Replies

You say there are cheaper treatments to combat COVID-19. Let's say everyone could get ivermectin over the counter. Everyone would be self-dosing to prevent getting COVID-19. How much would ivermectin cost if the demand shot up to the Ozone Layer. Would you expect the government to pay the cost?

Ivermectin would likely not shoot up in cost much, it is easy and cheap to manufacture, and many governments already have large stockpiles of it. Ivermectin is one of the WHO's critical list for drugs every government should have a stockpile of.
And no, the government shouldn't be paying any of the cost for any of this medical stuff, but it'd be cheaper for them to buy everyone a bottle of ivermectin pills than it's costing them to buy everyone a shot (two, three, more?) from Pfizer and Moderna.

The use of ivermectin at the population level of the U.S. would produce environmental problems. It would enter the water supply in sewage discharge and affect marine life with serious consequences.

Sure, large amounts of any drug in fecal matter may pose some issues, but most sewage is treated in wastewater plants already. Environmental runoff is minimal. And how would ivermectin be worse than all the runoff from the ChinaVirus "vaccines"? Does anyone even know what waste products the body produces from those shots? Every single argument you make against ivermectin or other existing off-label drugs, applies just as much, if not more so, to the "vaccines".

There needs to be more study of ivermectin to determine the dose safety if it is to be used as a preventative. If it is to be used as a treatment, the unvaccinated patient would have had all that time to transmit their contagion before they were isolated as symptoms appeared. Those who are vaccinated, can get infected, but their length of contagion is short and normal safety measures would limit their ability to infect. The cost to benefit ratio of the vaccine outweighs going out into the chicken yard and doing a "sky is falling!" dance against the vaccine.

If there needs to be more study on ivermectin, then why doesn't the government complete those studies? Why are they doing their best to BLOCK THOSE STUDIES from even being attempted? Why are doctors getting fired for simply mentioning that they think ivermectin might be a possible treatment? And the "vaccines" appear to be even less effective than we first thought - various studies show people who are "vaccinated" may be more contagious than others, even as their protection quickly wanes and boosters look to be consistently required.

The cost to benefit ratio for the "vaccines" CANNOT be determined. There is no knowledge of the cost, with the longest long-term studies maybe having people with a year of exposure? Many of these heart problems an other antibody issues are types of problems that could take years to become a visible issue for some people. As for the benefit, the maybe better recovery rate (which seems to be narrowing and narrowing as time goes on), doesn't seem like much of a benefit when you're still fully contagious, still can get sick, and only lasts for what, eight months?

You have to understand that over 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 13, 2021. In that period, VAERS received 7,653 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

And yet, FDA has pulled drugs that have been around way longer, after way fewer adverse effects were reported down the road? Name a single vaccine that has had this level of reported deaths in such a short time? And that's with incredible amounts of government and Pharma coverup of these issues, in a system that's estimated to only report 2-10% of actual issues related to any given vaccine. And we're just waiting for more people to continue having issues with these.