How does the national Institute of Health continue to get away with lying profusely and continuing to say that ivermectin has no clinical trials as to its efficacy regarding covid 19 as prophylactic as well as early stage therapeutic, even late stage recovery numbers are mucb more promising. Some 90ish countries primarily use IVM as a front line treatment. One of the provinces in India that was previously very sick and leading the world in Cases is now covid free. Countries are stopping the vaccine and starting IVM. El salvador gives it free of charge as a prophylactic. Japan uses it as their #1 weapon. It looks like vax vears numbers are grossly underreported.
Anyway, how do they continue to get away with this, and what can we do? Ok, vax companies have immunity for their BS. But on the flip side, how do we get NIH to acknowledge that the numbers in these studies are even better than thair BS vax numbers. ISREAL IS NOT HELPING THE PHARMA INDUSTRY. 13 days of protection? I mean this shit is crazy. We need to go after the NIH and the CDC but how?
What is the endstate here? Even after we can take our eyes off the audits which is our duty.. how do we stop this vax madness and get IVM worldwide like it needs to be. Its not like money is an issue. Well it is, but on the wrong side. Its too cheap
The ceo of Pfizer is one of the most powerful people in the world. He is literally getting a chunk out of every dollar spent on the planet right now if you think about it. If you cant go places without the vax and you can't spend money without getting it. Then pharma is getting a chunk of every dollar spent on the planet.
Edit: thanks for sticky, I tried to fix typos: my phone has a small screen so I did the best I could. o7
They can claim there are no doubkle blind studies, because double blind studies are expensive, time consuming and quite unethical when people are suffering from severe agony, and hence no doctor wants to do that. They just want to treat patients, and that they have done well - but without the "control" group, it will be considered "observational study" not clinical trial.
I was just writing something similar but you put it out so well here.
You can "observe" how Jack and Jill do with ivermectin but it's not clinical trial until you have statistically comparable and significant groups of jacks and jills with covid and give half of them ivermectin and other half placebo.
In all honesty: You can't say how well a certain medicine does until you also see how being without it affects person. You can't compare different countries with genetically different population, different season, population density etc. as such.
We've already seen how Jack and Jill do without Covid. How much more of a control group do you need?