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/