quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
.... And you’ll never guess what the solution is going to be.

....“pandemic of the unvaccinated,” ...WORST CASE SCENARIO:

“In the worst-case scenario, highly vaccinated areas could also see the kind of overwhelmed hospital systems that we saw back in 2020 with the early phase in Boston and New York City.”

It must be interesting to have the kind of mental flexibility to be able to SIMULTANEOUSLY believe the injections are awesome, essential, protective, safe, and effective, and ALSO believe that the highest-injected areas will have overwhelmed hospitals and THAT MEANS THE JABS ARE WORKING.

...

quote:

I think Fauci and all these people know that Omicron is going to mark the end of this pandemic but they do not want to let it end.

quote:

Reports suggest that 27 Air Force service members have been discharged for noncompliance with the vaccine mandate.

quote:

In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half million people.

In defending his reversal on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, he discussed his “difficult situation” and said, “I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance.”

The incident is recounted in Robert Kennedy Jr’s New York Times Bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the global war on Democracy and Public Health.

Andrew Hill, PhD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.

In a remarkable exchange, a transcript of which appears on pages 137 – 143 in Kennedy’s book, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use.

Hill affirmed that the rate of death at that time was 15,000 people per day. At the 80 percent recovery rate using the drug, which Hill and Lawrie discussed earlier in the call, the number of preventable deaths incurred by such a delay would be staggering — as many as 504,000.

Lawrie was unable to persuade Hill, who instead of joining her team as lead author, went ahead and published his manipulated findings.

Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million. Unitaid, it turns out, was also an author of the conclusions of Hill’s study.

In the call, Lawrie berated Hill’s study as “flawed,” “rushed,“ “not properly put together,” and “bad research . . . bad research,” which Hill appears not to have denied.

Instead, when pressed he admitted his sponsor, Unitaid, was an unacknowledged author of conclusions.

“Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah,” he told Lawrie.

Kennedy explained: “Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries . . . to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals” for distribution in Africa.

He reports:

“Dr. Lawrie knew that to make its ivermectin determination, WHO would rely on Hill’s study and another study from McMaster University known as the “Together Trial.” McMaster was hopelessly and irredeemably conflicted. NIH gave McMaster $1,081,541 in 2020 and 2021.61 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. Critics accused Gates and the McMaster researchers of designing that study to make ivermectin fail.”

In other words, the McMaster researchers, just like Andrew Hill, knew that a positive appraisal of ivermectin would cost their university millions of dollars.

In a terse exchange, Lawrie laid out the ethical and personal risks for Hill:

Lawrie: I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground …You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.

Much like “two weeks to flatten the curve,” in the intervening year Hill appears to have gone all-in on a deception originally envisioned to last only six weeks.

Kennedy reports that on Oct. 1, 2021, “Hill resurfaced on Twitter touting his upcoming lecture, ironically titled, ‘Effects of Bias and Potential Medical Fraud in the Promotion of Ivermectin.’”

Dr. Pierre Kory, of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, commented, “Andrew is apparently making a living now accusing the doctors and scientists who support ivermectin of medical fraud.”

Regulatory acceptance of ivermectin did not delay only six weeks. Instead, almost a year later, it has still not been approved by health agencies in the United Kingdom or in United States. Instead The WHO, CDC, NIH, and FDA have suppressed the drug’s use.

Kory added, “Hill and his backers are some of the worst people in human history. They are responsible for the deaths of millions.”

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^ Oh I believe a lot more in UFOs than I do in this president…

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Has anyone purchased Ivermectin through any of the pharmacies listed online and received the product? If so which pharmacy did you use? Some of the web sites are pretty cheesy so I'm a bit skeptical.

quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:
Saw a vid last evening by Salty Cracker. Looks like FDA and that find gubbermint ageancy, US Postal Service are stealing and destroying ivermectin shipments which people buy on line. We need a black market to manufacture ivermectin.