[gas_dr]

This is an incorrect statement. 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.

[GMThrust]

Same goes for the vacks then eh?
This would be all the more hypocritical if they were on death row.

[HypatiaTaught]

To use the usual argument they survived incidentally to the ivermectin not because is it.
_____________________________

Fair enough.

Then let’s move on with this whole charade.

This virus is survivable with a 99% survivable rate.

It is not an emergency or a dangerous threat to folks who are generally healthy.

Those who are a risk, do whatever the hell you want to do.

Those who are not, leave us the hell alone you control freak.

[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."

[dforest]

Tell that to Mr Modi, fool.

Quit embarrassing yourself. The slop is running down your chin.