So if Ivermectin and Hydroxy are both known therapeutics for the coof, doesn't that negate the EUA's for all vaccines?
(media.greatawakening.win)
⚠️ Vax-TYRANNY ☠️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (116)
sorted by:
What you and u/SgtPepper29 are missing is that vaccines aren't labeled as treatments or "curatives" - i.e. they aren't things you treat someone with after they've fallen ill, as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are (see: picture). Any physician in the world can explain you that.
Instead, vaccines fall under the label of prophylactic - i.e. they prevent or lessen the effects of a future infection. There are very few exceptions and edge cases (when a vaccine is a treatment rather than a prophylatic) such as some specific cancers.
But the NIH released a paper back in 2005 (I think) which showed that hydroxy was an effective prophylactic as well as treatment.
Hydroxychloroquine is both a prophylactic and a treatment, just in different doses and concentrations (and accompanied by zinc and a couple other things).
HCQ was also described as a vaccine
You seem to be missing the point, which is that the unapproved and untested mrna injections were given an EUA under the false premise that there were no known adequate treatments available, which these documents show were known since at least April 2020 (though we know Fauchi knew about HCQ as a prophylactic and treatment for SARS for at least 15 years), and these newly released documents are not only calling them treatments, but curatives in all stages.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained
Furthermore, there are dozens of current observational data and randomized clinical studies showing both HCQ and IVM are highly effiencient prophylaxes as well as treatments, and, yet, the FDA has recently issued an EUA for mrna injections for 5+ year-olds under the same false premise of "no adequate treatments ( warning direct pdf link to FDA EUA from Jan 3, 2020).
The EUAs can not stand in the face of documented proof of three known "curatuves" in April 2020, known at least several months before the EUA-application was filed by Pfizer/BioNtech on Nov 20, 2020. . An added bonus is "the robust data" they submitted showed a 95% efficacy in preventing transmission.
Another detail I have not seen mentioned, but believe will be legally important in the future, is that this document states IVM "modulate(s) the immune response", which is considered a "vaccine" under the definition which was revised to include mrna injections.
Ivermectin was just stated to do the same thing by DARPA. With that being said, you do not need an experimental product to do what these proven medications are doing.
Nah, gonna go with what rand says to fauci every time he wants to bring up the definition/s "you changed those definitions as a lawyer speak way to circumvent your punishment" It is a vaccine, that is how it is marketed if they are marketing it wrong then that is fraud, if they change the definition without proper cause or through illegitimate means then the change did not happen