Jacinda has locked down New Zealand again to save us all from the dreaded delta variant. Well, I tell you what, I’d take my chances with the delta variant any day of the week thank you very much. When we look at the true risk from the delta variant, it is utterly delusional for Jacinda to be taking the action she is taking for the level of ‘threat’ that the delta variant poses. The name delta sounds bad doesn’t it. It sounds like some kind of military code name, so it must be really bad. Bad enough to put the fear of God right through the whole nation and have everyone walking around in masks terrified of each other like some kind of dystopian zombie horror movie.
How bad is the delta variant? At last count there were around 450 reported cases of delta in New Zealand. How many have died from this supposedly super deadly virus with a scary military type name? Zero. So far. None out of approximately 450. That number is likely a lot higher than 450 if we assume that there will be many Kiwis who have the delta virus but have not been tested because the symptoms are mostly so mild.
In Australia where the delta variant has been going for longer, there have been a few deaths reportedly caused by the delta variant. But overall the reported mortality rate in Australia from the delta variant is only around 1 in 500 (0.2%), and in the UK, where more than 300,000 cases of the delta variant have been reported, the mortality rate is 1 in 3,500 (virtually zero) for under 50s, and overall around 1 in 400 across all age groups (0.25%).
That is a mortality rate of normal seasonal flu. In fact, across New Zealand and Australia an average of around 3,500 people die every year from normal seasonal flu.
Meanwhile, the experimental COVID-19 vaccine that Jacinda is rolling out to save us all from the terrifying delta stats listed above, has at last count had 26 Kiwis die shortly after receiving it and more than 9,000 Kiwis reporting adverse effects. This is according to the NZ government official yellow card system.
So let me just get this straight. The virus has killed zero people (at the time of writing), but the cure has potentially killed 26 Kiwis and hurt more than 9,000. Meanwhile the entire country also continues to be completely devastated by the delta lockdown, border closure, and other COVID measures. It is utterly insane by any measure.
Thanks also to the daily fear brainwashing by the New Zealand media, which Jacinda gave $50 million to, a significant chunk of the Kiwi population also seems to have been afflicted by a pandemic of terror and collective insanity as they continue to legitimize and support the lunacy.
While we’re in the flow of Jacinda’s COVID responses that are not in tune with sanity, here are a couple of highly relevant questions for our Prime Minister which never seem to get asked by our mainstream media, but which do get regularly asked, but not heard, by many of our frontline doctors and scientists. Why is New Zealand not allowing proven, cheap, and (normally) accessible treatments/cures for COVID-19 to be used to treat and cure COVID-19 cases? The COVID-19 cure that is featuring the most at the moment around the world is Ivermectin. 61 peer reviewed scientific studies have proven Ivermectin to result in a decrease in hospitalization and deaths from COVID-19 by almost 100% when administered early. Similar results have been achieved with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Vitamin D, and other treatments.
Japan has just suspended their vaccine rollout and the Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association has recommended that all doctors now start using Ivermectin.
India was recently hit by a massive outbreak of COVID-19 cases, with hundreds of deaths per day. They rolled out Ivermectin across most of the country, and in every one of the regions where this was done, the death rate from COVID-19 rapidly dropped to virtually zero, in line with the results of all those peer reviewed scientific studies.
Many other countries have successfully been using either Ivermectin or HCQ. It’s just that unfortunately the we never hear about this from our government or the mainstream media. As Jacinda has told us all, her and the New Zealand government are to be the ‘one source of truth’ and nothing else should be listened to.
The New Zealand COVID-19 lockdown and border catastrophe could be ended in a heartbeat with these treatments. Why is Jacinda flatly ignoring and blocking these extremely cheap and normally very accessible treatments? Does it have anything to do with Big Pharma making profit margins in the trillions from the global vaccine rollout? If that is the case, then that is not a good look for Jacinda and the New Zealand government. To say the least!
The final question for Jacinda (let’s be kind to each other) and the New Zealand government is this. There have been COVID-19 press briefings on an almost daily basis, and there has been a gigantic marketing campaign of ‘let’s unite against COVID’ pumped into every corner of New Zealand society for 18 months now. What percentage of that tsunami of information and messaging over the last 18 months has been based around the most important thing that can help Kiwis with this health challenge? Namely a strong immune system built up through healthy lifestyles of good eating, exercise etc. That would be 0%. Not a peep about these critically important things from our ‘leaders’.
It’s almost like Jacinda and the New Zealand government don’t really care about our health and well-being, and are much more interested in things like gargantuan sized profit margins for Big Pharma, bribing the New Zealand media to keep propping up the required narrative, squashing small private Kiwi businesses out of existence, and implementing a socialist style controlled and obedient society.
The current farcical lockdown of New Zealand is literally delta delusion.
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.
One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.
Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.
Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6
Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7
Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.
(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)
Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.
Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.
Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored
If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.
Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.
His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14
But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?
What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’
The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised
The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16
As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.
In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.
The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.
The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22
Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
As noted by the FLCCC:23
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.
This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death
The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”
The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome
The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.
Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.
Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.
While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.
A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
UK Dr, Samuel White has resigned, sick of the lies & cover up. The cures suppressed, the unnecessary deaths. The real risks of the jab and what it really is. A short 7 min or less watch. Vital, crucial info for you. This is a medical doctor who like many others now is taking his pledge of ‘do no harm’ with great seriousness. Please listen. There are three links. The Instagram is the longest, fb and twitter are condensed. Links below:
EWR COMMENT: So why has the media come “down on Ivermectin like an iron curtain”? The video in ‘related’ info below is a good eye opener on that. Particularly on the globalist agenda. Do check out the statistics in terms of deaths & adverse reactions as a result of ‘their’ solution. (Look in categories, CV VX deaths etc, left of news page). Stats are also updated regularly, right side of news page. _________________________________________________________________________
“Malcom X once called the media “the most powerful entity on the earth.” They have, he said, “the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of masses”. Today, that power is now infused with the power of the world’s biggest tech and social media companies. Together social and traditional media have the power to make a medicine that has saved possibly millions of lives during the current pandemic disappear from the conversation.“
Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.
Here are some of my concerns about the C-V response. I’ve used information from diverse sources to try to create a jigsaw puzzle which connects as many pieces as possible. I fully agree that some parts are not yet clear. It is a work in progress to try to make sense of a serious and confusing situation.
The starting points for me are:
1) The PCR test is unreliable
2) so called “Covid” deaths are deaths within 28 days of a positive PCR test. Many of these deaths are WITH Covid, not FROM Covid
3) the death rate in most countries last year was similar to the death rate every other year- and median age of Covid deaths is in the eighties- similar to median age of all deaths
4) since deaths started to be reported as Covid, there have been few deaths reported as flu or pneumonia
5) the Covid response is responsible for considerably more harm in NZ and many other countries than “Covid” -the mental health effects are particularly devastating
6) with or without vaccines, we are ultimately all dependent on our immune systems. The focus must be on how we can enhance our overall immunity and well being
7) the research showing the importance of Vit D is compelling yet largely ignored by our government
8) Research showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin on Covid outcomes and reports from doctors who use it, is compelling
9) The clinical (Safety) trials for the Pfizer Vax won’t be complete until April 2023. So far they have looked only at 2 months exposure
10) The safety data sheet and Risk Management Plan for the Pfizer VX identify serious and important safety concerns and gaps in safety testing
11) The risks in NZ from the Pfizer Vax are considerably greater for most people than the risks from covid..recent analysis shows 1/4000 are having anaphylactic type reactions possibly due to the polyethylene glycol on the lipid nanoparticles
12) The S (spike) protein causes an array of blood clotting and other disorders- whether it’s generated from an mRNA Vax, from the AZ VX, from covid or an injection of S
13) There is serious under reporting of Vax injuries in NZ and internationally. The NZ CARM database is secret and reports from it are delayed and selective
14) Pfizer has demanded confidentiality and a full indemnity from the government. If they don’t trust their product, why should we?
15) The first duty of medicine is “Do no harm”. The second is requiring Informed Consent to any treatment, which demands discussion about risks, benefits, uncertainties and alternatives.
The current government dogma fails at every level. Only with open transparent sharing of information can we rebuild trust.
NEW DELHI — India has received the baton for title of COVID Capitol of the World after China, Italy and the United States held it for much of last year.
The world second-most populace country after China had fewer than 138,000 total active COVID cases in early February 2021. That’s the lowest figure since January 2020. India active COVID cases sit around 3.6 million today, according to the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mainstream media are blaming the massive spike on a “scary, mutant variant” called B.1.617.
Said media are also speculating whether or not the “vaccines” will work against the variant. Only about 2.8% of India is vaccinated. Have no fear. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are here.
The India health ministry updated its guidelines on April 28 for quarantines, treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The agency now says that asymptomatic patients should “consider Tab Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days.” Caregivers of patients in quarantine are instructed to “take Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.” See the full document here.
World Health Organization, big pharma freak out
There are 292 studies (219 are peer-reviewed) proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as both a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Ivermectin has 93 studies (54 peer-reviewed) showing its effectiveness as treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Despite the now-indisputable fact that these drugs essentially kill COVID-19 within hours or days, the Bill Gates-funded World Health Organization (WHO) and big pharma are having fits over India’s new guidelines and the results.
From the conclusion: When the effectiveness of ivermectin for the COVID-19 pandemic is confirmed with the cooperation of researchers around the world and its clinical use is achieved on a global scale, it could prove to be of great benefit to humanity. It may even turn out to be comparable to the benefits achieved from the discovery of penicillin—said to be one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century. Here, one more use for ivermectin, which has been described as [a] “miracle” or “wonder”166) drug, is being added. History has demonstrated that the existence of such natural product-derived compounds with such diverse effects is exceedingly rare. However, in order to pass on to posterity the fact that ivermectin has become widely used to control the world-shattering COVID-19 pandemic, only one simple action is required: the addition of only one word, “COVID-19”, to the 9th item (of the 11 listed) under the “Antiviral” category in the “Ivermectin: The Future” section of the Nobel Lectureʼs record167) entitled “Splendid Gift from the Earth”.https://www.psychoactif.org/forum/uploads/documents/161/74-1_44-95.pdf
I have watched (and shared here) several MDs posting videos on this treatment as well as Hydroxychloroquine – of how they treated their own patients with great success. And Facebook of course pulls anything to do with either of those treatments if they claim cure.
Note: Facebook just banned me for 24 hrs (EWR) for sharing this post there.
By TONY MOBILIFONITIS THE battle against the suppression of ivermectin, probably the most effective treatment for “SARS-Cov-2” (or any variant of corona virus), has stepped up in New York state with at least three families winning court actions to force hospitals to administer the drug to loved ones suffering infections. The recoveries have been remarkable.
The court actions fly in the face of the Biden administration’s Federal Drug Administration, which has issued a blatantly dishonest statement that ivermectin “can be very dangerous”. Oh sure, if you take a livestock-level dose of ivermectin, squirt it on your back like a bull, and you could die. But the drug has been given to humans for 33 years in billions of doses and was awarded a Nobel Prize for annihilating parasitic illness.
Big tech companies Facebook and YouTube and mainstream media are also actively and criminally suppressing videos and other information on a treatment shown to be literally a life-saving medical intervention.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA –“When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Joseph Goebbels, January 12, 1941 in Die Zeit ohne Beispiel.
Both Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been on the market for decades, with mountains of data demonstrating their safety and efficacy. These drugs are also dirt cheap to manufacture and store. All of the foregoing is great news if the goals of U.S. government and big pharma is public health and eradicating COVID-19. But those never have been and never will be the goals. “They” want everyone injected with synthetic mRNA, synthetic DNA and nanoparticles.
Note: this is dated December 15th so stats have increased since then …
SCOTT Morrison and the public health establishment’s beloved Pfizer vaccines are dangerous for anyone who is uninformed enough to willingly get one, and two former Pfizer scientists who went to court in Europe trying to stop the trials can attest to this, as do other highly qualified scientists.
Anyone worried about “catching the virus” should go to their doctor and get a prescription for the common medicine highly recommended by doctors and medical experts worldwide – Ivermectin. It works as both a prophylaxis (preventative) and treatment for infection. But you won’t hear much about this very effective anti-COVID medicine because governments and media are in the pockets of big pharma.
A US doctor has also posted on Facebook, warning the general public has no idea if it the new mRNA vaccine will be effective or safe because “absolutely no long-term safety studies will have been done to ensure that any of these vaccines don’t cause the cancer, seizures, heart disease, allergies, and autoimmune diseases seen with other vaccines.” “If you ever wanted to be guinea pig for Big Pharma, now is your golden opportunity,” the doctor writes. There have already been six deaths associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials – two who received the vaccine and four who did not (placebo). That’s the official information from Pfizer, a company with major convictions for dishonesty and fraud.
A 56 minute lecture by Dr Simone Gold who is a part of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). AFLDS believe “that the American people have the right to accurate information using trusted data derived from decades of practical experience, not politicized science and Big Tech-filtered public health information.” (Read their full mission statement here). She is author of the book I Do Not Consent: My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture.
Excerpts: “From treating COVID patients in her local hospital to fighting for the rights of frontline doctors, Dr. Simone Gold tells her story.“
“The bumper-sticker directive to ‘follow the science’ was actually an evasion of responsibility. It let people off the hook for their bad decisions in a crisis. Was New York Governor Cuomo’s executive order sending COVID-hospitalized patients back to nursing homes to infect other vulnerable nursing home patients ‘following the science’? Of course not. And sending post-hospitalization COVID-positive patients back to nursing homes was unnecessary. Relative to the total nursing home population, Governor Cuomo contributed to a larger percentage of nursing-home deaths—especially when compared to the states without such a policy. New Jersey’s over seven thousand nursing home deaths account for half of the state’s fatalities since March. Pennsylvania did just as miserably. These governors made specific decisions that cost thousands of the most vulnerable, most expendable, their lives. But they didn’t do it to their own relatives.”
Dr Gold’s lecture gives very comprehensive coverage of the experimental vaccine from the perspective of a medical professional. She covers info about the CV, the history, the banned cures, the injuries, the origin of the CV and more … info you won’t hear on mainstream. A must watch before making your informed decisions around possible medical treatments, particularly as the NZ govt clearly wishes to inject all NZ citizens. EWR
The good Doctor who takes his oath seriously insists that Ivermectin has been proven to work & cites the statistics from among his peers. He says that prevention is effective with Ivermectin & describes how the people he is seeing dying cannot breathe. These deaths are needless he says. I have posted other Doctors also who have noted success with other drugs also. So why ask yourself, are ‘they’ not interested? Disturbingly, and the Doctor gets emotional at this point, the highest numbers dying are African American, Latinos & the elderly. It appears that ‘they’ who are managing things, are only interested in vaccinating everybody. EWR
“I CAN’T KEEP DOING THIS”: Doctor pleads for review of data during COVID-19 Senate hearing
NewsNOW from FOX 1.37M subscribers Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center, delivers passionate testimony during the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” Watch more: Dr. Pierre Kory talks to NewsNOW after emotional Senate hearing on COVID-19: https://youtu.be/fSL7sqOudoE Subscribe to NewsNOW from FOX! https://bit.ly/3lMoziB Where to watch NewsNOW from FOX: https://www.newsnowfox.com/ Follow us @NewsNOWFOX on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NewsNOWFOX Raw and unfiltered. Watch a non-stop stream of breaking news, live events and stories across the nation. Limited commentary. No opinion. Experience NewsNOW from FOX.
You must be logged in to post a comment.