.

Usually, the rest of us don’t agonize over your intransigence. Often it has no direct impact on us.  But now you claim the right to risk the healthcare system and our personal lives.

So if you’re angry, guess what? You’re not the only ones.

The difference is, your anger is dumb, and ours is not. Yours is about being coerced to do something you don’t want to do. Like that’s new. Like you’re not already required to get vaccinated to start school or travel to other countries. For that matter, you’re also required to mow your lawn, cover your hindparts and, yes, wear a seatbelt. So you’re mad at government and your job for doing what they’ve always done.

But the rest of us, we’re mad at you. **Because this thing could have been over by now, and you’re the reason it isn’t.** 

 Another blatant lie.  Again.  It's how the Left always debates.

That’s why we were glad President Biden stopped asking nicely and started requiring vaccinations everywhere he had power to do so. We were also glad when employers followed suit. And if that’s a problem for you, then, yes, goodbye.  We’ll miss you, to be sure. But you’re asking us to choose between your petulance and our lives.

And that’s really no choice at all.

My reply to Pitts and the other leftist morons:

Is that so, Leonard?

Well here's a bit of science for you:  Not only do the jabs NOT prevent you from getting the virus, they also mess up your immune system.

In fact you even admit the jabs don't keep you from getting covid.  If you believed they did work you wouldn't care about those of us who haven't taken the jab.  If the vax worked (i.e prevented you from getting covid, which we all now know it doesn't) you're safe and we're not.  So if you're right, you get to go on living and we die.  So why are you upset?  

Why are you so worked up?  You claim we pose a danger to you pro-jabbers, but guess you don't know that tests show people who've been jabbed shed roughly 30 times more viral particles than the unvaxxed.  And roughly 75% of Americans have been fully jabbed, so if you do get the virus--despite having been jabbed by a vax you inexplicably claim "works"--the chances are roughly 100 to 1 that you got it from someone on your own side.

So if the main risk to you is from other vaxxed folks, that leaves just one plausible explanation for your otherwise-irrational anger:  As more evidence accumulates about the damage the jab does to healthy people, it's likely that the vaxxed are beginning to experience a twinge of... doubt--to suspect that just maybe Fauci, Walensky et al might have been lying to them, and that the jab not only doesn't keep you from getting the virus--which until now was the *definition* of a vaccine--but may make things worse for their health down the road.

In other words, that taking the jab may have been a mistake.  And at that point human nature kicks in:  As you begin to suspect you may have been conned, you demand--loudly--that those of us who haven't taken the jab join you in your folly.

Of course the *goal* of finding an effective vaccine was a good one, and one may yet be found.  But coronaviruses have been around forever, and no effective vaccine has ever been developed.  And no successrul mRNA vaccine has been found.  Both those are high hurdles to overcome, and if a company claimed to have succeeded we'd normally expect at least a couple of years of trials.  

But because Fauci and his accolytes in social media and mainstream media *banned all mention of HCQ and ivermectin as treatments,* blythely waved away the results of private trials of both drugs, and have so far refused to fund trials of their own, the feds were able to declare (as if fact) that "no effective treatment exists" for the virus.  

This allowed them to invoke "emergency use authorization" for the 3 candidate vaxes, with damn little testing--and with no possibility whatsoever of detecting any long-term effects on health.

Again, the *goal* was great--it's just that the particular vaxxes offered a) didn't prevent people from getting the virus--which has until now been the definition of a working vax; and b) caused tens of thousands of deaths and many more severe "adverse effects."

In effect "government experts" ordered you to believe, with virtually no evidence, that they'd overcome the high hurdles, and with no side effects.  Because you trust government officials to tell you the truth, you believed 'em.  

Some of us looked at facts you probably never saw, and reached the opposite conclusion.

If you talk to clinicians they'll tell you that once you've been admitted to a hospital for Covid, being vaccinated has no statistical benefit on the outcome.  It does appear that having taken the jab reduces the chances of catching the virus for six months or so, but my understanding is that you're in this for the long haul, right?  

That means that when Fauci announces that everyone must take a "booster shot"--"to be fully protected," of course--you'll eagerly take it, and then the one after that, and so on.  It's what you believe.  It's who you *are.*

You'll keep ignoring first-hand accounts of people who were in perfect health before they got the jab, then suffered debilitating adverse effects within days after taking it.  And you'll continue to sneer at HCQ and ivermectin--"horse de-wormer" ring any bells?--claiming neither has been approved by the FDA for human use.  (That's a blatant lie.)  You'll continue to believe fake news that many hospital ERs are filled with people who've been poisoned by ivermectin.  (Another brazen lie, pushed by the lying Mainstream Media.)

You'll continue to dismiss first-hand accounts of people who got the virus, felt as if they were near death and then totally recovered in six days after using one of the drugs we're not allowed to mention on social media.  You'll sneer at first-hand accounts by people who took the first jab, got hammered by it and won't go back for the second due to what they personally experienced--and see as an increased risk of death.  

You'll dismiss all these things because Fauci didn't say them, and you only believe him or Rochelle Walensky.

Many of us calculated that the risk of dying from the virus was less than the risk from taking the jab.  Some of us got infected, placed no burden on the health care system and recovered.  We gained durable immunity, which the jabs don't confer.  Unlike you I am not afraid of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people because I trust that acquired natural immunity.  And while that immunity may eventually wane, it is far longer-lasting than your non-vaccinating vax.

We who are "vax-hesitant" (not "anti-vaccines," as the Lying Media always put it) looked at the available evidence, rolled the dice and won.  So you can take your screaming demands and shove em up your ass.  

Since your party is firing all the health-care workers who refuse to take the vax, we could help keep you alive.  But here's a hint:  I won't.  Not for any amount of money.  Your insistence on forcing us to take the jab--joined by most of the Left and Dems--have guaranteed that.  And there's nothing you or anyone else can do to change my mind.  

You wrote "Goodbye.  And good riddance."  We agree.  Humanity will be far better off without you, and those who think as you do.

See, anyone who takes the position that forcing others to either take the jab or be fired is a perfectly acceptable policy has declared war on me and my family.  Think about that.

If someone takes the jab after making a personal risk/reward calculation, and later has a severe reaction, or dies, I respect that.  They did what they thought was right.  Similarly, if someone declines to take the vax, and dies, I respect that.  They did what they thought was the right thing.  But those who want to prevent other citizens from deciding for themselves whether to take the jab?  F you.  You have declared yourself an enemy of freedom, and I wish you the fate all enemies of freedom richly deserve.

In the meantime your party continues to fire people--including health-care workers-- who won't obey your orders, setting up a crisis in health care that your "leaders" could easily have avoided.  The stupid, dictatorial Democrat governor of New York just fired 72,000 hospital workers because they refused her order to take the jab.  Think that might cause a few staffing shortages?  Think she might not have thought that through?

(The *real* outrage is if Kathy Hochul *did* realize the consequences, but went ahead and fired 72,000 hospital workers anyway, calculating that it was more important to make state workers fear her power regardless of whether it cost thousands of lives.  Sorta like Cuomo.)

Get used to it, because the governors of other Dem-ruled states are about to do the same.  And if hospitals no longer have enough personnel to staff normally, the Media will instantly blame...the unvaccinated. 

The moronic Dem governor of NY just fired 72,000 hospital workers, many of them nurses who in many cases have worked face-to-face with covid patients for 18 months--without being vaccinated.  Say, mister government official:  How did those unvaxxed nurses, working in direct contact with patients infected with the ultra-contagious virus manage to avoid getting the deadly disease for all those months, eh?

But you nevertheless demanded they be fired.  Fine.  Fire them--after they've spent the past 18 months risking their health to take care of your citizens.  It's no crazier than the rest of the Democrat party's policies.

And for columnist Leonard Pitts:  Don't worry about going to hell.  You won't notice much difference between it and the place you're trying to create here.

https://news.yahoo.com/dear-unvaccinated-bye-don-t-193210198.html

Some poignant notes from an inmate of the Gulag

How we burned in the camps later, thinking What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive, and had to say good-bye to his family?  Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…

We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

"Two weeks to flatten the curve," eh? And the definition of hypocrisy

 

How the FDA, CDC and Media propagandize you into believing false things, part 243,865.

I've been telling you how relentlessly the Lying Mainstream Media and the gruberment propagandize ya, trying to get you to believe things for which there is NO evidence.  I.e. things that are total, utter, brazen lies.  Here's yet another example:

There's an organization calling itself "Nexstar," which poses as a "news source."  It's actually a communist-run propaganda mill--but of course you have no way of knowing that.  As far as you know, Nexstar is just as reliable as USAToday or CNN or MSNBC or ABC or...wait, those are just as worthless in terms of telling you the truth, but you believe what you see on those sites, so....  

Here's the original Nexstar story, published by "Newsnation.usa":   See how many instances psychological manipulation you can spot.

The manipulation explained:

 1: "Researchers at three universities...."  Ah, yes: If a study is done by a university, you automatically believe the claimed results.  Cuz "research" is done by...um..."scientists," and we assume "scientists" a) are competent; b) don't lie (at least not intentionally); and c) don't make mistakes.  That is, we unconsciously assume scientific studies are well-designed, honest, and error-free," right?  Of course.  So right away you've been conditioned to believe the article before you've even read it, and without even realizing it.

2:  "385 patients..."  That's a good-size group, which leads people to trust the results.  But look at the rest of the sentence: "...with River Blindness..."  While one can do any type of study, one of the things rigorous science demands for studies intended to be taken seriously is a "control group."  This study didn't have a control group-- and clearly didn't claim to.  River Blindness is a seriously debilitating parasitic disease, so we wouldn't be surprised to find other adverse effects--one of which could be deformed sperm. 

If this study had been trying to analyze the effects of ivermectin on male sterility (it clearly wasn't), it would have tested healthy men who'd received the drug against an equal number of men who'd never taken ivermectin, eh?  If you're a reasonably well-educated person, you knew that.  Unfortunately most Americans don't know that.

Anyone who knew the least bit about science would immediately recognize that this study doesn't tell jack about the effects of ivermectin on male sterility.  But of course "journalists" and their editors don't know fuck-all about actual science.

3:  The so-called "journalist" (actually "useful idiot" would be a more accurate title) quotes the FDA statement: "Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people."  What did you immediately concluded from that statement--without even realizing it?  The one that the FDA and Fauci and the CDC intended:  That ivermectin is only "intended" for animal use.

Gee, that's ...odd.  Consulting this mysterious magic device called "the internet" we find that the FDA approved ivermectin for human use way back in 1996.  Of course that was 25 years ago so the myriad morons hired by the FDA since then don't know that.  And I guess the FDA's computers have absolutely no record of that approval.  I hear government computers seem to be really good at "losing" critical information, eh?   (Does the name Lois Lerner ring any bells?)

Maybe the FDA should ask the CDC, since that agency seems to know that the FDA approved ivermectin for human use.  At least we assume the CDC knows the FDA approved it, since the CDC urged people from Africa to take the drug before coming to the U.S.  Of course that was WAY back in 2019, so before da Chyna virus.  So it's always possible that the CDC has now revoked that recommendation, eh?   If you're curious about that, check Rochelle Walensky's checking account for mysterious deposits from Chyna for "consulting services."

So we've got pretty solid evidence that the CDC thinks it's been approved, eh?  In fact the CDC even prescribed how MUCH the soon-to-be-immigrants should take: 200 mcg per kilogram of body weight.  Which tells you that dose is totally safe for humans, right?  Either that or the CDC is trying to kill Africans, which is pretty far-fetched.  Killing Americans, by going along with the FDA's bullshit that ivermectin hasn't been approved for human use?  Totally fine.  But they would never do anything that would harm or kill immigrants.

But again, your brain already internalized the idea that ivermectin was (and is) "intended for animals"--and you didn't even realize your brain had done that.  And as the FDA tweeted, to drive home the warning that anyone who used ivermectin was dumb: "You're not a horse!  So stop it, y'all"  Har-har-har!  Wow, those folks are such great comedians, eh?

4:  "Animal ivermectin products are VERY DIFFERENT from those approved for humans."  Really?  Define "very."  HOW, exactly, do you claim they're "very different"?  Take your time, mister FDA lying asshole.  And may I suggest that if you think you can bullshit me with your answer, give it your best shot.  You'll get your ass handed to ya.

In fact the drug is exactly the same, and made to the same standards of purity.  The only difference is that the formulation designed for oral administration to animals is flavored, while the tablets sold or given free for human use aren't. Was that your definition of "very different"?

5: Once again, FDA claims using "animal ivermectin" is "dangerous."  Repetition, repetition, repetition is a key to getting you to believe something.  You don't even notice it.

6: "Vaccines are the best way to combat Covid-19."  Repetition yet again.  Best for everyone?  Well, if you're under 50 and don't have any co-morbidities the survival rate is 99.98%.  If you're under 25 it's 99.998%.  Compare that to the number of "adverse effects"--including death--reported to the government's own voluntary reporting site.  Because doctors and hospitals aren't required to report adverse effets, experts believe the number of such effects is at least ten times more than the number reported.  Hmmm... 

Now here's the later so-called "correction" to the above story, as published by USAToday.  Cuz you KNOW who they are, and you trust 'em to tell you da troof, eh?  See how many instances psychological manipulation you can spot.

Once again I'm gonna show you how each piece of the conditioning--the propaganda--works:

To begin, note the sub-headline:  "The claim: Ivermectin causes sterilization in 85% of men."  So even though the stated point was to debunk the study from Nigeria claiming that, your brain takes the simpledeclarative statement as fact.  You didn't even realize it.  Conditioning, folks.

#1: The story debunking the original study opens by re-stating the main Narrative: "health officials warn" that ivermectin can kill you.  While it's totally true that "health officials" constantly say that, your brain ignores the huge weasel-words "health officials say" and instead internalizes the claim as unequivocal fact--because the sentence ends in the word "death." 

Before you'd even consciously read the sentence, your brain had spotted that word "death"--and associated it with ivermectin, even though that wasn't the point of the story.  You'd been conditioned yet again to associate ivermectin--a drug that's perfectly safe for humans and has indeed been taken an estimate four BILLION times--with death...before you even consciously read the sentence.  

    This effect has been confirmed by hundreds (if not thousands) of controlled experiments.  Even if the sentence had said "health officials falsely claim...", your brain would still have associated ivermectin with "death."

#2:  "Ivermectin causes sterilization in 85% of men, study finds."  Notice it's another simple declarative sentence--and again your brain interprets it as fact.  If they'd wanted to avoid that (or at least weaken the association) they would have said "A totally debunked study from Nigeria falsely claimed that..."  But of course they want you to associate ivermectin with sterilation.  And death.  Again, you don't even notice it consciously.

#3:  So did the first story--reporting sterilization as fact--get people to believe it?  Well the fact that searches for the term spiked as the original story was published suggests that a lot of people noticed it.  Of course we can't know whether the searchers believed it or doubted it and were trying to learn more, but it did have lots of eyeballs.

#4 and 5:  ...and was shared on Instagram, Twatter, reddit and "news reports."  A search returned 11 MILLION hits.  How many times did people share that story with friends?  Mission accomplished.

Finally, one more example of how the corrupt FDA uses propaganda techniques (weasel-words, innuendo, etc) to scare Americans into NOT using the safe, effective drug ivermectin:

We’ve been living with Covid-19 for what sometimes seems like forever. Given the number of deaths that have occurred from the disease, it’s perhaps not surprising that some consumers are turning to drugs not approved or authorized by the FDA.

Wow, that last phrase!  As the headline says, this FDA press release is about ivermectin, and in the third line of the opening 'graf we see that phrase "drugs not approved or authorized by the FDA."  What message are they trying to convey?

Sure...that the drug hasn't been either "approved or authorized" by the FDA.  And I'll bet you the drink of your choice that if some reporter asked the FDA, on-camera, if the FDA had approved ivermecting for human use they'd say no.  But then if the reporter pointed out that the FDA had indeed approved ivermectin for human use, way back in 1996, the spokesliar would say something like "Oh, yes, but I meant we haven't approved it to treat the chinese virus."

Ah.  That's a very damn significant quibble, eh?  Almost like a weasel-word, fine-print loophole.  If we hadn't specifically asked you about that, you would have let "not approved or authorized" ride, eh?

One of the FDA’s jobs is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use. In some instances it can be highly dangerous to use a medicine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 that has not been approved by or has not received emergency use authorization from the FDA. 

Ah, "In some instances it can be..."  Is ivermectin one of those instances?  If it's dangerous for humans to use, why did the CDC recommend that Africans wanting to immigrate to the U.S. take it?  Yes, that recommendation was to treat parasites, but it shows the drug is totally safe.  So what cunning mechanism of the Chyna virus suddenly makes the exact same drug UNsafe for humans to take, eh?

If someone took ivermectin for a parasitic disease, as recommended by the CDC, but didn't actually have such a disease, would they be at risk of a dangerous result?  Obviously not.  This is all just a way to get people NOT to take one of  the two known effective treatments for covid.

And note that clever phrase after "OR:"  Cuz without that, a few million Americans might worry that "emergency use authorization" wasn't the same thing as regular "approval."  And of course that's true. 

There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans. Certain animal formulations of ivermectin such as pour-on, injectable, paste, and "drench," are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. For humans, ivermectin tablets are approved...

AH, y'say tablets are FDA-approved.  Glad we've finally gotten that official admission on the record, to clear up that deliberate mislead in your opening paragraph.  So if the tablets are approved to treat parasitic diseases, why are you arresting doctors who prescribe the approved tablets, eh?  Why has the FDA ORDERED pharmacies NOT to fill legitimate prescriptions for the tablets, eh?  Oh, do you wanna claim prescriptions normally tell pharmacists what the doctor is prescribing the drug FOR?  

Nah, I didn't think so.  Even you jerks haven't gotten quite that brazen...yet.

So if I had a parasitic disease, and my doc prescribed ivermectin tablets--which by your own admission have been approved, how the hell do you Nazi assholes justify ordering my pharmacy NOT to fill the prescription, eh?  Would you like to claim the FDA examines my medical records to see if I have indications of a parasitic disease--let alone trying to claim you have the authority to do that.?

Nah, didn't think so there either.  Which brings us to your next line of bullshit:  That the FDA-approved tablets are ONLY approved...

...at very specific doses to treat some parasitic worms....

Ah, now I understand!  It's that the DOSE must be VERY "specific."  Would that be, um...like, say "200 mcg per kg of body weight"?  Is than f'n specific enough for you assholes?  Cuz that's what your fellow Nazis at the CDC recommended that would-be immigrants from Africa take before coming here.  

Of course that was way back in 2019, so if you can't find the official "health release" I'd be happy to help you.

However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.

"Multiple reports," ya say?  Is that "multiple" a thousand?  Ten thousand?  Or do you mean "multiple" as in two or three?  Surely you keep records on such things, right?  Complete with all identifying info so we can confirm that you're telling the whole truth, right?

Summary: Fauci is the guy who funded "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan Institute, using your tax dollars.  When questioned by senator Rand Paul, M.D., Fauci lied to his face.  We have the grant numbers and how Fauci used friend Peter Daszak as a cutout to forward the grant money to China.  Fauci and the CDC have lied repeatedly about every aspect of this *planned* epidemic.  After all that, if you believe anything he or Rochelle Walensky says, you're beyond help.

====

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/15/fact-check-false-claim-ivermectin-causes-sterility-85-men/8319553002/

https://newsnationusa.com/news/usanews/chicago/ivermectin-causes-sterilization-in-85-percent-of-men-study-finds/

Government boldly states "No evidence linking child Covid vaccination to fertility issues" 30 years from now! WTF?

I've been telling y'all about all the unconscious conditioning the Media and governments constantly push on you to get you to believe whatever they tell you.  It's so constant, so pervasive, that you long ago stopped even noticing it.  Here's a great example:  It's from Canadian television.

In Canada the government runs broadcasting with an iron fist.  So when people began to hear about lots of odd adverse effects from the vax, the government rushed to reassure people that the vax was not just perfectly safe right now, but would have NO adverse effect on fertility 30-odd years in the future!

You may well wonder how they phrased that, let alone how they could possibly know it, eh?  Well take a look at how the government of Canada "knows the future," via CTV:

SO...are the bureaucrats just this damn stupid, or are they okay and just confident that YOU'RE stupid?

And yeah, this was Canada.  Anyone think our bureaucrats/"experts" are any better?

biden regime pitting vaxxed against unvaxxed. Yet Dem media claim he's a "Unifier" ??

The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government the power to force people to wear masks, or to lock down businesses, or to take a specific vaccine.  

Until now all those decisions have been left to individual states. Some Dem governors went full-Nazi (New York, NJ, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, many others), requiring Americans to wear masks even in their own home, while most Repub governors were far less dictatorial (Florida, among others.)

But a month ago your trusted Media should have shown you the video of biden saying "My patience is wearing thin," and "This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated."  And bizarrely (for those who know the actual definition of "vaccine"), "We must protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated."  So it seems clear that the regime has been deliberately pitting the vaxxed against the unvaxxed for many weeks now.

We've also seen biden order federal *regulatory agencies* create new RULES (never laws, cuz that would absolutely trigger a court case) forcing every federal employee and member of the armed forces, and every business in the U.S. with over 100 employees, to REQUIRE all their employees to take the vax if they want to keep their job.  They're discussing the idea of forcing Americans to show a vaccine passport to be able to fly commercial, or even to cross state lines on public transit!  It's an insane overreach, but they're doing it because they have the support of the 80 percent of Americans who are fully vaccinated.

But as people learn more about the vax not preventing covid, and having damaging side-effects, few of the 20% who haven't taken the jab are lining up to take it. So you can expect something like this soon:

"Your benevolent, responsible government regrets that we are now FORCED to 'institute' universal masking.  ["Instituting" something sounds much nicer than saying "forcing you to wear a face-diaper, eh?]  We'd tried to avoid this, but a small number of selfish, ignorant, science-denying Americans--all  supporters of the racist, mentally unbalanced previous president-- have refused to protect other citizens, themselves and their families by refusing to take any of the totally safe vaccines. 

"If you don't like wearing a mask, you need to pressure your unvaccinated neighbors, family members and co-workers to take the totally-safe vaccine immediately.  If every citizen isn't fully-vaccinated by November, we'll be forced--regrettably, of course!--to take more punitive measures to achieve the 100%-vaxxed level needed to ensure 'herd immunity.' "

If you think that won't happen, before Jan of 2020 did you ever imagine--even for a moment--that lots of Dem governors would have their cops slap fines on people for daring to go outside without a mask?  Did you ever imagine--even for a moment--that Dem governors would order their cops to ARREST business owners who DARED to open their businesses when ordered to stay closed?

Before Jan of 2020 did you ever imagine--even for a moment--that a president (or occupant of that position) would ORDER 100 million American workers to take a dangerous vaccine that they now claim loses effectiveness in six months or less?

No, you never even imagined any of that.  And yet it's all happened.

Given those things, can you say with certainty that ANY punitive order by the gruberment can't possibly happen?  Yeah, didn't think so.

What do you know about the China virus, tests, case numbers, treatment, survival rates and so on?

Let's try a little survey:  You're all smart, and well-informed.  So when a huge problem afflicts the entire nation, even if you didn't know anything about the supposed huge problem when it began, if it's really a serious problem then after a month or so our U.S. "news media" should have brought you up to speed on it, right?  At least that's a logical deduction.

So what do you "know" about the Chyna virus--the effectiveness of masks, lockdowns and the vaxxes, how we know if people have it, how many cases, how many people have died from it and so on?

To begin:  The number of "cases" is driven by the results of a test. So what do you know about the test used since February of last year to determine if someone is a "case" (i.e. has the virus)?  What is it called, how often does it give false positives and so on?  Don't read on until you've answered those questions.  (But of course you'll ignore that.)

As everyone should know, it's called the "PCR test"--polymerase chain-reaction.  It was invented in the 1980's so it's obviously NOT specific to the Chyna virus.  Instead it clones tiny bits of genetic material, increasing their presence in a sample from a few molecules (i.e. far too few to detect) to tens of billions (detectable).  That's all it does.  So then you need some other test to see if the molecules cloned by the PCR test match any of the genetic code that's unique to the Chyna virus.

The PCR test works by taking the output from one "cycle" and using that as the input to a second cycle, and so on.  And testers can run as many cycles as they want.  In 2020 most labs used 40 cycles.  Of course if you're not in that field you have no idea whether that's good or bad in terms of detecting the Chyna virus.  So let's fix that:

What it means is, if you had just ONE bit of genetic material, and each cycle doubled that number, after 40 cycles you'd have one TRILLION copies--easily detectable.  The problem is, at 40 cycles the test has given false positives for goat skin, plant material, new motor oil and pure water.  As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable.  The president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the [PCR] tests is only 30-50%”.

U.S. labs were routinely running PCR tests with up to 45 cycles, and almost all were testing at no fewer than 35 cycles.  A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study (way before the Chyna virus) found PCR tests for one virus also gave positive resulte for other viruses.  (You can read details of other failings of PCR tests  here, here and here.)

According to Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, reducing the number of cycles from 40 to 30 would have reduced the number of reported “covid cases” by as much as 90%.  Wow.

So the number of people reported as "covid cases" is likely vastly overstated, likely by a factor of ten or so.  Now let's look at how "cases" translates to the number of people hospitalized or dying.

So what percentage of the "covid cases" (alleged by the flawed test) do you think ended up hospitalized?

Turns out most people who get the virus never went to the hospital.  Indeed, millions who have antibodies to the virus (indicating they've had it) never knew they had it--the symptoms were so mild they never thought to get tested.  But for at least the first six months of last year, Americans who got a positive test result (from the terribly flawed test) were almost always hospitalized.  So lots of people in hospitals almost certainly didn't need to be there.  They were simply monitored, and if they didn't get sick after a week or so, they were sent home.

So what percentage of the "cases" do you think managed to survive the virus?

For people under 60, with no "co-morbidities," the survival rate for this virus is over 99.5%.  For young people it's even higher:  over 99.9%.  The AVERAGE age of Americans who died "with" (not necessarily FROM) the Chyna virus was over 80, which is over the average life expectancy for Americans.  This is not to dismiss the pain of those who lost parents or grandparents to the virus, but instead to show that for younger, healthy people the virus was never more of a threat than the flu.  And we never shut down all businesses because of the flu.

Now let's look at what Fauci and the head of the CDC and Democrat governors ORDERED you to do, supposedly to save your life:  they ordered that you wear a mask, sometimes even in your own home.  And they ordered all "non-essential businesses" closed.  Americans paid millions of dollars in fines for being outside without a mask.  Thug cops in California arrested people for surfing, hundreds of feet offshore, without a mask.  Tens of thousands of businesses closed, many of which will never return.

The truly bizarre Dem dictator of Michigan went so far as to order Home Depot and similar "big-box" stores to rope off aisles selling items the governor considered unnecessary.  If you wanted to buy plants to start a garden at the normal time, Gretch Whitmer wouldn't let ya. 

In states with Republican governors, who didn't order lockdowns, Democrat *mayors* imposed their own dictatorial mask mandates, including high fines for the unmasked.  Dem governors and mayors were both caught violating their own orders, but of course were never fined.   Motto: "Rules for thee but not for me." 

To this day, the mainstream media claims over half of Americans support forced masking.  So do you think either masks or lockdowns are effective in reducing the spread of the virus?

We actually have some ways to know, because some countries that never ordered masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns, like Sweden, have consistenly had a far lower death rate per capita than the U.S.   Wait, wouldn't that suggest that perhaps lockdowns and masking weren't effective after all?  

Why yes, yes it does.  In fact Tony Fauxi himself admitted in an email to a friend that masks were useless.

So finally let's look at treatments for the virus.  The government has claimed there were and are NO effective treatments for the virus.  And most hospitals treated severe cases with antibiotics (mostly useless against viruses), steroids and ventilators.

But turns out two drugs have been known almost from the outset to be effective.  It's just that the government and social media colluded to ban their use, and even their mention.  That information's been known since March of last year.  So do you know the drugs?

Ivermectin and HCQ.  Ah, I see you've heard of 'em.  You'd never heard of either before the virus, but now, thanks to the media, most Americans automatically associate two words with ivermectin.  What are they?

Horse de-wormer.  The media has also taught you to associate two more words with both:  "Unapproved," and "dangerous."  See, that "horse de-wormer" is for...um...horses.  Duh!  And as the clever thugs at the FDA quipped, "You're not a horse!  You're not even a cow!  So stop it, y'all."

So do you believe either drug is safe for humans?  Or to use the far less useful test demanded by the FDA:  Do you know if either drug has been approved by our own FDA for use by humans?

It's a straightforward question.  Yes or no?  You're smart, and well-informed, right?  So what have you heard or read in the media? 

Both drugs are not only FDA-approved for human use, the CDC recommends both, today, for roughly a billion people around the world.

Did the media tell you that?  No.  You think that's because the drugs are unapproved for human use, even dangerous.  That was exactly what they wanted you to think.  And roughly 80% of Americans believe those things.

Three Democrat governors even threatened to revoke the medical license of any doc in their state who dared to prescribe either drug.  

Gonna stop here for now.  More coming.

Source.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/

Chinese government threatens one of the smallest nations in Europe for exchanging diplomatic recognition to Taiwan

 Recently the tiny European country of Lithuania exchanged diplomatic offices with the small island nation of Taiwan.

Hearing this news, most Americans would doubt this was even newsworthy.  But most Americans don't know that communist China--by far the most populous nation on the planet, with by far the largest army--insists that Taiwan belongs to China.  So China regarded diplomatic recognition by tiny Lithuania as a hostile act.

The communist government then used a female Chinese newsreader,Tian Liu, to threaten not just Lithuania but any other nation thinking about recognizing Taiwan, calling for the Chinese communist Party to confront Lithuania with an “iron fist.”

Liu invoked an old Chinese saying “Kill the chicken to frighten the monkey,” and went on to threaten that “any country that challenges our country’s red lines must pay a price.”

“How dare such a small country challenge our great nation,” she asked.  "Let’s teach them a lesson.”

Now, for young Americans:  In the U.S, the government doesn't tell "newsreaders" what to say.  But in a dictatorship like China, newsreaders don't say anything remotely controversial unless told to by the communist leadership.  So the threat from this low-level employee actually came from the Chinese government.

For the government of the world's most populous nation to pitch a hissy-fit about a tiny nation extending diplomatic recognition to Taiwan shows an utterly insane level of compulsion to control *everything.*  Communist leaders are even crazier than biden and harris, and the leaders of China are the most powerful, arrogant and insane dictators on the planet.  It's a lesson you should remember.

Source.

USAToday admits ivermectin did win Nobel, has been approved for human use, BUT shrieks "you must NOT take it!"

 Six days ago the Dem propaganda outlet USA Today ran a piece with this headline:

"Fact check: Precursor to ivermectin did win Nobel Prize, but it's not a proven COVID-19 treatment."

It's a complete hit-piece, full of fear and innuendo, designed to keep people from taking a drug that the FDA approved for human use 25 years ago, which is totally safe.  And the entire piece was re-published by Dem-loving outlet MSNBC.  Here's how it starts:

The claim: Ivermectin won Nobel Prize for its role in treating human disease  

Debate over potential COVID-19 treatments has been a constantly evolving saga over the last year, with drugs like hydroxychloroquine and recently ivermectin touted by many despite a lack of convincing scientific evidence.  

Demand for ivermectin reached a fever pitch as prescriptions for the anti-parasitic agent shot up by 2,400% by the middle of August compared to the weekly average prior to the pandemic, according to the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention. Ivermectin poisoning calls have also increased by 163%, according to data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Riiiight!  Sounds like that story from eastern Oklahoma that claimed *gunshot victims* were having to wait to be treated in ER's cuz supposedly all the beds were filled with victims of ivermectin poisoning.  USA Today seems to have swallowed that debunked lie completely.

Despite this, some social media users continue to support the drug, citing a high-profile award in an attempt to legitimize its controversial use against the virus.

Mid-story insertion to make readers believe the vaxes are perfectly safe:  Your brain processes this unsupported claim without even realizing it.

Fact check: Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines all passed animal testing

While a precursor of ivermectin, known as avermectin, did win its two discoverers the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, it was related to treatment of parasites. It wasn't related to anything like a coronavirus.

Now all that's missing is
   1) Has our own f'n FDA approved ivermectin for human use; and
   2) Has ivermectin been found to have ANY anti-viral effects?
If both those are true, how can the Media so totally discredit the drug?  After all, "right to try" is still U.S. law, right?

Inserted mid-story propaganda:

Fact check: There is no evidence 45,000 people died from vaccine-related complications

Avermectin was extracted from...bacteria [in Japan].  In the late 1970s a Merck researcher found that [the drug killed parasites in mice].

The ingredient [that killed] the parasites...was a [mix of molecules] they named avermectin. The most effective of these compounds was further tweaked and modified to [be better].  In 1981 Merck commercialized this derivative, called ivermectin, for veterinary use.

By the 1980s, ivermectin was the top-selling veterinary drug in the world.

 In 1980 researchers began looking at potential human applications.  They found a big one right away:

["River Blindness"] is a parasitic disease transmitted to humans through the bites of blackflies. The parasite, found in tropical climates... [causes blindness] by migrating into its host's eyes.

[In 1981] Merck tested ivermectin to treat River Blindness.  [It worked.]

The success led to ivermectin being distributed in 1988 to countries affected by river blindness and [other] parasitic diseases.

[In 1996] the FDA approved ivermectin for human use as an antiparasitic drug....

You say this amazing drug that prevented blindness was being used by humans a full EIGHT YEARS before our FDA approved it?   Not possible, citizen!  How could this drug have worked 8 full years before the FDA approved it, huh?  That's un-possible!  All the smaht people (Ivy-league grads) know that drugs can't work until they're approved by the FDA.  So duh claim dat ivermectin was working a full EIGHT YEARS before the totally non-political FDA approved it must be false, right?

In 2015 [the original discoverer and the researcher who isolated the active molecules] were awarded the Nobel Prize for "Physiology or Medicine" for the drug.  But ivermectin is not recommended for any other disease.

Note how the hit-piece immediately follows "prevents River Blindness in humans" and "approved by the FDA for use by Americans" and "Yes, it won the Nobel prize" with "But it's not recommended for any *other* disease."  Can't have people thinking this VERY effective drug--known safe and approved by our own fucking FDA for human use!--might actually be, you know, safe to try on your own, eh?

Cuz "approved for human use" only means it's safe when used to treat one approved disease, right?  If you use it to treat a different disease, somehow the same drug becomes NOT safe.  At least that's what the FDA implies.

Experts, right?  If they haven't approved the drug for use on each specific disease, they insist that you're RISKING YOUR LIFE if you take it to fight the Chyna virus, eh?  The utter horse-shit of that claim should be immediately obvious to anyone with an IQ over room temperature.  But of course....

Back to the hit-piece:    "BUT...!

Winning a Nobel Prize does not legitimize ivermectin's use for anything but parasitic infections. Despite the demand for ivermectin during the pandemic, there is no significant evidence pointing to its effectiveness against viruses like COVID-19.

Notice that VERY carefully-chosen phrase "does not legitimize."  Ever seen that phrase in a newspaper before?  Almost certainly not.  The author of the piece chose this unusual phrase carefully, knowing that 99% of reader would unconsciously translate it as "this drug does not work against the Chyna virus."

This is pure horse-shit.  At least 40 studies have found a huge benefit, and not just against "viruses LIKE Covid" but actually tested on covid patients.

The reason for the interest in ivermectin is that studies in the lab have shown it can block viruses from multiplying in experimental settings – i.e. in a petri dish –

WAIT!  Go back up to the 'graf about it winning the Nobel.  "It was NOT related to the corona virus."  The author wanted you to translate that as "ivermectin has no effect against viruses.  Yet here--a dozen 'grafs later--the author admits that the drug has been shown to "block viruses from multiplying."

... so people hoped this would mean it could help treat COVID-19 in people too," says Dr. Denise McCulloch. "Unfortunately, the few high-quality studies that have been done to date do not demonstrate a beneficial effect of ivermectin when it is used in people with COVID-19."

The last quote is utter horse-shit.  Doctor Denise can make this false claim by claiming that the studies were only single-blinded instead of double-blind (some were, some weren't) or that they didn't control for whether some of the subjects who recovered fast had also taken some other drug without admitting it to the researchers, or that the studies didn't test the drug on pregnant albino lesbians.  Or anything else.

Inserted propaganda mid-story:

Fact check: Ivermectin is not a proven treatment for COVID-19

Oh, absolutely, comrade.  Just ask Fauci.  Just like it hadn't been proven to work against River Blindness for a full EIGHT YEARS before the FDA said it worked.

The FDA has also cautioned against the use of the antiparasitic drug, stating the agency "has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals."

Note "antiparasitic drug."  But the author just admitted the drug has been shown to "block viruses from multiplying," eh?   But then a couple of sentences later, dismisses the drug as "antiparasitic."  And I hope you now see that the fact that the supposedly-expert FDA hasn't "authorized" a drug to treat X doesn't even remotely mean that drug doesn't work, just as ivermectin was successfully preventing River Blindness eight years before our f'n FDA approved it!  FDA approval is fine, but doesn't mean shit.  In fact this also works in reverse: several drugs approved by the FDA have later been banned because they caused ghastly side-effects...despite winning FDA approval!

The CDC warns [ivermectin's] use is particularly dangerous since some people are buying it without a prescription and ingesting large quantities of the more concentrated dosages intended for horses and other large animals.

And do you know WHY Americans are buying it from feed stores?  Because most pharmacies--scared to buck the FDA for fear of government prosecution--are refusing to fill prescriptions for it.  The drug is readily available--at a cost of pennies per pill--in pill form in many other countries.  But almost impossible to get from pharmacies here in the supposedly-advanced U.S.  Entirely because of FDA totalitarian RULINGS.

Say, y'know what else is "particularly dangerous"?  Wine.  Beer.  Distilled spirits.  Cuz "some people" get drunk and drive, killing several thousand people every year.  So we shouldn't let people buy alcohol, right?  Wait, does that make wine "particularly dangerous," or is it actually that a tiny fraction of people don't know how to handle wine or spirits?

USA Today says: "Our rating: Missing context"

"Based on our research, we rate the claim that ivermectin won a Nobel Prize for its role in treating human disease MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. The discovery of ivermectin's precursor, called avermectin, helped its co-discoverers win the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its use in treating parasites. This does not mean ivermectin works against viruses like COVID-19, as there are no significant studies to date pointing to its effectiveness."

Note that word "helped."  No.  The discovery of ivermectin was THE fact that won the two men the Nobel.  And as noted earlier, the claim "there are no significant studies...pointing to its effectiveness" is utterly false.

Source.  And note the sneer from the FDA, below, which they actually tweeted:

Asked why illegals don't have to take the vax, biden spokesliar tells (arguably) her biggest lie yet: "Refugees aren't planning to stay here long"

American citizens in Del Rio, Texas, have discovered that the biden regime is flying or busing all so-called refugees walking across the Rio Grande to anywhere they want in the U.S, without being vaccinated for the Dread Virus, even though legal travellers arriving in the U.S. had to show proof of vax or negative test.  And the regime has ORDERED over 100 million American citizens to take the vax.

On Monday, as cameras rolled, one reporter had the nerve to ask the regime's spokesliar, Psaki, why the regime had such glaring, brazen double-standard. Psaki conceded they were not requiring border crossers to show proof of vaccination, even though the government requires proof of a vaccine or a negative coronavirus test for those arriving in the United States legally.

When reporters asked about the apparent double standard on vaccination requirements, White House press secretary Jen Psaki made the utterly absurd claim that the reason for the glaring double-standard was that illegal immigrants were not intending to stay in the United States.

"They're not intending to stay here for a lengthy period of time," she said, referring to migrants. "I don't think it's the same thing. It's not the same thing."

Seriously, she actually said that.  Happens around 46 seconds into the clip.  (Pic below is a screenshot.)  Click here to see her brazenly lying to the public. 

The regime doesn't care if voters catch them brazenly, outrageously lying, cuz they know it doesn't matter.  Cuz the fix is in for 2022 and after, just as it was for 2020.

Our nation's open southern border. Thanks, Democrats!

 

This is a screenshot from a vid of a continuous line of foreigners pouring across the Rio Grande near Del Rio, Texas.  The stream never stops all day, and for hours after sunset.  How many people cross every day?  Who knows?  How many have been vetted?  None.  

How many have taken the jab that was supposed to keep you from getting the Chyna virus, but doesn't--but which Slow Joe has ORDERED that every American must take?  Virtually none.

What has prompted this continuous stream of people to enter the U.S. illegally?

Two things:  One is, Democrats and marxists have ordered taxpayers to give them everything needed for a comfortable life--food, housing, free medical care.  They get it, you pay for it.  Only fair, right?

Two: the biden regime has announced as official policy that it won't deport more than a percent or so, meaning those entering the U.S. illegally--everyone in the video, repeated every day--have a 99% chance of getting to stay in the land of FREE shit forever.  Who wouldn't go for a deal like that, eh?

How many Americans have seen vids like this?  About 10 percent.  And most viewers either don't have any idea what they're seeing, or don't believe it.

Democrats are absolutely fine with this, cuz it means they will control the government--power--forever, by making all these people citizens, so they can vote Democrat.

Video here.

Link to Bill Melugin's twatter 

Dems suddenly want big tall fence to keep dangerous, unvaxxed people out. Just not at the border...

 

Peer-reviewed medical journal finds "large reductions in Covid deaths possible using ivermectin." Wait, that's un-possible!

"Say, those anti-science, Trumpist deplorables sure are dumb, eatin' that horse-dewormer to keep 'em from gettin' duh virus, eh?  Hahaha!!  Boy, can you imagine?  How dumb do you have to be to take horse-dewormer?  I mean, you're not a horse, are ya?  Hahahaha!  Wow!  It's not even approved for humans to take!  And yet those Trumpers take HORSE-DEWORMER cuz they think it keeps 'em from getting the deadly virus--that one that came from an open-air meat market in China."

 

Only one statement in that paragraph is true:  People are taking ivermectin to survive covid, or to prevent getting it in the first place.  Three points:

1. It IS FDA-approved for human use.  Anyone who says it's not it lying.

2. The CDC itself has prescribed ivermectin for human use--before the Chyna virus was released.

3.  If you doubt ivermectin has antiviral properties, consider the following conclusion from the American Journal of Therapeutics:

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Now, I'm certainly NOT urging people to take ivermectin.  In fact I urge every Democrat and liberal and socialist to take the vax, and every booster you can get.  Seriously. 

Read the study here.

Dems: "You must akzept za science! Vell, maybe not quite all..."

In case you missed it, biden* appointed this biological male posing as female to head the medical division of the department of Health and Human Services.  Seems like a perfect metaphor for Dem rule, eh?

Buried in the $3.5 TRILLION pork-and-graft Dem spending bill: $1.3 BILLION for Dem-friendly newspapers

 Hey citizen, have ya heard about that super $3.5 TRILLION pork plan the Democrat are about to pass?  No?  Gosh, are y'all just not interested in how inflation is fired up?

Okay, don't answer that.

Well...if you thought $400 BILLION in "green new deal" garbage, or free daycare, or free homes for illegal aliens wasn't all that bad, here's just a tiny added insult:

House Democrats have written a billion-dollar gift into their version of the bill, to subsidize local newspapers.  Actually $1.3 billion, but what's $300 million in a $3.5 trillion white elephant, eh?
 
The Dems' plan is to give friendly newspapers $25,000 in tax credits every year for every journalist on a newspaper's payroll.  For those without a calculator, a paper with 100 "journalists" would get $2.5 million per year.  Nice work, eh?  And you can bet every janitor and secretary and intern would mysteriously qualify as a "journalist," eh?

If you smell a rat, you're not alone: The Dems' plan is VERY vague in setting up rules for which news outlets would get for the tax credits. It defines a local news outlet as one that publishes original content that "primarily serves the needs of a regional or local community."  And lest you think the Dems are being careless with your tax dollars, the tax credits (i.e. subsidies) would only go to papers that employ fewer than 750 people.

The spending bill also proposes subsidies for the solar industry, other subsidies for "promoting environmental justice," and a tax deduction of up to $250 for dues paid to labor unions.

The AFL-CIO, the country's largest labor union, endorsed the newsroom subsidies in a letter to Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi earlier this month.  No surprise, since almost all papers are printed by union members.

One Republican criticized the subsidy as a handout from Democrats to the media.

Rep. Devin Nunes said bureaucrats would exploit the vague wording to ensure that Democrat-friendly papers got the tax credits, while conservative outlets would get nothing.  "Anyone who believes this program will be administered in a politically neutral way should have his head examined," he said.

Sure glad we're being ruled by Democrats, eh?  Sound spending policies--if you're a Democrat.

Who is Reta Jo Lewis, and what does biden* appointing her head of a U.S. agency tell you about the Dems?

You've never heard of the person below.  Her name is Reta Jo Lewis, and she was hand-picked by biden* to head the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

She also works for the Chinese government.

You probably don't believe that.  It's just too, too over the top.  

But it's true.  She's on the board of the Greater Washington China Investment Center (GWCIC), which describes itself as a “public-private partnership designed to help small to mid-sized Chinese companies ...with a guided entrance to the U.S. market.”  It's a for-profit lobbying group.

The group promises to form “key connections” for its Chinese clients in order to “build relationships with key players in both countries who have influence on foreign investment.”  It promises to provide “access and introductions to city, state and federal leaders in the United States.

Democrat politicians--giving our nation to the Chinese communists, thanks to Biden, his corrupt son, Reta Jo Lewis and a host of others taking money from China. 

Source. 

 

Billboards appearing across Pennsylvania. Looks like "White Rage"!!!

 Billboards have been springing up across Pennsylvania.  FBI investigating "white rage" incident.

How does a nation go socialist/communist? Like this:

Sixty-two years ago the premier of Russia, Nikita Khrushchev, gave a speech at the vaunted United Nations in NYC.

On September 29th, 1959, banging the podium with his shoe to show his seriousness, the communist leader predicted America's future.

“Your children’s children will live under communism," he said.  "You Americans are so gullible. You won’t accept communism outright, but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have Communism.   

"We will not have to fight you.  Instead we will so weaken your economy that you fall like an overripe fruit into our hands.  Your democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and ive to those who will not.”

Socialism leads to communism. So how do you create a Socialistic State?  Like this--and see how many of the steps you recognize have already occurred: 

1) Take control of school boards.  Boards decide what teachers get hired and who doesn't get their provisional contract renewed.  They order teachers what to teach, so they control how your children will think.  (Look how many schools teach that America has been evil and raacist from its founding.)

2)  Have the central government take over healthcare.  People who know they'll lose their health care if they speak out against oppressive government won't speak out.  (Many doctors have already stopped treating people who haven't obeyed the order to take the jab.  "Comedians" (Dem shills) have drawn howls of laughter from late-night audiences with lines like "If you have a heart attack and you haven't been vaccinated, go home and die.")

3)  Destroy most small businesses.  This increases the number of people forced to depend entirely on government to survive.  People won't rebel if they know they'll lose their only income.  Poor people won't fight back.  (How many tens of thousands of small businesses have been destroyed by the lockdowns?)

4)  Increase government debt to a level so vast as to be meaningless to citizens. That will lead to printing fiat money, fueling inflation, which wipes out the value of savings, making people fatalistic about the future, and more dependent on government to live.

5)  Ban private ownership of guns--supposedly for "public safety," of course.  "It's for the children!"  Disarmed people can't fight back when only government police have guns.

6)  Have media allies promote debased, drugged-out, bleak, sickening movies.  These will demoralize the people and make them fatalistic, thus easier to control.

7)  Remove all references to God from public life, and have media allies sneer at those who still believe in God.  When people know of no higher power than government, they'll have no alternative but to believe government officials know what's best for the people and the nation.

8)  Rig elections so that the most corrupt, greedy, amoral people win.  This will make people believe that nothing they can do can change things.  Fatalism about the future makes people accept each new RULE and loss of freedom as being both inevitable and deserved. 

9)  Use leftist scientists and media allies to argue that Americans should have fewer children, in order to "save the planet" or "fight global warming" or any other convenient slogan.  Have media elites joke about people who have more than two children.  "Breeders" is a good pejorative.

10)  Do everything possible to denigrate the "nuclear family."  This will create armies of sociopathic monsters who will kill random strangers for no reason whatsoever.  This will keep people fearful, which makes them beg the government to protect them.  (Of course without weapons they can no longer protect themselves, eh?)

11)  Quietly adopt polices that increase the use of illegal and dangerous drugs, like de-criminalizing using and selling illegal drugs.  Have elites write pieces about how cool and edgy is is to use these drugs, and how oppressive and backward it is to oppose drug use.  A very successful tactic is to use "disparate impact" to demand that cities and states not arrest or imprison members of minority groups at a rate greater than their percentage of the population, regardless of how many more crimes are committed by a given group.  Equate "disparate results" with racism. 

12)  Allow all those charged with crimes to immediately walk out of jail without posting bail.  Of course many will immediately commit more crime, and seeing this will make citizens even more fatalistic about the future.  Fatalism about the future causes people to stop planning for the future.

SO...how many of the above steps have you witnessed happening today, all around you, thanks mainly to the Democrat party?  Do you think any of it is good, or even well-intentioned?  

Do their policies make you optimistic about the future, or pessimistic?

How many of you believe anything YOU are willing to do (voting, etc) can possibly change our nation's course?

If you're curious:  While I think we're in mortal danger, I don't think our situation is hopeless, but rather that every day that passes without a huge popular revolt brings us closer to a time when it WILL be too late to recover.