[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

— “If you believe there 99.6% of patients survived which is something the ivermectin proponents are always saying then you cannot say this is proof that ivermectin works. To use the usual argument they survived incidentally to the ivermectin not because is it.”

If one says most people, and especially the young, “survived” a Covid injection — somewhere in the same statistical range as your number above — is said to be proof that mRNA technology “works,” then your next step in the argument holds.

In your words with a simple word replacement, “To use the usual argument they survived incidentally to the mRNA injections not because is it.”

The phase three, clinical trials continue on an experimental basis, and therefore as one is injected with an mRNA product one “consents” to be used as a subject in said experiment.

“To use the usual argument they survived incidentally to the mRNA injections not because is it.”

This reply holds to "Conditions of Socratic debate: Intelligence, Candor, and Good Will."

[gas_dr]

Thank you for your response. There are incorrect statements. Do you not agree that there is FDA approval of moderns and Pfizer for the purpose of vaccination against Covid 19? Do you further not agree that everyone who has had a vaccine had a choice in it (they chose to roll up their sleeve and receive it)? Do you agree that there are not administrations of the vaccine by stealth? Do you agree that the complaint is that these four people had no knowledge they were receiving ivermectin? Do you agree that ivermectin is NOT approved for the treatment of covid and when used it is being used off label?