SCANDAL: Ivermectin for the vaccinated only!
It all started with an Instagram video by an Australian nurse who explained that they gave Ivermectin to "vaccinated" Covid patients, but NOT to the unvaccinated, so that it would look like the vaccinated recovered easily from a severe infection, while the unvaccinated did not:
“Those that are vaccinated and present with COVID are now being given … ivermectin … And they’re surviving the COVID and walking out of the hospitals. And they’re going and saying, ‘Look, the vaccine saved me.’ It wasn’t the vaccine that saved them, it was the ivermectin,” she says (video mark 10sec).
Naturally, her account was deleted by Instagram, because they can't have someone telling the truth about the Covid scam, can they? Especially not a healthcare professional...
https://perma.cc/N2K2-JD4H?type=image
Facebook's ban is based on a "3rd party <fact-checker>", one of the organizations they pay to promote their lies. It's always fun to read such "fact-checkers", to see how they try to twist the facts to get the answer they want. Here is the article FB refers to:
https://www.aap.com.au/ivermectin-is-not-being-given-to-covid-19-patients-in-australia/
It starts by pointing out how horribly corrupting this video has already been:
"At the time of writing, the September 19 post had more than 13,000 views. The video is also posted elsewhere on Instagram and Facebook"
"FACT CHECKER" USE OF FALLACIES
One has to admire how these "fact-checkers" nonchalantly abuse fallacies to discredit any information or opinion they don't like.
For example GUILT BY ASSOCIATION:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
Exposition:
Guilt by association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an appeal to misleading Authority, which argues in favor of an idea based upon associating a favored person or group with the idea, whereas guilt by association argues against an idea based upon associating it with a disfavored person or group.
Example: "Hitler drank water. Guess who else drinks water: Trump".
To make sure that the Australian nurse is thoroughly discredited, they mention that - horror of horrors:
"Fact-checker": " it also features in a story on a UK website that calls COVID-19 “the alleged … disease” "
Yeah, now we know that the nurse can't be trusted, because a web site she knows nothing about does not take Covid seriously and that web site quoted the nurse 🙄
The mere fact that they do this thoroughly discredits the "fact-checker". Honest people avoid fallacies, especially when they claim to "fact-check" and write lengthy articles.
Discredit the product
Then comes the offensive against Ivermectin to show that it can't possibly have been prescribed by Australian hospitals:
"Fact-checker": Ivermectin is commonly used to treat parasitic infections. However, it was identified as a possible treatment for COVID-19 early in the pandemic after Australian researchers found it inhibited the coronavirus in cells during laboratory tests.
Indeed, the fact that Ivermectin is a Covid-19 inhibitor has been clearly established
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011?via%3Dihub
"Fact-checker": "Since then, it has been administered in an attempt to combat COVID-19 in several developing countries in regions such as Latin America."
Again an attempt to smear Ivermectin by associating it with 3rd world countries that obviously don't know what they are doing. No reference to the immense success India had in Uttar Pradesh, where Covid was practically wiped out with just 5% of the people "vaccinated". The rest were given HCQ (Hydroxychloroquine) and IVM (Ivermectin).
They could have referred to the actual succesful trials and the very widespread use:
"Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies"
"Fact-checker": But major health bodies like the World Health Organisation and drug regulators in developed nations have cautioned against its use to treat the coronavirus.
The main question is why they would advise against it? And the answer is simple: CORRUPTION!
This isn't new. We've been there. I wonder why anyone still trusts the WHO?
"Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma" (The Guardian, June 2010)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical
Manufacturers of anti-Covid "vaccines" currently earn more than $220 million per day!
They can buy pretty much every government and health organization on the planet - and it looks like they did.
"Fact-checker": Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has not approved ivermectin to treat people with COVID-19. Its website states: “Ivermectin has not received regulatory approval in Australia or by other comparable countries for use as an anti-viral treatment.”
On September 10, the TGA effectively banned off-label prescriptions of ivermectin, preventing doctors from prescribing the drug for anything outside its sanctioned use.
WHY would the Australian health authority ban IVM? Again the same question as for WHO: because they were told to! There's ZERO justification for banning IVM.
In fact, a new study published by NIH confirms that Ivermectin is effective against Covid-19. Why don't they mention that?
"Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/
What do the Australian doctors know?
All of the above, obviously. They perfectly know that Ivermectin is highly effective - and not just in the early stages.
So they should prescribe it to their patients. Unless they want them to suffer.
But it appears that they do not prescribe it to unvaccinated patients. Because if they did, it would become obvious that the vaccination is totally unnecessary.
So ... they give it to vaccinated patients and that makes it look like it was the vaccine that saved them, which is what the statistics will show.
How do we know?
Because a patient reported it and published a photo of the box of Ivermectin that had been prescribed to him, with his name on it - and I entirely agree with his harsh words for the Australian "health experts" - what they are doing is literally murder!
So we have PROOF that doctors in Australian hospitals prescribe Ivermectin for Covid patients.
So the entire "fact-checker" article is, as so often, pure garbage propaganda.
It's revolting. Any "fact-checker" caught intentionally publishling fake claims should immediately have it's credibility reduced to zero and be removed from any further consideration.