“Or we can give you ivermectin, a safe and effective drug that’s been successfully used for decades, and send you home.”
should read: ‘Or we can give you ivermectin, a safe and effective drug that’s been successfully used for decades to treat parasites and there is no data to support it’s use to treat COVID, and send you home.’
Well, I think her intent was to contrast the safety aspect of the two drugs, but I do get your point. She muddied the waters a bit by including “effective” in there about Ivermectin.
“and there is no data to support it’s use to treat COVID”
Well, that would compound the lie, then
How about doctors prescribe ivermectin early in a CoVid illness, instead of telling patients to do nothing at home until you get worse, and then going to the hospital where you have a darn good chance of being isolated from your family until your death? How about using ivermectin as a treatment first, then if it didn’t work, by all means, go to the hospital.
Nobody was allowed to use ivermectin as an early treatment. Why? Because if there had been an effective treatment for most people, there wouldn’t have been an emergency use authorization for mRNA jabs, which aren’t vaccines, at least not by the old definition.
Doctors stayed silent. People died ALONE, because of the hospital industry dictates. Medical negligence.
You have to be the dumbest Freeper in the history of Free Republic.
And you had a lot of competition over the years.