This is 100% correct. Also you can know the Pfizer "vaxx" is NOT approved because if it was all the EUA versions would have to be pulled. And of course big pharma isn't going to do that.
The basic point is true, but this certainly isn't '100% correct.'
The 'Virology Journal' is not 'the official publication of the NIH,' for one.
Fauci had nothing to do with this paper. There is no reason to believe he ever read it. He's never had anything to do with 'Virology Journal.'
He's head of a division within the NIH, not the whole thing.
Accuracy matters. Making important points that are wrapped in falsehoods are extremely bad form - they discredit and distract from the very important core truth.
I've seen this image a billion times, it's been debunked so many times, it's really bad that it's stickied here.
What im saying is 100% correct is that if there was a therapeutic there could be no eua vaxx. Hence that's why they've suppressed them all. Everything thing I've read since this farce called covid began supports that. Whether fauxci has read whatever paper, idk
That's actually not correct either. Therapeutic's exist for many viruses and EUA is established by:
Each issuance of an EUA requires that FDA conclude that:
it is reasonable to believe that a given product “may be effective” as an emergency countermeasure
the known and potential benefits of authorization outweigh the known and potential risks
no formally approved alternatives are available at the time.
As much as we want to believe that, HCQ wasn't a known alternative to treat Covid as it emerged. This paper is being kind of tongue in cheek, there's no historical data showing HCQ as a coronavirus treatment.
He wants a gold standard study before trying treatment that has worked in the past? There is not time for that when people are dying. Empirical evidence is not the gold standard of medicine, but it is a powerful contributor to medical knowledge.
This is not his first rodeo. In 1987 Fauci banned doctors from treating AIDS patients with Pneumocystic Pneumonia (PCP) with the antibiotic Bactrim. Doctors knew it was effective, cheap and safe for treating PCP.
17,000 people died because of his ban.
These people are old as fk. Most wont make it to agenda 2030. It makes you wonder why they give a shit about mass genocide or more wealth when they are pushing 80.
Is there a secret immortality potion somewhere or is to appease some greater being in the afterlife?
I take the view that they are generational bloodline luciferians and do it in rebellion towards God. I think they have accepted that they're going to hell but they want to kill us or have us kill ourselves and commit our souls to hell with them.
I can't believe they're stupid enough that they think God is just gonna let them keep the planet and that they will get away with their plans but it looks like I'm wrong.
I was thinking about their ages the other day how the ones we know about are between 70-90, we need to take more interest in the younger generation.
What you said about the Pfizer vaccine isn't true, and it's downplaying the gravity of the FDA's decision to approve it. An EUA can be granted if there are no "adequate, approved, and available" alternative therapeutics. Right now, the approved Pfizer vaxx and all the EUAs can coexist because the approved vaccine isn't "available" (i.e., not enough of it has been manufactured yet under the dumb new name to innoculate the population), and it isn't "adequate" for all populations (it's only approved for ages 16+, so the EUA covers 12-15 year olds).
To me, the fact that the FDA actually approved the vaxx AND approved it in a way where the EUAs are still technically valid is worse than it outright lying about the approval. At least lying would be a tacit acknowledgment that the regulatory agency knows that what it's doing is wrong.
To be fair there are adequate, available BUT purposely unapproved therapeutics. They are playing games. Im am completely against this fake vaxx and the therapeutic suppression. They must hang for their crimes.
Exactly. The approval is in a way where the EUAs still stand. That said, they could even approve some drugs, like HCQ or Ivermectin, for treating certain aspects of the coof and the EUAs would still be valid, since those therapeutics would arguably be "inadequate" to completely prevent and cure the disease. The law itself is too open-ended. The blame falls on the legislators, in my opinion, for giving such broad discretion to an agency that is extremely vulnerable to regulatory capture. The corruption flows from congress, sorry to say.
This is 100% correct. Also you can know the Pfizer "vaxx" is NOT approved because if it was all the EUA versions would have to be pulled. And of course big pharma isn't going to do that.
The basic point is true, but this certainly isn't '100% correct.'
The 'Virology Journal' is not 'the official publication of the NIH,' for one.
Fauci had nothing to do with this paper. There is no reason to believe he ever read it. He's never had anything to do with 'Virology Journal.'
He's head of a division within the NIH, not the whole thing.
Accuracy matters. Making important points that are wrapped in falsehoods are extremely bad form - they discredit and distract from the very important core truth.
I've seen this image a billion times, it's been debunked so many times, it's really bad that it's stickied here.
What im saying is 100% correct is that if there was a therapeutic there could be no eua vaxx. Hence that's why they've suppressed them all. Everything thing I've read since this farce called covid began supports that. Whether fauxci has read whatever paper, idk
That's actually not correct either. Therapeutic's exist for many viruses and EUA is established by:
Each issuance of an EUA requires that FDA conclude that:
it is reasonable to believe that a given product “may be effective” as an emergency countermeasure
the known and potential benefits of authorization outweigh the known and potential risks
no formally approved alternatives are available at the time.
As much as we want to believe that, HCQ wasn't a known alternative to treat Covid as it emerged. This paper is being kind of tongue in cheek, there's no historical data showing HCQ as a coronavirus treatment.
Fauci knew then and knows now.
He wants a gold standard study before trying treatment that has worked in the past? There is not time for that when people are dying. Empirical evidence is not the gold standard of medicine, but it is a powerful contributor to medical knowledge.
This is not his first rodeo. In 1987 Fauci banned doctors from treating AIDS patients with Pneumocystic Pneumonia (PCP) with the antibiotic Bactrim. Doctors knew it was effective, cheap and safe for treating PCP. 17,000 people died because of his ban.
He's a murderous little prick.
There is no paper because they are purposely not studying
Of course the core point is truthful and massively important
But it's important, when trying to convey critical information, to be impeccable with every detail
All this manslaughter BS is just to enrich them with more money and beachfront houses and another yacht….
This goes well beyond manslaughter, this is a kill everyone to keep the planet to themselves agenda.
These people are old as fk. Most wont make it to agenda 2030. It makes you wonder why they give a shit about mass genocide or more wealth when they are pushing 80.
Is there a secret immortality potion somewhere or is to appease some greater being in the afterlife?
I take the view that they are generational bloodline luciferians and do it in rebellion towards God. I think they have accepted that they're going to hell but they want to kill us or have us kill ourselves and commit our souls to hell with them.
I can't believe they're stupid enough that they think God is just gonna let them keep the planet and that they will get away with their plans but it looks like I'm wrong.
I was thinking about their ages the other day how the ones we know about are between 70-90, we need to take more interest in the younger generation.
Maybe they want to integrate humans with machines and instill the humanoid with their consciousness to "live forever".
And tbey would have liability for damages done. Which tbey wil never wat that either.
Just thought you should know you have the best user name on this forum.
Thanks Fren. Liberals are retarded and my Pepe is an ode to living in the Clown World we all live in.
What you said about the Pfizer vaccine isn't true, and it's downplaying the gravity of the FDA's decision to approve it. An EUA can be granted if there are no "adequate, approved, and available" alternative therapeutics. Right now, the approved Pfizer vaxx and all the EUAs can coexist because the approved vaccine isn't "available" (i.e., not enough of it has been manufactured yet under the dumb new name to innoculate the population), and it isn't "adequate" for all populations (it's only approved for ages 16+, so the EUA covers 12-15 year olds).
To me, the fact that the FDA actually approved the vaxx AND approved it in a way where the EUAs are still technically valid is worse than it outright lying about the approval. At least lying would be a tacit acknowledgment that the regulatory agency knows that what it's doing is wrong.
To be fair there are adequate, available BUT purposely unapproved therapeutics. They are playing games. Im am completely against this fake vaxx and the therapeutic suppression. They must hang for their crimes.
Exactly. The approval is in a way where the EUAs still stand. That said, they could even approve some drugs, like HCQ or Ivermectin, for treating certain aspects of the coof and the EUAs would still be valid, since those therapeutics would arguably be "inadequate" to completely prevent and cure the disease. The law itself is too open-ended. The blame falls on the legislators, in my opinion, for giving such broad discretion to an agency that is extremely vulnerable to regulatory capture. The corruption flows from congress, sorry to say.